The Strange Death of Liberal

While George n 1868 John Bright had also a key actor in the great Liberal famously declared Birming- schism of 1886, represented the city Dangerfield’s Iham to be as Liberal as the sea in parliament from 1857 until his entertaining classic The is salt. From 1886 until 1969 no death in 1889. Chamberlain, singled Liberal represented any Birming- out by the Irish Nationalist leader Strange Death of Liberal ham constituency, and in the years as ‘the man before the outbreak of war in 1914 who killed Home Rule’, went on England (1935) must the Liberal Party was also strug- to play a critical role in the making be taken with a large gling to maintain a minority pres- and shaping of Unionism, assert- ence on a City Council it had once ing a control over Birmingham’s pinch of salt, there can so effortlessly monopolised. Bir- politics without parallel anywhere mingham’s politics did not fit easily else in urban Britain. The tenta- be no gainsaying the into the national trend and its polit- cles of Chamberlain’s influence strange death of Liberal ical behaviour has been described as reached out also into the region of ‘exceptionalism’, the main feature which Birmingham was the heart, Birmingham. Strange, of which was the consistent sup- his hegemony in the three counties port given by an overwhelmingly adjacent to Birmingham conceded because a city which working-class electorate to par- by his fellow Unionist leaders. As ties conventionally described as the Birmingham Liberals were for half a century had right wing. Birmingham therefore driven relentlessly to the sidelines, had a plausible claim to seemed to defy the generalisation it was fatally easy for them to pin that politics was becoming increas- their travails on ‘the cult of per- being the most Radical ingly class-based. This pattern con- sonality’: understandable but not tinued through successive decades in itself a sufficient explanation. in Britain became, in the and was not finally broken until There were of course other factors aftermath of ‘the great 1945. The ‘exceptionalism’ of Bir- at work, by no means all peculiar mingham and, to a lesser extent, its to Birmingham. Whilst the dam- geological rift’ of 1886, region had an important bearing age done to the party by the schism on national politics, underpinning of 1886 is undeniable, it has been a principal stronghold the hegemony of the Conservative commonly argued by historians of Unionism, and Party in the years between 1886 and that the drift away from Liberal- 1906 and again in the two decades ism was already evident a decade more especially of its between the wars.1 or so earlier. Theodor Hoppen, for Right: Joseph The interplay of personalities is instance, discerned a trend of disaf- Liberal variety. Roger Chamberlain one of the more intriguing dimen- fection among the middle classes in Ward examines the speaking at sions of politics, the importance of the 1870s: Birmingham which should never be underesti- strange death of Liberal Town Hall in the mated. Birmingham was for a gen- Disraeli, by some imperceptible 1890s, watched eration the power base of Joseph and probably passive process, Birmingham. by his wife Chamberlain, while John Bright, was more and more successful in

16 Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 The Strange Death of Liberal Birmingham

making the Liberal Party seem dangerous to men of property.2

In the specific case of Birmingham, Asa Briggs perceived:

… signs of resistance to the long Liberal sway, signs which can be traced in the local press, in municipal election results, in pamphlets and political squibs, and in the School Board campaigns.3

On this reading, the split over Irish home rule, however crucial, was not the sole reason for the crisis which kept the Liberal Party out of power for two decades, however much it may have accelerated trends already in train. Birmingham, Eng- land’s second city, provided the most spectacular example of Lib- eral decline.

Prelude The 1870s have often been referred to as ‘the Liberal Golden Age’ in Birmingham’s political history. In truth, this description could well be applied to the first half-century of Birmingham’s existence as a parlia- mentary borough from 1832 and an incorporated borough from 1838. Thirteen men represented Bir- mingham in parliament between 1832 and 1886. All, with the single exception of Richard Spooner from 1844 to 1847, were Radical Liberals.

Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 17 the strange death of liberal birmingham

