The Episode of Mr. Wells: 1906-8
His lecture on administrative areas--"Faults of the Fabian"--The
Enquiry Committee--The Report, and the Reply--The real issue, Wells
v. Shaw--The women intervene--The Basis altered--The new
Executive--Mr. Wells withdraws--His work for Socialism--The writing
of Fabian Tracts.
The long controversy introduced by Mr. H.G. Wells attracted much public
attention to the Fabian Society, added greatly to its numbers, and for a
time made it more of a popular institution than it had been before or
has been since. But, in fact, its main permanent interest arises from
the persons who played the leading parts. The real question at issue was
one neither of Socialist theory nor of Socialist policy. In so far as
these entered in, Mr. Wells preached to willing listeners, and the only
difference of opinion was as to the relative stress to be laid on
particular points. When the episode was over, the chief change made in
Fabian policy was one which Mr. Wells did not initiate, and which as
soon as it was actually adopted he virtually repudiated.[34] The
substance of the controversy was whether the members desired to hand
over their Society to be managed by Mr. Wells alone, or whether they
preferred to retain their old leaders and only to accept Mr. Wells as
one amongst the rest.
Mr. Wells became a member in February, 1903, and in March gave his first
lecture to the Society on a very technical subject, "The Question of
Scientific Administrative Areas in Relation to Municipal Undertakings,"
a paper subsequently published as an appendix to "Mankind in the
Making."
It was probably his first appearance on a public platform; and as a
lecture it was by no means a success, because he read his paper in a low
monotonous voice, addressed to a corner of the hall. If Mr. Wells had
been by nature or practice as effective in speaking as he is in writing
the fate of the Fabian Society might have been different. He was
severely handicapped in his contest with the skilled debaters of the
"Old Gang," and though after a short time he learnt the art up to a
point, he was never really at home on a platform, and since the Fabian
episode he has confined himself for the most part to controversy in
writing.
The next contribution of Mr. Wells to Fabian propaganda was on January
12th, 1906. This date had been fixed for his paper next referred to, but
in view of the General Election then in progress he read in its place
his admirable article entitled "This Misery of Boots," which was
subsequently issued as a special Fabian publication.
On February 9th the great controversy began by the paper entitled
"Faults of the Fabian," read by Mr. Wells to a members' meeting, and
subsequently issued as a private document to all the members of the
Society. It was couched altogether in a friendly tone, expressed cordial
appreciation of the record of the Society, but criticised it for lack of
imaginative megalomania. It was "still half a drawing-room society,"
lodged in "an underground apartment," or "cellar," with one secretary
and one assistant. "The first of the faults of the Fabian, then, is that
it is small, and the second that strikes me is that, even for its
smallness, it is needlessly poor." The task undertaken by the Fabians
"is nothing less than the alteration of the economic basis of society.
Measure with your eye this little meeting, this little hall: look at
that little stall of not very powerful tracts: think of the scattered
members, one here, one there.... Then go out into the Strand. Note the
size of the buildings and business places, note the glare of the
advertisements, note the abundance of traffic and the multitude of
people.... That is the world whose very foundations you are attempting
to change. How does this little dribble of activities look then?"
The paper goes on to complain that the Society did not advertise itself,
made the election of new members difficult, and maintained a Basis
"ill-written and old-fashioned, harsh and bad in tone, assertive and
unwise." The self-effacive habits and insidious methods of the Society
were next criticised, and the writer exclaimed, "Make Socialists and you
will achieve Socialism; there is no other plan." The history of the
Fabian motto was made use of to enforce the view that victory can only
be gained by straight fighters like Scipio, whilst Fabius, however
successful at first, ended his career as a stumbling-block to progress.
To effect the desired expansion the writer proposed to raise an income
of £1000 a year, to increase the staff, to prepare literature for the
conversion of unbelievers, and to get a number of young men and women,
some paid and some unpaid, to carry on the propaganda and the
administrative work. "Unless I am the most unsubstantial of dreamers,
such a propaganda as I am now putting before you ought to carry our
numbers up towards ten thousand within a year or so of its
commencement."
