INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) dr section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages, This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zoab Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106 7619623

KOtyAN# ROBERT ANDREW THE QRITX8H CONSERVATIVE,PARTY LEADERSHIP AND SOCIAL REFORM (1806-1905), THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY* PH,Ot, 1976

© 1978

ROBERT ANDREW KOHAN

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THE BRITISH CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADERSHIP AND SOCIAL REFORM (1886-1905)

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Dootor of Philosophy in the Graduate Sohool of the Ohio State University

By

Robert A. Kohan, B.A*r M.A

The Ohio State University 1978

Reading Committee: Approved by

Dr. Philip Poirier Dr. Clayton Roberts Adviser Dr. John Rothney Department of History PLEASE NOTE:

Many pages throughout this dissertation contain light and indistinct print. FI as received In the best possible way. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS INTERNATIONAL PREFACE

I would like to express my thanks to Hr. Geoffrey D.M. Block, M.B.E. of the Conservative Research Centre for the use of the Conservative Party arohives; Dr. Paul Smith of King's College, London, Dr. J.T. Hard of Stratholyde University, Glasgow, and Dr. E.J. Feuohtwanger of the University of Southampton for their encouragement and helpful suggestions. In addition, I would like to thank the staffs of the British Museum, the University of Birmingham Library, Durham County Counoil Archives, Kent County Counoil Arohives, the Churchill College Library at Cambridge, Gloucestershire County Counoil Arohives, Hereford and Horoester County Counoil Arohives, Northum­ berland County Counoil Arohives, and the Bodleian Library at Ox­ ford. I would also like to thank Nr. H.T. Haroourt-Hilliams, librarian at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, for his generous as­ sistance. To my adviser, Professor Philip Poirier, a special acknowledgement, for his comments and helpful suggestions. I would also like to thank Dr. George B. Cotkin for his support and en~ oouragement in this projeot.

ii VITA

August 1, 1949 • • • Born, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

1 9 7 1 ...... • • • B.A., Eastern College St. Davids, Pennsylvania 1974 • ...... M.A., The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 1973-1977 ...... Teaching Assistant, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field; Modern Britain. Professor Philip Poirier

Tudor and Stuart Britain. Professor Clayton Roberts French History 1815-1914* Professor John Rothney Russian History 1917 - • Professor Myron Hedlin

iii TABLE OP CONTENTS Page PREFACE ...... 11

VITA ...... iii

INTRODUCTION...... 1

Chapter

I. COALITION POLITICS AND THE DEFENSE OF NATIONAL UNIT! (1686-1892)...... 15

II. THE SALISBURY ADMINISTRATION AND EMPIRICAL LEGIS­ LATION (1886-1892)...... 46

III- THE CONSERVATIVES IN OPPOSITION* THE SEARCH POR AN ELECTORAL APPEAL (1892-1895) ...... 93

IV. THE THIRD SALISBURY GOVERNMENT: THE LIMITATIONS OP TORY REFORMISM (1895-1899)...... 143

V. IMPERIALISM AND THE ADVENT OP BALFOUR...... 173

VI. CONSERVATISM IN RETREAT (1902-1906) ...... 189

VII. TARIFF REFORM AND PARTY DISUNITY (1903-1906) . . 230

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 255

lv INTRODUCTION

With the emergence of the working class as a significant eieotoral force in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Britain, the ruling Conservative oarty, inspite of its aristo­ cratic and middle-class leadership, became heavily dependent, espec ially in industrial areas, on working class support* In 1867, by taking the famous "leap in the dark" and passing the Second Reform Act, it unwittingly paved the way for the develop­ ment of olass-oriented democratic politics. After bitter con­ tention within its own ranks, the party also had aoauiesed in the Liberal-sponsored Third Reform Aot of 1884* These mea­ sures virtually completed the long demooratio transformation of the British parliamentary eieotoral system that had begun in 1832. 1 By 1895, in the middle of the thirteen year tenure of the Salisbury Administration, the effeots of franchise leg­ islation had brought the direct influence of the masseB to bear on the parliamentary elite of the Conservative party, forcing it into powerful rivalry with the leadership of the Liberal par­ ty for the votes of the new eleotors. MoBt working-olasB voters favored Radical Liberellsm, but the Conservatives relied on a sizeable minority of them to win general eleotions.

^The 1867 Reform Aot increased the electorate from I,300,000,to 2,500,000, including the more affluent strata of the urban working classes* The 1884 Reform Aot raised the num­ ber of voters to approximately 5»000,000 by the extension of householdsuffrage to thecounties* In the accompanying re­ distribution measure, the single-member constituencies replaced the two member system, bringing more uniformity to the elec­ toral system and a weakening of looal interests. However, many anomalies and exclusions, based on property, sex, and residenoy 1 2