When the first borough council prepared for battle in characteris- of proposals upon which all their was elected on Boxing Day 1838, tic fashion by launching a series of potential supporters could agree all successful candidates were Lib- reform proposals which George rendered them politically impotent, erals, notwithstanding that Tories Goschen dubbed ‘the unauthor- but questions concerning Britain’s had contested all forty-eight seats. ised programme’. The Birming- trade policy and its relationship to In 1865 the Birmingham Liberal ham Conservative Association Empire became part of Britain’s Association (BLA) was formed. In (BCA) had enormously improved table talk from the 1880s onwards.6 1868 it was reorganised to defeat its organisation in the previous Its effect on Liberal ideology should the minority clause of the Second few years and expectations were not be underestimated. For many, Reform Act of 1867 and ensured aroused by the patronage of Lord especially among middle-class that all three Birmingham MPs Randolph Churchill, who calcu- entrepreneurs, Cobdenism ceased were Liberals. The ‘caucus’, as Dis- lated that success in Birmingham to be a matter of faith as Britain raeli dubbed the BLA, was widely would be the quickest route to experienced bouts of depression recognised then and later as the political advancement. He pitched in an era of intensifying economic most effective political organisa- himself against John Bright in the competition. tion of its day and was widely imi- Central Division where many busi- Fair trade was, however, tated, not least by its Tory critics. nessmen were located. The ‘cau- reduced to insignificance when Its theory of representative gov- cus’ duly went into action and the compared to the issue of Ireland. ernment was a simple one – winner Conservatives were repelled in all Parnell had committed the strate- takes all – and it enforced a Liberal seven divisions, Churchill losing gic blunder of throwing the Irish monopoly on all elected positions. to Bright by a margin of 773 votes. vote behind the Tories and his Purging the council of opponents Though a disappointment for the eighty-six MPs were just sufficient of reform, it provided the platform BCA, it could take comfort from its to maintain Salisbury’s government for the -led combined poll of some 23,000 votes in office. It was an unstable situa- ‘municipal revolution’ of the 1870s against the Liberals’ 34,000, a mod- tion which could not last, and in which, together with his militant est improvement on 1880 and par- December Herbert Gladstone’s fly- role in the National Education ticularly on 1874 when it had failed ing of ‘the Hawarden kite’, inform- League, established his national to field a candidate. Its performance ing the press that his father was reputation as ‘the most outstanding in municipal elections, however, contemplating the establishment of mayor in English history.’4 In 1876 continued to be dismal and the evi- a parliament in Dublin, signalled a he replaced George Dixon as Bir- dence of this led Michael Hurst to new and momentous departure. In mingham’s third MP and quickly reject Briggs’ contention that the January 1886 the government fell established a reputation as a leading Tories were making progress.5 as a result of an amendment to the Radical. In 1877 he founded and The result of the general elec- Chamberlain address composed by Chamberlain led the National Liberal Federation tion of November 1885 fell short of believed that and proposed by Collings. The Lib- (NLF) with the intention of making Liberal expectations. Chamberlain eral split began at that point, Lord it a platform for a Radical push for believed that his proposals for the his proposals Hartington and his Whig followers control of the party. In 1880 Glad- provision of allotments and small- declining to join Gladstone’s third stone reluctantly included him in holdings (‘three acres and a cow’) for the provi- administration. his government as president of the had had a positive effect in rural The events that followed pro- Board of Trade and in campaigning constituencies but lamented the sion of allot- vide an exemplary illustration of strenuously for the Third Reform absence of ‘an urban cow’. Cham- the importance of personal relations Act of 1884 he was placing himself berlain attributed the comparative ments and in politics. Chamberlain, offered firmly in the Birmingham tradition strength of the Tories in urban con- the Admiralty in the new admin- laid down by Thomas Attwood and stituencies to fair trade propaganda, smallhold- istration, understandably refused John Bright. Thanks to his close which was a prominent issue in a and requested the Colonial Office friendship and alliance with Sir general election for the first time. ings (‘three instead. This was rejected by Glad- Charles Dilke at the Local Govern- All seven Tory candidates in Bir- stone, who considered the position ment Board, Birmingham received mingham espoused fair trade with acres and a of Secretary of State to be above favourable treatment in the Redis- varying degrees of enthusiasm and Chamberlain’s status and experi- tribution of Seats Act of 1885. Its the same was true in large parts of cow’) had ence. The two men settled on the parliamentary cohort increased the region. ‘I believe the serious appropriate but junior office of the from three to seven, a level at which cause of failure was the Fair Trade had a posi- Local Government Board. Glad- it remained until 1918. cry to which sufficient attention stone compounded his poor man- Salisbury’s insistence on cou- has not been given by the Liberal tive effect in management by seeking to reduce pling the Redistribution Act with Party’, wrote Chamberlain to a rural constit- the junior ministerial salaries of the Third Reform Act was rooted friend. As president of the Board of Chamberlain’s acolytes Jesse Coll- in the calculation that the transi- Trade in the previous government uencies but ings and . Har- tion from the list system to sin- it had fallen to his lot to defend free court, the new Chancellor of the gle member constituencies would trade, which he had done trench- lamented Exchequer, stepped into the row advantage the Conservative Party. antly. He was aided and abetted by and persuaded Gladstone to change This system change, together with the old warhorse John Bright, who the absence his mind. It was a grave error to the enfranchisement of some two accused the Tories of returning to alienate Chamberlain, a good million new voters, made the gen- protection ‘like a dog to his vomit’. of ‘an urban friend to those willing to subordi- eral election of 1885 a particu- The failure of the fair trad- nate themselves to his imperious larly intriguing one. Chamberlain ers to come up with a coherent set cow’. will but an implacable opponent.

18 Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 the strange death of liberal birmingham

