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 largescale 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
2
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
3
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.
4
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
5
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.
6
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.
7
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 workingclass 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
8
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
9
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.
The friendly societies of the earlier period must be viewed as organizations which
were founded for very limited and practical purposes, and served those purposes quite
well. Over time, as those same functions came to be filled by the state, the friendly
societies slowly evolved out of existence, except for some social functions. The Fabian
society, on the other hand, was founded less for practical purposes, but with a more
10
grandiose vision in mind. Its lack of concrete goals perhaps reflected its middle-class and
intellectual origins, but also meant that its members, for a long time, were satisfied
mainly with adding to the rolls of their membership. Ultimately, by having contributed to
the national dialogue on social goals and reform measures, the Fabians did wield some
influence. And both groups, without question, by playing a “safety valve” role,
contributed to the success of gradualism in England and contributed to inoculating the
nation against violent social revolution.
11
LIST OF WORKS CONSULTED
Belcham, John. Industrialization and the Working Class: The English Experience,
1750-1900. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1990.
Christie, Ian. Stress and Stability in Late 18th Century Britain - Reflections on the
British Avoidance of Revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.
Fremantle, Anne. This Little Band of Prophets - The British Fabians. New York:
Mentor Books, 1960.
Gosden, P.H.J.H. Self-Help: Voluntary Associations in the 19th Century. London:
B.T. Batsford Ltd. 1973.
Halevy, Elie. A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century Volume I: England in 1815. London: Ernest Benn Ltd., 1924.
McBriar, A.M. Fabian Socialism and English Politics, 1884-1918. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1962.
Pugh, Patricia. Educate, Agitate, Organize - One Hundred Years of Fabian Socialism.
London: Methuen and Company, Ltd. 1984.