11
THE “FRIENDLY SOCIETIES” AND THE FABIAN SOCIETY AS MECHANISMS FOR GRADUALISM IN INDUSTRIAL ERA BRITAIN
Robert E. Veto
Trinity Collegiate School
Darlington, SC
NEH Summer Seminar 2000
Historical Interpretations of the Industrial Revolution in Britain
University of Massachusetts Dartmouth at the University of Nottingham
I The “Friendly Societies” as a Mechanism for Gradualism in Industrial-Era Britain
The “Friendly Societies” emerged in England in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, primarily as organizations to provide various forms of protection for working men. Additionally, these societies served an important social function, offering a sense of belonging and, often, a set of rituals and practices for people who were disenfranchised and dispossessed in many ways. Layered over these functions, the friendly societies played a larger and much more significant role: they served as a mechanism for the gradualism which characterized 19th century Britain. It might not be too much to say that the friendly societies served as an important safety valve which helped to prevent large-scale social revolution during this volatile time period. There were other such safety valves - the Reform Bills of 1832 and 1867, the Chartist Movement, Parliamentary Investigative Commissions - but the friendly societies were unique. Although they were formed exclusively by and for working men and women, these organizations also enjoyed a degree of support from the privileged classes and from the government. It seemed clear even at the time that such organizations might serve not only the limited functions for which they were set up, but might also help forestall the type of working class revolution which was much on the minds and in the fears of the entrepreneurial classes.
Friendly societies offered a number of very practical benefits, benefits which were not made available by employer or government. These benefits included a crude form of death benefits through mutual protection and “tontines”, disability benefits, and social gatherings. All of these were provided through a voluntary system of dues. Thus, the friendly societies functioned as a form of insurance, covering workers against the costs of sickness, accident, and death. And, although the costs of these kinds of coverages were in many cases more than these local societies could bear, the idea caught on, and the process worked more often than not.
Employers tended, in the early years of the friendly societies (i.e., late 18th century) to tolerate, even sometimes sponsor, these groups. There is evidence that both Boulton and Wilkinson were among such sponsoring businessmen [Christie, p. 126]. Whether sponsored by the employer or not, most of these early friendly societies were spontaneous creations of those who were to share in the benefits, and most were of a small size, between 50 and 100 members [Christie, p. 128]. There were, by the end of the century, literally thousands of these small societies, and amalgamation into larger units was soon to come. It is estimated that there were 7, 200 friendly societies organized by 1801, with a combined membership of 648,000. By 1815 these numbers had risen to over 10,000 societies with a total membership of perhaps 925, 429 [Gosden, p. 12]. From these early roots, with some limited owner support, and with somewhat limited goals, the later growth and amalgamation served to provide a sense, among the English working classes, that all was not in vain, and that perhaps radical revolution was not necessary.
The friendly societies, it is true, did emerge as a force at about the same time as the National Charter Association, around 1840 [Belcham, p. 112], but the Charter Association was more self-consciously political and even revolutionary in its aims. The friendly societies, which had been around for many years, were, like the Chartists, part of a trend toward “new model” organizations which joined together smaller local groups into larger regional or national amalgamations [Belcham, p.114]. The names of these organizations came to suggest two themes: the working class unity which was so much a part of the movement, but also this growing sense of amalgamation, connecting the working class unity beyond mill-level or even town-level to industry-wide or nation-wide levels. Early, small-scale friendly societies were evolving, in the early to mid-19th century, to groups with names such as the Order of Oddfellows, the Order of Foresters, and Manchester Unity. These groups, even while growing larger, still spent much of their time and funds providing funeral benefits, but at the same time they were perhaps also laying to rest any possibility of a Marxist revolution in Britain, by siphoning off much of the potential for violent protest.
These organizations also, in naming themselves, made claims to a degree of longevity which did not square with reality, but such claims helped to promote the image of stability which was so important to their success. The Order of Oddfellows came to be called the “Loyal Ancient Independent Order of Oddfellows”, tracing its origins somehow back to AD 55. A group calling themselves the “Antediluvians” claimed to be even older. Other friendly societies using names which suggested longevity were the “Ancient Druids”, the “Ancient Britons”, the “Ancient Order of Buffaloes”, the “Ancient Fraternity of Gardeners”, and the “Loyal Ancient Shepherds”. In reality, as noted above, friendly societies were a 19th century phenomenon with roots in the 18th century, but the link to antiquity went far toward these groups having utility as mutual support organizations. And, more importantly, the suggestion of longevity helped to preserve stability in English society.
At a time, in the 19th century, when gradualism and stability did not seem to be so secure, Parliament empowered a number of investigative commissions to look into questions of working conditions, child labor, worker safety, and general welfare. These investigations were motivated by a mixed set of motives, including humanitarian liberalism, utilitarianism, and fear of revolt. The results of these investigations, in general, contributed to the slow growth of reform in England, and did indeed forestall violent revolution. Those commissions which investigated the role of the friendly societies tended to look on those societies as helpful rather than malevolent, even though the tone of such parliamentary commissions in general did not favor combinations of any type among the working classes. Indeed, the climate was very hostile toward labor unions, and unfriendly toward the chartist movement. But the friendly societies seemed different somehow. A commission which sat from 1871-1874 divided the societies into seventeen separate categories, including affiliated societies or orders, local societies in town and country districts, dividing societies, and “deposit friendly societies” [Gosden, p. 11]. Early in the 19th century, the local societies were the most numerous and most important, but by the end of the century the affiliated societies had assumed pride of place as the amalgamation movement took hold. The self-help principle which undergirded the growth and development of this movement was very characteristic of the English working and middle class ethos, and very much responsible for the gradualism which allowed England to survive and to side-step the revolutionary ferment of the 19th century in Europe.
