Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T16:55:46.451Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman And the Liberal Imperialists

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

George L. Bernstein
George L. Bernstein*
Affiliation:
Tulane University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was elected leader of the Liberal party in the House of Commons in January 1899, the party already was divided over the issue of imperialism. By the end of the year, the Boer War had accentuated that division. During the next six years, this disagreement over imperial policy was converted into a struggle between CB (as he was known to his contemporaries) and the Liberal Imperialists for control of the Liberal party. In the course of that struggle, Lord Rosebery, the leader of the Liberal Imperialists, repudiated CB's leadership; the Liberal Imperialists established their own organization, the Liberal League; and finally, the three most prominent Liberal Imperialists in the House of Commons—H.H. Asquith, Sir Edward Grey, and R.B. Haldane—tried to force CB to become a prime minister in the House of Lords before they would serve under him.

Despite the obvious talents of the men involved, the Liberal Imperialists failed in their efforts either to capture the Liberal party or to dislodge CB from his position as leader. Because CB's leadership in opposition has seemed weak, there has been a tendency, even on the part of his sympathetic biographers, to attribute his success in beating back the Liberal Imperialist challenge to pluck and luck rather than to political skill. CB was plucky in his willingness to stick with the thankless task of leading a divided party whose most prominent members—Rosebery, Sir William Harcourt, and John Morley—insisted on acting as alternatives to CB both as definers of policy and as focuses for the loyalty of Liberal M.P.s. CB was lucky in that the actions of the Unionist government of 1902-1905 reunited the fractured Liberals.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , Fall 1983 , pp. 105 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1983

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 See Stansky, Peter, Ambitions and Strategies: The Struggle for the Leadership of the Liberal Party in the 1890s (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar, chap. v.

2 Spender, J.A., The Life of the Right Hon. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, G.C.B. (London, 1923)Google Scholar. Wilson, John, CB: A Life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (New York, 1973)Google Scholar.

3 Hamer, D.A., Liberal Politics in the Age of Gladstone and Rosebery: A Study in Leadership and Policy (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar. Hamer applies his interpretation to the entire period from 1868 to 1905. See Russell, A.K., Liberal Landslide: The General Election of 1906 (Newton Abbot, 1973)Google Scholar, chap. 7, for a discussion of the reasons for the Liberal victory in 1906. See Koss, Stephen E., Nonconformity in Modern British Politics (Hamden, Ct., 1975)Google Scholar, chaps. 2 and 3, for a discussion of the role of the Nonconformists.

4 Matthew, H.C.G., The Liberal Imperialists: The Ideas and Politics of a Post-Gladstonian Elite (Oxford, 1973)Google Scholar.

5 Spender, Campbell-Bannerman, recognizes the crucial role of rank-and-rile support to CB's position as leader, but does not use this fact as a basis for analyzing CB's actions. Wilson, CB, seems to agree with contemporary assessments that it was miraculous that CB's leadership survived the Boer War; see p. 390.

6 The best discussion of the leadership crisis of the 1890s is Stansky, Ambitions and Strategies, chaps. III-V. James, Robert Rhodes, Rosebery: A Biography of Archibald Philip, Fifth Earl of Rosebery (New York, 1963)Google Scholar, and Hamer, , Liberal Politics, pp. 246–61Google Scholar, reveal Rosebery's weaknesses as a leader. Harcourt's are evident even in the sympathetic official biography, Gardiner, A. G., The Life of Sir William Harcourt (New York, 1923), vol. IIGoogle Scholar.

7 Heyck, T. W., The Dimensions of British Radicalism: The Case of Ireland, 1874-95 (Urbana, 1974), pp. 167–77Google Scholar. Heyck demonstrates how the Radicals took over the party after the Home Rule split in 1886.

8 The role of the NLF and its relationship with the leadership is developed in greater detail in Bernstein, George L., “Liberalism and the Liberal Party in Britain, 1899-1908” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1978), pp. 40–50Google Scholar. This argument challenges the thesis developed by Hamer, Liberal Politics, in two important ways. First, Hamer doubts that there was a liberal ideology which could serve to unify Liberals. Second, as a result Hamer sees no means of overcoming Liberal sectionalism apart from the identification of an over-riding issue that could transcend sectional concerns.