At the close of the meeting it was unanimously agreed "that the
Executive Committee be instructed to appoint a Committee consisting of
members and non-members of the Executive to consider what measures
should be taken to increase the scope, influence, income, and activity
of the Society." Further, a temporary amendment was made to the rules
deferring the Annual Meeting and Executive election until after the
Committee had reported.
"The Executive Committee," says "Fabian News," "was of opinion that a
large Committee including both the Executive and an equal number of
unofficial members should be appointed. But as Mr. Wells, the author of
the proposal, was resolutely opposed to this plan, the Executive decided
that in the circumstances it was best to fall in with his wishes, and
they accordingly appointed only those members, both Executive and other,
whom Mr. Wells nominated and who were willing to serve."
The Committee thus appointed consisted of the Rev. Stewart Headlam, Mrs.
Bernard Shaw, and G.R.S. Taylor of the Executive; Dr. Stanton Coit, W.A.
Colegate, Dr. Haden Guest, Sydney Olivier, Mrs. Pember Reeves, H.G.
Wells, and Mrs. Wells.
The Committee held its first sitting on February 28th, but its report
was not completed and presented to the Executive until the following
October, Mr. Wells having in the interval visited the United States.
"Faults of the Fabian," written before the election of 1906, gave little
indication that its author anticipated the sudden outburst of interest
in Socialism which followed the astonishing success of the Labour Party
at the polls. When Keir Hardie was chosen as leader of the party, it was
recognised that Socialism was no longer the creed of a few fanatics, but
a political force supported, actively or passively, by the great
organisations of Labour throughout the country, able to fight, and
sometimes to beat both the older parties. A new era in politics had
begun. The Tories had been defeated before by Mr. Gladstone's unrivalled
personality. Now they were defeated, as they had not been for
three-quarters of a century, by a party none of whose leaders possessed
an outstanding personality, and by a programme which contained no item
with any popular appeal. Everybody was thinking and talking politics;
every political conversation began or ended with that unknown factor,
the new Labour Party; every discussion of the Labour Party involved a
discussion of Socialism.
Perhaps Mr. Wells with the intuition of genius in fact foresaw what was
about to happen: perhaps it was only chance. Anyway his proposal for an
enlarged and invigorated society came at the precise moment, when the
realisation of his project was in fact possible; and, of course, his own
vigorous and interesting personality attracted many to us who might have
moved in other directions, or indeed never have moved at all.
The inner history of the Wells Committee has never been revealed, but
the composition of the Committee indicates the probable truth of the
rumours that the meetings were anything but dull, though in the end the
Committee arrived at an unanimous report. Sydney Olivier was one of the
"old gang," though at that time a vigorous supporter of all sorts of
changes. Mr. Headlam has always stood at the extreme right of the
movement, and in party politics has never abated his loyalty to
Liberalism. Mr. G.R.S. Taylor and Dr. Haden Guest were at that time
eager adherents of the Labour Party, and Dr. Coit, who had just fought
an election for the Party, no doubt took the same line. Mrs. Shaw by
habit and Mrs. Reeves by instinct belonged to the government rather than
to the opposition: and Mr. Colegate, a judicious person, then quite
young, doubtless inclined to the same side. Last but not least, Mr.
Wells himself, then as always mercurial in his opinions, but none the
less intensely opinionated, and unable to believe that anybody could
honestly differ from him, was by himself sufficient to disturb the
harmony of any committee.
Mrs. Wells acted as secretary, and the Committee took evidence from
myself and others before the report was drawn up.