Already he harboured an animus His proposals Frank Schnadhorst, secretary of of reform there. But the obstruc- against Parnell, whom he believed both the BLA and the NLF. On 21 tionist behaviour of Parnell’s party to have reneged on an agreement for reforms in April, Chamberlain made his case at Westminster and the multi- to support his proposed reforms of to a crowded and excited meeting ple acts of violence committed by Irish local government, and against Ireland had of the Liberal ‘2000’. Whatever his nationalists both in Ireland and on Cardinal Manning and the Irish inner feelings he dared not attack the mainland had disgusted him. bishops who had first encouraged consistently Irish home rule in principle and Bright took to calling the Irish and then discouraged a proposed centred his criticism on Gladstone’s Nationalists the ‘rebel party’ and visit to Ireland. Chamberlain’s feel- stopped proposals and especially on non- suspected that they hated England ings of antipathy towards the Glad- retention of Irish MPs at Westmin- more than they loved Ireland. He stone–Parnell combination made short of inde- ster, a test of whether or not Ireland did not believe that they would his acquiescence to anything they pendence. To would remain a part of Great abide by any agreement and feared proposed less likely. His own pro- Britain. By expressing its contin- for the predominantly Protestant posals for the reform of local gov- Chamberlain, ued confidence in Chamberlain, people of Ulster. It was Bright who ernment in Ireland, which would the meeting endorsed his demand coined the phrase ‘Home Rule have entailed the establishment of Ireland was for amendments to the bill but Dr is Rome Rule’.8 Bright was, as a central board in Dublin, had been Robert Dale, the chairman, made it always, his own man. He resisted rejected in Cabinet in the previous not a nation clear that Gladstone’s leadership of the blandishments of Gladstone May. Insinuations on the part of his the party was not in question. Dale, and refused to join either of the critics that he had shown inconsist- but a prov- a Congregational minister and Unionist factions but he did send ency on the question of Irish inde- chairman of the Central Noncon- a letter to Chamberlain stating pendence cannot be sustained. His ince which formist Committee, was a highly his intention to vote against the proposals for reforms in Ireland had influential figure in Birmingham second reading of the bill, a let- consistently stopped short of inde- must remain politics, sympathetic to Cham- ter Chamberlain used to stiffen the pendence. To Chamberlain, Ire- berlain but anxious to protect the backbones of potential refuseniks. land was not a nation but a province subject to the unity of the Liberal Party. Cham- Bright’s known opposition was which must remain subject to the berlain had surmounted one hurdle also, of course, a great asset in Bir- imperial parliament at Westmin- imperial par- but suffered a sharp setback in May mingham where he was trusted, ster. He agreed to join the govern- when, at a meeting of the NLF in even revered. Shannon is not alone ment since Gladstone had not yet liament at London, Gladstone was given an in believing that the ‘most damag- revealed his hand. When Gladstone enthusiastic vote of confidence and ing blow struck at Gladstone was did so, Chamberlain drew the infer- Westminster. Chamberlain came under sharp by Bright’.9 ence that the proposals would lead and very personal attack. The Bir- The alienation felt by Bright was inevitably to Irish independence mingham delegates all resigned and no doubt widespread. Many peo- and on 26 March 1886 he resigned the headquarters of the NLF was ple were shocked by the violence along with Sir George Trevelyan, moved from Birmingham to Lon- which seemed inseparable from the Secretary of State for Scotland. The don. Gladstone was plainly win- Irish nationalist cause. The atti- animus between Gladstone and ning the contest for Radical hearts tude expressed by a Birmingham Chamberlain became more overt and minds. The loss of the NLF journal, The Gridiron, was widely when, on 9 April, Gladstone several entailed the loss of Frank Schnad- replicated: times interrupted Chamberlain’s horst who moved to London where resignation speech, claiming – erro- he became a close adviser to the Whilst Birmingham leads the neously – that Chamberlain did Prime Minister. Chamberlain was van in every struggle for free- not have the Queen’s permission to bitterly offended by the actions of dom, she has no sympathy for refer to a proposed Land Purchase the NLF, upset too by the growing the cut-throats who mutilate Bill which had been discussed in gulf between himself and erstwhile women and maim cattle, and call Cabinet but not yet in parliament. friends and allies, especially John that a struggle for freedom.10 It was, as Lord Randolph Church- Morley and Sir Charles Dilke. ill so aptly said, ‘diamond cut dia- Among those seeking to console Any animus felt towards the Irish mond’. The Liberal split deepened Chamberlain was John Bright: cannot be explained by reference as Chamberlain set about rallying to large-scale immigration. Pelling Radical opposition to Gladstone’s Jealousy is the great enemy of estimates the Irish population of proposals. union and Birmingham has Birmingham to have been no more been too large and too earnest to than 1 per cent and considers them please those affected by envy.7 to have been well integrated into The reaction in Birmingham the community.11 Retaining support in his stronghold Bright’s own opposition to Glad- The view expressed by Salisbury in Birmingham was vital to Cham- stone’s Home Rule Bill was a huge that the Irish were no more fit for berlain. Even here, where his sup- asset to the Unionists, the doubts self-government than the Hotten- port was greatest, it was a high-risk and suspicions many Liberals felt tots was dismissive and contemptu- strategy to set himself against the about Chamberlain’s conduct could ous but may have struck a chord.12 GOM, whose charisma and author- scarcely apply to Bright, a great In nailing the Liberal Party’s col- ity was so much greater than his moral force – especially among ours to the mast of Irish home rule own. Already supporters warned Nonconformists. For much of and choosing partnership with Par- him of currents of criticism, which Bright’s life he had been a friend of nell as opposed to seeking compro- he came especially to associate with Ireland and a consistent supporter mise with the Unionists in his party

Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 19 the strange death of liberal birmingham

Gladstone was, as it proved, court- Birmingham and Joseph Powell Williams. Both League.15 Chamberlain had been ing electoral disaster. under Kenrick and Powell Williams were at pains to express his support for On 7 June 1886 the second read- Chamberlain: the Chamberlain acolytes, bound to trade union principles and had cul- ing of the Irish Home Rule Bill Bull Ring in the him by personal loyalty. Bright, tivated leading trade unionists such was defeated by 343 to 313. Of the 1880s of course, was very much his own as W. J. Davis, founder and leader ninety-three Liberals who voted man and so too was Dixon, who of the Brassworkers’ Society, whom against, at least two-thirds looked by no means always saw eye to eye he had sponsored for election to to Hartington for leadership, but with Chamberlain. In his address the Birmingham School Board in most of the obloquy fell on Cham- to the electors of Edgbaston, Dixon 1876 and the town council in 1880. berlain. Cries of ‘Judas’ and ‘Trai- set out his objections to home rule, When Chamberlain stood for Shef- tor’ pursued him as he left the making it plain that his main objec- field in 1874 it was at the invitation chamber and Parnell famously tion was to Gladstone’s proposed of the Sheffield Trades Council.16 muttered ‘There goes the man who Land Bill which he feared could The Unionists therefore could killed Home Rule’. Again Bright cost the British taxpayer as much reasonably expect to command sought to console him. In a letter as £150 million.14 Dixon, was, and support from across the electoral dated 28 August 1886 he wrote: remained, a very committed free spectrum. The remaining two MPs trader and may have been influ- had voted with the Gladstonians, I look on this chaos with some- enced by Parnell’s hints that an though reluctantly. Broadhurst thing like disgust – and won- independent Ireland would resort was a protégé of Chamberlain but der that anyone should place to protection. On the positive side, saved his patron embarrassment by the blame anywhere but on Mr. Dixon advocated agrarian reform deserting Birmingham for Not- Gladstone, at whose door lies the and a devolution of powers which tingham. Chamberlain seized the confusion which prevails.13 would be capable of extension to opportunity to bring in his friend other parts of the United Kingdom. and ally Jesse Collings, recently Gladstone dissolved parliament The five Unionists represented a unseated in Ipswich for electoral and appealed to the electorate in formidable phalanx. All were suc- fraud. Collings, a former alderman what became a very confused gen- cessful men of business and all but and mayor, was a popular figure in eral election. In Birmingham a Bright could boast a distinguished the town but nevertheless met with middle group led by Dr Dale and record of municipal service and of considerable opposition among J. T. Bunce, editor of the Birming- philanthropy. There could be little the Liberals of Bordesley, many of ham Daily Post and the most influ- doubt that their objection to home whom expressed a preference for ential publicist of his time in the rule would carry great weight Schnadhorst, evidence of unrest Midlands, was highly sympathetic among Birmingham’s middle-class among activists at the grass roots. to Chamberlain but was above all voters. These men, and especially The remaining division, East Bir- anxious to retain the unity of the Chamberlain and Dixon, also had mingham, posed by far the greatest Liberal Party. This could best be great credibility with the organ- problem. Alderman William Cook, done by returning all existing Lib- ised working class. The Birming- a pin and rivet manufacturer, was a eral MPs. Five of the seven had ham Trades Council had given much respected figure in the town come out for Unionism: Chamber- firm support to their campaigns and in 1885 had defeated Churchill’s lain, Bright, Joe’s brother-in-law for education reform and had affili- protégé Henry Matthews. Cook William Kenrick, George Dixon ated to the National Educational had voted in the Gladstonian lobby

