The Early Days: 1884-6
The use of the word Socialism--Approval of the Democratic
Federation--Tract No. 1--The Fabian Motto--Bernard Shaw joins--His
first Tract--The Industrial Remuneration Conference--Sidney Webb and
Sydney Olivier become members--Mrs. Annie Besant--Shaw's second
Tract--The Tory Gold controversy--"What Socialism Is"--The Fabian
Conference of 1886--Sidney Webb's first contribution, "The Government
Organisation of Unemployed Labour."
The Fabian Society was founded for the purpose of "reconstructing
society," based on the competitive system, "in such manner as to secure
the general welfare and happiness." It is worth noting that the word
"Socialism" had not yet appeared in its records, and it is not until the
sixth meeting, held on 21st March, 1884, that the word first appears in
the minutes, as the title of a paper by Miss Caroline Haddon: "The Two
Socialisms"; to which is appended a note in the handwriting of Sydney
Olivier: "This paper is stated to have been devoted to a comparison
between the Socialism of the Fabian Society and that of the S.D.F." The
Society, in fact, began its career with that disregard of mere names
which has always distinguished it. The resolutions already recorded,
advocating the reconstruction of society on a non-competitive basis with
the object of remedying the evils of poverty, embody the essence of
Socialism, and our first publication, Tract No. 1, was so thorough-going
a statement of Socialism that it has been kept in print ever since. But
neither in Tract No. 1 nor in Tract No. 2 does the word Socialism occur,
and it is not till Tract No. 3, published in June, 1885, that we find
the words "the Fabian Society having in view the advance of Socialism in
England." At this stage it is clear that the Society was socialist
without recognising itself as part of a world-wide movement, and it was
only subsequently that it adopted the word which alone adequately
expressed its ideas.
At the second meeting, on 25th January, 1884, reports were presented on
a lecture by Henry George and a Conference of the Democratic Federation
(later the Social Democratic Federation); the rules were adopted, and
Mr. J.G. Stapleton read a paper on "Social conditions in England with a
view to social reconstruction or development." This was the first of the
long series of Fabian fortnightly lectures which have been continued
ever since. On February 29th, after a paper on the Democratic
Federation, Mr. Bland moved: "That whilst not entirely agreeing with the
statements and phrases used in the pamphlets of the Democratic
Federation, and in the speeches of Mr. Hyndman, this Society considers
that the Democratic Federation is doing good and useful work and is
worthy of sympathy and support." This was carried nem. con. On March 7th
a pamphlet committee was nominated, and on March 21st the Executive was
reappointed. On April 4th the Pamphlet Committee reported, and 2000
copies of "Fabian Tract No. 1" were ordered to be printed.
This four-page leaflet has now remained in print for over thirty years,
and there is no reason to suppose that the demand for it will soon
cease. According to tradition, it was drafted by W.L. Phillips, a
house-painter, at that time the only "genuine working man" in our ranks.
He had been introduced to me by a Positivist friend, and was in his way
a remarkable man, ready at any time to talk of his experiences of
liberating slaves by the "Underground Railway" in the United States. He
worked with us cordially for several years and then gradually dropped
out. The original edition of "Why are the many poor?" differs very
little from that now in circulation. It was revised some years later by
Bernard Shaw, who cut down the rhetoric and sharpened the phraseology,
but the substance has not been changed. It is remarkable as containing a
sneer at Christianity, the only one to be found in the publications of
the Society. Perhaps this was a rebound from excess of "subordination of
material things to spiritual things" insisted on by the Fellowship of
the New Life!
The tract had on its title page two mottoes, the second of which has
played some part in the Society's history. They were produced, again
according to tradition, by Frank Podmore, and, though printed as
quotations, are not to be discovered in any history:--
"Wherefore it may not be gainsaid that the fruit of this man's long
taking of counsel--and (by the many so deemed) untimeous delays--was
the safe-holding for all men, his fellow-citizens, of the Common
Weal."
"For the right moment you must wait, as Fabius did most patiently,
when warring against Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but
when the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or your
waiting will be in vain, and fruitless."
It has been pointed out by Mr. H.G. Wells, and by others before him,
that Fabius never did strike hard; and many have enquired when the
right time for the Fabians to strike would come. In fact, we recognised
at that time that we did not know what were the remedies for the evils
of society as we saw them and that the right time for striking would not
come until we knew where to strike. Taken together as the two mottoes
were first printed, this meaning is obvious. The delay was to be for the
purpose of "taking counsel."
