sign in sign up
<<
Home , George Dixon (MP), John Bright

‘True to his principles’? , and Irish 1886 – 1889

In his 2012 biography, suggests that John Bright’s behaviour during the of 1886 revealed him to have become a Conservative by the end of his life. Cash’s reasoning was that Bright had, by 1886, become more concerned with preserving the and the unity of Great Britain than with the abstract concepts of ‘ and ’ that had dominated his political philosophy in his earlier career.1 Ian Cawood examines Cash’s claims and concludes that, to the contrary, Bright remained the epitome of radical Victorian Liberalism to the end of his life.

10 Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 ‘True to his principles’? John Bright, Liberalism and Irish Home Rule 1886 – 1889

f course, Bright was background, Bright blamed Ire- Nationalists in the Commons that famously poor at explain- land’s condition on the power of the they would win much greater sup- Oing his actions over the established Anglican church and the port if they confined themselves to home rule debate, rarely speaking wealth of the absentee Irish land- purely peaceful, constitutional lob- in public during these years and sel- lords. Bright had contributed to bying, which Cobden and Bright dom visiting , where the eradication of the first of these had pioneered with the Anti-Corn his constituency was located. In problems when the Irish Church Law League between 1838 and this way, he allowed others, most was disestablished in 1869, but the 1846. He persisted in referring to notably and land problem remained intracta- the Nationalists as ‘rebels’ and he the nascent Liberal Unionist Asso- ble. Bright personally believed that attacked the Conservatives for flirt- ciation, to present his behaviour in the landed estates should be broken ing with Charles Stuart Parnell ways that benefitted their agenda. up, stating that he ‘would give Ire- between 1883 and 1886. His dis- Cash, in what is otherwise a very land to the Irish.’ He was however, like of Parnell’s character and his good biography, has, however, per- not sure that the landlords could or impractical and foolish solutions to haps not placed Bright’s opposition should be bought out, and favoured the Irish problem (in Bright’s eyes) in the broadest possible context the idea of building up the Irish would be a decisive factor when the of contemporary Liberal attitudes small landowners with the compul- issue was forced to the front of the towards the idea of home rule. sory purchase of land from corpo- political agenda in 1886. Bright’s position on Ireland was rations or of private land capable of While Bright’s position on land much the same as that of Millicent cultivation, but left to waste after reform was crystal clear, his atti- Fawcett, T. H. Huxley, Herbert the depopulation of Ireland in the tude towards Irish demands for Spencer, Leonard Courtney and Sir 1860s. Bright, together with his political autonomy was far more John Lubbock, none of whom, even political mentor, , opaque. In 1868 he condemned after 1886, could be safely catego- believed that Ireland needed such the means whereby ‘the extinc- rised as ‘Conservative’. In contrast state intervention in order to cre- tion of the Irish ’ in to Cash, who interprets Bright as ate the crucial feature for a stable 1800 was achieved as ‘force and shifting his position in 1886, Rob- and workable political system, a fraud and corruption’ but, in the ert Walling, who edited Bright’s strong middle class.3 Even before same speech, he claimed that he diaries, regards him as ‘a Unionist by 1886, Bright favoured policies that much preferred to find the policies absolute and lifelong conviction.’2 cannot be reconciled with either whereby could render Bright had long taken an inter- historical or with present-day ‘Ireland content to be a portion of est in Ireland and had visited the Conservatism. a greater nation.’4 In the same year, country in 1832, 1849 and again Bright had been disappointed he described the political condi- in 1852 in order to see for himself by the 1870 Irish Land Act, as it tion of Ireland as ‘anarchy, which the condition of the country, find- had failed to create an Irish class is subdued by force’ but was non- ing there conditions that ‘move the of small landowners, but he had committal on the solution to this hardest heart’. As the Fenian disor- been increasingly concerned by the problem.5 When he was named as a ders of the 1860s spread he returned willingness of the Irish National- supporter of home rule by national- to Ireland twice and reported to the ist leaders to endorse (or, at least, ists in 1872, he actively demurred, House of Commons in 1866 that fail to condemn) the violence and issuing a public denial in which he Ireland was the only part of the intimidation of the Irish Land condemned the idea of ‘two legisla- to have become League. He endorsed the 1881 tive assemblies in the United King- poorer since becoming part of the Land Act with its guarantees of fair dom’ as ‘an intolerable mischief.’ United Kingdom. Perhaps unsur- rent, fixity of tenure and free sale, John Bright This was a rejection of the federal prisingly given his radical Quaker but as he did so, he lectured the (1811-89) solution for the United Kingdom,

Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 11 ‘True to his principles’? John Bright, Liberalism and Irish Home Rule 1886 – 1889 rather than mere anti-Irish preju- the struggling British taxpayer. disposal of a leader from whose dice, however. Although Bright When Gladstone announced pre- authority no appeal is allowed?’11 shared Gladstone’s desire to reform cisely this on 16 June 1886, Bright This dislike of Gladstone’s per- Westminster, where the National- noted in his diary, ‘scheme, in my ceived dictatorial tendencies united ists carried out a policy of obstruc- judgement, not a wise one.’9 He the leader of the moderate Union- tion which disrupted his second was, however, far more alarmed by ists, Lord Hartington, with the administration between 1880 and the Irish Government Bill, which leader of the radical Unionists, 1885, Bright preferred to retain did exclude the Irish members, but Joseph Chamberlain. The authori- the issue within the institution.6 insisted that Ireland should con- tarian approach which Gladstone Although seriously tempted by the tinue to pay £4.5 million to cover appeared to be taking to the Irish idea of excluding the Irish members customs, bureaucracy and defence. question was regarded by many, from Westminster, in July 1886, he As the Irish would have no MPs such as Bright, as contradicting the suggested that a special ‘Commit- in Westminster to scrutinise how founding principle of the Liberal tee For Ireland’ should be formed this money was spent, this violated Party: to protect the right of indi- of the Irish MPs, which would be the Liberal commitment that there viduals to hold firm to their princi- given the role normally reserved should never be ‘taxation with- ples.12 A Liberal was distinguished, for the whole house, of approv- out representation.’ Furthermore, according to Andrew Reid, by his ing or rejecting the second read- the Irish were to have a parliament ‘love of his own conscience more ing of any Irish bill. For Bright, the in , not merely a council, than the approval of the conscience advantage of such a scheme would which, Bright told Gladstone to his of the people’ and Gladstone’s capit- be that: face, was ‘surrender all along the ulation to the demands of Nation- line’ to what he termed ‘the Rebel alist Ireland led many to reject their You get the absolute control of Party’, who had used violence revered leader.13 Bright therefore the Irish members in their own and intimidation to gain political opposed the Home Rule Bills, not chamber at Westminster to representation.10 merely for their content, but for the arrange the clauses of [a] bill … Although Bright disliked both manner of their adoption. would shape it exactly as they Bills for consistently Liberal rea- At first Bright attempted to liked, and then it would be sub- sons, Gladstone’s lack of considera- refrain from committing himself mitted to the whole Parliament tion for the stated principles of his in the home rule debate. When … [who] would be willing … to own party was probably crucial contacted by the former Attorney defer to the opinions of the Irish in provoking Bright to join the General, Henry James, he refused Committee, and to accept the Unionist rebellion. As he wrote to to join the Liberal Unionist Com- measures they had discussed and William Caine, a fellow radical, Fig 1. ‘Et tu, mittee being organised by George agreed upon.7 ‘what will be the value of a party Brighté!’ Punch, 1 Goschen.14 In his election address to when its whole power is laid at the May 1886 his constituents in 1885, Bright had Like many Liberals, John Bright was therefore horrified when Wil- liam Gladstone, after falling sev- enteen seats short of a majority in the December 1885 general elec- tion, announced his conversion to the principle of Irish home rule, without any consultation with his colleagues or party. Bright, in common with others in his party, favoured some limited measure of local government in Ireland, in much the same way that they wanted rural to be con- trolled by elected councils. Bright had discussed a scheme of ‘County Councils for Ireland’ with Lord Dalhousie in autumn 1885, an idea not dissimilar to Joseph Cham- berlain’s ‘Central Board’ scheme.8 Bright also regarded Gladstone’s Land Law (Ireland) Act of 1881 as having provided suitable protection for the Irish tenant farmers and was reluctant to buy out the landlords as proposed in the Land Bill that would accompany the Government of Ireland Act. This would, he felt, compensate those Irish landlords who had ultimately caused the ten- sions in Ireland with the money of