9 , 4, Hansard 77: 157-60, 367–72 (October 17, 1899)Google Scholar. Several Liberal Imperialists like Robert Perks, William Robson, and John Lawson Walton were absent from the vote on Dillon's amendment.

10 See CB's speeches at Manchester, and Birmingham, , The Times, November 16, 1899, p. 10Google Scholar; November 25, 1899, p. 8.

11 The Times, November 27, 1899, p. 5Google Scholar; December 18, 1899, p. 3. Asquith thus differed from the extreme Liberal Imperialists, who were not prepared to accept any criticism of the government while the war was going on.

12 National Liberal Federation, Proceedings in Connection with the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Federation (London, 1900), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

13 See speeches by Grey, Fowler, Spencer, and Asquith on the settlement; The Times, March 21, 1900, p. 6Google Scholar; May 17, 1900, p. 12; April 20, 1900, p. 8; April 25, 1900, p. 7; May 11, 1900, p. 7; May 26, 1900, p. 12. See CB's speech at Glasgow on annexation, ibid., June 8, 1900, p. 7.

14 Hansard 86: 1259–62 (July 25, 1900)Google Scholar gives the division list. British Library, Viscount Gladstone Papers (HGP), Add. MS 46105, fol. 101, is a list of the abstainers. The Annual Register (London, 1900), p. 165Google Scholar, gives the number of Liberals on each side of the division. For earlier pro-Boer activity, see reports on the meetings of the Free Church Council in the Independent, March 22, 1900, p. 186Google Scholar; of the NLF in Proceedings (1900), pp. 63–71Google Scholar; and of the Home Counties Liberal Federation in The Times, May 11, 1900, p. 7Google Scholar.

15 The Liberal Imperialists clearly expected CB to resign and were preparing to bid for the leadership of the party. See National Library of Scotland, Haldane to Rosebery, July 25, 1900; Robert Perks and Grey to Rosebery, July 26, 1900, Rosebery Papers (RP), MS 10029, fols. 103-08; 10050, fols. 72-73; 10028, fols. 93-94.

16 Pakenham, Thomas, The Boer War (New York, 1979), p. 548Google Scholar. Chapters 37-41 discuss British strategy during the last year and a half of the war.

17 The importance of changing the focus of attack from the origins to the conduct of the war is noted by Taylor, A.J.P., The Troublemakers (London, 1957), p. 109Google Scholar; however, this process began well before CB's “methods of barbarism” speech.

18 For Perks's views, see his letters to Rosebery, September 22, October 7, 19, November 3, 1900, RP, MS 10050, fols. 88-89, 99-102, 107-8, 112-17. CB, however, always believed that Perks was trying to drive him from the leadership. British Library, CB to Ripon, October 29, 1900 (copy), Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman Papers (CBP), Add. MS 41224, fols. 129-30. Bodleian Library, CB to Bryce, October 29, 1900, Bryce Papers (BrP) unsorted, Box 21.1 would like to thank the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland for permission to quote from Perks's letter to Rosebery.

19 This judgment is based on Matthew, , Liberal Imperialists, pp. 64–66Google Scholar; Robbins, Keith, Sir Edward Grey: A Biography of Lord Grey of Fallodon (London, 1971), pp. 90–91Google Scholar; National Library of Scotland, Haldane to his mother and sister, June 26, 28, July 8, 1901, Haldane Papers (HP), MS 5965, fols. 235-36, 239-40, 6010, fols. 182-85; Jenkins, Roy, Asquith: Portrait of a Man and an Era (New York, 1966), p. 127Google Scholar; Koss, Stephen, Asquith (New York, 1976), pp. 53–55Google Scholar.

20 Gladstone's memorandum, July 30, 1901, HGP, Add. MSS 46105, fols. 210-13. Bodleian Library, Letter to Asquith, Asquith Papers (AP), Vol. 10, fols. 5-8, The Times, July 10, 1901, p. 10Google Scholar.

21 The Times, July 17, 1901, p. 7Google Scholar; July 20, 1901, pp. 12, 15.

22 AP, Vol. 10, fols. 27-32. Rosebery's position was condemned by leading articles in the Leicester-Daily Mercury, Leeds Mercury, and Eastern Daily Press, July 17, 18, 20, 1901.