Temperamentally and philosophically the Conservative lea­ dership eschewed party programs and the acceptance of mandates from a popular electorate* But for the sake of politioal sur­ vival, it had to devise a way to accommodate its traditional elitist political principles with new democratic politioal issues, many of whioh were concerned with the social improve­ ment of the working classes* The party, as a whole, failed to respond to this challenge. By 1905* the political situation had changed to the Conservatives' disadvantage. With the working olasses more artioulate, social reform had been brought to the forefront of debate* The party was threatened by a Lib­ eral-Labor political offensive; and defeotions of workers from Conservatism signified intense dissatisfaotion with the pol­ icies of the Balfour Government* An investigation into Con­ servative social reform attitudes helps explain the deoline in the Conservative party's appeal to the working-olaBS voter. Differences have emerged among historians about popular politioal opinions towards social reform in Great Britain from 1886 to 1914* Hobert Blake, in The Conservative Party from Peel to Churohill* states that the most important issue that determined the working-class eleotorate's support of a particular party discriminations prevented the full realization of a genuine dera- ooraoy of "one man-one vote". These limitations aided the Con­ servatives in eieotoral contests, disoouraging the leadership from advocating further politioal reform* See D.E. Butler, The Electoral SyBtem in Great Britain; J.P. Mackintosh, The British Cabinet* 201-202; N. Blewett, "The Franchise in the United Kingdom", Past and Present* vol. 32 (December, 19^5)» 27-56? and J.P.D. Dun- babin, "Parliamentary Eleotions in Great Britain, 1868-1900", Eng­ lish Historical Review (January, 1966), 82-89,! 3

from lC£5 to 1905 was social reform. However, at times of national crisis, involving foreign or imperial matters, dom­ estic concerns were of secondary importance. The Conservatives, he contends, were able to gain popular support at these times by appealing to nationalist emotions. When domestic issues pre­ dominated, the paucity of Conservative achievements in the field of social reform caused the electorate to oupport the Liberals. The Liberals, however, zealous while in opposition, proved in of- 2 fioe often as incapable as the Conservatives. Elie Halevy claims that the new electorate demanded costly measures of sooial reform and that, considering the limitations and expectations of the time, both parties responded favorably. Between 1870 and 1895, the ex­ penditure of government tabulated in the budget under the heading of civil service rose from £> 10 million to L 20 million.^ Much of this increase, however, was for defense. According to Henry Polling, social reform was not an issue commanding rauoh attention from either the public or the politioal parties during this per­ iod; the working classes were suspioious of any endeavor on their behalf by a State controlled by the upper classes; the cause of sooial improvement was advooated by idealistio middle-class re­ formers against popular wishes; and in any case, the Conservative governments of Salisbury and Balfour did not need Booial reform appeals to win segments of working-olasB support. Instead, they appealed to the laborers' attitude of "deference" and also, to 4 sectional grievances related to nationality or religion.

^Hobert Blake, The Conservative Party from Pell to Churchill, Hew York, 1970, 159-lSS.

^Elie Halevy, A HiBtory of the English-speaking People, vol. IV, London, 1930, 314*

^Henry Polling, Popular Politics and Sooiety in Late Victorian Britain. London, 19^8, 2-17. The wide range of viewpoints concerning the attitude of the masses, and of the Conservative party elite, toward social reform oreates an historical problem of enormous complexity* In ex­ ploring it,.historians have usually taken only a cursory look at Conservatism's role, preferring instead to approach the problem as part of a broader study of administrative reform per se or as an aspect of developments in Liberal or Labour politics* As the governing party during moot of this period, the Conser­ vatives oertainly deserve more attention* The following ques­ tions can be posed: To what extent was social reform inoluded or ignored in the Conservative electoral appeal? Were there sig­ nificant differences of opinion among various factions in the governing coalition, between the various Liberal Unionists and "traditionalist” Conservatives, or between the party leadership and grass roots opinion in the constituencies? In what manner was social reform conneoted to other "vote-getting" is­ sues, such as "imperialism" and "alien immigration"? Was soc­ ial reform a more prominent theme in the 1880's and 1890's than in the 1900's? In looking at these questions from the "upside" position, it is necessary to see the importance of elitism in the init­ iation of Conservative party polioy* E.J. Feuohtwanger has stated that"modern Toryism oan be defined as a continuing be­ lief in the need for authority and a governing olass in politios, combined with an acceptance of the democratic imprimatur conferred by a mass electorate on the elite".** At the end of the oentury, the

5 ■'E.J. Feuohtwanger, Disraeli, Democracy, and the Tory Party. Oxford, 1968, x* 5 leadership firmly adhered to the defense of the politioal prerogatives of the traditional ruling classes based on landed and monied wealth. It believed that elitist govern­ ment, operating within the constitutional framework of Crown, Lords, and Commons, secured sooio-political order, pre­ served individual liberties, and provided the basis of econ­ omic prosperity for all classes within the capitalist free trade system. It was only beginning to accept the role of the fledgling Tory democracy as a handmaiden in these tasks.^ A good deal of the party's response (or laok of response) to sooial reform was conditioned by the various ways the leadership regarded the rise of a mass electorate and by the effects of the popular issues on traditional politioal, social, and economio arrangements. The theme of a close relationship between the elitist leadership and the sooial question had been woven into Con­ servative politioal theory and imagery nearly one hundred years earlier when Edmund Burke, stirred to anger and fear by the eventb in France, had sought to provide a rationale for the old order of throne, peers, and altar. During the period of national exult&tion after Napoleon's defeat in 1815, other thinkers, inoludidg Robert Southey and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, continued and enriohed the Burkean tra­ dition. Southey, in his Colloquies on the Progress of Society, emphasised a morally rejuvenated landed olass exer- oising paternalistic authority over the lower olasses. In