12 Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 ‘True to his principles’? John Bright, Liberalism and Irish Home Rule 1886 – 1889

not mentioned the Irish Question Fig. 2. ‘Johnny outcome. While most of the more to attend the meeting. Bright had at all. When asked to offer support and Joey: or, the moderate Liberals supported the refused, stating that ‘I am not will- for Hartington when he faced his friend in need’ Whig leader, Hartington, the posi- ing to take the responsibility of own constituents at Rawtenstall, (Punch, 12 June tion of the radical faction, who advising others as to their course’ Bright did write a letter which was 1886) looked to Joseph Chamberlain for but he sent a letter stating his posi- reprinted in and which guidance, was the crucial factor in tion.18 As Chamberlain’s lieutenant, was subsequently widely quoted by Fig. 3. Gladstone the result in the Commons lobby. Joseph Powell Williams com- opponents of the Home Rule Bills defeated on the Although many regarded mented, ‘Old Bright’s letter is queer (see fig. 1). Bright described Har- first Home Rule home rule as a distraction from the but full of usefulness from what tington’s opposition to the Home Bill (St Stephen’s ‘unauthorised programme’ of social it implies.’19 Therefore although Rule Bills as ‘consistent and coura- Review, 12 June reform that they had endorsed in Bright clearly did not want the let- geous’. And further, he stated that 1886) 1885, the idea of joining forces with ter to be used in this fashion, Cham- the recent election had not been the Whigs, the moderates and, berlain then proceeded to read out fought on the issue: worst of all, the Tories, had made Bright’s letter, with its unequivocal many radicals waver in their oppo- decision to vote against the second It would be a calamity for this sition to the bills. reading, to the meeting.20 Chamber- country if measures of this When a meeting of fifty-two lain suddenly announced he would transcendent magnitude were to radical Unionist MPs was held on vote against the bill and those at the be accepted on the authority of 31 May at committee room 15 in meeting opposed to the bill then a leader of a party … to accept the Palace of Westminster, Joseph voted by forty-eight to four against this system would be to betray Chamberlain resorted to a desper- merely abstaining.21 Caine made the value [of constituencies] in ate stratagem in order to stem the sure that the press received the ver- the working of representative haemorrhage of his supporters sion of the meeting that stressed institutions.15 which had begun once Gladstone Chamberlain’s (and his) reluctance had announced his willingness to to take such a step: ‘We did our Bright himself had not even men- delay the third reading of the Home best … to induce them to abstain tioned the issue of Irish Home Rule Rule Bills.17 In order to retain his … If we could have got thirty who in his election address in 1885.16 credibility with the radicals in the would pledge themselves to abstain Although Bright played no audience, Chamberlain implied we were prepared to have recom- direct role in the desperate lob- that personally he would prefer mended that course, but we could bying that took place as the rival to abstain on the vote and claimed not.’22 leaders of the Liberal Party fought that he would simply follow what- Unsurprisingly, Bright was to secure their preferred outcome ever choice the meeting made. But alarmed that his letter had been for the Irish Home Rule Bills, he he had, on William Caine’s advice, used in a fashion that virtually inadvertently influenced the final written to Bright, imploring him guaranteed the defeat of the Home

Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 13 ‘True to his principles’? John Bright, Liberalism and Irish Home Rule 1886 – 1889