23 The Times, November 7, 20, 1901, p. 10Google Scholar. NLF, Proceedings (1902), p. 37Google Scholar. Gladstone to Rosebery, December 13, 1901 (copy), HGP, Add. MSS 45986, fols. 44-45. Letters to Rosebery from Arthur B. Markham, August 18, 1901, and J.A. Spender, October 2, 1901, RP, MS 10115, fols. 51-52, 107-10. These views were confirmed by A.H.D. Acland and C.P. Trevelyan after the Chesterfield speech, RP, MS 10115, fols. 308-09, 10029, fols. 151-54.

24 Spender to CB, December 22,1901, CBP, Add. MS 41236, fols. 253-56. For the Chesterfield speech, see The Times, December 17, 1901, pp. 10–11Google Scholar.

25 Asquith, Grey, and Fowler accepted Rosebery's statement in speeches at Chesterfield. For examples of pro-Boer responses, see F.A. Channing to CB, December 20, [1901], and C.P. Scott to CB, December 29, 1901, CBP, Add. MSS 41213, fols. 68-69, 41236, fols. 259-60; George Cadbury to Lloyd George, December 19, 1901 (copy), HGP, Add. MSS 46059, fol. 103; Koss, Stephen, Sir John Brunner, Radical Plutocrat, 1842-1919 (Cambridge, 1970), p. 190Google Scholar.

26 Quoted in Wilson, , CB, p. 371Google Scholar.

27 CB's letters to Bryce, James and Spender, J.A. are quoted in Spender, Campbell-Bannerman, II, 16–18Google Scholar, Copies of letters to Lord Ripon, C.P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian, and Harold Spender of the Daily News, and a reply from Morley are in CBP, Add. MSS 41224, fols. 205-07; 41236, fols. 257-58,266-68; 41223, fols. 77-80. His letter to Gladstone is in HGP, Add. MSS 45987, fols. 213-14. Rosebery left an account of the meeting which, apart from its reference to Irish Home Rule, is completely different from CB's. The two are not, however, incompatible. Rosebery merely focused on the issues of interest to him: the Holborn restaurant speech, CB's bitterness over Liberal Imperialist behavior in Scotland, and CB's clear pro-Boer sympathies. See LordCrewe, , Lord Rosebery (London, 1931), II, 573–74Google Scholar.

28 John Sinclair (CB's secretary) to Gladstone, December 25, 1901, HGP, Add. MSS 45995, fols. 34-39.

29 For Gladstone's position, see his letters to Bryce, December 22, 1901, BrP, unsorted, Box 7; Sinclair, December 24, 27, 1901, HGP, Add. MSS 45995, fols. 30-33, 42-43; CB, December 28,1901, CBP, Add MSS 41216, fols. 179-80; Asquith, December 31, 1901, AP, Vol. 10, fols. 41-42. CB to Asquith, January 7,1902, AP, Vol. 10, fols. 52-53. For letters urging CB to make a conciliatory response to the Chesterfield speech, see those of Bryce, January 3, 1902; J. A. Spender, January 5, 1902; Spencer, January 8,1902; Gladstone, January 9, 1902; CBP, Add MSS 41211, fols. 190-91; 41236, fols. 279-80; 41229, fols. 151-53; 41216, fols. 189-90. The Times, January 14, 1902, p. 9Google Scholar.

30 The Times, February 15, 1902, p. 9Google Scholar; February 17, 1902, p. 12 (Rosebery's speeches); February 20, 1902, p. 7 (CB's speech); February 21, 1902, p. 6 (Rosebery's letter).

31 Quotations are from Rosebery's speeches at Chesterfield and Liverpool, The Times, Dec. 17, 1901, pp. 10–11Google Scholar; Feb. 17, 1902. p. 12.

32 See, for example, Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth, M.P., to his constituency chairman (copy), CBP, Add. MS 41221, fol. 45; Rev.Horne, C. Silvester in the Examiner, January 23, 1902, p. 67Google Scholar; John Macpherson (chairman, Central Edinburgh Radicals) to Rosebery, February 21, 1902, RP, MS 10168, unsorted; Principal Rainy to Haldane, February 25, 1902 (copy), HP, MS. 5905, fol. 162.