Tract No. 1, excellent as it is, shows a sense of the evil, but gives no
indication of the remedy. Its contents are commonplace, and in no sense
characteristic of the Society. The men who were to make its reputation
had not yet found it out, and at this stage our chief characteristic was
a lack of self-confidence unusual amongst revolutionaries. We had with
considerable courage set out to reconstruct society, and we frankly
confessed that we did not know how to go about it.
The next meeting to which we need refer took place on May 16th. The
minutes merely record that Mr. Rowland Estcourt read a paper on "The
Figures of Mr. Mallock," but a pencil note in the well-known handwriting
of Bernard Shaw has been subsequently added: "This meeting was made
memorable by the first appearance of Bernard Shaw."
On September 5th Bernard Shaw was elected a member, and at the following
meeting on September 19th his first contribution to the literature of
the Society, Pamphlet No. 2, was read. The influence of his intellectual
outlook was immediate, and already the era of "highest moral
possibilities" seems remote. Tract No. 2 was never reprinted and the
number of copies in existence outside public libraries is small: it is
therefore worth reproducing in full.
THE FABIAN SOCIETY
17 Osnaburgh Street, Regent's Park
Fabian Tract No. 2
A MANIFESTO
"For always in thine eyes, O liberty,
Shines that high light whereby the world is saved;
And though thou slay us, we will trust in thee."
London:
George Standring, 8 & 9 Finsbury Street, E.C. 1884.
A MANIFESTO
THE FABIANS are associated for spreading the following opinions held
by them and discussing their practical consequences.
That under existing circumstances wealth cannot be enjoyed without
dishonour or foregone without misery.
That it is the duty of each member of the State to provide for his or
her wants by his or her own Labour.
That a life interest in the Land and Capital of the nation is the
birthright of every individual born within its confines and that
access to this birthright should not depend upon the will of any
private person other than the person seeking it.
That the most striking result of our present system of farming out
the national Land and Capital to private persons has been the
division of Society into hostile classes, with large appetites and no
dinners at one extreme and large dinners and no appetites at the
other.
That the practice of entrusting the Land of the nation to private
persons in the hope that they will make the best of it has been
discredited by the consistency with which they have made the worst of
it; and that Nationalisation of the Land in some form is a public
duty.
That the pretensions of Capitalism to encourage Invention and to
distribute its benefits in the fairest way attainable, have been
discredited by the experience of the nineteenth century.
That, under the existing system of leaving the National Industry to
organise itself Competition has the effect of rendering adulteration,
dishonest dealing and inhumanity compulsory.
That since Competition amongst producers admittedly secures to the
public the most satisfactory products, the State should compete with
all its might in every department of production.
That such restraints upon Free Competition as the penalties for
infringing the Postal monopoly, and the withdrawal of workhouse and
prison labour from the markets, should be abolished.
That no branch of Industry should be carried on at a profit by the
central administration.
That the Public Revenue should be levied by a direct Tax; and that
the central administration should have no legal power to hold back
for the replenishment of the Public Treasury any portion of the
proceeds of Industries administered by them.
That the State should compete with private individuals--especially
with parents--in providing happy homes for children, so that every
child may have a refuge from the tyranny or neglect of its natural
custodians.
That Men no longer need special political privileges to protect them
against Women, and that the sexes should henceforth enjoy equal
political rights.
That no individual should enjoy any Privilege in consideration of
services rendered to the State by his or her parents or other
relations.
That the State should secure a liberal education and an equal share
in the National Industry to each of its units.
That the established Government has no more right to call itself the
State than the smoke of London has to call itself the weather.
That we had rather face a Civil War than such another century of
suffering as the present one has been.
It would be easy in the light of thirty years' experience to write at
much length on these propositions. They are, of course, unqualified
"Shaw." The minutes state that each was discussed and separately
adopted. Three propositions, the nature of which is not recorded, were
at a second meeting rejected, while the proposition on heredity was
drafted and inserted by order of the meeting. I recollect demurring to
the last proposition, and being assured by the author that it was all
right since in fact no such alternative would ever be offered!
The persistency of Mr. Shaw's social philosophy is remarkable. His
latest volume[10] deals with parents and children, the theme he touched
on in 1884; his social ideal is still a birthright life interest in
national wealth, and "an equal share in national industry," the latter a
phrase more suggestive than lucid. On the other hand, he, like the rest
of us, was then by no means clear as to the distinction between
Anarchism and Socialism. The old Radical prejudice in favour of direct
taxation, so that the State may never handle a penny not wrung from the
reluctant and acutely conscious taxpayer, the doctrinaire objection to
State monopolies, and the modern view that municipal enterprises had
better be carried on at cost price, are somewhat inconsistently
commingled with the advocacy of universal State competition in industry.