Rule Bill. He wrote to Chamber- Right: At least 2 millions of [the Irish corruption explained the massive lain the next day. people] are as loyal as the popu- Nationalist majorities in rural Ire- Fig 4. [Signs lation of your town, and I will land of 1885.29 If I had thought I should do above the figures be no party to a measure which Such was Bright’s influence over harm, I should have said some- read: ‘Dixon: very will thrust them from the gen- the electorate, not least among thing more or less. Even now, if easy-natured, so erosity and justice of the United Nonconformist voters in and it is not too late, I could join you anything for a and Imperial Parliament.26 around Birmingham, that Glad- in abstaining if we could save the quiet life’; ‘Bright: stone wrote a letter rebutting House and country from a disso- aged, grumpy!’; In early July, Bright made a further Bright’s charges which was pub- lution which may for the Liberal ‘J.C.: uncertain contribution to the radical rebellion lished in The Times the day after party turn out a catastrophe the temper, just against Gladstone that was spread- Bright’s speech was reported.30 magnitude of which cannot be divorced!’] (The ing across , Cornwall, Bright replied more in sadness than measured.23 Dart, 2 July 1886) East Anglia, and the West in anger, describing Gladstone’s Midlands. In a speech at Birming- behaviour as ‘a puzzle’ and protest- Of course, Chamberlain had man- Fig 5. ‘A dumb ham Town Hall, he claimed that ing, rather disingenuously, that ‘I aged to hang onto his radical cre- dog (Mr the Irish lacked the political matu- have not urged any man in Parlia- dentials through his misuse of BRIGHT has not rity which the northern English ment, or out of it, to vote against Bright’s letter and so had no inten- addressed his working class had demonstrated you.’31 His reply to a correspondent tion of meeting with the old radi- constituents during the ‘cotton famine’ of the later in the month could hardly be cal at this stage (fig. 2). Parnell, for for more than 1860s. misinterpreted, though: one, was not however fooled by twelve months.)’ Chamberlain’s public protestations (The Dart 25 They [the Irish supporters of The concessions to and the lib- and careful management of his February 1887) home rule] are less instructed, eral and, I hope, the wise legis- opposition. On seeing Chamber- they are less politically lation for Ireland by the united lain after the bill’s defeat by thirty informed, they are less wealthy, Parliament since the year 1866 votes, Parnell remarked, ‘there goes they are less industrious … and are enough to convince any the man who killed Home Rule.’24 they have the disadvantage of reasonable man that the inter- Gladstone, too, realised that the the sad, the melancholy and the ests of the United Kingdom events in committee room 15 had wicked teaching of this conspir- may be left to the Parliament of condemned his bill,25 but the press acy during the last six or seven Westminster.32 saw it rather differently (fig. 3). years.27 If Bright was actually far less In the general election, all the Lib- sure of his opposition to the Home Unlike the Conservatives, radical eral seats in Birmingham became Rule Bill, his mind was made up Unionists like Bright believed that Unionist and Bright’s influence was by the decision of Gladstone to dis- a nuanced combination of coercion recognised by George Dixon, when solve the House after the defeat and reform (chiefly land purchase) he was questioned by the philoso- on the second reading on 8 June. could improve the Irish charac- pher Henry Sidgwick: Bright knew that the split over the ter so that some degree of self- issue of home rule would become government would be possible in I asked for an explanation of the unbridgeable once Gladstonians the distant future. But they shared Unionist phalanx in Birming- and Liberal Unionists were forced a dislike of the Nationalists and ham … He [Dixon] thought it to compete against one another on their anti-English supporters in the was half an accident, the party the hustings. When the opportu- United States. was really divided here as else- nity to state his opinions to his elec- Of course, many Liberal Union- where, just below the top, but tors came on 24 June 1886, Bright ists differentiated between the that Bright and Chamberlain gave an address in central Birming- humble Irish cottager and the and himself … happened to ham, in which he stated that ‘the Fenian terrorist. Since 1882 and coincide on this question; and experience of the past three months the murder of Cavendish and they, I gathered were the three does not increase my confidence Burke in Phoenix Park and the recognised leaders. Bright by in the wisdom of [Gladstone’s] Maamtrasna massacre, many Lib- being the old time-honoured, Administration or of their policy erals had accepted that there must political chief; Chamberlain the with respect to the future govern- be no concessions to violence and established ‘boss’ in the indus- ment of Ireland.’ He went on to threats of disorder, otherwise the trial action of the municipal- stress that he opposed home rule rule of law itself might be in jeop- ity and Dixon the educational on strictly Liberal lines, quoting ardy. As George Trevelyan had put boss.’33 (fig. 4) the famous letter he had written in it in 1883, when Chief Secretary for 1872. He concluded: Ireland, if British rule was aban- Unlike most other Liberal caucuses, doned in Ireland, ‘we should have a the Birmingham Liberal Associa- I cannot trust the peace and mutual massacre.’28 There was also tion endorsed the Unionists’ posi- interests of Ireland, north and the belief that there was no strong tion and they fought the general south, to the Irish Parliamentary popular support for the ‘land war’ election with the full support of the Party. despite Gladstone and the Nation- local party apparatus. This meant alists’ claims, as only 2–4% of the that Chamberlain, Bright and the And he stressed the position of the tenant farmers joined the ‘Plan other Unionist radicals did not have Protestants of Ireland in a devolved of Campaign.’ It was also widely to rely on the grudging assistance Irish state: believed that intimidation and of the Conservatives, which was