See H.L. Guttsman, The British Politioal Elite, Lon­ don, I963; F.M.L. Thompson, English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century. London, 1963; and Robert Robson- (edTJ Ideas and Institutions 6£ Viotorian Britain. John P. Corn- ford, "The Parliamentary Foundations of the Hotel Ceoil", London, 268-311* The State and Its Relations with the Church« Coleridge stressed the need for a "clerisy" of wise men, a spiritually- motivated intelligentsia, which would he the repository of the national tradition, uniting the landed classes and the popular classes* As part of his program he proposed a graduated income tax and faotory legislation. In hoth cases, a specifically delineated olass would provide a unifying faotor in national life; and privilege would entail responsibility, personal and sooial, for those less fortunate. Later, the hardships brought on by industrialization aroused the indignation of some Conser­ vatives. The angry Scottish "Jeremiah", Thomas Carlyle, thun­ dered against the laissez-faire oash-nexus and yearned for "an aristocracy of the wise" that would reorder society and lead the selfish grasping middle olass and the undisoiplined masses away from the abyss of deroooraoy. The Young Englanders (George Smythe, Lord John Manners, and Alexander Baillie-Cochrane), a group of young M.P.s who promoted a utopian type of conservatism, were inspired by a rising Tory Radical K.P. Benjamin Dis­ raeli, whose ersatz medievalisms were given literary form in Coningsby and Sybil. These novelB emphasized the obligation of a youthful, regenerated aristocracy to heal the rift between the "two nations" of rioh and poor. In all of these theories, the new leadership waB to reform sooiety through the example of a transformed spiritual life. Inner purity and outward al­ truism would be the source of social unity. Governmental leg­ islation would only provide the outward form of an essentially spiritual commitment. These "oonservative-radioal" ideas lacked any empirical balanoe or confirmation, a faot no doubt due in part to Tory revulsion from the meohanioal bourgeois formalism of Benthamism. Although eventually aooepting industrialism and middle class values, many Conservative oromoters of social amelioration would continue in a paternalistic vein to preach • # individual moral improvement to the classes and the masses, always oreferring the approach of a Lord Egremont or a Milli- 7 hank; however, in facing the social problems of the late nine­ teenth century, suoh paternalism would prove outmoded. The tragedy of Conservative reformers was that, while not lacking in oompassion, they underestimated the strength of working- olass demands for social and economic ecuality. They were therefore alienated from the very people they wished to serve, as well as from their peers who were suspicious of their in- tehtions. One of the most practioal expressions of Tory Radicalism is found in the oruoade Sor factory legislation in the 1830*s and 1840's. Through the efforts of Tory humanitarians in the North, like Richard Oastler and William Perrand, an attempt was made to bring together the Tory parliamentary elite and the workers for the purpose of limiting to ten hours the work of women and children £n textile mills, a goal if aohieved meant also the lowering of hours for adult male workers. Lord Ashley (later Shaftesbury) sponsored legislation in the House of Com­ mons. Although failing to receive offioial Tory backing for his bill, a compromise measure was passed in 1844* However, it was not until 1847 that a ten hour day in the textile industry was g passed.

7 Egremont is a paternalistic aristocrat in Disraeli's Sybil; Millibank, a benevolent millowner in Coningsby. O See 1S.F.A. Best, Shaftesbury, London, 1964? Georgina Bat- tisoorobe, Shaftesbury; The Great Reformer, Boston, 1975? and J.T. Ward, The Faotory Hours Movement, London, 1962. The majority of influential figures in the Conservative party leadership were more hard-headed. They were businesB- minded men who gave little attention to romantio idylls of the mind and to humanitarian concerns. Politioal necessity and the revolutionary implications of economic distress forced their hands. Although rural landed interests predominated in top party ciroleB, posts in the Cabinet of the Peel Government of 1842 had been given to Buch rising young men from the raanufact- 9 uring classes as William Gladstone. Robert Peel wan the son of a Lancashire manufacturer who sponsored the first factory legis­ lation in 1802. In 1834, the younger Peel presented his famous manifesto in his constituenoy at Tamworth, accepting the 1832 Reform Aot and otioouraging the prihciple of moderate reform. In seeking to understand this move, one must look to what Harvey Gliokman has argued is the hallmark of Conservative opportunism, "the notion that the prinoipal guide for all behavior is ac­ commodation and adjustment.••It rests on no philosophy, except doing what is necessary to restore stability. " ^ 0 Little direct conoern for humanitarian sooial reform was shown by Peel, who ac­ cepted the Poor Law reforms of 1834 and rejeoted Tory Radical proposals for faotory legislation. However, he was aware of the plight of the unemployed during the economic downturn of the early 1840's and sensed the dangers that Chartism and Irish nationalist unrest posed to the established order. He sought to increase the

^From 1842-1&45, Gladstone advanced Peel's economic policies as Vice-President of the Board of Trade. * . l0Harvey Gliokman, "The Toryism of English Conservatism", Journal of British Studies, vol. 1, no. 1 (November, I96I), 118.

