Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:08:12.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Radical Conservatism: the Electoral Genesis of Tariff Reform*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

E. H. H. Green
E. H. H. Green
Affiliation:
St John's College, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For historians of the Edwardian Conservative party one problem in particular continues to present severe difficulties. This problem in the history of the Conservative party was first outlined by Lord Blake in his study of the party from Peel to Churchill, namely how to explain the feet that Conservative politics came to be so dominated by the issue of Tariff Reform in the decade preceding the Great War. Indeed, to Lord Blake it seemed scarcely credible that the Conservatives should have even considered, let alone shackled themselves to, a policy which was apparently so disastrous both for the party's unity and its electoral prospects. Such incredulity is, in many ways, hardly surprising for, as all the studies of Tariff Reform have agreed, there were enormous difficulties involved in the adoption of this policy – and two problems in particular were clearly almost insurmountable. Firstly, the core of the Tariff Reform policy, that is to say the securing of the imperial markets for British producers through a system of preferential tariff agreements with the colonies, was severely handicapped by the fact that the self-governing colonies, the only worthwhile markets, were very lukewarm about the whole idea. This difficulty stemmed from the fact that the colonies had begun to develop their own fledgling industries and were thus none too keen to have them swamped by a flood of imported British manufactures. Secondly, the only agreement in which the colonies were interested entailed the Conservatives advocating duties on imported foreign grain and agricultural goods. This, of course, led to the Conservatives being labelled the party of ‘dear food’ and there seems little room for doubt that these ‘food taxes’ did the Conservatives a great deal of electoral damage, especially amongst the working-class electorate.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 667 - 692
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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 Blake, Lord, The Conservative party from Peel to Churchill, (London, 1972 edn) pp. 167–95Google Scholar.

2 There is some room for doubt as to how damaging ‘dear food’ was in the general elections of 1910. The evidence for this can be seen in ch. VI of my unpublished thesis, ‘Radical Conservatism in Britain 1900–1914’, Cambridge University thesis (1985Google Scholar, forthcoming).

3 For the Fair Trade League's activities see Brown, B. H., The tariff reform movement in Great Britain, 1881–1895 (Columbia, 1943)Google Scholar.

4 Interestingly enough Joseph Chamberlain, no less, complained to Balfour after the 1892 general election that ‘Lord Salisbury's unfortunate allusion to Fair Trade cost us a dozen seats in the counties’. Chamberlain, J. to Balfour, , 19 07 1892, Balfour papers, B. L. Add. MSS 49773, fos. 53–4Google Scholar.

5 There is a good discussion of these difficulties in Zebel, S. H., ‘Joseph Chamberlain and the genesis of tariff reform’, Journal of British Studies, VII, I (1967), 131–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and also in Kubicek, R. V., The administration of imperialism: Joseph Chamberlain at the colonial office (Duke University, N. Carolina, 1969)Google Scholar, passim.

6 Sykes, A., Tariff reform in British politics 1903–14 (Oxford, 1979), pp. 285–94Google Scholar.

7 Porter, D., ‘The Unionist tariff reformers 1903–14’, unpublished Manchester university Ph.D. thesis (1976), pp. 19–36Google Scholar, 206–8.

8 At this point a brief definition of terms is appropriate. A full exposition of the concept of ‘Radical Conservatism’ can be found in ch.VII of my unpublished thesis. In brief, however, the term is used to describe a grouping which advocates or employs radical means to secure Conservative ends. In the specific context of this paper the crucial factor is that radical Conservatism appears as an attempt to mobilize the support of the masses from the political Right through a specific appeal to the working-class electorate.

9 Maxse, to Law, Bonar, 20, 09 1906, Bonar Law papers, House of Lords Record Office, 18/2/12Google Scholar.

10 Garvin, J. L., ‘Free trade as a socialist policy’, National Review, no. 295, 09 1907, 47Google Scholar.

11 Perhaps the best example of such a viewpoint was contained in Sir William Harcourt's missive to Lady Harcourt of Dec. 1884, where he declared that ‘The Reform Bill is a frightfully democratic measure which I confess appals me. Its effect will not be felt at once but in a few years it will come with a rush. I don't see any hope for the Tories anywhere or anyhow’, Harcourt to Lady Harcourt, 2 Aug. 1884, in Cooke, A. B. and Vincent, J. R., The governing passion (Brighton, 1974), p. 3Google Scholar.