It may further be noticed that we were as yet unconscious of the claims
and aims of the working people. Our Manifesto covered a wide field, but
it nowhere touches Co-operation or Trade Unionism, wages or hours of
labour. We were still playing with abstractions, Land and Capital,
Industry and Competition, the Individual and the State.
In connection with the first tracts another point may be mentioned. The
Society has stuck to the format adopted in these early days, and with a
few special exceptions all its publications have been issued in the same
style, and with numbers running on consecutively. For all sorts of
purposes the advantage of this continuity has been great.
* * * * *
On January 2nd, 1885, Bernard Shaw was elected to the Executive
Committee, and about the same time references to the Industrial
Remuneration Conference appear in the minutes. This remarkable
gathering, made possible by a gift of £1000 from Mr. Miller of
Edinburgh, was summoned to spend three days in discussing the question,
"Has the increase of products of industry within the last hundred years
tended most to the benefit of capitalists and employers or to that of
the working classes, whether artisans, labourers or others? And in what
relative proportions in any given period?"
The second day was devoted to "Remedies," and the third to the
question, "Would the more general distribution of capital or land or the
State management of capital or land promote or impair the production of
wealth and the welfare of the community?" The Fabian Society appointed
two delegates, J.G. Stapleton and Hubert Bland, but Bernard Shaw
apparently took the place of the latter.
It met on January 28th, at the Prince's Hall, Piccadilly. Mr. Arthur J.
Balfour read a paper in which he made an observation worth recording:
"As will be readily believed, I am no Socialist, but to compare the work
of such men as Mr. (Henry) George with that of such men, for instance,
as Karl Marx, either in respect of its intellectual force, its
consistency, its command of reasoning in general, or of economic
reasoning in particular, seems to me absurd."
The Conference was the first occasion in which the Fabian Society
emerged from its drawing-room obscurity, and the speech of Bernard Shaw
on the third day was probably the first he delivered before an audience
of more than local importance. One passage made an impression on his
friends and probably on the public. "It was," he said, "the desire of
the President that nothing should be said that might give pain to
particular classes. He was about to refer to a modern class, the
burglars, but if there was a burglar present he begged him to believe
that he cast no reflection upon his profession, and that he was not
unmindful of his great skill and enterprise: his risks--so much greater
than those of the most speculative capitalist, extending as they did to
risk of liberty and life--his abstinence; or finally of the great number
of people to whom he gave employment, including criminal attorneys,
policemen, turnkeys, builders of gaols, and it might be the hangman. He
did not wish to hurt the feelings of shareholders ... or of landlords
... any more than he wished to pain burglars. He would merely point out
that all three inflicted on the community an injury of precisely the
same nature."[11]
It may be added that Mr. Shaw was patted on the back by a subsequent
speaker, Mr. John Wilson, of the Durham Miners, for many years M.P. for
Mid-Durham, and by no means an habitual supporter of Socialists.
The stout volume in which the proceedings are published is now but
seldom referred to, but it is a somewhat significant record of the
intellectual unrest of the period, an indication that the governing
classes even at this early date in the history of English Socialism,
were prepared to consider its claims, and to give its proposals a
respectful hearing.
* * * * *
The early debates in the Society were in the main on things abstract or
Utopian. Social Reconstruction was a constant theme, Hubert Bland
outlined "Revolutionary Prospects" in January, 1885, and Bernard Shaw in
February combated "The proposed Abolition of the Currency."
On March 6th a new departure began: a Committee was appointed to collect
"facts concerning the working of the Poor Law," with special reference
to alleged official attempts to disprove "great distress amongst the
workers." It does not appear that the Report was ever completed.
On March 20th Sidney Webb read a paper on "The Way Out," and on the 1st
May he was elected a member along with his Colonial Office colleague
Sydney Olivier. On May 15th is recorded the election of Harold Cox,
subsequently M.P., and now editor of the "Edinburgh Review."
