104205644-6aac5b3d-895c-4718-91be-d7d2beadec0dScotland and the Easter Rising, is a new collection by Luath Press edited by Kirsty Lusk and Willy Maley. It brings together writers and journalists to reflect on the part played by Scotland in the events of 1916. The collection launches at Celtic Connections in association with Aye Write! Here is Jim Kelman’s contributions.

Radical history remains marginalised within our culture. Discoveries we make come about through word of mouth and other flukes. “What actually happened?” “Where did we come from?” “Who are we?” We root about and dig away on our own. What we find is that a great deal of material exists, and it is good material. But it is not in the public domain. We just do not know about it. Essential strands of our history are not generally accessed through popular media and ordinary educational resources. We contend with sectarianism, racism and assorted prejudice; historical misrepresentation, disinformation, falsification, and occasional outright lies, alongside everyday British State propaganda.

As a Protestant boy growing up in Glasgow the name of James Connolly meant little to me. Connolly was an Irish name anyway, or Catholic. But Catholics were Irish, if not by birth. I became aware he was an Irish leader who met an early death fighting for Ireland. Later again I discovered he was Scottish-born, that he lived as an adult in Scotland, had Scottish friends and comrades with whom he remained in contact throughout his lifetime.

6288633_f248I edited and introduced the autobiography of the Clydeside activist Hugh Savage.[1] In his formative years Hugh was a stalwart of the Communist Party of Great Britain [CPGB]; one of a group of young people befriended by Harry McShane.[2] In the introduction I wanted to give a background to this and a physical presence to a few of the names to whom Hugh referred, from the 1880s through the 1914-18 war and the period following the formation of the CPGB. The name of James Connolly appeared to great effect. I came to realize he was of primary importance, and that his life is at the heart of the radical history of Britain and Ireland.

Here in Scotland his presence in radical history is not simply assured, it is seminal by which I mean that when we focus on him we discover the lives of figures crucial to the period. In discovering the lives we gain insight into the people themselves, into their thought as well as action. But for Connolly’s enduring friendship with John Carstairs Matheson our knowledge of Matheson’s contribution would have been scant, and knowledge of its significance perhaps lost altogether. Yet during his lifetime he was considered amongst the foremost Marxian scholars in Britain and Ireland. Alongside William Nairn and Connolly three of the outstanding Marxian theorists of the period were active north of the border. This when among their friends and comrades were key figures Keir Hardie, R B Cunninghame Graham, John Murdoch, David Lowe, George S Yates, Donald Macrae, Bruce Glazier, Tom Johnston and John Wheatley; and a younger generation that included John Maclean, Helen Crawfurd, Guy Aldred, John S Clarke, Willie Paul, Neil Maclean and Arthur MacManus.

Without this focus on the individuals much would be lost not only in regard to their lives and times but the discourse itself, how the theoretical path was followed and in the process cleared a little more. The early period of Connolly’s adulthood was crucial in this respect. The ideas he encountered were at the heart of the political discourse of the day, and some foundational within the home intellectual tradition. William Morris had visited from the 1880s; Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, giving talks and taking part in meetings; eventually he was led to conclude:

…here in Scotland … you working chaps apparently found each your own way to Socialism without even being in contact, as we in London were, with foreign revolutionary influences, as that you have all come the same road, so to speak, and that road has simply been the road of the reading and political experience common to the more thoughtful of the Scotch working class generally. Our comrade, the Rev. Dr. Glasse of Edinburgh, tells me practically the same thing. 3

He speaks in general terms from his experience of Scottish activists. Dr Glasse shares the observation, and is not the source. The ideas raised were not peculiar to Scotland but something about how they were raised or in how they were formulated either was peculiar to Scotland, or leastways set it apart from England. Nowadays strands in thought are traced in the democratic movement and in political economy from Adam Smith to Karl Marx who “learned much from the Scottish historical school.” They are traced also in the “[development of] “classical sociology to a stage where it was becoming remarkably similar, at least in its broad outlines, to Marxist sociology.”  Men such as “Smith, Adam Ferguson, William Robertson, and John Millar [were pioneering] a materialist conception of history, which fully appreciated that category of social phenomena known as ‘the unintended consequences of social action.’” [5]

