[‘Why don’t you ask me to do it for you?’: Sidney Webb, Fabian theorist.] Three Autograph Letters Signed to A. G. L. Rogers, one criticising a pamphlet he has a hand in, another declining to put himself forward for the Liberal candidacy in Stepney.

See Sidney Webb's entry in the Oxford DNB, now unaccountably placed within that of his wife. From the papers of Arthur George Liddon Rogers (1864-1944), son and editor of the economist Thorold Rogers [James Edwin Thorold Rogers] (1823-1890), for information regarding whom see his entry in the Oxford DNB. The three items in good condition, lightly aged. Each folded once. All three signed ‘Sidney Webb’; the first to ‘Sir’, the second to ‘My dear Rogers’, and the third to ‘Dear Rogers’. ONE: 22 September 1891. 4pp, 12mo. An interesting letter in the light of Webb’s having joined the Fabian Society at the start of the year. He is honoured by the proposal contained in Rogers’s letter of the previous day, inviting him to address ‘the Council of the Stepney Liberal & Radical Assoc[iatio]n’: ‘I am in the difficulty that I have promised to consider proposals that I should stand for other constituencies and I cannot, at present, feel sure whether I should be free to stand for Stepney even if the Council approved my candidature.’ He could not in any case ‘give a decided answer’ for around a fortnight. ‘But I shall be glad to address the Council on the County Council programme, on the 20th Octr., a date which I understand will suit local convenience.’ TWO: 2pp, 12mo. He is enclosing a cheque for one pount ‘for Steadman’s Expenses’: ‘I can’t afford more.’ He apologises for having been ‘totally unable to find time to help you with a Factory Acts leaflet. If it is still undone after Mch 5, especially if I am defeated [in the 1892 London County Council elections], I will see about it.’ (In the event Webb was returned as member for Deptford by a large majority.) THREE: 8 June 1893. 4pp, 12mo. 46 lines of text. Begins: ‘Dear Rogers / I am sorry I spoke. No one made any complaint about you, [last word underlined twice] - quite the contrary. Nor was Norton the chief grumbler. He lists three factors that were ‘spoken of’: ‘the absence of / (a) A telling leaflet explaining the Labor Department -’ (he adds here: ‘You give it 2 lines only!!’) / (b) A description of the good works of the Education Dept. / (c) Do. for Local Govt. Board & Home Office.’ He concedes that ‘you have done the last named - after a fashion’, ‘But you have nothing on what has been done during the present year in any of the offices. (You must not say that nothing has been done!)’. He explains that what he is ‘more interested in is the pamphlet on the whole programme’. It should be ‘a 16 or 20 pp. thing, giving, say, a page to each plank in the programme, explaining the items & binding them together with some touch of principle & fire’. The pamphlet is needed ‘more as a brief to speakers & M.P.s than for the million’. He ends, with characteristic self-assurance: ‘Why don’t you ask me to do it for you?’