The Society was now finding its feet. On April 17th it had been
resolved to send a delegate "to examine into and report upon the South
Yorkshire Miners"! And on the same day it was determined to get up a
Soirée. This gathering, held in Gower Street, was memorable because it
was attended by Mrs. Annie Besant, then notorious as an advocate of
Atheism and Malthusianism, the heroine of several famous law cases, and
a friend and colleague of Charles Bradlaugh. Mrs. Besant was elected a
member a few weeks later, and she completed the list of the seven who
subsequently wrote "Fabian Essays," with the exception of Graham Wallas,
who did not join the Society until April, 1886.[12]
But although Sidney Webb had become a Fabian the scientific spirit was
not yet predominant. Bernard Shaw had, then as now, a strong objection
to the peasant agriculture of his native land, and he submitted to the
Society a characteristic leaflet addressed: "To provident Landlords and
Capitalists, a suggestion and a warning." "The Fabian Society," it says,
"having in view the advance of Socialism and the threatened subversion
of the powers hitherto exercised by private proprietors of the national
land and capital ventures plainly to warn all such proprietors that the
establishment of Socialism in England means nothing less than the
compulsion of all members of the upper class, without regard to sex or
condition, to work for their own living." The tract, which is a very
brief one, goes on to recommend the proprietary classes to "support all
undertakings having for their object the parcelling out of waste or
inferior lands amongst the labouring class" for sundry plausible
reasons. At the foot of the title page, in the smallest of type, is the
following: "Note.--Great care should be taken to keep this tract out of
the hands of radical workmen, Socialist demagogues and the like, as they
are but too apt to conclude that schemes favourable to landlords cannot
be permanently advantageous to the working class." This elaborate joke
was, except for one amendment, adopted as drafted on June 5th, 1885, and
there is a tradition that it was favourably reviewed by a Conservative
newspaper!
The Society still met as a rule at 17 Osnaburgh Street, or in the rooms
of Frank Podmore at 14 Dean's Yard, Westminster, but it was steadily
growing and new members were elected at every meeting. Although most of
the members were young men of university education, the Society included
people of various ages. To us at any rate Mrs. James Hinton, widow of
Dr. Hinton, and her sisters, Miss Haddon and Miss Caroline Haddon,
seemed to be at least elderly. Mrs. Robins, her husband (a successful
architect), and her daughter, who acted as "assistant" honorary
secretary for the first eighteen months, lent an air of prosperous
respectability to our earliest meetings. Mr. and Mrs. J. Glode
Stapleton, who were prominent members for some years, were remarkable
amongst us because they drove to our meetings in their own brougham! The
working classes, as before mentioned, had but a single representative.
Another prominent member at this period was Mrs. Charlotte M. Wilson,
wife of a stock-broker living in Hampstead, who a short time later
"simplified" into a cottage at the end of the Heath, called Wildwood
Farm, now a part of the Garden Suburb Estate, where Fabians for many
years held the most delightful of their social gatherings. Mrs. Wilson
was elected to the Executive of five in December, 1884 (Mrs. Wilson, H.
Bland, E.R. Pease, G. Bernard Shaw and F. Keddell), but after some time
devoted herself entirely to the Anarchist movement, led by Prince
Kropotkin, and for some years edited their paper, "Freedom." But she
remained throughout a member of the Fabian Society, and twenty years
later she resumed her Fabian activity, as will be related in a later
chapter.
All this time the Socialist movement in England was coming into public
notice with startling rapidity. In January, 1884, "Justice, the organ of
the Democratic Federation," was founded, and in August of that year the
Federation made the first of its many changes of name, and became the
Social Democratic Federation or S.D.F. The public then believed, as the
Socialists also necessarily believed, that Socialism would be so
attractive to working-class electors that they would follow its banner
as soon as it was raised, and the candidatures undertaken by the S.D.F.
at the General Election in November, 1885, produced widespread alarm
amongst politicians of both parties. The following account of this
episode from Fabian Tract 41, "The Early History of the Fabian Society,"
was written by Bernard Shaw in 1892, and describes the events and our
attitude at the time far more freshly and graphically than anything I
can write nearly thirty years later.
