Today we remember H.G. Wells as the great writer of works
including The Invisible Man (1897)
and War of the Worlds (1898), which
transformed and defined the genre of Science Fiction. However, during the Autumn of 1940, as bombs fell
ever increasingly on the British Isles, Wells embarked on a lecture tour in the
United States, much to the consternation of some member of the British
Government. On Wednesday, October 23,
1940, members in the House of Commons debated the power that Wells’ rhetoric
could/would have on American Public opinion of Britain. This evaluation of the perceived impact that (popular)
public figures could have on large swathes of opinion demonstrates both the
importance that government figures placed on the maintenance of public morale
and the difficulty of maintaining a balance between free speech (even if
contrary to government lines) and rhetorical consistency. In other words, how much of an impact could
anti-government rhetoric have and would stifling these opinions do more harm
than good to the image of the wartime government?
Thoms has argued that in general, the government and Home
Office failed to ever establish criteria to effectively define and measure
levels of wartime morale.[1] Nevertheless, these groups clearly placed a
great deal of importance upon morale and public opinion, factors which impacted
both decision making and the way in which these decisions were conveyed to the
broader public. I find the case of H.G.
Wells particularly interesting because he was both a popular novelist at the
time, both in Britain and the United States, as well as a controversial
political proponent, particularly in Britain.
This public airing of the Commons debate surrounding Wells brought up
key themes of free speech and the extent to which it should be maintained in
wartime.
At the above mentioned House of Commons meeting, Lord
Winterton expounded a lengthy tirade against Wells’ political leanings and
criticised the decision to grant him an exit permit to lecture in the U.S. “in
the certain knowledge that he would use all his publicity power to denigrate
his country abroad and of all places in the United States….” He went on to
categorise this “agnostic republican” as a “very unrepresentative human export”
and accused him of helping to betray the cause of the British Empire.[2] Mr. Magnay added that, “Only a pagan opinion
could be expected from a pagan, for that was what Mr. Wells was,” and Sir P.
Hannon proclaimed that Wells was “giving a false estimate of public opinion in
this country…”[3] Only
two members, most notably, Mr. Shinwell, expressed a contrary opinion. Shinwell said that he “deplored” Winterton’s
speech, saying that some parts were more suited to the Reichstag. Most notably,
he claimed that the rhetorical efforts of Wells would have little effect. “The less we concerned ourselves about the
rhetoric, the fulminations, and the eloquence of other people thousands of
miles away the better. The winning of
the war did not depend on speeches made in the United States.”[4] Of course, all of this begs the question,
whose, if anyone’s speeches, did the war depend upon?
Wartime rhetoric and the importance of maintaining public
morale and opinion in general were not issues taken lightly by Churchill’s
government. However, disagreement
continued over who could and should be allowed to speak for Britain.[5] In studies of wartime rhetoric, it is crucial
to note this tension between the maintenance of morale and public opinion
through positive, consistently government-friendly rhetoric, and the
compromising of this same opinion by the over-exuberant stifling of free speech
and criticism. The views of
self-professed left-wing public figures like H.G. Wells, George Orwell, and
J.B. Priestley raised this issue into the public sphere and brought up
disagreements over how this tension should be managed. However, there was one thing that Commons members
could agree upon: they wished that Wells would stick to fiction!