20 Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 the strange death of liberal birmingham but he subsequently declared him- was an Irish nationalist MP, John between the 316 Conservatives and self ready to support amendments Redmond. There was growing the 191 Liberals and their 86 Irish to the bill, making it more difficult evidence, too, of Gladstonian sup- Nationalist allies. The majority, to oppose his re-election. port in the Divisional Councils – the followers of Hartington, found Division among Liberals was opposition to Collings in Bordesley cooperation with the Tories con- by no means Chamberlain’s only and Kenrick in North Birmingham genial. Not so the Radical Union- worry. The long persecuted Bir- while even Dixon in Edgbaston was Alarmed by ists, who found themselves aligned mingham Tories were not unnatu- requested to support in the coming with groups they had previously rally delighted by Liberal disarray parliament ‘a measure for the estab- the drift of regarded as enemies and rivals. and sought to reap electoral advan- lishment of a legislative assembly Their discomfort was reflected in tage. They were hindered, how- in Ireland for the control of Irish Liberal opin- defections and a number of by- ever, by Salisbury’s decision not affairs’.19 election defeats. Chamberlain’s to oppose the return to parliament Alarmed by the drift of Liberal ion Cham- personal support was estimated of Liberal Unionists. The mutual opinion Chamberlain responded berlain by observers to be no more than a hostility of Conservatives and Lib- characteristically by convening a dozen, a ‘family and friends’ fac- eral Unionists would be a perennial meeting in the Birmingham and responded tion. The situation of the Radi- feature of Birmingham politics for Midland Institute to form his own cal Unionists was precarious and years to come, manifesting itself pressure group, the National Radi- character- many people believed that it was especially in municipal elections in cal Union. The attendance was only a matter of time before they which the issue of Ireland appeared depressingly small and attendees istically by returned to the Liberal fold or faced an irrelevancy.17 Chamberlain could plainly hear the sounds of oblivion. dared not be seen openly to coop- the larger gathering across Cham- convening Reunion, however, depended on erate either with Salisbury’s Tories berlain Square.20 The election a willingness to compromise. Per- or Hartington’s faction although that followed in July, however, a meeting sonal factors intruded. Gladstone he was surreptitiously in contact brought some relief. The five sit- and Chamberlain’s ex-friend John with both. His conduit to the Tory ting MPs were returned unop- in the Bir- Morley believed that Chamberlain, Party was the idol of the Birming- posed while Collings convincingly battered by both Gladstonian Liber- ham Conservative Association beat off the challenge of Lawson mingham als and resentful Tories on his home (BCA), Lord Randolph Church- Tait in Bordesley, with a major- patch, had no choice but to surren- ill, a curious friendship springing ity of over 3,000 on a low poll of 49 and Midland der to their terms. They mistook up between them. Churchill per- per cent. Somewhat surprisingly their man. A crucial step towards suaded him that the East Birming- Matthews defeated Cook in East Institute permanent severance was the fail- ham division was the necessary Birmingham, on a poll of 62 per ure of the Round Table Confer- price to be paid for Tory support cent, which can be accounted for to form his ence of January and February 1887, and Chamberlain resolved to bite by a combination of Tory support own pres- a conference held at Harcourt’s the bullet. The decision to support and Liberal abstentions. Matthews and Trevelyan’s houses in London. Matthews’ candidature against became the first Tory MP to rep- sure group, , Gladstone’s mouth- Cook was one that members of the resent Birmingham since 1847 and piece, rejected any moves towards middle group such as Dale found the first Catholic to sit in a British the National Chamberlain’s formula for local difficult to swallow, Dale himself Cabinet. Chamberlain could once government and land reform in speaking in support of Cook.18 It again boast ‘We are seven’ but this Radical Ireland set out in his ‘Unionist Plan is reasonable to surmise that many time the seven were all Unionists. for Ireland’ published by Bunce in Liberal electors abstained. The Gladstonians were denied the Union. The the Birmingham Post. At the end of As the general election opportunity to rally against Mat- February Chamberlain effectively approached it was the Gladstoni- thews in the by-election made nec- attendance broke off negotiations by publish- ans who fired the first shot. On 7 essary by his appointment as Home ing a defiant letter inThe Baptist: June 1886 the local press reported Secretary, failing to put up a candi- was depress- ‘poor little Wales’, Scottish crofters the formation of the Birming- date in the face of dispiriting can- and English agricultural labour- ham Home Rule Association. The vass returns. ingly small ers were all being sacrificed because initiators were two councillors, Historians have interpreted the of Irish disloyalty. The resulting Dr Robert Lawson Tait, a distin- result of the July 1886 general elec- and attend- recriminations ended the last seri- guished surgeon and chairman of tion not merely in terms of a reac- ous attempt at Liberal reunion.21 the Health Committee, and T. I. tion against Irish home rule but as a ees could Chamberlain was engaged in a Moore a town councillor and a reaction, on the part of more afflu- high-risk strategy. In the spring all stockbroker. The association soon ent sections of society, to grow- plainly hear the town’s wards held their annual gave evidence of considerable sup- ing working-class unrest and the the sounds meetings to elect representatives to port. At its first rally ten days emergence of socialist organisa- the Liberal ‘2000’. In several it was later, in the town hall, its platform tions such as the SDF and later the of the larger apparent that the Gladstonians had included a number of local notables ILP, as well as growing concerns gained the upper hand. Nechells – George Tangye, J. A. Langford, about the state of the economy. gather- ward passed a vote of confidence in Frank Wright, the councillor son The shift was particularly marked Gladstone, St Thomas’s a motion of the late John Skirrow Wright, among intellectuals such as A. V. ing across condemning coercion in Ireland. Alderman William Cook, George Dicey, who came out in force in Four of the five vice-presidents Baker and several other council- support of Liberal Unionism. With Chamberlain elected in Harborne ward were lors including the Labour leader their seventy-eight MPs the Liberal Gladstonians and Unionists con- Eli Bloor. The principal speaker Unionists held the balance of power Square. ceded defeat by walking out of the

Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 21 the strange death of liberal birmingham meeting. When the ‘2000’ met on His brother Arthur meanwhile some residue of the Bright magic. 15 April, with George Dixon in the had been warning him to expect The BLA chose as their candidate chair, the Gladstonian A. C. Osler, bad news. On St Patrick’s Day, Phipson Beale, a member of an elite a glass manufacturer, was elected 17 March, the Home Rule Asso- family related to the Chamberlains. president. Alderman Hart, sec- ciation held a well-attended rally, In this, the most important by-elec- onded by Frank Wright, proposed the main speakers being Richard tion in Birmingham history, Bright a motion condemning coercion in Tangye and the Irish Nationalist was victorious, polling 5,621 votes Ireland and when Powell Williams MP William O’Brien, denounced to Beale’s 2,561.25 This surprisingly and William Kenrick tried to speak by Bunce in the Post as ‘an intem- On 5 April the large margin came as a devastat- against the motion they were met perate and unscrupulous fanatic’.23 ing blow to the BLA, a portent of with ‘offensive chaff’ and denied a Shortly afterwards the Gladstoni- long awaited a bleak future. The BLUA victory hearing. The Gazette commented ans mounted their expected assault came after a sequence of lost by- gleefully on the proceedings: on the ward committees, achieving breach in elections nationally and vindicated clear majorities in ten out of eight- the BLA was Salisbury’s and Balfour’s belief that for continuous and outrageous een. The Post declared the result Chamberlain was an electoral asset tumult, disorder, personal to be ‘absolutely decisive as to the finalised. well worth nurturing. Chamber- recrimination, general turbu- future control of the association’. lain now felt safe in cooperating lence, and indeed everything On 5 April the long awaited breach At a meet- more openly with the Tories. At short of physical violence, there in the BLA was finalised. At a meet- a meeting in Birmingham of the was nothing for years to equal ing in the town hall, Chamberlain ing in the National Union of Conservative the meeting of the Birmingham launched the Birmingham Lib- Associations in November 1891, he Liberal Association, the ‘2000’ eral Unionist Association (BLUA), town hall, appeared on the same platform as on Saturday night.22 in effect throwing in his lot with Salisbury and declared ‘I neither Hartington. The BLUA dupli- Chamberlain look for nor desire re-union’. Joint When the NRU held its second cated the BLA in every respect save Unionist committees were formed annual meeting shortly afterwards one – its members were required launched to prepare for a coming general Chamberlain admitted that the to make a declaration in support election in 1892. schism in the party was ‘complete of the Union. Under the leader- the Birming- The general election of July 1892 and irretrievable’ and indicated ship of Powell Williams the BLUA came as a severe blow to the BLA. that he saw closer cooperation with set out to organise in every divi- ham Liberal Liberals contested all Birming- the Tory Party as the only way sion and reported a ready response. ham constituencies except George forward. Encouraged by enthusiastic reports Unionist Dixon’s seat in Edgbaston. All the of canvass returns by Powell Wil- Unionist candidates were success- We shall be taunted I suppose liams, his chief of staff, Chamber- Associa- ful, the smallest majority (2209) with alliance with the Tories. At lain wrote ebulliently to his fiancée tion (BLUA), that of Matthews. Of the 46,000 least, ladies and gentlemen, our in the US: votes cast in the six constituencies allies will be English gentlemen in effect the Liberals received some 13,000 and not the subsidised agents of a My new organisation is going – less than one-third of the poll. foreign conspiracy. like wildfire. I will give my throwing in In Aston Manor Grice-Hutchin- opponents a taste of my qual- son defeated a Labour opponent However, he stopped short of advo- ity and teach them not to tread his lot with by a margin of over 4,000. Not cating a complete withdrawal from on my tails again … I will see surprisingly tributes to Cham- the Liberal Party and the NRU if I cannot kick every single Hartington. berlain’s talents as an electioneer was enjoined to continue to battle Gladstonian out of the Coun- poured in, Churchill describing for the hearts and minds of Liberal cil, and replace them with good The BLUA the victories as ‘Napoleonic’. Bal- Party members. Unionists.24 four was equally complimentary. In October ‘the English gentle- duplicated What emerges clearly from the 1892 men’ offered him relief, Salisbury results is that Liberal Unionism appointing him head of a delega- Defeat and decline the BLA in had attracted support from all sec- tion to negotiate a fisheries agree- The first electoral test of the respec- tions of the Birmingham commu- ment with the United States. He tive strengths of the BLA and the every respect nity as well as tipping the balance left in October 1887 and did not BLUA came as a result of the death throughout ‘the Duchy’, where return until the following March. of John Bright on 28 March 1889. save one thirty-three of the thirty-nine con- Although the agreement reached It became the occasion of a major stituencies returned Unionists. was not ratified by the Senate, row between Chamberlain and – its mem- The decision of the Tory leader- Chamberlain impressed all parties the BCA, whose leaders Sir James bers were ship to sustain and support Cham- with his acumen and his energy. Sawyer and Joseph Rowlands berlain and their conviction of his The visit recharged his batteries, as claimed that they had been prom- required to usefulness as ‘an electoral fairy did his engagement to Mary Endi- ised the reversion of the central godfather‘ entailed an accept- cott, daughter of the Secretary for Birmingham seat. This Chamber- make a dec- ance, however grudging, that they War, who shortly became his third lain denied and at every stage the must accede to some at least of his wife. He returned to England to be Liberal Unionist claim to the seat laration in demands for social reform. His given a rousing reception, the Bir- was backed by Balfour and Salis- organisational flair, his insistence mingham Town Council honour- bury. Shrewdly, the choice of can- support of on measures of social reform and ing him with the freedom of the didate fell on John Bright’s eldest his growing espousal of imperial- borough. son, Albert Bright, thus retaining the Union. ism found increasing support in the

