Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:26:33.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. The Origins of the Birmingham Caucus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Trygve R. Tholfsen
Trygve R. Tholfsen
Affiliation:
Louisiana State UniversityNew Orleans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1868 the Birmingham Liberal Association won the first of a series of dazzling victories in parliamentary and municipal elections. Contemporaries immediately recognized the presence of a new phenomenon in English politics: disciplined control of a mass electorate by a tightly organized party apparatus. At first glance the Liberal machine seemed un-English, and the Tories gleefully imported an American epithet to describe it. The traditional interpretation of the caucus, as set forth by Ostrogorski, followed contemporary opinion in emphasizing the novelty of the institution. In his view, ‘the organization of the electoral masses’ by the Liberal Association represented a sharp break with the past. He traced its origin to the minority clause of the Reform Act of 1867, which gave each Birmingham elector two votes to divide among the candidates for three seats, thus challenging the Liberals to develop an organization capable of circumventing the Act. After their success in the ‘vote as you are told’ election of 1868, the Liberal politicians, according to Ostrogorski, continued to use the caucus as a contrivance for manipulating an electorate that otherwise might have exercised independent judgment. This interpretation remains of considerable value, particularly in its treatment of the oligarchic implications of modern democracy. Nevertheless, Ostrogorski’s analysis tends to be misleading and one-sided. The Liberal politicians, like the priests in Voltaire’s account of the history of religion, are depicted as consciously constructing an institution ex nihilo to meet their own needs and purposes. Ostrogorski attributes too much to calculation and too little to the historical process that created the materials out of which the caucus was built and the foundations on which it rested.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 1959 , pp. 161 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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.)

References

1 Ostrogorski, M., Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (New York, 1902), I, 113–14, 161–7Google Scholar. For a similar interpretation see owell, A. L., The Government of England (New York, 1920), 1, 482–5Google Scholar; Keir, D. L., The Constitutional History of Modern Britain (1953), 468–70Google Scholar. Herrick, F. H. noted the shortcomings of Ostrogorski’s analysis in ‘The Origins of the National Liberal Federation’ (J[ournal of] M[odem] H[istory], XVII, 1945). For an excellent account of the operation of the caucus and a critique of earlier interpretations see A. Briggs, History of Birmingham (1952), n, ch. VI.Google Scholar

2 Objects, Rules, and Regulations of the Birmingham Political Union (Birmingham, 1830).Google Scholar

3 See Briggs, A., ‘Thomas Attwood and the Economic Background of the Birmingham Political Union’ (C[ambridge] H[istorical] J[ournat], IX, 1948).Google Scholar

4 Report of the Proceedings of the Birmingham Political Union, July 26, 1830 (Birmingham, 1830)Google Scholar. See A. Briggs, ‘The Background of the Parliamentary Reform Movement in Three English Cities’ (C.H.J. x, 1952).

5 See J. Jaffray, Hints for a History of Birmingham (Birmingham Reference Library), ch 39; Bunce, J. T., History of the Corporation of Birmingham (Birmingham, 1878), 102–72, 221–67.Google Scholar

6 See my article, ‘The Chartist Crisis in Birmingham’ (International Review of Social History, III, Part 3, 1958).Google Scholar

7 B[irmingham] J[ournal], 29 May, 21 Aug. 1841; 1 Jan. 1842.

8 Report of the Proceedings [at the Conference of Delegates of the Middle and Working Classes, Held at Birmingham,] April 5, 1842, and Three Following Days (1842), 4–7, 78Google Scholar. For Sturge’s struggle to overcome the political quietism of his Quaker background see Hob–house, S., Joseph Sturge, [His Life and Work] (1919), 53–6, 82–3Google Scholar. Cole, G. D. H. has a fine essay on Sturge in Chartist Portraits (1941).Google Scholar

9 ibid. 5–6; B.J., 5 March 1842.

10 Report of the Proceedings... April 5, 1842, 69.

11 ibid. 2.

12 See my article, ‘The Chartist Crisis’, loc. cit.

13 O’Neill had become a Chartist in 1839, when he was still a theology student at the University of Glasgow. He came to Birmingham in July 1840, as a delegate from the Glasgow Chartists to the celebration in honour of the release of John Collins and William Lovett from prison. In 1846 he became a Baptist minister and remained in Birmingham in that capacity until his death in 1896. Collins was a pen–maker in the Gillott works. In 1838 he was the only Birmingham workingman elected to the Chartist Convention. Arrested after the Bull Ring riots, he spent a year in jail.

14 Report of the Proceedings...April 5, 1842, 5.Google Scholar

15 Hill was a shoemaker active in Chartist politics in the 1840’s.

16 Council of the N[ational] C[omplete] S[uffrage] U[nion], Minute Book (MS. Birmingham Ref[erence] Library); B.J., 20 Aug., 19 Nov. 1842.

17 N.C.S.U., Minutes of the Committee for General Purposes (MS. Birmingham Ref. Library); B.J., 16 July 1842.

18 ibid. 20 Aug. 1842.