After explaining why he preferred joining the Fabian Society rather than
the S.D.F., Mr. Shaw goes on (pp. 4-7):--
"However, as I have said, in 1885 our differences [from other
Socialists] were latent or instinctive; and we denounced the
capitalists as thieves at the Industrial Remuneration Conference,
and, among ourselves, talked revolution, anarchism, labour notes
_versus_ pass-books, and all the rest of it, on the tacit assumption
that the object of our campaign, with its watchwords, 'EDUCATE,
AGITATE, ORGANIZE,' was to bring about a tremendous smash-up of
existing society, to be succeeded by complete Socialism. And this
meant that we had no true practical understanding either of existing
society or Socialism. Without being quite definitely aware of this,
we yet felt it to a certain extent all along; for it was at this
period that we contracted the invaluable habit of freely laughing at
ourselves which has always distinguished us, and which has saved us
from becoming hampered by the gushing enthusiasts who mistake their
own emotions for public movements. From the first, such people fled
after one glance at us, declaring that we were not serious. Our
preference for practical suggestions and criticisms, and our
impatience of all general expressions of sympathy with working-class
aspirations, not to mention our way of chaffing our opponents in
preference to denouncing them as enemies of the human race, repelled
from us some warm-hearted and eloquent Socialists, to whom it seemed
callous and cynical to be even commonly self-possessed in the
presence of the sufferings upon which Socialists make war. But there
was far too much equality and personal intimacy among the Fabians to
allow of any member presuming to get up and preach at the rest in the
fashion which the working-classes still tolerate submissively from
their leaders. We knew that a certain sort of oratory was useful for
'stoking up' public meetings; but we needed no stoking up, and, when
any orator tried the process on us, soon made him understand that he
was wasting his time and ours. I, for one, should be very sorry to
lower the intellectual standard of the Fabian by making the
atmosphere of its public discussions the least bit more congenial to
stale declamation than it is at present. If our debates are to be
kept wholesome, they cannot be too irreverent or too critical. And
the irreverence, which has become traditional with us, comes down
from those early days when we often talked such nonsense that we
could not help laughing at ourselves.
"TORY GOLD AT THE 1885 ELECTION.
"When I add that in 1885 we had only 40 members, you will be able to
form a sufficient notion of the Fabian Society in its nonage. In that
year there occurred an event which developed the latent differences
between ourselves and the Social-Democratic Federation. The
Federation said then, as it still says, that its policy is founded on
a recognition of the existence of a Class War. How far the fact of
the working classes being at war with the proprietary classes
justifies them in suspending the observance of the ordinary social
obligations in dealing with them was never settled; but at that time
we were decidedly less scrupulous than we are now in our ideas on the
subject; and we all said freely that as gunpowder destroyed the
feudal system, so the capitalist system could not long survive the
invention of dynamite. Not that we are dynamitards: indeed the
absurdity of the inference shows how innocent we were of any
practical acquaintance with explosives; but we thought that the
statement about gunpowder and feudalism was historically true, and
that it would do the capitalists good to remind them of it. Suddenly,
however, the Federation made a very startling practical application
of the Class War doctrine. They did not blow anybody up; but in the
general election of 1885 they ran two candidates in London--Mr.
Williams, in Hampstead, who got 27 votes, and Mr. Fielding, in
Kennington, who got 32 votes. And they made no secret of the fact
that the expenses of these elections had been paid by one of the
established political parties in order to split the vote of the
other. From the point of view of the abstract moralist there was
nothing to be said against the transaction; since it was evident that
Socialist statesmanship must for a long time to come consist largely
of taking advantage of the party dissensions between the
Unsocialists. It may easily happen to-morrow that the Liberal party
may offer to contribute to the expenses of a Fabian candidate in a
hopelessly Tory stronghold, in order to substantiate its pretensions
to encourage Labour representation. Under such circumstances it is
quite possible that we may say to the Fabian in question, Accept by
all means; and deliver propagandist addresses all over the place.
Suppose that the Liberal party offers to bear part of Mr. Sidney
Webb's expenses at the forthcoming County Council election at
Deptford, as they undoubtedly will, by means of the usual National
Liberal Club subscription, in the case of the poorer Labour
candidates. Mr. Webb, as a matter of personal preference for an
independence which he is fortunately able to afford, will refuse. But
suppose Mr. Webb were not in that fortunate position, as some Labour
candidates will not be! It is quite certain that not the smallest
odium would attach to the acceptance of a Liberal grant-in-aid. Now
the idea that taking Tory money is worse than taking Liberal money is
clearly a Liberal party idea and not a Social-Democratic one. In 1885
there was not the slightest excuse for regarding the Tory party as
any more hostile to Socialism than the Liberal party; and Mr.
Hyndman's classical quotation, _'Non olet'_--'It does not smell,'
meaning that there is no difference in the flavour of Tory and Whig
gold once it comes into the Socialist treasury, was a sufficient
retort to the accusations of moral corruption which were levelled at
him. But the Tory money job, as it was called, was none the less a
huge mistake in tactics. Before it took place, the Federation loomed
large in the imagination of the public and the political parties.