The Report of the Committee is a much less inspiring document than the
irresponsible and entertaining "Faults of the Fabian." It was largely
concerned with a number of administrative details. New books and "short
readable tracts" were to be written, and the format of our publications
was to be changed. Groups were to be revived in all localities (to be
called "Wandsworth 1, Wandsworth 2, Wandsworth 3," and so on), together
with Head-quarters groups, also numbered 1, 2, 3, etc. This perhaps is
the chief remaining trace of the megalomania of the original scheme, and
is hidden away in an appendix: all our efforts never yielded Wandsworth
No. 1, let alone the others! A fixed minimum subscription payable on a
fixed date and a list of subscriptions to be published annually were
further suggestions. The rule of the Society had been and is to the
contrary in both particulars. "Fabian News" was to be enlarged into a
weekly review addressed to the public, a change which would have
required an editorial staff and extensive new offices. A publications
editor was to be appointed who would be able to publish, or to arrange
for the publication of, such books as Mr. Wells' "A Modern Utopia" and
Mr. Money's "Riches and Poverty." The Basis of the Society was to be
rewritten, its name changed to the British Socialist Party--a title
since adopted by the old Social Democratic Federation--the Executive
Committee was to be replaced by a Council of twenty-five, which was to
appoint three Committees of three members each for Publishing, for
Propaganda, and General Purposes respectively. The last, to be entitled
the Directing Committee, was to meet frequently and manage most of the
affairs of the Society. Finally, "in harmonious co-operation with other
Socialist and Labour bodies," the Society was to run candidates for
Parliament and raise a fund for the purpose.
It will be seen that some of these proposals were merely speculative.
Groups could be organised easily enough when the members in any district
numbered hundreds instead of units, or, at best, dozens. New tracts
could be published when they were written: a weekly review was possible
if the capital was provided. The new Basis and the new name were matters
of emphasis and taste rather than anything else. The new machinery of
government was in the main a question to be decided by experience. Mr.
Wells had none; it is said that he never sat on a Committee before that
under discussion, and certainly while he remained a Fabian he never
acquired the Committee habit. On the principle underlying some of these
proposals, viz. that the Society should cease to treat membership as a
privilege, and should aim at increasing its numbers, there was no
serious controversy. The Executive Committee had already carried through
a suggestion made in the discussion on "Faults of the Fabian" for the
creation of a class of Associates, entitled to all privileges except
control over policy, with a view to provide a means of attracting new
adherents. The one constructive proposal, direct collective
participation in Parliamentary Elections, was quite alien to Mr. Wells'
original ideas; it was forced on him, it is said, by other members of
his Committee and was described by himself later on as "secondary and
subordinate."[35]
The Executive Committee transmitted the Special Committee's Report to
the members of the Society accompanied by a Report of their own, drafted
by Bernard Shaw and incomparably superior to the other as a piece of
literature.[36]
The reply of the Executive Committee began by welcoming criticism from
within the Society, of which they complained that in the past they had
had too little. An opposition, they said, was a requisite of good
government. They were prepared to welcome expansion, but they pointed
out that the handsome offices proposed must be produced by the large
income and not the income by the handsome offices. A publishing business
on the scale suggested could not be undertaken by an unincorporated
society; moreover, at present the Society had not sufficient income to
pay its officials at the market rate, or to keep out of debt to its
printer. They agreed that the Executive Committee should be enlarged,
but recommended twenty-one instead of twenty-five members; and that the
three proposed sub-committees be appointed, but of seven members each
instead of three. The project of triumvirates they could not endorse,
both for other reasons and because all the leading members of the
Society refused to serve on them, while the essence of the scheme was
that the triumvirs should be the most influential members of the
Society. The abolition of the old-fashioned restrictions on admission to
membership was approved, but not the proposal for a fixed subscription
payable on an appointed date. The Executive Committee did not object to
the proposed new Basis as a whole (and in fact it is on record that its
adoption by the Executive was only lost by 7 votes to 6); but considered
that passages were open to criticism and that the time and effort
necessary for carrying through any new Basis, so worded as to unite
practically the whole Society, would be better spent in other ways. A
Socialist weekly would be valuable, but it would not replace "Fabian
News," which was required for the internal purposes of the Society, and
capable journalists like Mr. Wells himself preferred the publicity of
the "Fortnightly Review" and "The Times," to the "Clarion" and the
"Labour Leader." The Reply goes at great length into the difficulty of
forming a Socialist Party, and into the composition and policy of the
Labour Party, all admirably argued, but just a little unreal; for
Bernard Shaw has never quite understood the Labour Party which he did so
much to create, and at the same time he is thoroughly convinced that he
sees it as it is, in the white light of his genius. Permeation is
described, explained, and defended--the Special Committee had suggested
rather than proposed, in scarcely more than a sentence, that the policy
be abandoned--and it is announced that as long as the Executive was
unchanged there would be no reversal of the political policy of the
Society. Finally the Reply asserts that the time had come to attempt the
formation of a middle-class Socialist Party. At the end three
resolutions were set out, which the Executive submitted to the Society
for discussion.