33 Liberal Imperialist views on domestic policy are admirably summarized, in all their ambiguity and contradictions, in Matthew, Liberal Imperialists, chaps, iv and vii. They are placed in the broader context of liberalism in Bernstein, “Liberalism and the Liberal Party,” chaps, iii and iv. This interpretation disagrees with that offered in Semmel, Bernard, Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social-Imperial Thought, 1895-1914 (Garden City, 1968)Google Scholar, chap. vi.

34 Matthew, Liberal Imperialists, chaps, v and vi. Again, Matthew demonstrates how little agreement there was among the Liberal Imperialists themselves, apart from the most general statements of principle.

35 Matthew, Liberal Imperialists, chap, viii, discusses the Liberal Imperialist position on Ireland. Bernstein, , “Liberalism and the Liberal Party,” pp. 125–37Google Scholar, places the Liberal Imperialist policies in the context of developments in the rest of the party.

36 The Times, January 3, 1903, p. 11Google Scholar. CB could adopt this position so effectively because he really believed in the principles of liberalism. See his letter to Spencer of February 19, 1900, quoted in Wilson, , CB, p. 326Google Scholar.

37 For Gladstone's hostility, see his letter to J.M. Paulton, January 31, 1903 (copy), HGP, Add. MSS 46060, fols. 116-20. For the problems of the League in the face of official opposition, see letters to Rosebery from Munro-Ferguson, June 19, 22, September 18, October 6, 1902, January 22, 1903, RP, MS 10019, fols. 145-49, 154-55, 167-68; and from John Fuller, MP, February 22, 1902; W. Allard, June 25, 1902; T. Gibson Carmichael, July 3, October 2, 1902; H. I[nnes?], September 25, 1902, RP, MS 10168. Gladstone's confidence is reflected in his letter to CB, November 16, 1903, CBP, Add. MSS 41217, fols. 35-36.

38 For a detailed discussion of the relationship between the Liberal League and official liberalism, see Bernstein, , “Liberalism and the Liberal Party,” pp. 137–46Google Scholar.

39 See, for example, Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth to CB, February 21, 23, 1902, and Rev. R.J. Campbell to CB, October 25, 1902, CBP, Add. MSS 41221, fols. 43-49, 41237, fols. 49-50; and editorial comments in the Examiner (Congregationalist weekly), March 13, 1902, p. 210Google Scholar, and the Eastern Daily Press, May 24, 1902, p. 4Google Scholar.

40 For the exclusion of the Liberal Imperialists from consultations on the Education Bill, see Asquith to Gladstone, April 30, 1902, HGP, Add. MSS 45989, fols. 68-71. For a devastating criticism by a sympathetic observer of CB's failure both to cooperate with the Liberal Imperialists and to organize an effective opposition in the House of Commons, see the articles by Spender, J. A. in the Westminster Gazette, May 19, 20, 1903, pp. 1–2Google Scholar.

41 The Times, November 9, 18, 1903, p. 7Google Scholar.

42 Augustine Birrell (president of the NLF) to Rosebery, November 29, 1903; correspondence between Lord Spencer (Liberal leader in the House of Lords) and Rosebery, December 17, 1903—January 4, 1904; correspondence between Lord Ripon and Rosebery, January 7, 8, 1904; Lord Tweedmouth to Rosebery, January 2, 1904; RP, MS 10117, fol. 181; 10062, fols. 278-90; 10059, fols. 285-87; 10118, fols. 1-2.

43 The most complete discussion of the Relugas compact and the negotiations leading to the formation of the Liberal cabinet is in Wilson, CB, chaps. 27-28. See also Jenkins, , Asquith, pp. 145–57Google Scholar; Matthew, , Liberal Imperialists, pp. 108–19Google Scholar; Koss, , Asquith, pp. 64–73Google Scholar; and Spender, , Campbell-Bannerman, IIGoogle Scholar, chap, xxvii, to balance Wilson's biases. CB himself had recognized that his health might preclude his taking a position of heavy responsibility in the next Liberal government, and Gladstone had passed this information on to Asquith in a letter on October 29, 1903; see Jenkins, , Asquith, p. 142Google Scholar.

44 Written upon CB's death, British Congregationalist, April 30, 1908, p. 411Google Scholar. Home is making a jab at Rosebery's preface to the published edition of the Chesterfield speech in which he called for spadework on behalf of the policy articulated in it.