14 Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 ‘True to his principles’? John Bright, Liberalism and Irish Home Rule 1886 – 1889 demanded after W. H. Smith and Lord Hartington verbally agreed an electoral ‘compact’. Elsewhere in the election of 1886, at least 800,000 working class Liberal voters, faced with the choice between Bright and Gladstone, abstained and handed victory to the antithesis of both men, the Hotel Cecil.34 After the dust had settled, the Liberal Unionists took the decision not to sit with the Tory govern- ment, so Bright and Chamberlain sat alongside Gladstone and Mor- ley on the opposition benches. This was a deliberate statement by the new party that they, not the ‘sepa- ratists’ (as The Times now called the Gladstonian Liberals), were the true inheritors of the legacy of Mill, Seeley and Green. Alexan- der Craig Sellar urged Harting- ton not to associate with W. H. Smith and Arthur Balfour, refer- ring to the Liberal Unionists as ‘the true church of Liberalism.’35 Colonel Hozier, the first secretary of the Liberal Unionist Associa- tion, expressed this attitude more fully when he addressed the West of Scotland Liberal Unionist Associa- tion in October 1886.

They were not dissenters, they were the True Church. He claimed that they held those noble Liberal principles that had been handed down from genera- tion to generation of Liberals to all Liberal statesmen since the great Reform Act.36

As early as December 1885, Edward Watkin had claimed that home rule was a perversion of ‘true Liberal- ism’.37 William Cartwright, cam- paigning in Northamptonshire had denied being ‘a seceder from my political principles’.38 Edward Heneage had expressed the senti- ment most fully, writing to his agent in January 1887:

I deny that we are Dissentient Liberals; we are consistent Lib- erals and Unionists; the others are Radicals and Home Rul- ers who dissent on every part of the Bills among themselves and include Unionists like Herschell and Rosebery and Separatists like Parnell and Labouchere in their ranks.39

Bright also offered his support at a crucial test for the new Liberal

Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 15 ‘True to his principles’? John Bright, Liberalism and Irish Home Rule 1886 – 1889

Unionist Party over the issue of the Liberal Unionism, Bright retreated Fig. 6. Prominent election (fig. 8). When Bright died Arthur Balfour’s Crimes Bill which back into ‘sorrowful silence’ at Liberal Unionists in 1889, the Liberal Unionist newspa- reintroduced coercion to Ireland in One Ash, – his quietude (The Graphic, 15 per was printed with a black border 1887. He wrote to the party’s chief remarked on by the Birmingham January 1887) on its front page.43 whip, Lord Wolmer, that he did so satirical journal, The Dart (fig. 5). Apart from the propaganda on the grounds that ‘Mr Gladstone Bright’s main significance between Fig. 7. ‘The value of his name, which continued ought to have suppressed the Land 1886 and 1889 was as a symbol, New Flag. John to be exploited until the twentieth League five years ago.’40 For many shamelessly paraded by Union- Bright: “And century, Bright’s immediate legacy radical Unionists, such as Arthur ists for propaganda purposes in the that’s the rag I’m to the was Winterbotham, coercion was too first age of mass visual political obliged to fight the dispute which broke out over much to bear and they returned, campaigning (fig. 6). That many under! Shade the vacancy in the seat of Central reluctantly, to Gladstone’s party. Conservatives, including Lord of Cobden, that Birmingham. Joseph Chamber- Bright’s presence in the govern- Salisbury, personally opposed I should have lain claimed that the seat should be ment lobby in 1887 was probably Bright’s views, especially on free come to this!” given to another Liberal Union- crucial in retaining the support of trade, was a frequent subject in Lib- (The Dart, 2 ist, under the terms of the electoral the bulk of the radicals and in keep- eral periodicals in this period, as the December 1887) ‘compact’ between the Liberal ing the Liberal Unionists united. two branches of Liberalism fought Unionists and the Conservatives. For them, coercion was necessary, to claim his inheritance (fig. 7). The The local Conservatives, bitter as it was ‘paving the way for the Nonconformist Unionist Associa- enemies of the radical Chamberlain introduction of remedial measures tion appointed Bright its honorary in both local and national affairs, [including] very wide measure of president, without even consult- had long eyed the seat for them- self-government.’41 By clearing this ing him. Bright, reluctant to work selves (fig. 9). When Bright died, hurdle, Bright had significantly with the party in any fashion, was they attempted to bring forward assisted the Liberal Unionists in unable to prevent his name being their own candidate by interest- taking the first steps towards form- splashed across the party’s litera- ing the maverick Lord Randolph ing a formal party with central ture (a party poster was made up Churchill in the constituency (fig. structures and local organisations with his face and that of the popu- 10). The leaders of the Conserva- which would survive until the Lib- lar Baptist speaker Charles Spur- tive Party wanted, at all costs, to eral Unionists eventually coalesced geon).42 Such was his status among avoid rival candidates splitting the with the Conservatives in May Liberals, despite the caesura of 1886, Unionist vote, so called the local 1912. that Gladstone made it clear that Tories to heel and Albert Bright, With the issue of coercion suc- he sought no quarrel with Bright John Bright’s son was allowed to cessfully resolved, and the Con- and stated in 1888 that the Liber- contest the seat, which he won with servative minority government als would not contest Central Bir- a comfortable majority.44 Har- firmly backed by all branches of mingham in the event of a general tington and Salisbury took this as

