* * * * *

At this same period, the spring of 1911, the National Insurance Bill was introduced.  This was a subject to which the Society had given but little attention and on which it had not formulated a policy.  It had opposed the contributory system as proposed to be applied to Old Age Pensions, and a paper on “Paupers and Old Age Pensions,” published by Sidney Webb in the “Albany Review” in August, 1907, and reprinted by the Society as Tract No. 135, had probably much influence in deciding the Government to abandon its original plan of excluding paupers permanently from the scheme by showing what difficulties and anomalies would follow from any such course.  The National Insurance Bill when first introduced was severely criticised by Sidney Webb in documents circulated amongst Trade Unionists and published in various forms; but a few weeks later he started on his tour round the world and could take no further part in the affair.  At the Annual Conference of Fabian Societies in July, 1911, an amendment proposed by H.D.  Harben to a resolution dealing with the Bill was carried against a small minority.  The amendment declared that the Bill should be opposed, and in furtherance of the policy thus casually suggested and irregularly adopted, the Executive Committee joined with a section of the I.L.P. in a vigorous campaign to defeat the Bill.  This was a new role for the Society.  Usually it has adopted the principle of accepting and making the best of what has already happened; and in politics a Bill introduced by a strong Government is a fait accompli; it is too late to say that something else would have been preferable.  It may be amended:  it may possibly be withdrawn:  it cannot be exchanged for another scheme.

I shall not however dwell on this episode in Fabian history because for once I was in complete disagreement with all my colleagues, except Sir Leo Chiozza Money, and perhaps I cannot yet view the matter with entire detachment.  The Labour Party decided to meet the Bill with friendly criticism, to recognise it as great measure of social reform, and to advocate amendments which they deemed improvements.  The Fabian Society attacked the Bill with hostile amendments, prophesied all sorts of calamities as certain to result from it:  magnified its administrative difficulties, and generally encouraged the duchesses and farmers who passively resisted it; but their endeavour to defeat the Bill was a failure.

It may be too soon to be confident that the policy of the Society in this matter was wrong.  But the Trade Unions are stronger than ever:  the Friendly Societies are not bankrupt:  the working people are insured against sickness:  and anybody who now proposed to repeal the Act would be regarded as a lunatic.

* * * * *