easter_rising_finalAnother line of thought appears in the controversy aroused by the place of religion and religious belief in the life of James Connolly. It surfaces in the well-known letter he wrote to Matheson in 1908: “‘tho I have usually posed as a Catholic I have not gone to my duty for 15 years and have not the slightest tincture of faith left…” [6] while on the other hand, in prison awaiting death at the hands of the British State, he asked for Father Aloysius, and was given absolution. The personal side of this may remain secured. His political and philosophical position provides the basis of this short essay: Connolly’s “oft-stated belief, that one could be a Marxist in politics and a Catholic in religion without any question of conflict.”  [7] At the outset of his essay Labour, Nationality and Religion [8] Connolly quotes the Right Reverend John England Catholic Bishop of Charleston, USA in 1824:

a General Council is infallible in doctrinal decisions… Yet we deny to Pope and council united any power to interfere with one title of our political rights, as firmly as we deny the power of interfering with one title of our spiritual rights to the President and the Congress. We will obey each in its proper place, we will resist any encroachment by one upon the right of the other.

Many of his Scottish comrades, whether Catholic or Protestant, would have agreed. If one was to replace “Catholic” with “Christian” then a few more might have agreed. Most were aware of the issue and for a majority there was no issue. This may have been influenced by their reading of Marx and Engels but it had little to do with the veracity of Marxism. There was the “natural” world and there was the “spiritual” world.

The relationship between political and spiritual rights are perennial in most cultures. In Scotland the relationship was pivotal and peaked in 1843 not with Chartist struggles but with the Disruption of the Church of Scotland when 474 ministers “voluntarily gave up their homes and their livings rather than surrender the spiritual independence of their Church.” [9]  They walked out after a ten-year dispute, resigning on what was seen as one basic issue, that they might “hold fast the noble heritage of Christian truth and sacred principle…” It had become “impossible not to recognise…the path of duty [and] that it has been given to the Free Church to gather into her communion so much of what constitutes the strength of Scotland – the intelligence, the faith, and energy of her people…” [10]

The testimonies of clergymen directly involved were not published for forty years or more, into the 1880s, and a new edition quickly appeared in 1893. This was a time of intense political activity within the left and various political formations were founded. [11] Yet some of the more heated discussion could have begun not from political immediacy but from ‘older issues’ now resurfaced, reinvigorating an older debate derived from “biblical awareness, and the broader political arguments which claimed that freedom had been lost by departing from biblical and Christian principles.” [12]

In 1820, which was less than twenty-five years before the Disruption, the weaver Andrew Hardie was in a prison dungeon awaiting execution. He wrote in secret his account of the proceedings that culminated in what he described as “The Glasgow Rising in 1820”, and he managed to have his account smuggled out. When captured he had been asked why he “was in arms” and he replied, “to recover my rights… annual Parliaments, and election by Ballot. Government ought to grant whatever the majority of the nation requested.” [13]

When I first read Hardie’s account, back in the 1970s, I wondered what he meant by “recover my rights”? When have working class people and the majority population ever enjoyed such rights? Was it to do with the Clan system or some ancient form of “communism”? Hardie was a devout man and the answer has its basis there. I quote the following from Helen Macfarlane from Barrhead in Renfrewshire who was two years of age when Hardie was put to death by the British State: [14]

“Upon the doctrine of man’s divinity, rests the distinction between a person and a thing. It is the reason why the most heinous crime I can perpetrate is invading the personality of my brother man, using him up in any way from murder and slavery downwards. Red Republicanism, or democracy, is a protest against the using up of man by man. It is the endeavour to reduce the golden rule of Jesus to practice. Modern democracy is Christianity in a form adapted to the wants of the present age. It is Christianity divested of its mythological envelope. It is the idea appearing as pure thought, independent of history and tradition.”

Macfarlane was acquainted with Marx and Engels personally. Her translation of the Communist Manifesto was the first in English, published in 1850. Her expression of the above is said to have been ‘unique’ in Britain and Ireland at that time but this ignores or fails to grasp the significance of the Scottish contribution. She had little difficulty in resolving the supposed incompatibility of radical politics and Christianity, and she was not alone north of the border.

The influence of Hegel may be paramount in the above quotation but a line is traced also through the Scottish intellectual tradition. The contribution of George Buchanan (1506-1582) is a place to begin: “Among Scotsmen…a cosmopolitan; among the Humanists, a modern who anticipated revolution.” [15] His most influential work of non-fiction argued in favour of limited regal powers and the peoples’ right to dispose of a bad king. “God is the Supreme King whom kings must obey. If kings depart from God, authority departs from them.” [16] These arguments were used by the founder members of the American Constitution and remained first principles of the democratic movement.