*lTtae Poor Law Amendment Aot of 1834 grouped the parishes, the major units of poor relief since Elisabethan times, into unions designed to administer workhouses under the supervision of a Board of Commissioners in London. In the workhouses, the standard of living for the recipients of relief would be low enough to aot as a deterrent against needless unemployment. The measure reflected Benthamite oonoern fdr effioient administration at the expense of indiscriminate humanitarianism. 9 scope of economic activity by pursuing sound fiscal administration and by revising the tariff system, homing that world-wide free trade would benefit all classes and cjpeoially, in providing aheap food, the urban workers. Before his program became a reality, the protectionist rural elements achieved a comeback in I846, forcing Peel and his young followers to leave the party after these pro­ tectionists denounced the abolition of the Corn Laws. Gaining the reputation of a backward-looking party seeking to preserve its ag­ ricultural aristocratic base, Conservatism lost political leverage for the nert two decades to the iihigo, Radicals, and the Bo-oalled Peelites. However, it oould not long isolate itself from the dom­ inant bourgeois liberal values of mid-Victorian Britain. In re­ jecting protection and adopting mild proposals for further elec­ toral reform, the party during the 1850's and 1660's undermined the remaining resistance to Peelite principles. During the minority Derby-Disraoli Government of 1867 to 1868 and the majority Disraeli Government of 1874 to 1880, the foundations of the modern Conservative party wvre laid. With the passage of the Second Reform Aot, Disraeli hoped to secure the al- legianoe of both middle olassos and the new working olass elec­ tors in the boroughs. His was a dexterous undertaking, since it involved reaohing out to new groups without offending the older supporters. Disraeli would, if he oould, guard the in­ terests of the landed olasses, but he was realistio enough to re- oognize that the survival of Conservatism depended on a broader support. One faotor was working to Conservatism's benefit. Glad­ stone's land and administrative reforms had frightened the aristo- oratic Whigs and some of the moderately Liberal professional mid- 10 die olasses as well. These elements were inclining to Conser- 12 vatism. Disraeli hoped to adhere to a "Peelite" course of eoonoray and defense of property rights. He appointed to an aristocratio Cabinet R.A. Cross (Home Seoretary) and W.H. Smith (First Lord of the Admiralty). These two men of middle-class background had strong ties to rising provincial Tory leaders. These local Tories had organizational skills and temperamental donoervativo :*olinationa that marked them as talented and faith­ ful party workers. ^ Disraeli was also mindful of the need to consolidate and extend the working olass support which Conservatism had won in Lancashire and other urban areas in the 1866 and 1874 elections. Although muoh of this support was temporary, resting on prole­ tarian dissastisfaotion with Liberalism, locally-organized pres­ sure groups, such as the Nine Hours Movement, revealed .the con­ tinuing influence of Tory Radical traditions. The most daring attempt to reconcile the olasses and the masses was the New Social Movement, initiated in 1871 by the marine engineer, John Russell Scott. Under his influenoe, a number of Conservative M.P.s and peers formed a Council of Legislation to consider working-olass proposals. However, this move was repudiated by Disraeli when presB publioity leaked the substance of the proposals. Such a strong dosage of radicalism embarrassed the 14 party leadership.

^eter Stansky (ed»), The Viotorian Revolution: Government and Sooiety in Victoria^ Britain. New York, 1973* John Cornfcrd, "The Transformation of the Conservative Party in the Late Nine­ teenth Century", 287-322.

^Feuohtwanger, o£. oit., 45-46.

^Paul Smith, Disraelian Conservatism and Sooial Reform, London, 1967» 148-150* 11

To further the rapprochement between Toryism and the working classes, without conceding too much to "grass roots" demands, the Disraeli Government engaged in safe social reform from 1874 to 1876. Although Disraeli lacked a well-formulated policy, he was able to rely on the support of the middle olass members of his Cabinet for piecemeal empirical measures* Cross's Home Office legislation went far in meeting the demands of the trade unions for greater freedom and sooial equality* His Employer and Workmen Aot (1875) raade the breaking of the employment contract by either party a civil offense, thus placing the laborer on an equal footing under the law with his employer. In the same year, the Conspiraoy and Protection of Property Aot legalized picketing and allowed the trade unions to engage in any aotivity that was not illegal if performed by a n ‘.individual* An Artisans Dwellings Aot allowed municipal authorities to implement schemes for the olearance of slum areas and provide for working-olass homes. The President of the Looal Government Board, George Sohlater-Booth promoted a Public Health Act in 1876 that consolidated local sanitation measures and placed them on a national footing* Charles B* Adderley of the Board of Trade was largely responsible for a Merchant Shipping Aot that reduced the overloading of merchant Bhips - the famous "Plimsoll line". Other measures - the Sale of Food and Drugs Aot (1875) and the Proteotion of Rivers Aot (1876) - also reflected willingness to respond to sooial needs* Disraelian Conservatism was multi-faoeted, appealing to all olasses on the basis of oommon, or at least, non-conflioting, in­ terests, Seotional differences were obscured by the stress 12 on the national interest* The new electorate was a relatively # * floating one, lacking in political experience and open to emotional suggestions* Huoh of Conservatisms influence during this period was due less to a rational presentation of principles than to an emotive manipulation of traditional national symbols. A Conser­ vative mythology developed in the 1870*s and 1880's that fused Coleridgean paternalism with the Disraelian rhetorio of constit­ utionalism, empire, and social reform* Although social reform was a part of the arrangement, the defense of the unity of the United Kingdom and the promotion of British overseas interests predominated. This Conservative mythology presupposed attitudes and values long features of Conservatism hut only defined and popularized in the late nineteenth century. Adapting monarchy, heraldry, and the oozy, rural hearth to its own use, Conservatism proolaimed it­ self as the national party. Disraeli's aoting as if Britain must he the fulcrum of any European power balance gained popular acclaim during the Balkan orisis of 1877-70* With the international competition for territories and markets in the following two decades, the theme of a special British imperial and foreign mission became even more aooeptable and was also associated with the principles of the Conservative party. The emphasis was on inter-olass solidar­ ity and maintenance of the union with Ireland. This was paradox­ ically accompanied by an emphasis on pluralism. Conservatism saw itself as tho champion of voluntary associations, suoh as the friendly (insuranoe) societies and oharitalle organizations, against any further intrusion by the legislation of Parliament. In this guise, it revealed its indebtedness to mid-Viotorian middle-olass values as well as to medieval ones, borrowing from the viewpoints of suoh proponents of laissez-faire individualism aB Sir James Fitzjomes 13

