er sense as conceived by Comte,
rather than in the restricted sense of "social science" with its
implication of economics, as narrowed by Herbert Spencer, that I dare
to head this last chapter with so dangerously technicalised a term.
Indeed, I would not use the word "sociology" now if I could find a
more inclusive heading. For it must be obvious, I think, to anyone who
has followed my exposition of the romances and the novels that Mr
Wells has a way of treating all such subjects as relate to the
betterment of humanity with a broad outlook, an entire disrespect for
conventional forms however hallowed by precedent, and a habit of
trenchant criticism that could hardly be fettered by an analysis of
sociological literature or continual deference to this or that
experiment in practice or theory. He approaches his subject with the
normal mind of one who sees the world, its customs and rules of
conduct, from what is, after all, the point of view of
common-sense--another term that has been so grossly misused that the
possessor of true common-sense is apt to be regarded as a most
uncommon person. It is, in fact, the least common of qualities.

The first three books under this heading form some sort of a trilogy,
and have a definite air of consequence. Of these, _Anticipations_ was
published in 1901, and _Mankind in the Making_ and _A Modern Utopia_
followed in 1903 and 1905 respectively. The scheme of the first two
books combines a criticism of present conditions with a growing
constructiveness that points the way to the ideal of what is called
"The New Republic." Now, one of the labels that has been most
frequently and adhesively affixed to Mr Wells is that of "Socialist,"
and no doubt it would proclaim his purpose admirably enough if we
could satisfactorily define the word in its relation to him. But,
personally, I refuse so to label him, because I know that socialism
means as many things to different people as religion, and is as much a
term of reproach in the mouth of some self-labelled individualists as
the designation "Christian" might be in the mouth of the "true
believers"--as the Mohammedans call themselves. Wherefore I am
particularly anxious in approaching any description of "The New
Republic," to make it quite clear that that idealised State is not
built of the bricks that have been modelled and cast by any
recognisable group of propagandists, working to permeate, or more
forcibly to convert, a section of the public