Aspects of Buchanan’s thought are integral within the radical tradition: skepticism, the recognition that people have rights; that a separation of powers may exist between the people and the king; that a separation does exist between on the one hand the people and the king, and on the other: God the Supreme. Buchanan tutored Michel de Montaigne whose intellectual influence was felt throughout Europe, acknowledged by Rene Descartes, skeptic supreme. Skepticism is dangerous by virtue of what it is: a challenge to authority. It may be the authority of a king, of a government; the right of one person, or group of people, to dictate to another. The challenge might be to the authority of a system, the authority of the Law, or the authority of one Church as opposed to another.

Most of those who developed philosophies and belief-systems prior to Descartes found the place of God in them. They had to, and not as a duty. It was more basic than that. They had to find the place of God because He exists. God was already present. The idea that He may not have existed was inconceivable. Descartes went on to provide a proof of God’s existence. But why should God have required a proof? How could the burden of proof be on God?

“Let us suppose for the sake of argument that God does not exist” may be judged anathema. A scientist or thinker who begins from such an assumption is the enemy of religious fundamentalism and most religious authorities. The failure to account for God’s existence is tantamount to denial. The failure to assume His existence is a denial. Any thinker who begins by questioning God’s existence is a charlatan, a non-believer, an infidel, an atheist. Such skepticism is not just unforgiveable but blasphemy. The history of religious persecution is full of examples but so too the history of ideas. Buchanan appeared in front of the Inquisition. Descartes thought it safer to leave France to avoid the fate suffered by Galileo.

That God’s existence might be “unnecessary” was inconceivable. The presence of God is everywhere and everything. Logicians, mathematicians and scientists who try to create “perfect systems” are doomed to failure. Only God is perfect. Only God is complete. The people and the king are one thing, God Supreme is another.

Here in the “natural world” tyrannies exist. The ruling class owns the State and are at liberty to do what they like. Unless stopped by the Law. But the Law is their own invention; amended and devised by the ruling class for their own protection. Look to the natural world for answers but be warned on the dangers. No system can “explain everything”. God alone is the explanation. “Incompleteness” and “imperfection” are characteristics of humankind. We are all less than perfect, we are all sinners. The affairs of people and kings belong to “this world”; the affairs of God are beyond reach.

Any product of human thought must contain “a space”. Any human receptacle, such as a brain or a mind, will contain “space for the space”. For Christians and others who hold religious beliefs this “space” is of God, and “the space for the space” is also of God.

But problems continue to arise: How do we know things we have never experienced? If we are obliged to stay within the “natural world” how do we account for “non-natural matters”? Things exist in the “inner world” that have no existence in the “natural world”. Never mind “the true nature of God”, what about the true nature of “mathematical truths”? Economic systems and political truths may be tested and verified in the world we confront on a daily basis, the world where we meet the neighbours and sign on as unemployed but how do we verify “inner truths”? Where do we test them? Can we test a spiritual truth in the natural world? How do we recognise “truth”? Is truth beyond our grasp? What about “beauty” and “goodness”? Can they exist in the “real world”? Perhaps not. This would explain the existence of hypocrisy, greed, the abuse of power. It would explain also why certain horrors appear necessary. Rich people remain rich through the suffering of others. The suffering is necessary. People retreat from the “outer world” into their own “inner world” that they might endure the suffering of other people, stoically.

Political principles clash with spiritual tenets; spiritual principles with political tenets. Liberty, democracy, universal suffrage are fundamental ideas but where did they “belong”, the “outer world” or the “inner world; the natural world or the spiritual world? How about religious and intellectual liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Should they exist in “real life”? Are they to be treated as “spiritual” or “material”?

Newtonian mechanics exercised a tremendous influence in Scotland as elsewhere in Europe. People wished to bring the rigor of this into their formulations of the “inner” as well as “outer” worlds; perhaps “natural laws” might govern areas other than the purely “physical”: what about the inner workings of men and women?

The concern becomes not the spiritual world, nor the necessity of God’s existence, but that there is more to life than the “natural world” and what we learn and experience from within it. Certain “inner truths” appear to hold true when applied to the “outer” world; “inner truths” are discovered, or perhaps revealed, by our application of bodily-things in the material world. Science helps us discover “deeper” truths, “inner truths”.

