My arguments were as follows. As far as I can judge, Labour’s hopes of gaining a parliamentary majority for themselves are ill-founded. The Conservatives may well stay in power for some ten years more. This means that British foreign policy will hold to its zigzagging course, systematically retreating before the aggressors. Such a policy will inevitably serve to unleash war. Aren’t there ways and means to establish an alternative, stronger and more resolute government in the near future? Couldn’t there be a united front in power oriented to the right, if Labour is so very scared of a united front oriented to the left?

Sidney Webb entirely shares my fears about Conservative dominance for another ten years. In his opinion, the term might be reduced to seven years at best. The outlook is grim. Yet a united front oriented to the right offers no salvation. The Liberals would not accept Labour’s programme of the nationalization of banks, railways, mines, etc., and if Labour made major concessions to the Liberals, then the Labour Party would be split. Moreover, Webb suspects that even if a Lib–Lab government did come to power, it would not be any more daring or resolute in foreign policy than the Conservative government. The heart of the matter is that a close relationship, perhaps even an alliance, needs to be established with the USSR. A Liberal–Labour government would never do this for fear of the Conservatives. Webb comes to the conclusion that however deplorable the outlook, it is hardly possible to change it (on the assumption, of course, that no catastrophic events of an extraordinary nature happen within the next few years). Beatrice Webb is more optimistic. True, she also thinks that Labour has no chance of gaining a majority for itself in the near future. But this is by no means essential in order to straighten the course of British foreign policy. The best combination would be this: a weak Conservative government with a strong Labour opposition (say, 313 Conservatives, 280 Labourites and 12 Liberals). Beatrice thinks that such a government could make an alliance with the USSR. The political history of Great Britain shows that most of its radical reforms and actions have been carried out by Conservative governments with a narrow parliamentary majority. The Conservatives can permit themselves the luxury of greater boldness with regard to the USSR than the Liberals or Labour. Being very familiar with Labour’s cowardly heart, I am inclined to think that there is considerable truth in Beatrice Webb’s judgement. Eden is surely more capable of concluding an alliance with the USSR than Dalton or Archibald Sinclair.

Archibald Sinclair, secretary of state for Scotland, 1931–32; secretary of state for air, 1940–45; leader of Liberal parliamentary party, 1935–45.

The year was 1908. Shaw was earning no more than six pounds a week and living in the countryside with the Webbs. He had a rakish temperament, his affairs never ceased, and the writer’s ‘girlfriends’ made scenes that gave the Webbs no end of trouble. For instance, some of Shaw’s jilted girlfriends blamed Beatrice for their frivolous lover’s betrayals. They were jealous of her and pestered her with scenes of indignation and despair. Finally Beatrice got bored of all that and decided to have Bernard married.

At that critical juncture, Beatrice’s old school friend, Charlotte Townsend, came to visit her. Charlotte was not married and she had a yearly income of some 5,000 pounds following her father’s death. Charlotte decided to move in with the Webbs. Beatrice warned her that two men were living there, Shaw and Graham Wallas

Graham Wallas, political psychologist and educationalist, dominant during the Fabian Society’s early years along with Sidney Webb, Sydney Olivier and Bernard Shaw. Resigned in 1904 in disagreement over the Society’s sympathy for imperialism and the Conservative Education Act 1902.

(the well-known Fabian writer). Charlotte had nothing against it. Beatrice, discussing her matrimonial projects with Sidney, told her husband regretfully about her apprehension that Charlotte, with her character and tastes, would get along better with Wallas (he was a bachelor, too) than with Shaw. To her great surprise and joy, Charlotte and Bernard became the closest of friends in three days. They had a stormy and fast-paced affair, but Shaw did not want to marry, for how could he, a pauper, marry a wealthy woman?

At this time, the Webbs were about to go to America. Beatrice summoned Shaw and told him bluntly: either get married immediately or leave my house. If you stay here without us your relationship will become too obvious to everyone and it will bring a great deal of trouble.

Shaw refused to marry, moved out on the next day and settled in a garret in London. Charlotte also left. She went to see Rome. The Webbs departed for America.

Some time later, when they were already in America, the Webbs received a telegram from Wallas saying that Shaw was dying (Shaw had tuberculosis and life in the garret was taking its toll). The news shocked the Webbs and they were about to return to England. However, on the next day they received a second telegram from Wallas that greatly surprised them: Bernard had married Charlotte.

The Webbs were perplexed. Clarification came later. Wallas had first sent a telegram to Charlotte, notifying her that Shaw was ill. Charlotte rushed to England and lodged Shaw in a splendid villa. She summoned doctors and a serious course of treatment began. Then Bernard told Charlotte: ‘If this is how it is, then we have to marry. It must be fate.’ They married the same day. Bernard and Charlotte still live together now. Shaw is 80 and Charlotte 82.