Stephen, Sir Henry Maine, and later, W.H. Ilallock. A regard for the inequality of man, except of course in the sight of God, was utilized hy some Conservatives in the defense of individualism against ''levelling1' and "uniformitarian" tendencies attached to Radicalism and Socialism. Although usually a justification of propertied olass interests, such a theory could also he used to uphold the right of contraot and the freedom of individual laborers to refuse to join trade uhions. Value was also attaohed to the preservation of a class system and the unequal distribution of property as means to reward incentive. In addition to a program of Sooial reform and the develop­ ment of a mythology, the Disraelian period saw the beginning of a modern, extra-parliamentary party, Disraeli realized that an in­ stitutionalized link with the grass roots was needed if Con- 'cervatism was to secure and sustain a loyal middle-class and working-olaso following. With his approval, Henry Raikes, for­ merly an K.P. from York, and Lord Nevil, who later became the fifth Earl of Abergevenny and one of the principal Conservative party managers, presided over the founding of the National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations in London on Novem- « her 12, 1867. The new organization brought together represen­ tatives of local bodies, registration societies, and working men's clubs to popularize among the rank and file polioies formulated by the party leadership. However, the unwieldy management of the new institution by the parliamentary whipB and local party agents revealed the need for further olarifioation of the organization's role. Consequently, in 1870 a central agent, John Gorst, M.P. from Cambridge, was appointed to serve as co-ordinator; also,

< during that .year, a central office was established in London • • under C.J. Keith Falconer, a former major in the 4th Light Dragoons, recommended to Disraeli as a party organizer. In enite of administrative improvements, the National Union failed to grow significantly until after 1UU5; its effectiveness was also blunted by the party leadership’s refusal to grant it status and influence. The demand of provincial middle-class Tories for a more influential National Union gained a spokesman in Lord Randolph Churchill. The young Bcion of the distin­ guished Marlborough dynsasty led the campaign for "Tory Democracy". He abandoned the struggle for the National Union when rewarded with office by Lord Salisbury, Disraeli's suc­ cessor as party leader; however, the example of Churchill's endeavor continued to appeal to disgruntled groups in the party. His appointment as Seoretary of State for India in ItJdl) also gave him greater legitimacy under the aegis of the leadership to the Primrose League, the auxiliary popular or­ ganization founded by Churchill for the recruitment of volun­ tary workers. In exerting control over such organizations, the leadership demonstrated its skill in adopting the forms of demooratio politics while retaining for itself the initia­ tive in deoision-making. This tradition was continued by the party from 18G6 to 1905, a time which brought more numerous and difficult challenges to the preservation of the Dis­ raelian vision. CHAPTER I

COALITION POLITICS AND THE DEFENSE OF NATIONAL UNITT (1886-1892)

Sooial issues, particularly housing, hulked large in pub- lio discussion during the middle of the eighteen-eighties. How­ ever, in the 1886 electoral campaign, Ireland and traditional Nonconformist issues, liquor licensing and ohuroh-state relations, prevented social reform from emerging as a dominant concern.^ In the July general eleotion, brought about by the defeat of the Liberal Government's Irish Homo Rule Bill, the Conservative party won 316 seats and its Liberal Unionist allies 78, against 191 for the OladstonianB and 89 for the Irish Nationalists. Although plaoing the defenders of the Union in power, these eieotoral re­ sults gave little sense of direction to the new government. The victory was based largely on negative, or anti-Horne Rule, sen­ timent, not on anything really positive. The premiership and the composition of the new Cabinet were hedged with prickly difficulties. The Conservatives were depen­ dent on two diametrioally opposed faotions of anti-Horoe Rule 2 Liberals; an aristocratio remnant and a Radical pressure group. Although Liberal Unionist and Conservative oo-operation was as­ sured on Irish questions, whioh were expeoted to be (and later beoame) the dominant ooncerns in the new Parliament, traditional antimosities separated the Conservatives from both faotions of the * •

*Jose Harris, Unemployment and Politios. Oxford, 1972, 74i Henry Polling, The Sooial Geography of British Elections: 1885- 1910. London, 19^7, 14-22* 2 The differences between the two Liberal Unionist factions and the confliots of the respective leaders are discussed in Peter Fraser*s "The Liberal Unionist Allianoe: Chamberlain, Hartington, and the Conservatives: 1886-1904M, English Historical Review, vol. 77 (January, 19&2), 53-78. 15 lu

Liberal Unionists. Lord Salisbury, the Conservative leader in the Lords, sought a coalition under the Liberal Unionist Whig leader, Lord Havtington, but the suggestion immediately ran into difficulty. Hartington represented a remnant of Whig Liberalism slowly accommodating itself to a Conservatism which had accepted the elitist values of mid-Victorian Britain. However, Conser­ vative and Liberal Unionist wishes to maintain their respective identities rendered impossible any arrangement under Hartington. Although there was some similarity of viewpoint between Harting­ ton 's faction and Conservatism, the Radical wing of Liberal Unionism noted for its enthusiasm for agrarian and administrative reforms, aroused aristooratic Conservative hostility. In the I885 elec­ toral campaign, its leader, Joseph Chamberlain had introduced an "unauthorized nrogramrae" of social reforms: extension of land ownership and the reduction of the oost of acauisition by local ♦» authorities for public purposes; the more equitable" taxation of lend through death duties; the payment of M.P.s; the disestab­ lishment of the Churoh of England; free olementary education; abolition of the laws of settlement and entail; a progressive income tax; and the democratization of rural local government through the creation of county counoils.^ His proposals for the recreation of an English peasant class, through the provision of small plots for the landless agricultural laborers, and his at­ tacks on the landed interests in the Lords had not been forgotten by the Tory property owners he had alarmed. Before the 1886

