Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T18:33:32.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Temperance Career of Joseph Chamberlain, 1870-1877: A Study in Political Frustration*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

James B. Brown
Get access

Extract

The temperance efforts of Joseph Chamberlain during the 1870's have been a largely ignored facet of the great Birmingham politician's career. The latest of his biographers, Dr. Peter Fraser, did not feel that the temperance aspect of his subject deserved even the attention of a citation. Perhaps the fact that Chamberlain's program of temperance reform was so easily defeated explains this general sketchiness of historical treatment. It is the contention of this paper, however, that the defeat of Chamberlain's proposals would exercise an important — if malevolent — effect on the future of the Liberal party.

These temperance proposals of Chamberlain exhibited many of the characteristics described in the Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government literature. While mayor of Birmingham, Chamberlain created a public house inspectorship when he discovered that the average constable could not be trusted within the walls of a drink shop. As part of his vision for central Birmingham, the Corporation next purchased 120 public houses. Although civically owned, these houses were leased to private management. And finally as a fledgling M.P. in 1877, Chamberlain argued for the complete municipalization of the drink trade. He now felt that the city should become a monopolist in both ownership and management of alcohol. Socialization of the drink traffic would offer two advantages. In the first place, abolition of the profit motive would lessen drunkeness; the customer would no longer be pressured into “drinking for the good of the house.” Secondly, elimination of over-entry and excess competition through public ownership would make the municpalized trade a lucrative source of civic revenue.

Type
Articles
Information
Albion , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , Spring 1972 , pp. 29 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Northwest Section of the Conference, Calgary, Alberta, March, 1972.

References

Notes

1 See especially: MacDonagh, O., “The Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government: A Reappraisal,” Historical Journal, I, (1958)Google Scholar; Parris, I. H., “The Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government: A Reappriasal Reappraised,” Historical Journal, II, (1960)Google Scholar; Roberts, D., Victorian Origins of the Welfare State, (New Haven, 1960)Google Scholar; and Hart, Jenifer, “Nineteeth Century Social Reform: A Tory Interpretation of History,” Past and Present, No. 31, (1965).Google Scholar

2 Hanham, H. J., Elections and Party Management (London, 1959), p. 413.Google Scholar

3 Alliance News, April 14, 1893, p. 249.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., Nov. 25, 1871, p. 769.

5 H. J. Wilson to Chamberlain, Dec. 24, 1873, University of Birmingham, Chamberlain Papers, JC 6/5/2/22.

6 Sheffield and Roterham Independent, Jan. 2, 1874, p. 4.Google ScholarPubMed

7 Ibid., Jan. 30, 1874, p. 1. Ironically, the decision of the Sheffield chapter to support Chamberlain precipitated the resignation of several of its members — Anglican clergymen who resented the endorsement of “a man like Chamberlain.” G. W. Sharman to Chamberlain, Feb. 7, 1874, Chamberlain Papers, JC 5/2/49.

8 Sheffield and Roterham Independent, Feb. 5, 1874, p. 3.Google Scholar

9 Garvin, J. L., The Life of Joseph Chamberlain (London, 1932), I, 325.Google Scholar

10 Chamberlain believed that the quality of life was fast declining for the Birmingham working class. He agreed completely with the contention of Alfred Hill, the city's Medical Officer of Health, that overcrowding was destroying the respectability of the urban poor: “The evils produced by the above defects cf closeness, narrowness, bad arrangements and bad condition of the stieets and houses are want of ventilation, want of light, and want of decent and proper accommodation, resulting in dirty habits, low health, and debased morals on the part of the tenants.” Alfred Hill to Town Council, Oct. 1, 1875, Birmingham City Hall, Town Council Minutes, October 6, 1875, p. 623.

11 Birmingham Daily Post, Jan. 5, 1876, p. 6.Google ScholarPubMed

12 Birmingham City Hall, Watch Committee Minutes, Jan. 4, 1876. The attitude of the Birmingham drink trade towards the inspection proposal was unreservedly hostile: “No disguise will serve to conceal the fact that this hateful being, the common informer, is being revived under the alias of a special inspector.” H. C. Edwards, president of the Birmingham Licensed Victuallers Association threatened that if Chamberlain proceeded with his inspectorship plan, he would make a mortal enemy of the 10,000 Birmingham publicans — and their customers, “for he was a very poor man (publican) who could not get four others to walk with him.” Birmingham Daily Post, Jan. 1, 1876, p. 8.Google Scholar

13 The huge expansion of working class clubs has gone unnoticed by most social historians of the period. J. E. Rogers estimated in 1880 that the number of working man's clubs in London had increased by more than 2000% since 1872. All clubs, either in the West or East End were virtually outside the pale of licensing law — the major regulation being an unenforceable closing time of 6 am. Both brewer and abstainer commonly agreed that the Bruce Licensing Act of 1872 had forced the less reputable public house to seek the legal protective coloration of club status.