This is conclusively proved by the fact that the Tories thought that
the Socialists could take enough votes from the Liberals to make it
worth while to pay the expenses of two Socialist candidates in
London. The day after the election everyone knew that the Socialists
were an absolutely negligeable quantity there as far as voting power
was concerned. They had presented the Tory party with 57 votes, at a
cost of about £8 apiece. What was worse, they had shocked London
Radicalism, to which Tory money was an utter abomination. It is hard
to say which cut the more foolish figure, the Tories who had spent
their money for nothing, or the Socialists who had sacrificed their
reputation for worse than nothing.
"The disaster was so obvious that there was an immediate falling off
from the Federation, on the one hand of the sane tacticians of the
movement, and on the other of those out-and-out Insurrectionists who
repudiated political action altogether, and were only too glad to be
able to point to a discreditable instance of it. Two resolutions were
passed, one by the Socialist League and the other by the Fabian
Society. Here is the Fabian resolution:
"'That the conduct of the Council of the Social-Democratic Federation
in accepting money from the Tory party in payment of the election
expenses of Socialist candidates is calculated to disgrace the
Socialist movement in England,'--4th Dec., 1885."
The result of this resolution, passed by 15 votes to 4, was the first of
the very few splits which are recorded in the history of the Society.
Frederick Keddell, the first honorary secretary, resigned and I took his
place, whilst a few weeks later Sidney Webb was elected to the vacancy
on the Executive.
In 1886 Socialism was prominently before the public. Unemployment
reached a height which has never since been touched. Messrs. Hyndman,
Champion, Burns, and Williams were actually tried for sedition, but
happily acquitted; and public opinion was justified in regarding
Socialism rather as destructive and disorderly than as constructive,
and, as is now often said, even too favourable to repressive
legislation. In these commotions the Society as a whole took no part,
and its public activities were limited to a meeting at South Place
Chapel, on December 18th, 1885, addressed by Mrs. Besant.
In March, 1886, the Executive Committee was increased to seven by the
addition of Mrs. Besant and Frank Podmore, and in April Tract No. 4,
"What Socialism Is," was approved for publication. It begins with a
historical preface, touching on the Wars of the Roses, Tudor
confiscation of land, the enclosure of commons, the Industrial
Revolution, and so on. Surplus value and the tendency of wages to a
minimum are mentioned, and the valuable work of Trade
Unionism--sometimes regarded by Guild Socialists and others nowadays as
a recent discovery--is alluded to: indeed the modern syndicalist
doctrine was anticipated: the workman, it is said, "has been forced to
sell himself for a mess of pottage and is consequently deprived of the
guidance of his own life and the direction of his own labour." Socialist
opinion abroad, it says, "has taken shape in two distinct schools,
Collectivist and Anarchist. English Socialism is not yet Anarchist or
Collectivist, not yet definite enough in point of policy to be
classified. There is a mass of Socialist feeling not yet conscious of
itself as Socialism. But when the conscious Socialists of England
discover their position they also will probably fall into two parties: a
Collectivist party supporting a strong central administration, and a
counterbalancing Anarchist party defending individual initiative against
that administration. In some such fashion progress and stability will
probably be secured under Socialism by the conflict of the uneradicable
Tory and Whig instincts in human nature."
It will be noticed that even in this period of turmoil the Society was
altogether constitutional in its outlook; political parties of
Socialists and Anarchists combining progress with stability were the
features of the future we foresaw.
By this time the Society was thoroughly aware of its relation to
international socialism, and the remaining six pages of the tract are
occupied by expositions of the alternatives above alluded to.
"Collectivism" is summarised from Bebel's "Woman in the Past, Present,
and Future," and is a somewhat mechanical scheme of executive committees
in each local commune or district representing each branch of industry,
elected by universal suffrage for brief periods of office and paid at
the rate of ordinary workmen; and of a central Executive Committee
chosen in like manner or else directly appointed by the local Communal
Councils. The second part consists of "Anarchism, drawn up by C.M.
Wilson on behalf of the London Anarchists." This is a statement of
abstract principles which frankly admits that "Anarchists have no fears
that in discarding the Collectivist dream of the scientific regulation
of industry and inventing no formulas for social conditions as yet
unrealised, they are neglecting the essential for the visionary,"
This tract was never reprinted, and, of course, it attracted no
attention. It was however the first of the long series of Fabian tracts
that aimed at supplying information and thus carrying out the original
object of the Society, the education of its members and the systematic
study of the reconstruction of the social system.