19 The Nonconformist, 31 Dec. 1842Google Scholar; N.C.S.U., Report, 1842–43 (Birmingham, 1843); S. Hobhouse, Joseph Sturge, 78.Google Scholar

20 B.J., 12 March 1842; for the situation to the north of Birmingham, see Clark, G. K., ‘Hunger and Politics in 1842’ (J. M. H. xxv, 1953)Google Scholar. See also Schoyen, A. R., The Chartist Challenge (1958), 111–13.Google Scholar

21 B.J., 29 Oct. 1842.

22 ibid. 19 Feb. 1842. Sturge’s activity had already had some effect. O'Neill said that he was glad that so many Anti–Corn Law men had shown an interest in the suffrage issue, as evidenced by the thousands of electors’ signatures to Sturge’s declaration. Friction between Chartists and repealers had by no means disappeared. Collins complained that employers were forcing their workmen to join the Anti–Corn Law Association.

23 B.J., 20 Aug. 1842.

24 B.J., 27 Aug. 1842. George White, leader of the O’Connorites, called a meeting for the following day, which led to a clash between the crowd and the police. The crowd dispersed after receiving several cracked heads. When they tried to reassemble, troops had to be called out. That night and the following night several smaller meetings were broken up by the police. The C.S.U. covered the town with handbills advising moderation.

25 B.J., 26 March 1842.

26 Solly, H., These Eighty Years (1893), 1, 381.Google Scholar

27 B.J., 19 Nov. 1842.

28 Council of the N.C.S.U., Minute Book.

29 N.C.S.U., Report, 1842–43, 9–10.Google Scholar

30 B.J., 4 March 1843.

31 ibid. 6 May 1843.

32 Dec. 1843.

33 ibid. 4 May 1844.

34 ibid. 11 May 1844.

35 ibid. 18 May 1844.

36 ibid. 27 July 1844.

37 ibid. 17 Aug. 1844. In August 1843 O ’Neill had been sentenced to a year’s imprisonment for having participated in a riotous meeting at Cradley.

38 ibid. 28 Dec. 1844. It was Baldwin’s ‘pride to have risen from being a working man’. ibid. 19 Dec. 1855.

39 B.J.,31 May 1845.

40 ibid. 6 Dec. 1845.

41 ibid. 20 Dec. 1845.

42 ibid. 6, 13 July 1844; Langford, J. A., Modern Birmingham and its Institutions (Birmingham, 1873), 1, 95–6. Head of the poll, with 2095 votes, was Richard Spooner, a Tory supporter of Attwood's currency theories. Scholefield received 1735 votes.Google Scholar

43 Muntz owned a fairly large rolling mill, which provided metal for the voracious presses and stamps of the small workshops. One of the founders of the Political Union, he was a dominant figure in Birmingham politics throughout the 1830's. In 1839 he attended the Chartist Convention as a delegate. He was elected to Parliament in 1840, and represented Birmingham until his death in 1857. For a lively sketch of Muntz see Edwards, E., Personal Recollections of Birmingham and Birmingham Men (Birmingham, 1877).Google Scholar

44 Like his father Joshua, William Scholefield was a wealthy merchant and banker. The first Mayor of Birmingham, he was in office during the Bull Ring riots. He was M.P. for Birmingham from 1847 until his death in 1867.

45 B.J., 12 June, 17 July 1847.

46 ibid. 26 June 1852, 18 Sept. 1847. Muntz and Scholefield were returned.

47 ibid. 18 March 1848.

48 Weston, a hosier and haberdasher, came to Birmingham in 1807. According to his own account, ‘he was the son of a working man, and was sent from a rural district, like many other boys, to take his chance in this town’ Langford, op. cit. I, 45). He served on the Council of the Political Union in 1831 and 1837. In 1843 he introduced a Complete Suffrage resolution in the Town Council. He was Mayor in 1844.

49 B.J., 18 March 1848.

50 Middle–class Radicals and advanced Liberals characteristically lost no time in backing their speeches with action. On 3 May, they formed a Reform League, with Muntz as President and Weston and Scholefield, among others, as vice–presidents. The League's objectives were ‘Household Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, [Equal] Electoral Districts, and Triennial Parliaments’. It announced that ‘these Reforms will be best effected by uniting the Middle and Working Classes; and it views with great satisfaction the spontaneous desire universally evinced by the intelligent men of all classes to unite cordially in promoting Parliamentary Reform’. John Mason said that the Chartists would not compromise on the principle of manhood suffrage, although they would not stand in the way of efforts to give effect to the resolution (A Report of the First Meeting of the Reform League, Held in the Town Hall, Birmingham, May 3rd, 1848 (Birmingham, 1848)). In November appeared the first and last issue of The Reform League Circular.Google Scholar

51 B. J., 18 Aug. 1849.

52 ibid. 29 Sept. 1849.

53 ibid. 19 May 1849.

54 ibid. 1 Sept. 1849.

55 ibid. 17 Jan. 1852. Wright had entered a firm of button manufacturers in 1838 as a junior clerk. He became a partner in 1851.

56 ibid. 28 Feb. 1852.

57 ibid. 26 June 1852.