How much of personality, how little of principle there was in the great
controversy is indicated by the fact that Mrs. Bernard Shaw signed the
Special Committee Report, with the reservation that she also completely
agreed with the Reply. Mr. Headlam also was a party to both documents:
Mr. G.R.S. Taylor, alone of the three Executive members of the Special
Committee, supported the Report and dissociated himself from the Reply.
Of course the Executive Committee had to decide points in their Report
by a majority. That majority, in the case of the proposed revision of
the Basis, was, as already mentioned, one vote only. I did not concur
with the view expressed about the Labour Party, a body scarcely less
easy to be understood by an outsider than the Fabian Society itself: and
at that time I was the only insider on the Fabian Executive.
But the real issue was a personal one. The Executive Committee at that
time consisted, in addition to the three just named, of Percy Alden
(Liberal M.P. for Tottenham), Hubert Bland, Cecil E. Chesterton, Dr. F.
Lawson Dodd, F.W. Galton, S.G. Hobson, H.W. Macrosty, W. Stephen
Sanders, Bernard Shaw, George Standring, Sidney Webb and myself. Mr.
Alden was too busy with his new parliamentary duties to take much part
in the affair. All the rest, except of course Mr. Taylor, stood
together on the real issue--Was the Society to be controlled by those
who had made it or was it to be handed over to Mr. Wells? We knew by
this time that he was a masterful person, very fond of his own way, very
uncertain what that way was, and quite unaware whither it necessarily
led. In any position except that of leader Mr. Wells was invaluable, as
long as he kept it! As leader we felt he would be impossible, and if he
had won the fight he would have justly claimed a mandate to manage the
Society on the lines he had laid down. As Bernard Shaw led for the
Executive, the controversy was really narrowed into Wells versus Shaw.
The Report was sent to the members with "Fabian News" for December,
1906, and it was the occasion of much excitement. The Society had grown
enormously during the year. The names of no less than ninety applicants
for membership are printed in that month's issue alone. In March, 1907,
the membership was 1267, an increase of nearly 500 in two years.
The discussion was carried on at a series of meetings held at Essex
Hall, Strand, under the chairmanship of Mr. H. Bond Holding, on December
7th and 14th, 1906, and January 11th and 18th, February 1st and March
8th, and also at the Annual Meeting for 1905-6, held on February 22nd,
1907. The series was interrupted for the London County Council Election
on March 2nd, in which many of the members were concerned.