14 Chamberlain, Joseph, “The Right Method with the Publicans,” Fortnightly Review, XXV, (May 1876), 634.Google Scholar

15 H. A. Bruce to W. E. Gladstone, Jan. 16, 1871, British Museum, Gladstone Papers, Add. MSS. 44087, fol. 5.

16 Archbishop of Canterbury to Lord Derby, Aug. 7, 1876, Great Britain, Public Record Office, FO 73/429/138.

17 E. M. Erskine to Derby, Aug. 28, 1876, Great Britain, Public Record Office, FO 73/422/153. In 1875 the Gothenburg Society for the Retail of Spiritous Liquors, earned a profit of £15,000 from its spirits monopoly.

18 Birmingham Daily Post, Nov. 16, 1876, p. 4.Google Scholar

19 The Times, (London) Feb. 2, 1877, p. 9.Google ScholarPubMed

20 Birmingham Daily Post, Feb. 7, 1877, p. 5Google ScholarPubMed. Chamberlain would later claim that Lawson betrayed his Gothenburg resolution on the floor of the House of Commons. Yet, Lawson had given a clear warning of his reservations at the February meeting in Chamberlain' own city.

21 Alliance News, Jan. 6, 1877, p. 8.Google ScholarPubMed

22 Minutes of the United Kingdom Alliance Executive, March 3, 1877, Alliance House, London.

23 John Bright to Joseph Chamberlain, May 4, 1876, Chamberlain Papers, JC 5/7/7/. Although an abstainer, Bright was a resolute foe to legislative interference with private drinking habits. Because of Bright's moral Credentials, he was regarded by Lawson as the most dangerous enemy of the Alliance: “But I do not really like to see you quoted in all the blackguard Drink newspapers with approbation. We should make a comparitively short work of the Brewers, and Distillers, and Ale Kings, if they were not backed up by those whom every one knows and respects.” Sir Wilfred Lawson to John Bright, Sept. 15 1878, British Museum, Bright Papers, Add. MSS. 43389, fol. 289.

24 Lowe, Robert, “Public House Reform,” Fortnightly Review, XXVII, (Jan., 1877), 3.Google Scholar

25 Chamberlain to John Thackery Bunce, Feb. 9, 1877, Chamberlain Papers, JC 5/8/24.

26 Chamberlain optimistically planned for Cross's support as well as that of Newdigate. In November of 1876, Cross had come to Birmingham on Chamberlain's invitation, and had been eulogized by his host as the first Home Secretary to recognize that higher interests existed above those of vested property. But Cross qualified Chamberlain's contention by saying that interference with property was justified only in the most exceptional of circumstances — circumstances which he did not elaborate upon.

27 Great Britian, Parliament, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3d. ser., Vol. 232 (1877), p. 1862. March 13, 1877.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., Vol. 344 (1890), p. 1001. May 15, 1890.

29 Ibid., Vol. 233 (1877), p. 1881. March 13, 1877.

30 Chamberlain to Bunce, Nov. 23, 1876, Chamberlain Papers, JC 5/8/23.

31 Great Britian, Parliament, Parliamentary Papers (House of Lords), 1878-1879, Vol. X (Report of the Select Committee on Intemperance), p. 514.Google Scholar

32 Ibid., 1877, Vol. XI, p. 231.

33 Birmingham City Hall, Report of Improvement Committee, Town Council Minutes, Feb. 7, 1882, p. 280.

34 Birmingham's civic debt in 1869 was £588,000; a decade later it was £6,212,000. Anderton, T. K., A Tale of One City (Birmingham, 1900), p. 14.Google Scholar

35 Birmingham Daily Post, Jan. 11, 1877, p. 5.Google Scholar

36 Samuelson, James, History of Drink, (London, 1878), p. 248.Google Scholar

37 Alliance News, Dec. 1, 1877, p. 771.Google Scholar

38 Chamberlain's preface to Gould, E. R., Popular Control of the Liquor Traffic (London, 1894), p. vi.Google Scholar

39 Public House Reform: Report of the Grosvenor House Meeting, July 6, 1894 (London, 1894), p. 79.Google Scholar

40 Gladstone, Herbert to Whyte, , Sept. 28, 1894, Alliance News, Oct. 4, 1894, p. 629Google Scholar. Lord Thring to W. E. Gladstone, Aug. 25, 1894, Gladstone Papers, Add. MSS. 44332, fol. 155.

41 Harcourt to Spencer, Sept. 21, 1894, Location Harcourt Papers, Stanton Harcourt, Box 8.

42 “The Publican in Politics,” Alliance News, July 13, 1894, p. 289.Google ScholarPubMed

43 Public House Reform, p. 590.

44 “Municipal Drink Traffic,” Fabian Tract No. 86 (London, 1898), p. 8.Google Scholar