16 Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 ‘True to his principles’? John Bright, Liberalism and Irish Home Rule 1886 – 1889

Fig. 8. ‘A tough a warning and finally committed job. Trying to the Conservative–Liberal Unionist fell the tree of ‘compact’ to paper, which probably Birmingham contributed to the long-term sur- Unionism (or vival of the Unionist alliance.45 Dis-Unionism?)’ Bright was a liberal in his eco- (The Dart, 9 nomics, a radical in his religious November 1888 views and a defender of democratic principles. For him, as for so many Fig. 9. ‘Waiting other Victorians, this was not, for his skin!’ (The however, incompatible with a deep Dart, 15 June patriotism which was offended by 1888) what he saw as Gladstone’s surren- der to the forces of corruption, big- otry and violence in 1886. As he put it in a private letter to the GOM at the height of the home rule crisis:

[A home rule parliament for Ire- land] will be composed in effect of the men who for six years past have insulted the Queen, have torn down the national flag, have declared your lord lieuten- ant guilty of deliberate murder, and have made the imperial par- liament totally unable to man- age the legislative business.46

Although in hindsight, Bright’s stance on Home Rule may look like the reactionary behaviour of an old man, I would argue that if examined in context, it remained entirely consistent with his

Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 17 ‘True to his principles’? John Bright, Liberalism and Irish Home Rule 1886 – 1889