With a view to a "Second Reading" debate the executive Committee had put
down a general resolution that their report be received, but Mr. Wells
did not fall in with this plan, and the resolution on the motion of
Bernard Shaw was adopted without discussion. On the first clause of the
next resolution, instructing the Executive to submit amendments to the
Rules for increasing their number to twenty-five, Mr. Wells, acting for
himself, moved an amendment "approving the spirit of the report of the
Committee of Enquiry, and desiring the outgoing Executive to make the
earliest possible arrangements for the election of a new Executive to
give effect to that report." His speech, which occupied an hour and a
quarter and covered the whole field, would have been great if Mr. Wells
had been a good speaker. Written out from notes, it was printed in full
by himself for circulation amongst the members, and it is vigorous,
picturesque entertaining, and imaginative, as his work always is. But it
delivered him into the hands of his more experienced opponents by
virtually challenging the society to discard them and enter on a
regenerated career under his guidance. It was a heroic issue to force;
and it was perhaps the real one; but it could have only one result. The
discussion was adjourned to the 14th, and at 9 o'clock on that evening
Bernard Shaw replied on the whole debate. His main proposition was that,
as the amendment had been converted by Mr. Wells' printed and circulated
speech into a motion of want of confidence, the leaders of the Society
must and would retire if it were adopted. They were willing to discuss
every point on its merits and to abide by the decision of the Society,
but they would not accept a general approval of the Committee's Report
as against their own when it implied an accusation of misconduct. In the
course of the speech Mr. Wells pledged himself not to retire from the
Society if he was defeated; and at the end of it he consented to
withdraw his amendment. Bernard Shaw's speech, probably the most
impressive he has ever made in the Society, was delivered to a large and
keenly appreciative audience in a state of extreme excitement. A long
report pacifically toned down by Shaw himself, appears in "Fabian News"
(January, 1907). It succeeded in its object. The Executive Committee
welcomed the co-operation of Mr. Wells; the last thing they desired was
to drive him out of the Society, and whilst they could not accept his
report as a whole, they were willing to adopt any particular item after
full discussion. There is no doubt that they would have won if the
amendment had gone to a division, but they were only too glad not to
inflict a defeat on their opponents.
* * * * *
The next episode in the debate requires a few words of introduction. The
Society had always been in favour of votes for women. A proposition in
the Manifesto, Tract No. 2, published as early as 1884, states that "men
no longer need special political privileges to protect them against
women," and in all our publications relating to the franchise or local
government the claims of women to equal citizenship were prominently put
forward. But we had published no tract specially on the subject of the
Parliamentary Vote for Women. This was not mere neglect. In 1893 a
committee was appointed "to draw up a tract advocating the claims of
women to all civil and political rights at present enjoyed by men," and
in March, 1894, it reported that "a tract had been prepared which the
Committee itself did not consider suitable for publication." Later the
Committee was discharged, and in face of this fiasco nothing further was
done.
Mr. Wells took a strong view on the importance of doing something in
relation to women and children, though exactly what he proposed was
never clear. He offered to the Society his little book on "Socialism and
the Family," subsequently published by Mr. Fifield, but the Executive
Committee declined it precisely because of its vagueness: they were not
disposed to accept responsibility for criticisms on the existing
system, unless some definite line of reform was proposed which they
could ask the Society to discuss and approve, or at any rate to issue as
a well-considered scheme suitable for presentation to the public.
The new Basis proposed by the Special Committee declared that the
Society sought to bring about "a reconstruction of the social
organisation" by
_(a)_ promoting transfer of land and capital to the State,
_(b)_ "enforcing equal citizenship of men and women,
_(c)_ "substituting public for private authority in the education
and support of the young."
Precisely what the last clause meant has never been disclosed. Mr. Wells
in his speech did nothing to elucidate it. Mr. Shaw in his reply
criticised its vagueness and protested against possible interpretations
of it. Mr. Wells stated some time later that he had resigned from the
Society because we refused to adopt it. I do not think that any of his
colleagues attached much importance to it, and none of them has
attempted to raise the issue since.[37]
Clause (b) was another matter. Nobody objected to the principle of
this, but many demurred to inserting it in the Basis. We regarded the
Basis as a statement of the minimum of Socialism, without which no man
had the right to call himself a Socialist. But there are a few
Socialists, such as Mr. Belfort Bax, who are opposed to women's
suffrage, and moreover, however important it be, some of us regard it as
a question of Democracy rather than Socialism. Certainly no one would
contend that approval of women's suffrage was acceptance of a part of
the creed of Socialism. It is a belief compatible with the most
thoroughgoing individualism.
But many of the women members had made up their minds that this clause
must appear in the Basis, and under the leadership of Mrs. Pember
Reeves, they had indicated they would vote for the Special Committee
Report unless they got their way. Those who, like myself, regarded this
amendment of the Basis as inexpedient, recognised also that the adoption
of the Wells report was far more inexpedient, and the Executive
consequently decided to support a proposal that they be instructed to
submit an addition to the Basis declaring for equal citizenship for men
and women. On January 11th, 1907, Mrs. Pember Reeves obtained precedence
for a resolution to this effect, and she was seconded by Mrs. Sidney
Webb, who, after fourteen years of membership, was now beginning to take
a part in the business of the Society. The opposition was led by Dr.
