"Make all men equal in possessions," cry the non-Socialists, "and in a very short time there would be rich and poor, as before." This is no argument against _Socialism_, for Socialists do not seek any such division. But I want to point out to you that though it _looks_ true, it is _not_ true. It is quite true that, did we divide all wealth equally to-morrow, there would in a short time be many penniless, and a few in a way of getting rich; but it is only true if we suppose that after the sharing we allowed private ownership of land and the old system of trade and competition to go on as before. Change those things: do away with the bad system which leads to poverty and to wealth, and we should have no more rich and poor. _Destroy_ all the wealth of England to-morrow--we will not talk of "sharing" it out, but _destroy_ it--and establish _Socialism_ on the ruins and the bareness, and in a few years we should have a prosperous, a powerful, and a contented nation. There would be no rich and there would be no poor. But the nation would be richer and happier than it ever has been. Another charge against Socialists is that they are _Atheists_, whose aim is to destroy all religion and all morality. This is not true. It is true that some Socialists are Agnostics and some are Atheists. But Atheism is no more a part of Socialism than it is a part of Toryism, or of Radicalism, or of Liberalism. Many prominent Socialists are Christians, not a few are clergymen. Many Liberal and Tory leaders are Agnostics or Atheists. Mr. Bradlaugh was a Radical, and an Atheist; Prof. Huxley was an opponent of Socialism, and an Agnostic. Socialism does not touch religion at any point. It deals with laws, and with _industrial_ and _political_ government. It is not sense to say, because some Atheists are Socialists, that all Socialists are Atheists. Christ's teaching is often said to be socialistic. It is not socialistic; but it is communistic, and Communism is the most advanced form of the policy generally known as _Socialism_. The charge of _Immorality_ is absurd. Socialists demand a higher morality than any now to be found. They demand perfect _honesty_. Indeed, it is just the stern morality of _Socialism_ which causes ambitious and greedy men to hate _Socialism_ and resist it. Another charge against Socialists is the charge of desiring _Free Love_. Socialists, it has been said, want to destroy home life, to abolish marriage, to take the children from their parents, and to establish "Free _Love_." "Free Love," I may say, means that all men and women shall be free to love as they please, and to live with whom they please. Therefore, that they shall be free to live as "man and wife" without marriage, to part when they please without divorce, and to take other partners as they please without shame or penalty.