12 Even Joseph Chamberlain, who, as we shall see below, saw Tariff Reform as the means whereby to revive Conservative electoral fortunes conceded as early as September 1903, before the Tariff Reform campaign was properly under way, that the next general election would result in defeat and that he simply hoped for ‘a clear run’ at the following election. Chamberlain, J. to Selborne, , 23 09 1903, Selborne papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Selborne 9, fos. 126–7Google Scholar. Chamberlain confirmed this view in a letter to Maxse seven months later, after the Tariff campaign had been vigorously pursued, Chamberlain, J. to Maxse, , 21 04 1904, Maxse papers, West Sussex Record Office, 452 T 734Google Scholar.

13 Maxse, ‘Episodes of the month’, National Review, no. 276, 02 1906, 949Google Scholar.

14 The analysis of Conservative electoral performance in 1910 is based on Blewett's, Neal masterly study of the 1910 elections, The peers, the parties and the people (1972)Google Scholar.

15 For this interpretation see in particular Ramsden, J.A history of the Conservative party. Vol.III: The age of Balfour and Baldwin (London, 1978)Google Scholar, especially ch.III.

16 There is a fuller discussion of the Radical Conservatives' part in this debate in ch.II of my forthcoming thesis.

17 See Ramsden, The age, pp. 42–65Google Scholar.

18 Mannheim, K., Ideology and Utopia (London, 1963 edn), p. 105Google Scholar.

19 This was certainly the case in the Conservative party's inquest on the defeat in 1880, see Feuchtwanger, E. J., Disraeli, democracy and the Tory party (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar.

20 Maxse, to Law, Bonar, 29 09 1906, Bonar Law papers 18/2/12Google Scholar.

21 Ibid.It will be argued later in this chapter that the Conservatives in fact never had the ‘Tory democracy’ to lose, but that of course in no way detracts from the fact that this was how the Radical Conservatives perceived the problem.

22 Selborne, to Selborne, Lady, 27 04 1911, Selborne papers, MS Selborne 102, fos. 17–18Google Scholar.

23 Law, Bonar to Maxse, , 30 09 1906, Maxse papers, 456 S 334Google Scholar.

24 Ibid.

25 Hunt, R. in the Commons, The Times, 19 02 1907Google Scholar. For this particular outburst Hunt had the Conservative whip suspended, but he gained considerable support from the Radical Conservative press, see in particular Maxse's, comments in ‘Episodes of the month’, National Review, no. 289, 03 1907Google Scholar.

26 Maxse, , ‘Episodes of the month’, National Review, no. 382, 10 1910, 213Google Scholar.

27 For example Walter Long put almost the entire blame for the defeat of Dec. 1910 on the party organization, see Long, W. to Balfour, , 22 10 1910, J. S. Sandars papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Eng., Hist. c 762, fos. 195–7Google Scholar.

28 Ware, F. to Chamberlain, A., 12 12 1910, A. Chamberlain papers, Birmingham University Library, AC 8/7/27Google Scholar.

29 Chamberlain, J. to Chamberlain, A., 4 03 1906, A. Chamberlain papers, AC 8/2/18Google Scholar.

30 Wise, B. to Milner, , 30 12 1906, Milner papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Milner Dep 18, fos. 241–2Google Scholar.

31 Law, Bonar to Maxse, , 5 09 1907, Maxse papers, 457 S 463Google Scholar.

32 Ibid.

33 This estimate is based on Wright, D. C., Democracy and reform 1815–1885 (London, 1970) p. 98Google Scholar.

34 Wolmer, M. to Wolmer, Lord, 25 09 1885, Selborne papers, MS Selborne, adds. 1, fo. 76Google Scholar.

35 In his Gladstone and radicalism (Brighton, 1975)Google Scholar, Michael Barker argues that Chamberlain concentrated his efforts on the urban vote, but this seems debatable. Whilst it is true that, as Barker points out, Chamberlain only spoke to urban audiences in his campaign this was the common practice, no major politician ventured into rural areas. However, Chamberlain's speeches to the urban working class audiences he addressed were all aimed at explaining to the urban masses why agricultural reform would benefit the towns, hardly the action of a man going all out to capture the urban vote. It seems just as likely that Chamberlain felt confident of the urban vote and was trying his best to annihilate the tories by capturing the counties as well with a strong agricultural reform programme. It is interesting to note that after the 1885 general election at least one of his followers told Chamberlain ‘you should be congratulated on your great success in the counties’, Brett, R. to Chamberlain, J., 9 12 1885, J. Chamberlain papers JC 5/27sol;3Google Scholar.