Mary O'Brien Harris, who objected not to the principle but to its
inclusion in the Basis, but she was unsuccessful, and the instruction
was carried.
On January 18th the debate on the Executive resolutions was resumed, and
it was resolved to increase the Executive Committee to twenty-one, to
form three standing Sub-Committees, and to abolish the old restrictions
on membership. On February 1st the debate on Political Action began, and
largely turned on the question whether we should attempt to found a
Socialist Party or should subordinate our political activity to the
Independent Labour Party. As the first step towards founding a
middle-class Socialist Party was to be the establishment of Fabian
Societies throughout the country, those of us who like myself did not
believe in the possibility of the proposed new party could none the less
support the scheme. Co-operation with the Labour Party was not in
question; nor was the continuance of our friendly relations with the
I.L.P., but the proposal to subordinate our political activity to the
latter society met with but little support, and finally on March 2nd the
Executive resolution to appoint a Committee for the purpose of drawing
up a political policy was adopted against a very small minority. Mr.
Wells took very little part in the proceedings after the Second Reading
debate, and only one speech of his is mentioned in the report.
* * * * *
Meanwhile the controversy was being fought out on another field. The
January meetings had settled the number of the new Executive and decided
how the Basis should be altered. The Executive therefore was now able to
summon the Annual Meeting in order to make the necessary amendments to
the Rules. This was held on February 22nd, when the resolutions were
adopted without discussion. The meeting then took up some minor items in
the Report, and in particular certain other amendments to the Basis
proposed by individual members. On these a resolution was carried that
the new Executive appoint a Committee to revise the Basis. The Committee
was in fact appointed, and consisted of Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb, H.G.
Wells, and Sidney Ball of Oxford. Mr. Wells resigned from the Society
before its labours were completed, and no report was ever presented.
The Annual Meeting over, the way was now clear for the election of the
new Executive. The ballot papers, sent out with the March "News,"
contained the names of 37 candidates, 13 out of the 15 of the retiring
Committee and 24 others. In normal years the practice of issuing
election addresses is strictly discouraged, because of the advantage
they give to those rich enough to afford the expense. Therefore the
record of new candidates, severely concrete statements of past
achievements, is published in "Fabian News." On this occasion the usual
distinction between old and new candidates was not made, and the
Executive undertook to send out Election Addresses of candidates subject
to necessary limits and on payment by the candidates of the cost of
printing. In addition numerous other addresses were posted to the
electors. The Old Gang made no attempt to monopolise the Executive by
running a full ticket. The candidates in effect formed three groups, 15
supporters of the outgoing Executive, including 10 retiring members who
issued a joint address; 13 candidates selected by a temporary Reform
Committee whose names were sent out by Mr. Wells and his chief
adherents; 7 independents, some of them supporters of the Executive and
the others of the Reformers; and finally myself. As I was paid secretary
and returning officer I did not formally associate myself with any
party, though my general sympathy with my old colleagues was well known.
Nine hundred and fifty-four members cast very nearly 17,000 votes.
Sidney Webb headed the poll with 819 votes; I followed with 809. Bernard
Shaw received 781, and Mr. Wells came fourth with 717. All the retiring
members were re-elected except Cecil Chesterton, and including G.R.S.
Taylor, who had vehemently opposed his colleagues. Eleven of the
Executive list, nine of the Reformers, and myself constituted the new
Committee. In fact it was an able and effective body. The Old Gang
brought in Mr. Granville Barker; the Reformers included Mr. Wells, Mrs.