58 ibid. 12, 26 June 1852, 16 Apr. 1853.

59 B.J., 8 Aug. 1857.

60 Mayers, M. J., The Advantages of Scriptural Instruction (Birmingham, 1830), 26.Google Scholar

61 A Manual for the Members of the Independent Church, Assembling in Carr's Lane, Birmingham (Birmingham, 1835), 33–5.Google Scholar

62 Mayers, op. cit. 5.

63 B.J, 9 Dec. 1854.

64 ibid. 30 Sept. 1854.

65 But they were not strong at the polls. Liberals were returned to Parliament unopposed in 1852, 1857, and 1865.

66 Edwards, op. cit. 120, 122.

67 Report of the First Anniversary Meeting of the Birmingham Loyal and Constitutional Association... December 17, 1835, 41; Report of the Second Anniversary Meeting... December 23, 1836, 6.

68 Langford, op. cit. II, 34.

69 ibid. 363.

70 Edwards, op. cit. 122. Although religion was often the decisive factor in determining the political affiliation of a member of the middle class, it does not appear to have been nearly so important for the working class. One of the most articulate working-class Liberals, for example, was Frederick Hine, a pillar of St Martin's Workingmen's Association. Like most artisans, whether Anglican or Nonconformist, Hine was convinced that ‘ the policy of the Liberal party is broad, generous and just’.

71 Langford, op. cit. II, 43.

72 Children's Employment Commission, 1862, Third Report ofthe Commissioners (1864), 52. See my articleGoogle Scholar, ‘The Artisan and the Culture of Early Victorian Birmingham’ (University of Birmingham Historical Journal, IV, 1954).Google Scholar

73 Census of England and Wales for the Year 1861. Population Tables (1863), II, 508–14.Google Scholar

74 Birmingham Gazette, 17 June, 22 Oct. 1867, 6 Aug. 1868.

75 Children's Employment Commission, op. cit. 54.

76 A description of the pupils in the day schools indicates the function of education in fostering social mobility among the Birmingham artisans: ‘These come from the families of the most respectable artisans: the efforts of the teachers are seconded at home; the power of gaining fresh knowledge has been given;...situations of a better kind are obtained for them by their parents, and the school and home influence has thus the prospect of being permanent’ (W. Gower, Our Work (1857), 8–9).Google Scholar

77 Simon, D., ‘Master and Servant’, in Saville, J. (ed.), Democracy and the Labour Movement (1954), 160–200.Google Scholar

78 D. Simon, op. cit. 194–5. Between 1868 and 1875 there were 2351 prosecutions under the Master and Servant laws in Birmingham. This was the largest number in any borough during the same period.

79 United Kingdom First Annual Trades' Union Directory (1861)Google Scholar. See Allen, G. C., The Industrial Development of Birmingham and the Black Country 1860–1927 (1929), 170–2.Google Scholar

80 B.J., 20 Dec. 1845.

81 ibid. 19 July 1845.

82 First Annual Report of the Birmingham and District Trades' Council (Birmingham, 1867).Google Scholar

83 George Eliot, Middlemarch, ch. 13.

84 Rules of the People's Hall of Science Building Society (Birmingham, 1840).Google Scholar

85 B.J., 28 March 1846.

86 ibid. 24 March 1849.

87 Langford, op. cit. I, 248–9.

88 B.J., 19 Nov. 1853. See also Waterhouse, R. E., The Birmingham and Midland Institute, 1854–1954 (Birmingham, 1954), 11–12.Google Scholar

89 B.J., 28 Sept. 1854.

90 ibid. 9 Jan. 1858, Supplement.

91 Radford, described as a ‘clerk’ in 1873, was a coal merchant in 1876.

92 ibid. 6 Feb. 1858, Supplement. Raffles operated a ‘botanic dispensary’.

93 Langford, op. cit. 11, 21.

94 B.J., 30 Oct. 1858.

95 ibid. 13, 20 Nov. 1858; Langford, op. cit. 11, 25.

96 B.J., 5 Feb. 1859.

97 ibid. 12 March 1859, Supplement.

98 ibid. 16 Apr. 1859.

99 ibid. 4 June 1859, Supplement.

100 B.J., 7 Jan 1860.

101 ibid. 5 May 1860.

102 Langford, op. cit. 11, 43.

103 B.J., 2, 9 March, 4, 11 May, 8 June 1861.

104 ibid. 30 March 1861.

105 ibid. 18 Feb., 4 March 1865.

106 ibid. 25 Nov. 1865.

107 ibid. 24 Feb., 24 March, 12, 26 May, 4, 18, 25 Aug., 8, 15, 22 Sept. 1866.

108 ibid. 14 July 1866, Supplement.

109 ibid. 1 Sept. 1866; Birmingham Post, 23 Apr. 1867.

110 B.J., 18 Aug. 1866.

111 Birmingham Biography, I, part 2, 149 (Scrap book, Birmingham Reference Library).

112 Birmingham Post, 11 July 1867.

113 ibid. 15, 18 July 1867.

114 Langford, op. cit. n, 362–4; Birmingham Post, 18 Dec. 1867.Google Scholar