^{page 197 note 1} At the inaugural conference in Bradford in 1893, a motion that the party be called the “Socialist Labour Party” was defeated, but the conference declared the objective of the party to be “the collective ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange”. Pelling, H. M., The Origins of the Labour Party, 1880–1900, London 1954, pp. 124–125.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 2} Pelling, , op. cit., p. 233. “The whole strategy of the party from its foundation in 1893 was based on the conception of collaboration with the trade unionists with the ultimate object of tapping trade union funds for the attainment of Parliamentary power.”Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 3} See Cale, G. D. H., A History of the Labour Party from 1914, London 1948, pp. 44–81.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 1} The Labour Party Constitution of 1918, Section 2, Clause 4, declared one object of the Party to be “To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service” (Cole, , op. cit., p. 72).Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 2} Duverger, M., Political Parties, London 1954, p. 27.Google Scholar Duverger suggests that, in the life of Socialist branches generally, their activities have diminished since their early years. This he attributes to an “evolution in the social structure of the branch as its purely working-class character diminishes.” The present study, it should be noted, is concerned mainly with developments in the political structure of the branch in question.

^{page 198 note 3} The phrase is used by Keir Hardie in reviewing the political situation in Leicester in 1894. (Labour Leader, 1.9.1894). The industrial reasons for the radicalism of the boot and shoe operatives are briefly reviewed by Pelling, , op. cit., p. 209.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 1} Trades Union Congress Souvenir, Leicester 1903.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 2} For a brief account of the character, functions and weaknesses of the Trades Councils, see , S. and Webb, B., The History of Trade Unionism (Revised Edition), London 1920, pp.453–457, and 557–561.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 3} The Labour Club was “an organisation for political action, social and intellectual intercourse, recreative and mental improvement, and the better development of Labour principles in general” (Leicester Trades Council Yearbook, 1894).

^{page 199 note 4} Labour Leader, 2.6.1894.

^{page 199 note 5} An account of this election, which was of some importance as an indication of the growing strength of the Labour movement, may be found in Christian Commonwealth, 20.4.1910.

^{page 200 note 1} Pelling, , op. cit., p. 244. Appendix B.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 2} The Infancy of the Labour Party (pamphlet collection), Vol. I, ff 83–86.Google Scholar MacDonald's influence was considerable, and he appears to have been largely responsible for the constitution of the Leicester L.R.C. This constitution was subsequently quoted by Mac-Donald and Arthur Henderson as a model for local organisations. (See Bealey, F. and Pelling, H. M., Labour and Politics, 1900–1906, London 1958, p. 237 et seq.)Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 1} Leicester Pioneer, 23.2.1907.

^{page 201 note 2} Cole, , op. cit., p. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 3} For an account of the early activities of the Party propagandists, see Snowden, Phillip Viscount, An Autobiography, London 1934, Vol. I, pp. 70–84.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 1} Labour Leader, 22.1.1898.

^{page 202 note 2} I.L.P. News, 02 1900.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 3} It is unlikely that the “Pioneer” paid for itself financially. In a letter to Glasier in 1910, MacDonald, writing of his financial position commented: “I have invested nothing, and I am committed to some things which are likely to cost me dear – amongst others my dear old “Pioneer”. Quoted in Elton, Lord, The Life of James Ramsay MacDonald, London 1939, p. 189.Google Scholar

^{page 203 note 1} The Nonconformist ministers were often dependent financially on the richer members of their congregation, and this may account for their relative conservatism in social matters. See Pelling, , op. cit., p. 136.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 1} Trades Union Congress Souvenir, Leicester 1903.Google Scholar

^{page 204 note 2} Leicester Pioneer, 21.9.1907.

^{page 205 note 1} Ibid., 27.10.1906.

^{page 205 note 2} Leicester Pioneer, 9.2.1907. Previously the Pioneer had commented: “There is no more remarkable sign of the times than that presented by the awakening of a large section of the Anglican clergy to a consciousness that their work lies largely in the direction of making earth more like heaven…” (Pioneer, 24.2.1906).

^{page 206 note 1} I.L.P. News, 02 1899.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 1} Leicester Pioneer, 10.3.1908.

^{page 207 note 2} I.L.P. News, 07 1898.Google Scholar

^{page 207 note 3} Labour Leader, 14.3.1918.

^{page 208 note 1} See, for example, Wertheimer, E., Portrait of the Labour Party, London 1930.Google Scholar He writes (p. 14): “In the years following immediately upon the War the I.L.P. became a refuge for all those radical, bourgeois malcontents whose war experience and disillusion had brought them into contact with the Socialist movement…”

^{page 208 note 2} Monthly Notes, 12 1914.Google Scholar

^{page 208 note 3} Monthly Notes, 02 1915.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 1} As in other branches, the Labour Party owed much during this time to the Woman's Labour League, an affiliated and enthusiastic body which was of some importance during these years.

^{page 209 note 2} Leicester Labour Party Annual Report, 1950.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 3} Leicester Labour Party Annual Report, 1931.Google Scholar

^{page 209 note 4} From 13,044 in 1918 to 61,366 in 1929.

^{page 210 note 1} For a discussion of direct and indirect structures, see Duverger, op. cit., p. 5 et seq. Briefly, the distinction is between the direct party in which “members themselves form the party community without the help of other social groupings”, and the indirect party which is made up of “the union of the component social groups”.

^{page 210 note 2} See Cole, , op. cit., especially pp. 277–278Google Scholar; Snowden, , op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 745–747.Google Scholar

^{page 210 note 3} An expression used by Keir Hardie, who early attributed the success of the I.L.P. to the “latitudinarianism” of its politics. (Labour Leader, 22.1.1898).