Pember Reeves, Aylmer Maude, R.C.K. Ensor, Dr. Haden Guest, Sidney Ball,
F.W. Pethick Lawrence, and Miss B.L. Hutchins--most, if not all, of whom
received support from the friends of the Old Gang. Scarcely anything
less like revolutionists can be imagined than this list. Mr. Pethick
Lawrence, it is true, has since then done some hard fighting in another
cause, but he has always acted with seriousness and deliberation. Most
of the others might as well have figured on one ticket as the other. The
Old Gang including myself had 12 votes and all the experience, against 9
on the other side. But the two sides did not survive the first meeting
of the new Committee. There was, as I have already said, no differences
of principle between the two parties. The expansion of the parent
Society had come about, local Societies were growing up all over the
country; Mr. Wells said no more about public authority over the
young--indeed his election address made no reference to it--and Mr. Shaw
did nothing to establish his Middle-Class Socialist Party.
The new Committee quickly settled down to work, but Mr. Wells was
already wearying of his rôle as political organiser. He was appointed
both to the General Purposes and the Propaganda Sub-Committees, but
after attending two meetings of the former, and none of the latter, he
resigned from both in October, and of the seventeen meetings of the
Executive Committee during its year of office he attended only seven.
In April, 1908, he was re-elected to the Executive, again fourth on the
poll, and Mrs. Wells who had not been a candidate before was also
successful. But in the following September he resigned his membership of
the Society, assigning as reasons "disagreement with the Basis which
forms the Confession of Faith of the Society and discontent with the
general form of its activities," together with a desire "to concentrate
on the writing of novels." He explained that "a scheme which proposes to
leave mother and child economically dependent on the father is not to me
Socialism at all, but a miserable perversion of Socialism." The letter,
printed in "Fabian News," goes on to refer to his objection to the "no
compensation" clause in the Basis (the real weakness of which is that it
refers hypothetically to a complete change of system and is never
applied to any particular case[38]), and added that the opportunity for
a propaganda to the British middle classes was now over. Mrs. Wells
retained her seat on the Executive Committee till March, 1910, and soon
after that date the connection of both of them with the Society
altogether ceased.
* * * * *
I have now traced the main stream of the subject of this chapter, though
a good deal remains to be said on other effects of the agitation. I
have indicated that the actual proposals made by the Special Committee
under the inspiration of Mr. Wells, in so far at any rate as they were
controversial or controverted, were futile or impossible, and neither
led, nor in my opinion could have led, to any benefit to the Society or
to its objects. But it must not be inferred from this that the
intervention of Mr. Wells, viewed as a whole, was of this character. He
is a man of outstanding genius, and in so far as he used his powers
appropriately, his work was of enormous value to Socialism; and his
energy and attractive personality added radiance to the Society only
equalled in the early days when the seven Essayists were all in the
field and all fighting at their bravest. The new life in the Society
during those brilliant years was due to other factors as well as Mr.
Wells. Other Socialist Societies, in which he took no part, also
increased their numbers and launched out into fresh activities. But for
us Mr. Wells was the spur which goaded us on, and though at the time we
were often forced to resent his want of tact, his difficult public
manners, and his constant shiftings of policy, we recognised then, and
we remember still, how much of permanent value he achieved.
Of this the chiefest is his books, and as the Society as such had no
part in them, anything more than a reference to them is outside the
scope of this volume. But it must be said that his "New Worlds for Old,"
published in 1908, whilst he was a member of the Fabian Executive, is
perhaps the best recent book on English Socialism.
In this connection Mr. Wells displayed unexpected modesty and at the
same time inexperience of the ways of the world. His first criticism of
the Society, his first project of reform, related to our tracts. To this
point he directed an unpublished preface to his paper "This Misery of
Boots," when he read it to the Society before the controversy had
actually started. He justly observed that very few of our publications
were addressed to the unconverted, were emotional appeals to join our
movement, or effective explanations of our general principles. He said
that these ought to be written, and the odd thing is that he appeared to
imagine that anybody, or at any rate a considerable number of people,
could just sit down and write them. He was aware that he could do it
himself, and he innocently imagined that plenty of other people could do
it too. He blamed the Executive for failing to make use of the members
in this respect, and persuaded them to invite any member to send in
manuscripts.