II. The Fabian Society as a Mechanism for Gradualism in Industrial Britain
Sidney Webb said of the Fabians “I like to think of ourselves as the ‘Society of Jesus’ of Socialism”. This typically Webbian epigram captures some of the flavor of the Fabian society, which can be seen in some ways as a late 19th century bookend to the “Friendly Societies” of the early 19th century. Like the Friendly Societies, the Fabians did not play a large or direct role in political change, cannot claim credit for major events, and did not lead directly to legislative change. But the Fabians, like the Friendly Societies, can claim a role in the gradualism which typified Britain and helped to forestall Marxist revolution. To some extent the Fabians were successful almost in spite of themselves, as they enjoyed playing a gadfly or dilettante role, as Webb’s quotation above suggests.
The Fabian society also can be seen as counterpoint to the Friendly Societies from a class perspective. One reason why the rather small Fabian group played an influential, albeit indirect, role in British politics, a role beyond what one might expect given their small size, was that its members were from the intelligentsia. People like the Webbs, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, and others were widely viewed as some of the best minds of their age, and the wittiest. This group provided what has been called a “suitable Socialism for England” by presenting a somewhat utopian vision in a non-threatening way. Despite Webb’s analogy, the Fabians were not nearly as intimidating as the Jesuits could be, although certainly they were often equally as passionate in defense of their cause.
When the Fabians were formed, in 1886, their first charter suggested the need “that an organisation be formed whose ultimate aim should be the reconstruction of Society in accordance with the highest moral possibilities.” [quoted in Pugh, p.3]. The first Fabian “penny tract”, written by W.L. Phillips, one of the Fabians’ few true working-class members at the origin of the club, established a pattern which the Society would adhere to: observe, collect facts, discuss, and publish [Pugh, p. 5]. As the Fabians set out upon this path, they emerged as a predominantly middle-class group which sought to recruit powerful people, literally willing to create one convert at a time (hence the Jesuit analogy). This approach, clearly gradualist in nature, at the same time did have a somewhat countervailing effect on revolutionary activity, as the Fabians centered much of their agitation and their proselytizing on Parliament, hoping that they could create legislative reform. As noted above, their legislative agenda never truly translated into reality, and yet the visibility which the Fabians managed to maintain did help to mute working class rebellion, and can even be said to have contributed to the growth of the Labor Party in 20th century England.
Where the Friendly Societies of the early 19th century seemed to undercut the potential for radical, revolutionary action in practical ways (i.e., by providing alternative modes of action which garnered real results), the Fabian Society of the late 19th century undercut Marxism in theoretical ways. The Fabians quite consciously defined themselves as Socialists, but at the same time defined socialism in a way which was clearly anti-Marxist and nearly gradualist. Two quotations from different periods in the Fabian movement are instructive here. In 1886, George Bernard Shaw observed that “the Fabian Society....ventures to warn....that the establishment of socialism means nothing less than the compulsion of all members of the upper class, without regard to sex or condition, to work for their living.” [quoted in Fremantle, p. 10] Although inflammatory in nature, this statement by Shaw nonetheless seems to suggest a desire to transform society through legislative and progressive, not revolutionary, methods. Much later, toward the very end of the existence of the Fabians, Clement Atlee noted in 1955 that “when I was young....a working-class home had a sink, but no bath, the family lived in the kitchen - now the typical working-class home is typically lower-middle-class.” [quoted in Fremantle, p. 11] Atlee’s perspective illustrates the degree to which Fabianism was an evolutionary brand of socialism, quite at odds with the Marxist aversion to “trade union consciousness” and to gradualism.
Henry George, the late 19th century socialist whose works inspired the early Fabians, recognized that in England there was a third path, something between extremism and inaction. As E.R. Pease observed:
“To George belongs the extraordinary merit of recognizing the right
way to social salvation. The earlier Socialists had proposed segregated
communities; the Co-operators had tried voluntary associations; the
Positivists advocated moral suasion; the Chartists favored force, physical
or political; the Marxists talked revolution...George wrote in a land
where people ruled themselves, not only in fact but in name.” [Fremantle, p. 20]
Fabianism grew very much in line with this same set of expectations - with this same optimism that people could act collectively in rational and progressive ways. The Fabians thus developed into a group so gradualist in their orientation that sometimes it seemed that they had no specific goals at all. It was almost as if the process of meeting, thinking, talking, and persuading was enough to satisfy them. And, it was somehow very much in keeping with the rationalism and gradualism so prevalent in 19th century English politics and thought.
Curiously, almost paradoxically, the Fabians did achieve some tangible successes during the 20th century. Certainly, they had much more influence as historians (the Webbs, Tawney, Cole) as political scientists (Robson), and as artists/writers (Shaw, H.G. Wells) than they did as economists, or in politics. [McBriar, p. 347] However, as 20th century Marxism emerged in totalitarian forms in Soviet Russia and Eastern Europe, Fabianism seemed to many intellectuals to be a more acceptable form of Socialism, truer to many of the principles upon which earlier English Socialist movements had been founded. By the end of the Second World War, over 250 members of Parliament could be counted as members of the Fabian Society, including Clement Attlee himself. Indirectly, at least, the rise of the English welfare state can be tied to the influence of Fabian thought.