36 Salisbury, Lady to Cecil, Edward, n.d. 04 1885, Cecil-Maxse papers, West Kent Record Office, U 1599/C/709/2Google Scholar.

37 Edward Hamilton Journal, 4 Dec. 1885, fo. 37 (I am grateful to Mr John France for allowing me to draw on his research for this quotation).

38 Chaplin, to salisbury, , 20 04 1886, Salisbury papers, in France, J. ‘The Unionist party 1886–1895,’ unpublished Cambridge University thesis (forthcoming)Google Scholar.

39 Farquarson, H. R., ‘Mor e tillage: a plea for the farm labourers’,Motional Review no. 66, 04 1888, 762–3Google Scholar.

40 For the arguments on the position of agriculture see Offer, Avner, Property and politics (Cambridge, 1981), chs. xii, xiiiGoogle Scholar.

41 For these proposals see ibid. pp. 207–9.

42 Ibid.

43 In 1888 Joseph Chamberlain expressed anxiety about the ‘action of the Gladstonians on the Allotments Association’ and informed Viscount Wolmer that ‘we ought at once to start a new labourers’ league and put Collings at the head of it’, Chamberlain, J. to Wolmer, , 13 03 1888, Selborne papers, MS Selborne 8, fo. 1Google Scholar. The Rural Labourers' League thus came into being and Chamberlain strongly recommended support for the organization to Balfour in 1892, see Chamberlain, J. to Balfour, , 6 02 1892, Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49773, fo. 33Google Scholar. By 1894 Collings, who indeed had been established as the League's president, reported that 3,000 localities had been visited and that £1,500 was needed to keep the League's newspaper The Rural World in circulation, Collings, J. to Chamberlain, J., 24 11 1894Google Scholar, J. Chamberlain papers, J C 5/16/38. Collings evidently got his money for as late as 1910 the League's secretary J. L. Green was claiming great successes in the county constituencies on the Conservatives' behalf, Green, J. L. to Milner, , 1 07 1910, Milner papers, MS Milner Dep 36, fo. 213Google Scholar. Bimetallism was strongly supported by the agricultural interest in the evidence given before both the Royal commission on currency in 1888 and the Royal commision on agriculture which sat between 1892 and 1895. With regard to the Bimetallic league's financial support the secretary of the London branch, H. R. Beeton, told H. S. Foxwell, the leading bimetallist economist, that he wanted to ‘start a guarantee fund payable over five years of £100,000–approaching … the great territorial Lords–The Dukes of Sutherland, Norfolk, Devonshire, Westminster, Portland, Rutland and Derby, Ellesmere, Egerton of Tatton ought to be good for £5,000 to £15,000 each’, Beeton, H. R. to Foxwell, H. S., 17 07 1894. Foxwell papers, in the possession of Mr R. D. FreemanGoogle Scholar. Five months later Beeton could inform Foxwell that ‘the success of the guarantee fund is assured’, Beeton, to Foxwell, , 21 10 1894, Foxwell papersGoogle Scholar.

44 See Moore, D. Cresap, The politics of deference (London, 1968)Google Scholar.

45 Dunbabin, J. P. D. has interestingly argued that the creation of single-member seats was the most important electoral reform ever. ‘Parliamentary elections in Great Britain 1868–1900: a psephological note’, English Historical Review, LXXXI (1966), 82–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Thompson, F. M. L., English landed society in the nineteenth century (London 1963)Google Scholaris the most helpful survey here.

47 Ibid. p. 147.

48 ‘Letters from Ruricola (the earl Carnarvon)’, National Review, no. 14, 04 1884, 233Google Scholar.

49 For these conflicts see Dunbabin, J. P. D., Rural discontent in nineteenth century Britain (London, 1974)Google Scholar.

50 Howorth, H. to Balfour, , 16 06 1885, Balfour papers, Whittinghame collection, National Library of Scotland (I am grateful to Mr John France for this quotation)Google Scholar.

51 Wolmer, to Salisbury, , 9 09 1891, Salisbury papers, Hatfield HouseGoogle Scholar.

52 Rossendale was not, technically, a borough constituency, but its electorate was largely made up of urban, working-class voters from the industrial towns it contained. The Conservatives in feet lost the by-election on a 92 per cent poll.