22 Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 the strange death of liberal birmingham

Tory Party, especially among urban Joe’s formula Liberal victory, underlining Cham- ‘plumbing the depths of infamy and Tories who tended to identify berlain’s organisational efficiency. party malice’. 26 Six Unionist MPs Chamberlain as the heir to Church- of ‘a vote for Gladstone’s final attempt at passing were returned unopposed together ill’s ‘Tory Democracy.’ There were a Home Rule Bill gained a major- with Evelyn Cecil in Aston. Only also those of course who feared and the Liberals ity of thirty-four in the Commons in East Birmingham, the most resented Chamberlain’s influence but was contemptuously dismissed industrialised constituency in the and, as it proved in 1903, not with- is a vote for in the House of Lords by 419 votes city, were the Liberals able to field out cause. to 41. Gladstone resigned in March a candidate, the ‘Lib-Lab’ J. V. One very noticeable feature of the Boers’ 1894 to be replaced by Rosebery Stevens of the Tinplate Workers’ the election was the failure of the and a new phase of division and Union. Stevens had earned fame Liberal grandees – the Cadburys, was bitterly internal strife followed. Gratefully by defeating Austen Chamber- the Tangyes, the Oslers and other resented Rosebery took the opportunity lain in a municipal election in 1889 elite families who had remained to resign following a trivial defeat and would go on to become a stal- faithful to the Liberal cause – to by Liberals in the Commons in June 1895. wart of the nascent Birmingham stand against the experienced and Salisbury’s third administration Labour Party. The sitting MP, Sir battle-hardened Unionists. In their and earned included not only Chamberlain Benjamin Stone, was considered desperate search for suitable can- as Colonial Secretary but Powell vulnerable, having neglected his didates the BLA turned more and a magiste- Williams, Jesse Collings, and Aus- parliamentary duties to pursue his more to organised labour among ten Chamberlain in junior posts. obsession for photography. Never- whom sympathies largely lay with rial rebuke Chamberlain also secured a gener- theless Stone’s majority comfort- Liberalism. In 1892 Liberal can- ous share of honours for his sup- ably exceeded 2,000. didates included two of Birming- from Camp- porters, underlining his role as ‘the An issue on which Liberal ham’s most influential trade union Great Elector’ and the political boss Unionists and Liberals were accus- leaders, W. J. Davis of the Brass- bell-Banner- of his West Midlands ‘Duchy’. tomed to see eye to eye was educa- workers’ and Eli Bloor of the Glass- Further electoral humiliation tion. Protests against the abortive workers’, both city councillors. The man who for the Liberals followed in 1895 Education Bill of 1896 had been led era of ‘Lib-Labism’ had begun. The and again in 1900. In July 1895 the by George Dixon, chief spokesman strategy of partnership with organ- accused him BLA contested four of Birming- of the Midland Education League, ised labour, however, had a num- ham’s seats but only Alderman and Chamberlain had been threat- ber of drawbacks. In Birmingham, of ‘plumbing Cook polled more than 2,000 votes, ened at the time with defections with its great diversity of trades, losing heavily to Collings. The even in his own constituency.27 The trade unionism tended to be frag- the depths of combined Liberal vote amounted issue returned to haunt him in 1902 mented and the Trades Council infamy and to barely one-fifth of the total poll, with the introduction by Balfour of to be ideologically torn between a worse performance than in 1892. a new Education Bill. Attempts by securing representation in conjunc- party malice’. Large Unionist gains were made Chamberlain and other Birming- tion with the Liberal Party and in the ‘Duchy’, no Liberal being ham MPs to amend the bill were pressing for independent represen- returned in either Warwickshire unavailing, leaving Chamberlain tation. The choice of labour leaders or Worcestershire. One Liberal angry and fearing the electoral con- as Liberal candidates may also have gain was recorded in the Stafford- sequences. Writing to the Duke of accelerated the middle-class drift to shire constituency of Lichfield but Devonshire he expostulated: Unionism in an increasingly class- H. C. Fulford, a wealthy brewer based political system. A failing of and the main financial mainstay of I told you that the Education the BLA was its oligarchic nature the BLA at that time, was unseated Bill would destroy your own and it did not always appear hos- on appeal. party. It has done so. Our best pitable to its working-class allies, In Salisbury’s words the dec- friends are leaving us by scores in spite of George Cadbury’s gen- ade-long struggle over Ireland had and hundreds, and they will not erosity in providing finance on ‘awakened the slumbering genius come back.28 numerous occasions. The BLA was of British imperialism’ and impe- reluctant to incorporate ‘Lib-Labs’ rial issues, especially the future of The bill passed into law in Decem- into its management structures, South Africa, dominated this era ber 1902 and the resulting disaf- which remained heavily dependent in British politics with Ireland rel- fection among Liberal Unionists on a small circle of mainly wealthy egated to the margins. The elec- together with public disillusion- men. Social distance was thus tion of 1900 was called at a moment ment with the conduct and after- maintained. Finally, the Liberals when it appeared that the Boer War math of the Boer War formed a had to contend with Chamberlain’s had ended in victory. The election favourable backdrop for the next tactic of launching ‘unauthorised was widely regarded as ‘Joe’s elec- electoral opportunity for the BLA, programmes’, challenging their sta- tion’, just as the war had frequently occasioned by the death of Pow- tus as the party of social reform. In been depicted as ‘Joe’s War’. ell Williams in February 1904. their brief spell of office from 1892 The results largely replicated To capitalise on Nonconformist to 1895 Gladstone once again pur- those of 1895 and in this election opinion the BLA chose as its can- sued the Irish issue to the exclusion the BLA touched rock bottom. Joe’s didate Hirst-Hollowell, secretary of the social reforms promised in formula of ‘a vote for the Liberals of the Northern Counties Educa- the Newcastle programme. is a vote for the Boers’ was bitterly tion League. In spite of the Post The 1892 result in Birmingham resented by Liberals and earned a reporting ‘a remarkable revival’ and in neighbouring constituen- magisterial rebuke from Campbell- in Liberal support,29 the result fol- cies occurred in a year of overall Bannerman who accused him of lowed the same depressing pattern,

Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 23 the strange death of liberal birmingham

Lord Morpeth, son of the Earl of Birming- Benjamin Stone in East Birming- Liberals retained a not insignifi- Carlisle who had seen service in ham by the comparatively narrow cant representation of twenty-eight South Africa, being returned with a ham’s margin of 585 votes. In constituen- councillors, while Labour obtained majority of over 3,000. cies bordering on Birmingham the a foothold for the first time with By the time of the South Bir- ‘astonishing picture was similar, with the single six representatives.32 Only in the mingham by-election the politi- exception of North Worcestershire municipal field, it seemed, could the cal scene had been transformed. transforma- where the Cadbury influence pre- once mighty BLA hope to retain a On 15 May 1903, after instruct- vailed and the Liberal candidate, meaningful presence, thanks largely ing his chief agent, Charles Vince, tion’, the J. W. Wilson, a former Liberal to the continuing loyalty of sections to assess the likely reaction in his Unionist who had crossed the floor of the Nonconformist community. ‘Duchy’, Chamberlain launched near total of the House in protest against the From 1910 to 1928 the president of his attack on free trade. Having eclipse of Lib- Education Act, was returned to the BLA was Arthur Brampton, a resigned from Balfour’s Cabinet Westminster. The ‘exceptionalism’ cycle manufacturer and, like a num- in September, he set out his pro- eralism, can of Birmingham and its neighbour- ber of his fellow Liberals, a Wes- gramme in a speech in Glasgow in ing constituencies could not have leyan Methodist. In January 1910 October. The pressure group he be explained been more clearly demonstrated. he stood against Ebenezer Parkes, created, the Tariff Reform League, In all the fifteen regions into which an ironmaster, in the Central Divi- attracted the support of power- on a num- Pelling divides Britain, excluding sion, losing by a margin of over ful business interests and an influ- Ireland, the Liberals secured the 4,000 votes. As the results were ential section of the press and has ber of levels: majority of seats in all but one – the announced he expressed what had been described as ‘the most power- West Midlands. become the common mantra of ful propaganda machine that Brit- the failures In July 1906, following the many in the BLA. ish peacetime history has seen’.30 remarkable celebrations in Bir- Characteristically Chamberlain set of Liberals mingham to mark his seventi- They only had to listen to the up a related but separate organisa- eth birthday, Chamberlain was sounds rising from the street to tion in his ‘Duchy’, the Imperial themselves removed from active politics by find the answer to the question Tariff Reform League. Opposition a disabling stroke, the leadership why they had been defeated. It to tariff reform on the part of Bir- both at the of Birmingham Unionism pass- consisted of one word ‘Joe’. To mingham Unionists was not insig- ing into the somewhat querulous that argument the Liberals had nificant, even affecting his own grass roots hands of his elder son Austen. In no answer. Mr. Chamberlain family, but it was dealt with ruth- and in the the two elections of 1910, however, had been followed faithfully lessly.31 Chamberlain, however, was there was no significant change. In for thirty years and there was unable to assert comparable control higher ech- January 1910 the BLA fought but no hope for anyone who dared over the Unionist Party as a whole lost in five constituencies while a oppose his nominee. and it became increasingly faction- elons of the Labour candidate, Fred Hughes, alised and demoralised. A remark- was defeated by Collings in Bord- Birmingham’s ‘astonishing trans- able Liberal revival was soon under party; the esley. The window of vulnerability formation’, the near total eclipse way, leading to the landslide vic- in East Birmingham was closed by of Liberalism, can be explained tory of January 1906. Irish obses- Arthur Steel-Maitland’s comfort- on a number of levels: the fail- As public opinion turned deci- able victory over J. J. Stephenson, ures of Liberals themselves both sively against tariff reform, the sion; the a trade union official. The Liberal at the grass roots and in the higher BLA seemed to have the best chance effort receded in the December echelons of the party; the Irish for twenty years to win back popu- decline of 1910 election, a challenge being obsession; the decline of Noncon- lar support and to claw back seats mounted in only three of the Bir- formity; a loss of faith in free trade; in Birmingham and the ‘Duchy’. Nonconform- mingham constituencies. and the charisma and the organ- Unfortunately for the Liberal In municipal elections the BLA ising power of Chamberlain, the cause, a Liberal revival did not ity; a loss benefitted from the residual loyalty most professional politician of his occur. In 1904 the new President of many who had otherwise gone day, with his record of assiduous of the BLA, Frank Wright, inher- of faith in over to the Unionists and Cham- service to Birmingham, his intui- ited an organisation which was now berlain was never able to implement tive understanding of the shift- widely written off as moribund. free trade; his promise to purge the council of ing interests of the entrepreneurial Although in the general election all Gladstonians. The BLA retained middle class from which he sprang of 1906, in contrast to 1900, the and the cha- a significant, if minority, presence and his careful cultivation of work- BLA was able to field candidates in risma and and it was not until 1894 that Con- ing-class support in a city in which all seven Birmingham constituen- servatives began to outnumber Lib- class divisions were less marked cies, they were a disparate bunch, the organis- erals on the city council. In 1911 than elsewhere. In Birmingham consisting of Liberals motivated Birmingham was transformed by he was ‘Our Joe’, genuinely popu- principally by Nonconformist ing power of the Greater Birmingham Act and a lar and trusted in way that he was anger over Balfour’s Education Act, new council of 120 councillors and not in the wider community. He ‘Lib-Labs’, Socialists and even ren- Chamberlain. aldermen was put in place in ‘a mini proved himself to be, in Roy Jen- egade Unionists. All were heavily general election’ in November. The kins’ words, ‘an electoral phenom- defeated with only James Holmes results showed that it was the BCA enon without parallel’. of the Amalgamated Society of which now commanded the greatest Railway Servants coming within support, forty-five Conservatives Roger Ward is a Visiting Professor in the touching distance of breaking the outnumbering the forty-one Liberal Department of Law and Social Sciences Unionist monopoly, losing to Sir Unionists in the new council. The in Birmingham City University, and the