strong-held commitment to demo- manoeuvring, it was Bright’s Fig 10.’An John Bright (London, 1930), p. 95. cratic principles. His obituary in unique position as conscience of exhibition 3 D. Read, Cobden and Bright: A Vic- the Liberal Unionist reveals the influ- the nation that fatally undermined match; between torian Political Partnership (London, ence of his position on Liberals of Gladstone’s efforts to stir the liber- the Brummagem 1967), pp. 191–5. all hues, from the Whiggest moder- als of Britain to support him in his bruiser and the 4 Bright speaking at Birmingham, 4 ate to the committed radical: attempt to settle the Irish question Paddington pet’ Feb. 1868. Quoted in W. Robertson, (fig. 11). That Bright’s unforeseen (Punch, 4 May The Life and Times of the Right Hon. The fact that the ‘Tribune of legacy was that he taught the Con- 1889) John Bright, vol. 3 (London, 1884), pp. the People’ was utterly and servatives how to successfully colo- 69–70. unflinchingly opposed to the nise the centre ground of British Fig. 11. ‘John 5 Bright speaking in the House of recent Irish policy of Mr Glad- politics, while the Liberal Unionist Bright cutting Commons, 1 Apr. 1868. J. E. Thorold stone is in itself proof positive leaders systematically betrayed all down the Rodgers (ed.), Speeches on Questions of that such opposition was not the of his principles once he was dead, Gladstonian Public Policy by John Bright MP, vol. 1 mere outcome of Tory preju- was not his fault. The unscrupu- oak’ (Moonshine, (London, 1868), p. 428. dice. He was foremost amongst lous and unprincipled actions of c.June 1886, 6 Walling (ed.), Diaries, p. 535. the advocates of full justice to Joseph Chamberlain between 1895 reproduced 7 Bright speaking in Birmingham, 1 Ireland, but on the question of and 1906 should not allow present- in Review July 1886. Birmingham Daily Post, 2 the Union, he remained true to day commentators to claim Bright, of Reviews, July 1886. his principles.47 even at the end of his life, as any- September 1898) 8 Walling (ed.), Diaries, p. 96; C. H. D. thing other than the epitome of Howard, ‘Joseph Chamberlain, Par- John Bright, along with the rest radical Victorian Liberalism. nell and the Irish “Central Board” of the Liberal Unionist Party, Scheme, 1884–5’, Irish Historical Stud- remained a passionate champion Ian Cawood is head of history at New- ies, 32 (1953), pp. 324–361. of , despite his associa- man University in Birmingham and 9 Ibid., p. 540. tion with the protectionist Tories. author of The Liberal Unionist 10 Ibid., p. 536. He remained committed, as did Party, 1886–1912: A History (I.B. 11 Bright to Caine, 22 June 1886; J. Chamberlain and the other radical Tauris, 2012), which was shortlisted Newton, W. S. Caine, M.P. (London, Unionists, to the disestablishment for the Total Politics Political History 1907), p. 167. of the state church, to the avoidance Book of the Year and described by Ver- 12 T. A. Jenkins, The Liberal Ascendancy of unnecessary foreign entangle- non Bogdanor in the TLS as ‘one of the 1830–1886 (Basingstoke, 1994), p. 215. ments and to financial retrench- most important works on the politics of 13 A. Reid (ed.), Why I am a Liberal (Lon- ment. He continued to champion the late Victorian era to have appeared in don, 1885), p. 114. the equal and opportunities recent years’. 14 Bright to James, 18 Feb. 1886, Henry of all denominations, classes and James Papers, Herefordshire County ethnic groups, whether those were 1 B. Cash, John Bright: Statesman, Record Office, M45/165. Wesleyans in Cornwall, Presbyte- Orator, Agitator (London, 2011), p. 15 The Annual Register, 1886, p. 157. rians in Belfast or Catholics in Glas- 280. 16 Viscount Ebrington to Marquess of gow.48 In practice, as in political 2 R. A. J. Walling (ed.), The Diaries of Hartington, 1 Mar. 1886, Devonshire

18 Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 ‘True to his principles’? John Bright, Liberalism and Irish Home Rule 1886 – 1889