Individuals intuit illogicalities within belief-systems and perhaps amend them, or search for deeper consistencies. Logical distinctions come to provide a sort of theoretical basis for new sects to arise within particular religions, for new ideologies to split from orthodoxy, for the development of science.

Are we stuck with “separate worlds” demanding separate sets of tools and methodology. Or are these worlds compatible?

Another difficulty is “precedence”. Politics and religion go hand in hand for some, but others say “hand in glove” is more fitting: humanity the hand and God the glove. The “spiritual” world is “of God” and thus greater than the “natural” world, the world of human beings. For others the “spiritual world” is the hand and the “material” the glove. People can believe whatever they want to believe, but keep it under lock and key. Your “inner” world is your business. Spiritual beliefs are all well and good but cannot be allowed to interfere with the world of human affairs: to that extent the “spiritual” is redundant or irrelevant, and can even be consigned to oblivion.

In Scotland the skepticism of David Hume provided a major challenge. The difficulty for those who wished to confront this was the power of his work. It took another of similar stature: Thomas Reid. [18] His answer to skepticism provided a move forwards: “Nothing is more conducive to the spread of a movement than the discussions arising out of the efforts of a capable opponent to refute its principles.” [19] And the legacy of this intellectual war is present in “ethics, aesthetics and the philosophy of mind… [found] in contemporary theories of perception, free will, philosophy of religion, and widely in epistemology.” [20]

Issues around the compatibility of “separate worlds”, whether or not the “material” world may be “embraced” or “transcended” by the “spiritual”, connect to ideas on “perfection”, “completeness”, “translation” and “interpretation”, and through this we gain insight into the work of Kurt Gödel whose

Incompleteness Theorems [are] among the most significant achievements in logic since, perhaps, those of Aristotle touch[ing] every field of mathematical logic… Gödel formulated and defended mathematical Platonism, involving the view that mathematics is a descriptive science, and that the concept of mathematical truth is an objective one.

If people are one thing and God another, how can we ever know Him? Perhaps never. Our own “imperfection” remains. We are never “complete”. We will come to know what we need to know. God has His own way of doing it. Perhaps he gives us knowledge by some other method.

Gödel was often in the company of Albert Einstein who said of James Clerk Maxwell, a central figure in the Scottish intellectual tradition: “Since Maxwell’s time, physical reality has been thought of as represented by continuous fields, and not capable of any mechanical interpretation. This change in the conception of reality is the most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton.”

Logical headaches are central to the history of ideas. One of the foremost Presbyterian theologians of the 19th Century was Dr Thomas Chalmers who in his early days preached at the Tron Church in Glasgow.  He antagonised the political as well as religious establishment by speaking in defence of the radicals from the pulpit. The family of Andrew Hardie were members of the congregation. Andrew attended not only the Kirk sermons but the additional lectures Chalmers gave on astronomy. He was also a mathematician and in 1804 had applied “for the chair of natural philosophy at St. Andrews, and again in 1805 for the same chair in Edinburgh University. An objection [was] made to his candidature for the latter chair, ‘that the vigorous prosecution of mathematical or natural science was incompatible with clerical duties.’” [22]

He came to Glasgow in 1812 and created an immediate impression “[by] reorganizing the parochial system so as to provide a machinery by which the destitute and outcast might be visited and reclaimed, and the young instructed in the lessons and duties of religion.” This was a time when many scientists and intellectuals were having to reconcile Christian accounts of creation with findings in the field, as for example in geology. [23]

But perhaps the two can be reconciled. We discover knowledge of God by observing the world about us but also by searching inside ourselves. In both instances this knowledge is revealed to us by God Himself. The “outer” and “inner” worlds are compatible. They have to be. Our knowledge is of God and belongs to us through Him. Whether by revelation or by our knowledge of the “natural” world is beside the point, it is only through God that we come to know of it.