24 Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 the strange death of liberal birmingham author of City State and Nation Coventry and Wolverhamp- (2012), chapter 9, but beware of Table Conference of 1887 (1967). 1830–1940 (2005) and of numer- ton (Ph.D. thesis, University of references to Birmingham which 22 Birmingham Daily Gazette, 2 June ous articles on Birmingham history Birmingham, 1978). contain errors and his quixotic 1887. and the Chamberlains. He is cur- attempts to recruit J.B. for the 23 Birmingham Daily Post, 19 March rently working on The Chamber- 1 H. Pelling, Social Geography Tory Party. 1888. lains: an Urban Dynasty, to be of British Elections (1967), p. 9 R. Shannon, Gladstone: Heroic 24 J. L. Garvin, Life of Joseph Cham- published in 2015 by Fonthill and 181; chapter 9, ‘West Midland Minister 1865–1898 (1999), p. 446. berlain, vol. ii (1933), p. 356. on a chapter on the politics of Bir- Region’, pp. 175–203. 10 The Gridiron, 22 Jan. 1881. 25 Beale had no better luck in mingham in a forthcoming history of 2 K. T. Hoppen, The Mid-Victorian 11 Pelling, Social Geography, p. 176. neighbouring Aston Manor, los- Birmingham to be published by the Generation 1846–1886 (Oxford, 12 A. Roberts, Salisbury: Victorian ing to a Tory, Grice Hutchinson, Liverpool University Press. 1998), p. 268. Titan (1999), pp. 384–5. in a by-election in March 1891. 3 A. Briggs, , 13 J. Chamberlain, Political Memoir 26 J. Wilson, CB: A Life of Sir Henry vol. ii, Borough and City 1865– (1953), p. 232. Campbell-Bannerman (1973), p. 1938 (1952), pp. 175–177. 14 Address to the Electors of the 338. Bibliographical Note 4 P. Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain: Edgbaston Division of Birming- 27 Birmingham Daily Gazette, 19 Many of the themes to be found Entrepreneur in Politics (1994), p. 58. ham, 22 June 1886. May 1896. in this article are treated in 5 M. C. Hurst, Joseph Chamberlain 15 J. Corbett, The Birmingham Trades 28 Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain, p. greater detail in my book City- and West Midland Politics 1886– Council 1866–1966 (1966), p. 34. 538. state and Nation: Birmingham’s 1895, Dugdale Society Occa- 16 Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain, p. 99. 29 Birmingham Daily Post, 23 Feb. Political History 1830–1940 sional Papers No. 15 (Oxford, 17 Hurst, Chamberlain and West 1904. (2005). The best biographies 1962), pp. 28–9. Midland Politics, pp. 45–51. 30 R. Jay, Joseph Chamberlain: A of Joseph Chamberlain are by 6 B. H. Brown, The Tariff Reform 18 A. W. W. Dale, Life of R. W. Dale Political Study (Oxford, 1981), p. Peter Marsh and Richard Jay, Movement in Great Britain 1881– of Birmingham (1898), p. 464. 277. both footnoted in the text. 1895 (New York, 1966). 19 Birmingham Daily Gazette, 19 31 R. J. Ward, City-state and Nation: Detailed analysis of the struc- 7 G. M. Trevelyan, The Life of John June 1886. Birmingham’s Political History tures and personnel of the BLA Bright (1913), p. 45. 20 Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain, p. 1830–1940 (Chichester, 2005), pp. can be found in R. A. Wright, 8 K. Robbins, John Bright (1979), 251. 162–168. Liberal Party Organisation pp. 82–5. See also Bill Cash, John 21 M. C. Hurst, Joseph Chamberlain 32 Birmingham Daily Post, 23 Nov. and Structure in Birmingham, Bright: Statesman, Orator, Agitator and Liberal Reunion: The Round 1911.

Lloyd George’s Tada – the one father he never knew! by Peter Rowland

Produced by PublishNation, a paperback biography of William George (1821–64), schoolteacher extraordinaire, will be available from Amazon in autumn 2014, marking the 150th anniversary of William’s death.

The book will run to approximately 300 pages. For additional information, visit www.peterrowland.org.uk.

Journal of Liberal History 82 Spring 2014 25