Papers, Chatsworth House, DP 23 Bright to Chamberlain, 1 June 1886. 40 Bright to Viscount Wolmer, 24 340.1938–9. 1886, quoted in Walling (ed.), 32 J. Bright to G. O. Sumner, 26 Apr. 1887, Selborne Papers MS 17 I. Cawood, The Liberal Unionist Diaries, p. 547. July 1886, printed in Reynold’s II (13) 28, Bodleian Library, Uni- Party 1886–1912: A History (Lon- 24 R. B. O’Brien, The Life of Charles Newspaper, 1 Aug. 1886. versity of Oxford. don, 2012), p. 36. Stewart Parnell, vol. 2 (2nd edn, 33 A. Sidgwick and E. M. Sidg- 41 F. W. Maclean, 29 Mar. 1887. 18 Bright to Chamberlain, 31 London, 1899), p. 158. wick, Henry Sidgwick: A Memoir Hansard, 3rd series. May 1886, Joseph Chamber- 25 A. B. Cooke and J. Vincent, The (London, 1906), p. 456. 42 Cawood, Liberal Unionist Party, lain Papers, Cadbury Research Governing Passion: Cabinet Govern- 34 J. M. Lawrence, Electing Our p. 154. Room, University of Birming- ment and Party Politics in Britain, Masters: The Hustings in Brit- 43 Liberal Unionist, 39, April 1889. ham, JC5/7/41. 1885–86 (Hassocks, 1974), p. 429. ish Politics from Hogarth to Blair 44 Cawood, Liberal Unionist Party, 19 Powell Williams to Chamber- 26 Quoted in The Standard, 25 June (Oxford, 2009), p. 73. p. 86. lain, 31 May 1886, JC5/72/3. 1886. 35 Craig Sellar to Hartington, 28 45 The only copy of the ‘compact’ Bright had refused to appear on a 27 Quoted in Birmingham Daily Post, July 1886, DP 340.2029. survives at Chatsworth House platform with Chamberlain ever 2 July 1886. 36 Quoted in Glasgow Herald, 21 archives: DP 340.2205A, quoted since Bright’s resignation over 28 Quoted in P. O’Farrell, England Oct. 1886. See also Lubbock’s in full in Cawood, Liberal Union- the bombardment of and Ireland since 1800 (Oxford, address to the City of London, ist Party, pp. 253–4. in 1882, a policy which Cham- 1975), p. 177. quoted in M. Patton, Science, Pol- 46 Quoted in J. Morley, Life of W. E. berlain had supported. K. Rob- 29 E. F. Biagini, British itics and Business in the Work of Sir Gladstone, vol. 3 (London, 1911), bins, John Bright (London, 1979), and Irish Nationalism 1876–1906 John Lubbock: A Man of Universal p. 329. p. 247. (Cambridge, 2007), p. 242. Mind (Farnham, 2007), p. 215. 47 Liberal Unionist, 39, April 1889. 20 Bright’s letter was destroyed by 30 ‘You state you are convinced it is 37 E. Watkin to Hartington, 25 For a discussion of John Bright’s Caine shortly after the meet- my intention to thrust the Land Dec. 1885, DP 340.1871. reputation as a ‘Tribune of the ing. Newton, Caine, p. 154. It is Purchase Bill upon the House of 38 Cartwright’s address to the elec- People’ see P. Joyce, Democratic quoted, in part, in Walling (ed.), Commons. If I am a man capa- tors of Mid-Northampton, 18 Subjects: The self and the social in Diaries, p. 542. ble of such an intention I wonder June 1886, Cartwright Papers, nineteenth-century England (Cam- 21 The Times, 1 June 1886; J. L. you ever took office with one so Northamptonshire Record bridge, 1994), pp.142–4. Garvin, The Life of Joseph Cham- ignorant of the spirit of the Con- Office, C(A)1 box 16, bundle 14. 48 E. F. Biagini, ‘ and berlain, vol. 2 (London, 1933), p. stitution and so arbitrary in his 39 E. Heneage to J. Wintringham, 2 Liberty’ in P. Mandler (ed.), 245. character.’ Quoted in The Times, Jan. 1887, Heneage Papers, Lin- Liberty and Authority in Victorian 22 Quoted in the Guard- 3 July 1886. colnshire Record Office, 2HEN Britain (Cambridge, 2006), pp. ian, 4 June 1886. 31 Quoted in The Times, 6 July 5/14/1. 101–24. The Lloyd George Society Weekend School A fascinating mixture of history, politics and debate 14-15 February 2015 Hotel Commodore, Spa Rd, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 5ER

Saturday 14 February • Lloyd George and Joseph Chamberlain – Dr Iain Sharpe • The career of William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate and how he changed the course of Liberal history – Dr Alun Wyburn Powell • The importance of Emlyn Hooson – Professor Dered Llywd Morgan • Re-establishing the Liberal tradition in Montgomeryshire – Jane Dodds • Being Lloyd George – Mark Lewis Jones, who played LL.G in the TV drama 37 Days • Devolution and local government – Michael Meadowcroft • Formal dinner with guest speaker Mayor Dorothy Thornhill, three times elected mayor of Watford Sunday 15 February • The prospects for the general election: an analysis of the state of the political parties ahead of May 2015 – Dr Jonathan Kirkup • Panel session led by Roger Williams CBE, MP with Baroness Joan Walmsley, Mayor Dorothy Thornhill and Bill Powell AM For prices and accommodation see the Society Website: http://lloydgeorgesociety.org.uk/en or contact the Secretary, Graham Lippiatt on 0121 3018 5950 or email: [email protected]

Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 19