The operations of “Natural theology” and “revealed truth” were essential areas for Thomas Chalmers and one volume of his very many written works is entitled Discourses on the Christian Revelation, viewed in connexion with Modern Astronomy. [24] In 1827 he left Glasgow, having accepted the Chair of Divinity at Edinburgh University. By 1843 controversies surrounding man-made tampering with “spiritual” matters reached a peak. Chalmers had become the leading figure of the Disruption. Following the walkout he found his position within Edinburgh University untenable and resigned.  Only one year later, by this time into his sixties, Chalmers set on foot a scheme for:

reclaiming the inhabitants of the West Port district in Edinburgh, a locality notorious alike for physical squalor and moral degradation. A staff of visitors was organized for the purpose of visiting the different families in this quarter; a school was opened in the close which had earned an unenvied fame as the scene of Burke and Hare’s murders; and lastly, an old tannery loft was opened for worship on Sundays, Dr. Chalmers himself conducting the services.” [25]

It is difficult to exaggerate either his prominence or the regard in which he was held during his lifetime. When James and Lillie Connolly married they came to live at 22 West Port and there is no question that his name and reputation would have survived. Just along the road from where he lived the Reverend Glasse preached at Old Greyfriars Parish Kirk, the friend Morris referred to earlier.

With Eleanor Marx, Edward Aveling and others, following their split from Social Democratic Federation [SDF], Morris had founded the Socialist League, “[advocating] the principles of Revolutionary International Socialism” [26]  and was home to a variety of Christian Socialists, anti-Parliamentarian Socialists, Marxists and Anarchists; diverse “impossibilists” but very few “reformists”. Dr Glasse organised talks and meetings and featured speakers included “Andreas Scheu, Leo Melliet, Lawrence Gronlund … Prince Kropotkin, Stepniak, Henry George, and Edward Carpenter…” Connolly and his brother John attended these talks and meetings and were acquainted with the Rev Glasse, well versed in the so-called “clash” between Christianity and Socialism.

In the earlier quotation Morris recognized that there might have been more to the Scottish comrades than an inspired reading of Marx, that “the road of the reading and political experience common to the more thoughtful of the Scotch working class generally” might have had something to with it. This is not to say that they were unfamiliar with the work of Marx, but that there might have been a solid base from which to begin. Elsewhere Morris refers to a famous meeting at Glasgow’s Albion Halls when he was heckled by Willie Nairn [27], a stonebreaker from Brechin long settled in Glasgow. Nairn was a founder member of the Scottish branch of the SDF and was giving “lectures based on Volume One of Marx’s Capital” in the early 1880s, almost thirty years prior to John Maclean. [28] When “Morris rose to leave the meeting, [he] asked the question, ‘Does Comrade Morris accept Marx’s theory of value?’ Morris replied emphatically, ‘I do not know what Marx’s theory of value is, and I’m damned if I want to know. It is enough political economy for me to know that the idle class is rich because they rob the poor.”

Morris’ position held true for many radicals. For others it was not enough. The poor had been robbed by the rich for centuries, their own families among them: Connolly, Nairn, Keir Hardie, Wheatley, Bruce Glasier and other activists had grown up in desperate hardship. Something more than the most basic knowledge of the fact was required.

Connolly’s position was shared was by very many of his Scottish comrades of the period, perhaps more associated with members of the Independent Labour Party (ILP). Connolly knew David Lowe and Keir Hardie from his early days in Dundee and perhaps was present when “Keir Hardie gave the opening lecture” for the first meeting of the Labour Church in Scotland. [29] He knew also another leader of the ILP: John Wheatley, who founded the Catholic Socialist Society and held meetings and discussions at his home in the east end of Glasgow. Connolly was one of the many visitors. Here he met the younger squad, MacManus, Bell, Paul. So too was Jim Larkin a visitor to Wheatley’s home and he forces his way in to this essay, doing his damndest for the last word, from a speech he made in 1913 in which he declared, in characteristic low-key fashion: “the man that tells you it is impossible to be a Socialist and a Catholic is a liar.” [30]

This was not enough for Connolly, as with others of his generation in Scotland, there were ways into these ideas that seemed to demand exploration and the attempt to work things out for yourself. It was not enough just to “know”. When we focus on the life and times of James Connolly here in Scotland we find a general intellectual integrity among his friends and comrades and, during their early years especially, a duty to the article of faith, whether the faith was religious or not. Most of them were punished by the State, some severely, enduring periods of imprisonment, suffering physical torture through force-feeding and excessive force, and some died young.  Those who seek to raise doubts in regard to his integrity will have to live with the fact that Connolly was a good man and he was an honest man and, like countless others, was murdered by due process of the British State acting in a manner typical of any other tyranny.