The spring of 1886 was occupied with arrangements for the Conference,
which was held at South Place Chapel on June 9th, 10th, and 11th.
Here again a quotation from Bernard Shaw's "Early History of the Fabian
Society" is the best description available:--
"THE FABIAN CONFERENCE OF 1886.
"You will now ask to be told what the Fabians had been doing all this
time. Well, I think it must be admitted that we were overlooked in
the excitements of the unemployed agitation, which had, moreover,
caused the Tory money affair to be forgotten. The Fabians were
disgracefully backward in open-air speaking. Up to quite a recent
date, Graham Wallas, myself, and Mrs. Besant were the only
representative open-air speakers in the Society, whereas the
Federation speakers, Burns, Hyndman, Andrew Hall, Tom Mann, Champion,
Burrows, with the Socialist Leaguers, were at it constantly. On the
whole, the Church Parades and the rest were not in our line; and we
were not wanted by the men who were organizing them. Our only
contribution to the agitation was a report which we printed in 1886,
which recommended experiments in tobacco culture, and even hinted at
compulsory military service, as means of absorbing some of the
unskilled unemployed, but which went carefully into the practical
conditions of relief works. Indeed, we are at present trying to
produce a new tract on the subject without finding ourselves able to
improve very materially on the old one in this respect. It was drawn
up by Bland, Hughes, Podmore, Stapleton, and Webb, and was the first
of our publications that contained any solid information. Its tone,
however, was moderate and its style somewhat conventional; and the
Society was still in so hot a temper on the social question that we
refused to adopt it as a regular Fabian tract, and only issued it as
a report printed for the information of members. Nevertheless we were
coming to our senses rapidly by this time. We signalized our
repudiation of political sectarianism in June, 1886, by inviting the
Radicals, the Secularists, and anyone else who would come, to a great
conference, modelled upon the Industrial Remuneration Conference, and
dealing with the Nationalization of Land and Capital. It fully
established the fact that we had nothing immediately practical to
impart to the Radicals and that they had nothing to impart to us.
The proceedings were fully reported for us; but we never had the
courage even to read the shorthand writer's report, which still
remains in MS. Before I refreshed my memory on the subject the other
day, I had a vague notion that the Conference cost a great deal of
money; that it did no good whatever; that Mr. Bradlaugh made a
speech; that Mrs. Fenwick Miller, who had nothing on earth to do with
us, was in the chair during part of the proceedings; and that the
most successful paper was by a strange gentleman whom we had taken on
trust as a Socialist, but who turned out to be an enthusiast on the
subject of building more harbours. I find, however, on looking up the
facts, that no less than fifty-three societies sent delegates; that
the guarantee fund for expenses was £100; and that the discussions
were kept going for three afternoons and three evenings. The
Federation boycotted us; but the 'Times' reported us.[13] Eighteen
papers were read, two of them by members of Parliament, and most of
the rest by well-known people. William Morris and Dr. Aveling read
papers as delegates from the Socialist League; the National Secular
Society sent Mr. Foote and Mr. [John M.] Robertson,[14] the latter
contributing a 'Scheme of Taxation' in which he anticipated much of
what was subsequently adopted as the Fabian program; Wordsworth
Donisthorpe took the field for Anarchism of the type advocated by the
authors of 'A Plea for Liberty'; Stewart Headlam spoke for Christian
Socialism and the Guild of St. Matthew; Dr. Pankhurst dealt with the
situation from the earlier Radical point of view; and various
Socialist papers were read by Mrs. Besant, Sidney Webb, and Edward
Carpenter, besides one by Stuart Glennie, who subsequently left us
because we fought shy of the Marriage Question when revising our
'Basis.' I mention all this in order to show you how much more
important this abortive Conference looked than the present one. Yet
all that can be said for it is that it made us known to the Radical
clubs and proved that we were able to manage a conference in a
businesslike way. It also, by the way, showed off our pretty
prospectus with the design by Crane at the top, our stylish-looking
blood-red invitation cards, and the other little smartnesses on which
we then prided ourselves. We used to be plentifully sneered at as
fops and arm-chair Socialists for our attention to these details; but
I think it was by no means the least of our merits that we always, as
far as our means permitted, tried to make our printed documents as
handsome as possible, and did our best to destroy the association
between revolutionary literature and slovenly printing on paper that
is nasty without being cheap. One effect of this was that we were
supposed to be much richer than we really were, because we generally
got better value and a finer show for our money than the other
Socialist societies."[15]
Three members of Parliament, Charles Bradlaugh, William Saunders, and
Dr. G.B. Clark, took part. The Dr. Pankhurst mentioned was the husband
of Mrs. Pankhurst, later the leader of the Women's Social and Political
Union.