Hamer (ed.), The Radical Programme, Harvester Press, Brighton, 1971» xv-xvi. 17 can)paigiif Arthur J. Balfour, M.F. from East Manchester and nep­ hew of Lord Salisbury, bad doubts about a workable politioal al­ i i liance with either Chamberlain or Hartington. Much to the relief of many Conservatives, the Liberal Unionists, both Whigs and Radicals, refused to be part of the new Government. They preferred to support a purely Conservative administration on Irish issues and continued to sit on the opposition front bench 4 in the Commons. Lord Salisbury accepted this arrangement and be- came the new prime minister. The common dislike of Qladstonian Irish polioy kept the faotions together; the Conservatives needed the Liberal Unionists for support of parliamentary policies, and the Liberal Unionists depended on Conservative aid in the many oonstituenoies where they lacked organizational strength.^ Af­ ter the failure of the Round Table Conference to reunite the Liberal Unionists and the Gladstonians in February, 1887, the groundwork was laid for the consolidation of the Conservative 7 and Liberal Unionist forces during the following decade.

^Balfour to Salisbury, 22 Maroh, 1886, Salisbury Paper?, Hatfield House, Hertfordshire.

•^Robert Taylor, Salisbury. London, 1975» 107-108. £ Ivor Jennings, Party Politics, Cambridge, 1981, 203. 7 'See Michael Hurst, Joseph Chamberlain and Liberal Re­ union; the Round Table Conferenoe of 1887. London, 1967* \ 18

Although the possibilities for a revitalized Conservative approach to social reform were latent in the connection with the Radical Liberal Unionists, the initial period of the pol­ itical arrangement precluded any shift from a defensive Home Rule stance to a positive stance on social reform. The new Conser­ vative Cabinet, composed of members of the traditional aristo­ cratic and upper middle-class elite, had little awareness of bold social or economic policies. They also feared the con- sequenoes of any undertaking that would disrupt the existing accord. Even Lord Salisbury, although possessing a brilliant critical intellect that disdained an unquestioning adherence to traditionalism, had a reputation of aloofness from practical in- 9 volvement with the political and social trends of his ago. Con- serruently, the party leadership hesitated to proceed beyond the confines of the Disraelian sooial legislation of the eighteen- seventies, Instead, it Bought to maintain good relations with the masses and to consolidate the Unionist alliance by appealing to patriotio sentiments in the oruoade against Irish Home Rule. The Conservative party was hailed as the national party , with the unity of all classes its greatest achievement. At the Lord Mayor's Banquet on August 18, 1886, Lord Salisbury held that "the elections had proved that all olasses of the nation had pulled together, and that there was no division between the

^Donald Southgate (ed.), The Conservative Party Leadership: 1832-1919. Hew York, 1974. Donald Southgate, "The Salisbury Era 1881-1902", 110-111, 19 people and the clasces. To James Robert son, the Scottish Sol­ icitor-General, the Conservatives had won the victory because the man­ hood of the nation had expressed with heart and with a voice a determination to preserve the Union. The rights of the nation whioh had been attempted to be filohed away had now been secured, and.*.the strength of the Tory party lay in this, that it relied not on the great and rich, but on the people. *1 On Ootober 3 at Hartford, William Hart Dyke, H.P. from Kent, N.W. and a leading figure among the southern English squirearchy, con­ centrated on the same theme: What they wanted waB peace and rest from all these things (pertaining to Ireland). They heard of all those efforts to set class against class, but they all knew that if their safety as a nation and their security and prosperity was to be maintained there was one thing that they must never forget to promote, and that was a bond between all olaBses.12 In assuming this defensive posture, the Conservatives sought to identify the maintenance of the Union with the promotion of the national interest, which they alone could interpret. Lib­ eralism was accordingly attacked for its lack of patriotic spirit and for its attempts to promote olass disunity, an ob­ vious referenoe to the traditional Liberal strategy of pitting the middle and working olasses against the landed interests.

^The Annual Register. August, 1886, 260.

^ T h e Times. August 20, 1886, 6.

12Ibid.. October 4. 1886, 10. 20

Inertia, the preoccupation with Ireland, and the del- icaoy of the alliance with the Liberal Unionists - all served to prevent the formulation of a coherent attitude toward sooial reform during the early period of the Admin­ istration* From the standpoint of sooial policy, the most significant appointment was Lord Randolph Churchill's as Leader, of the Commons and Chancellor of the Exchequer* His new position brought the opportunistic politico of "Tory Uemooraoy" into the Cabinet's discussions and oreated re­ newed controversy over the relations of the leadership with the rank and file* Shortly after the electoral viotory, Churohill took advantage of vaouuro in sooial policy to pose a new ohallenge to Lord 3aliBbury* On October 2, at a Conservative rally at Dartford, Churohill shocked the "old guard" by issuing a personal manifesto that oalled for the furtherance of Conservative-Liberal Unionist oooperation on a basis of moderate sooial reform. His preoise points of criticism of the party leadership in 1886 were remarkably similar to those whioh he bad made a few years earlier as a young frondeur in the parliamentary "ginger group", the "Fourth Party". At that time ha had stated: Is the attitude of the great Tory Uemooraoy, whioh Lord Beaconsfield's party constructed, to be one of mere dogged opposition? And is it true what our foes say of us, that coeroion in Ireland and foreign war is to be the "be all and end-all of Tory ministerB"?13