In fact of course something like genius, or, at any rate, very rare
ability, is required for this sort of work. Any competent writer can
collect the facts about Municipal Drink Trade, or Afforestation, or Poor
Law Reform: many can explain an Act of Parliament in simple language:
but only one here and there can write what others care to read on the
principles of Socialism and the broad aspects of its propaganda. If our
list of tracts be examined it will be found that the great majority of
the "general" tracts have been written by Sidney Webb and Bernard Shaw.
A few other writers have contributed general tracts from a special
standpoint, such as those on Christian Socialism. When we have mentioned
reprinted papers by William Morris and Sir Oliver Lodge, and a tract by
Sidney Ball, the list is virtually complete. Mr. Wells himself only
contributed to us his paper "This Misery of Boots," and his appeal to
the rank and file yielded nothing at all. Of course there are plenty of
people as innocent in this respect as Mr. Wells was at that period
referred to. Hardly a month has passed in the last twenty years without
somebody, usually from the remote provinces, sending up a paper on
Socialism, which he is willing to allow the Society to publish on
reasonable terms. But only once have we thus found an unknown author
whose work, on a special subject, we could publish, and he resigned a
year or two later because we were compelled to reject a second tract
which he wrote for us.
The history of the intervention of Mr. Wells is now complete. Some
account of the expansion of the Society at this period will be given in
the next chapter.
[Illustration: _From a drawing by Jessie Holliday_
SIDNEY WEBB, IN 1909]
FOOTNOTES:
[34] The "Wells Report" in October, 1906, recommended cordial
co-operation with the Labour Party, including the running of candidates
for Parliament, and it "warmly endorsed the conception of Socialists
whenever possible,... standing as Socialists in Municipal and
Parliamentary elections." In January, 1908, a scheme for effecting this
was adopted by the Society. In May, 1908, Mr. Wells, writing to "Fabian
News," said he should resign if the Society rejected his view that "the
Fabian Society is a Society for the study, development, and propaganda
of the Socialist idea. It extends a friendly support to the Labour
Party, but it is not a political society and membership involves no
allegiance to any political party."
This was written in connection with his support of a Liberal against a
Socialist Candidate at North-West Manchester.
[35] In his election address referred to on p. 179.
[36] Private.--Report of the special Committee appointed in February,
1906, to consider measures for increasing the scope, influence, income,
and activity of the Society, together with the Executive Committee's
Report, and Resolutions thereon. To be submitted to the members at Essex
Hall on Fridays the 7th and 14th December, 1906, at 7.30 p.m. The Fabian
Society. November, 1906 (pp. 48).
[37] See his "New Worlds for Old," Chapter III, The First Main
Generalisation of Socialism, which according to Mr. Wells is as
follows:--
"The ideas of private individual rights of the parent and of his
isolated responsibility for his children are harmfully exaggerated in
the contemporary world. We do not sufficiently protect children from
negligent, incompetent, selfish, or wicked parents.... The Socialist
holds that the community should be responsible ... it is not simply the
right but the duty of the State ... to intervene in any default for the
child's welfare. Parentage rightly undertaken is a service as well as a
duty to the world ... in any completely civilised state it must be
sustained, rewarded, and controlled...."
Except for the last three words all this is neither new nor
controversial amongst not merely Socialists but the mildest of social
reformers, always excepting the Charity Organisation Society. The last
word is not, I think, further explained.
[38] A Tramway or a Gasworks consists of two things: the actual plant,
and the nominal capital which represents its value. When the plant is
municipalised, its control is vested in the community, and the
shareholders are "compensated" with municipal securities or cash
obtained by loans from other investors in these securities. The capital
value of the tramway still virtually belongs to the private holders of
the municipal loan. But no second such step is possible. Holders of
municipal stock cannot be "compensated," if it is taken from them. They
can be paid off; or their property can be confiscated either by taxation
or by repudiation of the debt: there is no middle course. The whole
problem therefore arises from confusion of thought.
See Fabian Tract 147 "Capital and Compensation."