The reference in the foregoing passage to the report on "The Government
Organisation of Unemployed Labour," prepared concurrently with the
organisation of the Conference, is by no means adequate. The Report
attracted but little attention at the time, even in the Society itself,
but it is in fact the first typically Fabian publication, and the first
in which Sidney Webb took part. Much subsequent experience has convinced
me that whenever Webb is on a committee it may be assumed in default of
positive evidence to the contrary that its report is his work. Webb
however maintains that to the best of his recollection the work was
shared between Podmore and himself, the simple arrangement being that
Podmore wrote the first half and Webb the second. The tract is an
attempt to deal with a pressing social problem on constructive lines. It
surveys the field, analyses the phenomena presented, and suggests
practicable remedies. It is however a very cautious document. Webb was
then old as an economist, and very young as a Socialist; none of the
rest of the Committee had the knowledge, if they had the will, to stand
up to him. Therefore we find snippets from the theory of economic
"balance" which was universally regarded as valid in those days.
"In practice the government obtains its technical skill by attracting
men from other employers, and its capital in a mobile form by attracting
it from other possessors. It gets loans on the money market, which is
thereby rendered more stringent; the rate of interest rises and the
loans made to other borrowers are diminished,"
But the particular interest of the Report at the present day is the fact
that it contains the germs of many ideas which more than twenty years
later formed the leading features of the Minority Report of the Poor Law
Commission.
At that time it was universally believed that the slum dwellers of
London were mainly recruited by rural immigrants, and this
error--disproved several years later by the painstaking statistical
investigations of Mr. (now Sir) H. Llewelyn Smith--vitiates much of the
reasoning of the Report.
After analysing the causes of unemployment on lines now familiar to all,
and denouncing private charity with vehemence worthy of the Charity
Organisation Society, it recommends the revival of social life in our
villages in order to keep the country people from crowding into the
slums. The Dock Companies are urged to organise their casual labour into
permanently employed brigades: and it is suggested, as in the "Minority
Report," that "the most really 'remunerative' form of 'relief' works for
the unemployed would often be a course of instruction in some new trade
or handicraft" Technical education is strongly recommended; Labour
Bureaux are advocated; State cultivation of tobacco is suggested as a
means of employing labour on the land (private cultivation of tobacco
was until recently prohibited by law), as well as municipal drink
supply, State railways, and "universal military (home) service" as a
means of promoting "the growth of social consciousness,"
The Report is unequal. An eloquent but irrelevant passage on the social
effects of bringing the railway contractor's navvies to a rural village
was possibly contributed by Hubert Bland, whilst the conclusion, a
magniloquent eulogy of the moral value of Government service, written,
according to Webb's recollection, by Frank Podmore, is evidently the
work of a civil servant who has not got over the untamed enthusiasms of
youth!
The Report shows immature judgment, but also in parts remarkable
foresight, and a complete realisation of the right scientific method.
With State tobacco farms and the public organisation of a corps of
peripatetic State navvies, the childhood stage of the Fabian Society
may be said to conclude.
My own connection with the Society also changed. In the spring of 1886 I
gave up my business on the Stock Exchange and in the summer went to
Newcastle-on-Tyne, where I lived till the autumn of 1890. My account of
the Society for the next three years is therefore in the main derived
from its records. Sydney Olivier succeeded me as "Acting Secretary," but
for some months I was still nominally the secretary, a fact of much
significance to my future, since it enabled me if I liked to deal with
correspondence, and it was through a letter to the secretary of the
Society, answered by me from Newcastle, that I made the acquaintance of
the lady who three years later became my wife.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] "Misalliance: with a treatise on parents and children," 1914.
[11] Industrial Remuneration Conference. The Report, etc. Cassell, 1885,
p. 400.
[12] William Clarke had attended some early meetings but dropped out and
was actually elected to the Society in February, 1886.
[13] Presumably a "Times" reporter was present; but his report was not
published.
[14] Later M.P. for Tyneside and a member of Mr. Asquith's Government.
[15] Contemporary accounts of the conference can be found in the July
numbers of "To-day" and "The Republican," the former by Mrs. Besant, and
the latter, a descriptive criticism, by the Editor and Printer, George
Standring.