 

 

[1] Born up a Close: Memoirs of a Brigton Boy (Glendaruel: Argyll Publishing, 2007).
[2] In 1951-52 he and others resigned the Party alongside McShane. This was some years before the Hungarian revolution.
[3] Bruce Glasier’s reminiscences of William Morris check out <http://www.archive.org/stream/williammorrisand00glasuoft/williammorrisand00glasuoft_djvu.txt>
[4] See the Meek essay cited below, pp. 1, 2.
[5] See “KARL MARX” by Chris Matthew Sciabarra for an introduction, http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/ieesmarx.htm Sciabarra takes this reference directly from a brilliant little essay by Ronald L Meek: The Scottish Contribution to Marxist Sociology [reprinted from Democracy and the Labour Movement, Lawrence & Wishart 1955].
[6] Labour, Nationality and Religion, The Harp Library, Dublin 1910.
[7] See p32 James Connolly: Selected Writings, edited by Peter Berresford Ellis.
[8] Available generally, published originally in 1910.
[9] See http://www.gla.ac.uk/services/specialcollections/collectionsa-z/hilladamson/disruptionpicture/
[10] See Thomas Brown in his preface to the Annals of the Disruption (Edinburgh: MacNiven & Wallace, 1893).
[11] For example, the first Scottish branch of the Social Democrat Federation, branches of the Labour Church; the Scottish Land Restoration League; the Scottish Labour Party itself.
[12] See p91 Donald E Meek’s essay “Preaching the Land Gospel, The Reverend Donald MacCallum [1849-1929] in Skye, Tiree and Lochs, Lewis” which is in the Recovering from the Clearances collection, edited by Ewan A Cameron (The Islands Book Trust, 2013).
[13] See pamphlet The Radical Revolt: A Description of the Glasgow Rising in 1820, the March and Battle of Bonnymuir: written by Andrew Hardie (secretly) in Prison and Smuggled out (Published by P Walsh, Rutherglen).
[14] She was the first translator into English of the philosophical work of Hegel, which “historians of philosophy have ignored.” For further information on Helen Macfarlane begin from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Macfarlane#cite_note-7].
[15] p210 George Buchanan: Glasgow Quartercentenary Studies 1906 [James Maclehose & Sons, Glasgow 1907] see T D Robb’s essay, Sixteenth-Century Humanism as illustrated by the Life and Work of George Buchanan.  Although the obelisk to Buchanan’s memory is situated in Killearn, he is thought to have “first saw the light of day” a couple of miles distant, in a cottage “near the bank of the little winding river Blane,”. See pxi-xii of the Introduction. The cottage was close to the the home of Sir Alexander Lawrie, known as The Moss, Dumgoyne; and it is possible Rennie Mackintosh had a hand in an extension to the building. The place was knocked down in the 1960s. Beyond Dumgoyne Hill the road forks left to Aberfoyle and the traveller passes, almost immediately, through the tiny village of Dumgoyne.
[16] p204
[17] He also tutored both Mary Queen of Scots and her son James VI [Ist of the United Kingdom].
[18] On Thomas Reid, see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reid/ for a good introduction to this major Scottish philosopher. In Germany Immanuel Kant led the challenge; others thought that through Hume the existence of an unknowable God might exist, one utterly remote from humanity.
[19] See James Connolly’s opening lines of his Foreword.
[20] See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reid/
[21] http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/html/who_was_maxwell-.html
[22] See http://www.newble.co.uk/chalmers/biography.html
[23] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Miller for an entry into the difficulties faced by such as Hugh Miller.
[24] For some idea of his work in this see http://www.newble.co.uk/chalmers/literature.html
[25] For a contemporary account of his funeral go to <http://www.newble.co.uk/chalmers/biography.html>
[26] See The Manifesto of the Socialist League by William Morris <https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1885/manifst1.htm>
[27] pp30-31 for more detail on this in All for the Cause: Willie Nairn 1856-1902, Stonebreaker Philosopher Marxist, by Hugh Savage and Les Forster.
[28] See p11 All for the Cause: Willie Nairn 1856-1902 Stonebreaker, Philosopher, Marxist written by Hugh Savage and Les Forster (Glasgow: Clydeside Press, 1991).
[29] Oorganised by David Lowe, see p98 of his Souvenirs if Scottish Labour [W & R Holmes, Glasgow 1919].
[30] p27 James Larkin: Lion of the Fold, edited Donal Nevin [Gill & Macmillan 1998].

 

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)