Part 11 (2/2)
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 ent.i.tled ”This Misery of Boots,” which was subsequently issued as a special Fabian publication.
On February 9th the great controversy began by the paper ent.i.tled ”Faults of the Fabian,” read by Mr. Wells to a members' meeting, and subsequently issued as a private doc.u.ment 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 a.s.sistant. ”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 advertis.e.m.e.nts, note the abundance of traffic and the mult.i.tude 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-fas.h.i.+oned, harsh and bad in tone, a.s.sertive 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 circ.u.mstances 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 antic.i.p.ated the sudden outburst of interest in Socialism which followed the astonis.h.i.+ng 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 pa.s.sively, 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 doc.u.ment 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 t.i.tle 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 Publis.h.i.+ng, for Propaganda, and General Purposes respectively. The last, to be ent.i.tled 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 members.h.i.+p 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 cla.s.s of a.s.sociates, ent.i.tled to all privileges except control over policy, with a view to provide a means of attracting new adherents. The one constructive proposal, direct collective partic.i.p.ation 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]
<script>