53 On the complexities of the post – 1885 franchise see Blewett, Neal, ‘The franchise in the United Kingdom’, Past and Present, XXXII, 32 (1965), 27–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Marsh, P., The discipline of popular government (Brighton, 1979), pp. 195–6Google Scholar. That the Conservatives still adhered to this strategy in the Edwardian period is illustrated by the Memorandum produced by the Conservative chief whip Acland-Hood, concerning the timing of the general election, in 1905. In this Memorandum Hood referred to ‘the advantage which, according to tradition, accrues to us from taking an election upon an old register’, Memorandum from Acland-Hood, to Sandars, , 10 04 1905, Sandars papers, MS Eng. Hist, c 750. fos. 62–5Google Scholar. The significance of the ‘old register’ of course being that it ensured a lower number of available voters.

55 Powell-Williams, to Chamberlain, J., 15 05 1892, Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49773, fo. 41Google Scholar.

56 Cornford, J., ‘The transformation of Conservatism in the late-nineteenth century’, Victorian Studies, VII, I (1963), 35–6Google Scholar, passim.

57 Smith, P., Lord Salisbury on politics (Cambridge, 1972), p. 95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

58 This interpretation is based on Hamer, D. A., Liberal politics in the age of Gladstone and Rosebery (Oxford, 1972), chs. VI, VIIGoogle Scholar.

59 Blewett, , The peers, p. 21Google Scholar.

60 Ibid. p. 24.

61 See Clarke, P. F., Lancashire and the new Liberalism (Cambridge, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 See Blewett, The peers, and Russell, A. K., Liberal landslide (London, 1973)Google Scholar.

63 Clarke, Lancashire.

64 Ibid. also Douglas, Roy, ‘Labour in decline’, in Brown, K. (ed.), Essays in anti-Labour history (London, 1974)Google Scholar.

65 Chamberlain, J. to Law, Bonar, 19 09 1906, Bonar Law papers, 21/1Google Scholar.

66 Iwan-Muller was editor of the strictly orthodox Daily Telegraph, and was, furthermore, Balfour's golf partner.

67 Iwan-Muller, , ‘Some thoughts on the present discontents’, dated 13 02 1906Google Scholar, Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49796, fos. 117–59.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.

70 Ibid.

71 Salisbury, to Selborne, , 19 09 1906, Selborne papers, MS Selborne 5, fos. 110–17Google Scholar.

72 Balfour of course had lost his own seat in east Manchester.

73 Balfour, to Chamberlain, J., 15 09 1906, J. Chamberlain papers, JC 21/1/1Google Scholar.

74 Stanley, toChamberlain, A., 15 09 1906, A. Chamberlain papers, AC 7/2/2Google Scholar.

75 Garvin, to Maxse, , 4 04 1906, Maxse papers, 455 S 295Google Scholar.

76 Holland, to Lyttelton, , 17 09 1906, Chandos papers, Churchill College Library, CambridgeGoogle Scholar, CHAN 5/13.

77 Salisbury, to Selborne, , 19 09 1906, Selborne papers, MS Selborne 5, fos. 110–17Google Scholar.

78 Ibid.

79 Maxse, to Law, Bonar, 2 09 1907, Bonar Law papers, 18/3/28Google Scholar.

80 Chamberlain, A. to Balfour, , 24 10 1907, Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49736, fos. 21–32Google Scholar.

81 Maxse, , ‘Episodes of the month’, National Review, no. 285, 11 1906, 374Google Scholar.

82 Balfour, to Chamberlain, A., 17 09 1906, A. Chamberlain papers, AC 7/2/1Google Scholar.

83 In November 1907 Balfour noted after a conversation with W. A. S. Hewins, one of the leading Radical Conservative intellectuals, that Hewins had stressed the point that ‘what is dangerous in the present situatìon is the permeation of the ordinary Liberal Party with Socialistic ideas’. Memorandum of Balfour's conversations with Hewins on 1, 3, 4 Nov. 1907, Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49779, fos. 117–28. For a full discussion of the Radical Conservative view of this development see ch. IV of my forthcoming thesis.

84 Chamberlain, A. to Balfour, , 24 09 1910, Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49736, fos. 21–32Google Scholar.