^^Robert Rhodes James, Churohill. London, 1958* 114, Although stressing the patriotic appeal, Churchill in­ cluded a package of aocial reform proposals in his Dartford addresss similar to those of Joseph Chamberlain's "unauthor- ized programme". He focused attention upon the growing prob­ lems of the traditional Conservative strongholds in the country­ side. The rural population was in the throes of an economic depression and a sooial decline, the delesVed results of Brit­ ain's one-sided commitment to industrial expansion and inter­ national free trade. The inability to grant tariff protection ■ to agriculture, for fear of antagonizing the xarbun workers who wanted cheap food, forced landowners, formers and laborers to face up to the effects of growing foreign competition. As a result of this economio stress, the traditional hierarchical structure of rural social life was increasingly under strain. The rise of the first successful agricultural trade union in the 1870's showed that the rural lower classes would no longer automatioally defer to their sooial superiors. To mitigate such discord, Churohill proposed expanding the process of voluntary redistribution of unused land in the form of al­ lotments and freehold plots. Churohill also advooated the ad­ ministrative and democratic reform of rural local government and a liberal redefinition of the powerB oftaxation and lic­ ensing. The new popularly elected oounty institutions would provide the machinery for the exeoution of land reform. He alBo sought to assuage the traditional antagonism between the agricultural laborers and the Established Churoh by having the land lords assume the responsibility of tithe payments.^

^The Times, Ootober 4, 1866, 10. 2 2 .

The agrarian emphasis of the Dartford program was de­ signed to prevent the erosion of traditional rural support, rural electors having shown themselves susceptible to Liberal appeals in recent general elections. Alliance with the ag­ rarian reform-minded Liberal Unionists made this threat less * ' ominous to Conservative electoral prospects. Churchill sup­ ported the extension of the Primrose League in order to harness this supposed reservoir of rural conservative loyalty. ^ There was no appeal however in the Dartford program to the urban working classes. In spite of the growth of ornonizel labor, the reemergence of a socialist ideology, and the growth of humanitarian public concern with poverty and unemployment, the problems of the urban working classes were remote to the leadership of the party, even to Churchill. He avoided this interest group, recognizing both the limitations of his know­ ledge of working-class problems and the need not to provoko agricultural and urban middle-class supporters. However, Chur­ chill was primarily ooncerned about furthering his own pol­ itical career; and it was for this reason that his personal manifesto was opposed by the Cabinet. The Dartford program was essentially opportunistic, embodying a distinct challenge to the leadership and a disregard for the "ruleB of the club". Only the leadership oould initiate policy, and suoh a formul­ ation was supposed to be a cooperative venture of the elite9 not a personal exhortation to the masses. Although Churohill'c personal idiosynoraoies stood in the way of the leadership making any positive pronouncements regardingreform, the Dart­ ford program represented the first of the new Conservative "deroooratio" manifestoes, whioh, under the influence of the Liberal Unionists, would later be broadened to include urban sooial reform.

15 Janet Robb, The Primrose League, lUti3-1906, New York, 1942, 173.

4 2 3

The Timea, in supporting the Dartford program, encouraged the Government to take a legislative initiative that would pre­ vent the Liberal Unionists from "deserting the common cause": They (the Conservatives) have broken with the obsolete traditions of high and dry Toryism, and in dealing with all of the particular problems of the day, if we except one or two that touoh the foundations of sooiety or the Constitution, they are as free to act as their Ulad- otonian rivals on the front opposition bench.*. Others were not so certain of the Government's readiness to ac­ cept the responsibility and warned of the consequences if Booial reform was ignored. In a letter, giving his support to Churohill, Sir Frederick Milner, Conservative party organizer and M.P. from Radcliffe, expressed his fear that Conservative instransigence would radicalize the Liberal party and would undermine the national foundations whioh the Conservatives wished to preserve: My experiences have taught me that any government to have a chance of really Beeing the support of the masses, must carry out a perfeot system of beneficial legislation for the working classes, muoh of which has long been needed. They are prepared to give ua a ohance, but if we fail to give them their just due, the reign of Labouchero, Bradlaugh, and Co. (prominent Radical Liberal republicans and freethinkers) will begin, and God only knows what will happen then. It seems to me from your speeches that you have realized this, and that you mean to take the bull by the h om o and having got the party machine into working order, that you mean to dea r of arrears with a vengeance.

^The Tiroes. Ootober 4* 1886, 9.

