WCP2701

[1]

Allen proposes — "Democratic" party; National Party is too much Chamberlain — "Social Party" is what I like, but it looks like a tea cup business.

Confidential

Lilley House

Lea Bridge Road

Leyton.

March 17. 1894.

Dear Dr. Wallace:

A most grand step presents itself to me. In reading over Grant Allens¹ MS. (received this morning) I have been carried further than I dreamt of going with my new book.² He writes a powerful paper and goes in for a new party and a new title and ends up "From this day forward there will be no such thing as [2] political differences; there will only be the differences between those who wish well to their kind & those who wish ill to it. Politics are henceforth merged in morals[.] Choose which side you will take — God's or the Devils."³ Now I have found that the Liberals with any worldly or Party name are very unlikely to write anything for my book and the question comes, whether I had better not head as [3] daring and powerful revolt — not a mere squib affair — but most serious, and linking with it all that religion ^{moral devotion} and lofty ideas can give to it. I say head — a child can lead ^head a giant — I simply mean as far as this book is concerned. I pretend to no powers to go much further, though I should like to hear from you whether you think he might put together some new machinery.

Here then is my point. With a book trembling with emotion and ruled with this [4] passionate idea, your article may want a large pushing into line. I must lay hold of every great man I can get — you must look at it as a matter of imperative duty for it is plain I shall not be able to get but few with great names. And yet with a book like this we must be strong. ^{Is there any one you can name?}

My publishers are Hodder Brothers young folk, but I managed to inspire them to leave matters to me entirely — this, however is a further departure into the Tomorrow — which I told them I was making for.

Very truly yours, | Andrew Reid⁴ [signature]