85 Chamberlain, J. to Goulding, E., 23 09 1906, Wargrave papers, House of Lords Record Office, WAR 2Google Scholar.

86 Garvin, to Maxse, , 4 04 1906, Maxse papers, 455 S 295Google Scholar.

87 Chamberlain, A. to Balfour, , 24 10 1907, Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49736, fos. 21–32Google Scholar.

88 Chamberlain, J. to Balfour, , 4 08 1902, Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49774, fos. 7–12Google Scholar.

89 Chamberlain, J. to Balfour, , 9 09 1902, J. Chamberlain papers, JC 11/5/10Google Scholar.

90 There is an interesting rehearsal of Chamberlain's arguments is Sykes, , Tariff reform, pp. 55–77Google Scholar, but the best source is still Chamberlain's speeches, see Boyd, C. (ed.) Speeches of the right honourable Joseph Chamberlain (2 vols., London, 1913)Google Scholar, II, passim.

91 J. Chamberlain in conversation with Gwynne, H. A., diary, Gwynne, 1 12 1903, Gwynne papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Gwynne box 27Google Scholar.

92 Chamberlain, J. to Maxse, , 13 03 1905, Maxse papers, 453 S 25Google Scholar.

93 Stanley, to Chamberlain, A., 27 09 1906, A. Chamberlain papers, AC 7/2/8Google Scholar.

94 Morpeth, to Maxse, , 25 09 1906, Maxse papers, 455 S 295Google Scholar.

95 Sanderson, E. to Chamberlain, A., 8 09 1906, A. Chamberlain papers, AC 7/2/8Google Scholar.

96 Garvin, to Maxse, , 4 04 1906, Maxse papers, 455 S 295Google Scholar.

97 Chamberlain, A. to Balfour, , 24 10 1907, Balfour papers, Add. MSS 49736, fos. 21–32Google Scholar

98 Two drafts of the ‘unauthorized programme’ are to be found in Bonar Law papers 18/4/75. According to the letter accompanying the drafts the programme had been drawn up by Milner. J. W. Hills, Leo Amery and Fabian Ware, and had also been approved by both Joseph and Austen Chamberlain. Ware, F. to Law, Bonar, 29 09 1908, Bonar Law papers, 18/4/75Google Scholar.

99 All of those listed appear regularly in the U.S.R.C. ranks. Ashley was the U.S.R.C. ‘house economist’, and Hewins too was a regular economic adviser. Hills and Sykes were parliamentary members of the committee, with Hills being chairman of the subcommittee dealing with industrial unrest. Littl e work has been devoted to the U.S.R.C. but some interesting facets of its work are revealed in its publications, such as Industrial unrest (London, 1914)Google Scholar and Poor law reform: a practical programme, (London, 1912)Google Scholar.

100 Lord Milner et al., ‘Unionism’ (being the title of the ‘unauthorized programme’). Bonar Law papers, 18/4/75.

101 Ibid. The electoral successes referred to here are undoubtedly those of the by-elections in Mid-Devon and S. Hereford in Jan. 1908. The Radical Conservative press certainly made much of these elections. The Outlook declared that ‘at these elections the cause of reform was presented boldly and intelligently to the voters. There was nothing of the old apologetic timidity which was perhaps the best election-loser ever invented’, The Outlook, 15 Feb. 1908, 223. Similarly the National Review saw the preaching of a psoitive policy as the secret of these successes, ‘Episodes of the month’, National Review, no. 301, Mar. 1908, 29–31. The Morning Post was even more unequivocal, declaring that ‘given unhesitating leadership…no…constituency can any longer be held against Tariff Reform’, Morning Post, 20 Jan. 1908, 10.

102 Lord Malmesbury, ‘Unionist philosophy’, in ibid. pp. 1–17.

103 Courthope, W. J., ‘Party government and the empire’, National Review, no. 319, 09 1910, 65Google Scholar.

104 Garvin, J. L., ‘Free trade as a socialist policy’, National Review, no. 295, 09 1907, 49Google Scholar.

105 Milner, to Dawkins, , 5 04 1902, Milner papers, MS Eng. Hist, c 688. fos. 17–18Google Scholar.

106 Chamberlain at Birmingham, 9 July 1906. Boyd, , Speeches, II, 364Google Scholar.

107 Curzon, G. N., ‘Conservatism and young Conservatives’, National Review, no. 47, 09 1887, 579–80Google Scholar.

108 ‘A Conservative M. P.’, ‘Reasons for a coalition’, National Review, no. 133, 03 1885, 26Google Scholar.