^Ililner to Randolph Churohill, November 29, 1886, Randolph S. Churchill Papers, The Churohill College, Cambridge, vol. 11, f. 2087. 2 4 Another Tory II.P. dcubted that the patriotic loyalty of the working-claoses could he maintained without positive social benefits, warning that "if the Government should be so intent up­ on waving the flag of Union that it forgets to move on, both it 18 and its flag may possibly be thrown in the ditch". This stress on social reform was also found among many of 19 the lower roiddle-olass rank and file. Nathaniel Curzon noted the widespread enthusiasm for social improvement in the Conser­ vative party and cited the presence of young men of the middle and lower olasses, clerks, apprentices, shopkeepers, mechanics, and artisans, who at eaoh succeeding eleotion are fgund enlisted in larger numbers in Conservative ranks. Tho new middle-olaos influence in particular was seen in the con­ tinued growth of the outside organizations of the party under Aretas Akers-Douglas, the ohief whip, and Captain Richard Mid­ dleton, the ohief agent. The Cabinet and the parliamentary par­ ty, although refusing to accept these popular organizations in equal partnership, taoitly recognized their'importance in shaping opinion in the constituencies. Gatherings like the annual con­ ferences of the National Union were effective safety valves for releasing pressures whioh might otherwise have proved disruptive and enabled the leadership to gage the trend of public opinion. The effeotfc of the extension of the franchise in 1884 and the Conservative electoral viotories of 1885 and 1886 heightened the self-oonfidenoe of these organizations, whioh remained respectful of the leadership but were desirous of more Btatus and increased recognition. On May 13* 1886, a scheme of party organization was

18 Ernest W. Beokett, "Lord Randolph Churohill Appeals Unto Caesar", The National Review, vol. 9 (March, 1887), 12-13. 19 'Curzon was then M.P. from Southport and later, served as Tioeroy of India and then, British Foreign Seoretary after the First World War. 20 G.N. Curzon, "Conservatives and Young Conservatives", The National Review, vol. 9, (January, 1887), 583-584. proposed at a special conference of National Union delegates and approved at the annual Conference of the National Union at Bradford in October* It sought to extend the methods of party progpaganda and to complete the links between local organizations and the National Union. Provincial unions were to be established providing for nthe complete representation of all associations and 21 individual electors upon the National Union." These develop­ ments identified the extra-parliamentary bodies with en in­ tensely patriotic status-conscious lower and upper middle- class democracy. As Junior partner, the Conservative middle- olaso elements adopted certain aristocratic forms of communication but it also transmitted oertain features of the middle-oloso life style to the aristooraoy. Increasingly, admission into the upper oircles became mainly a matter of wealth and good taste and not merely a matter of formal connection and rank. The oraving for titles persisted, and the Salisbury ministry, exer­ cising its powers of patronage, admitted so many persons with commercial, banking, and industrial backgrounds into the peerage that by the beginning of the twentieth century, the aristooraoy had been transformed, in a sense, into a "middle-olase instit- ution". As he paid respeot to the "charmed oirole", so the Conser­ vative businessman viewed himself as the inheritor of the man­ tle of the aristooratio gentleman in his relationship to the workers. In seeking seourity of status, he was often willing to serve as an example and guide to loyal and status-quo-oriented members of the working olasses. And in fulfilling this sooial

^The Times. Ootober 27, 1886, 6.

2 2 R.E. Pumphrey, "The Introduction of Industrialists in­ to the British Peerage", Amerioan Historical Review, vol. 125, (Ootober, 1959)» 16- role, he .was, in a rather pragmntic way, carrying out some of the social arrangements of mid-Victorian England within the framework of developing political democracy. In turn, he also sought to convince workers that the best hope for security and prosnerity depended on the voluntary cooneration of capital and labor. The Secretary of State for War, W.H. Smith, prominent bookseller and the highest positioned member of the middle clasc in the party, utilized these themes at the opening of the Sud­ bury Conservative working man's club on Ootober 29* 1886: We hear a great deal about change, ue hear a great deal about revolution, we hear a groat deal about agitation, but there is no one who has a more vital interest in security, in order, and in the maintenance of confidence and good feeling among all classes than the working man. Nothing can be done unless confidence is maintained bet­ ween employers and employed. Their interests are iden­ tical. It is oleax that, as no employer can afford to disregard the interest of the employed, so no employed can afford to disregard the interests of their employers. The aristocratic right wing, as well as many socially es­ tablished upper middle-class allies, resented extra-parlia­ mentary organizations, appeals for a "Tory demooracy", and collaboration with Radical Liberal Unionists. It feared that the growth of pluralism in the party would lead to the loss of its monopoly of power. In addition, party differences would be blurred and Conservatism* suooumb to an opportunism- destructive of its distinctive traditions. The Spectator, formerly a Liberal paper, sided with the Unionist cause. Under

23The Times, Ootober 30, 1886, 6. 27 the editorship of St. Loe Strachey, it soon became the mouth­ piece of elitist opposition to the new trends: In granting household suffrage, the Tories have to a very large extent surrendered Toryism to those who do not think of entering public life and can afford to keep imprao- • ticable opinions. The line between Liberalism and Toryism has therefore become much more shadow? than it was.2^ Arthur Baumann, Conservative M.P. from the Peckham division in Camberwell, thought that Cburdhill's Tory Democracy represented the "merest wafer" between Oladstonian Liberalism and Conser­ vatism. Lord Salisbury, while sympathizing with some of the ob­ jectives of the Dartford program, recognized Churchill's chal­ lenge to the leadership. He resented the exploitation of is­ sues for personal gain, and refused to assooiate Conservative politics with what he considered demagogio rivalry for the votes of the masses. Salisbury's primary concern was to pre­ serve party unity. He therefore opposed any program that would antagonize the upper olasses. Sooial reform, in his estim­ ation, had to come gradually and without eleotoral fanfare. DiBliking hasty initiatives, Salisbury warned Churohill of the

2^The Spectator. Editorial, (Ootober 30, 1866), vol. 59» 1436- 1437. 25 ''Arthur A, Baumann, "The Truth About Tory Democracy", The National Review, vol. 9» (March, 1887) 6. 28 dangers implicit in his actionsi The Tory Party is composed of very varying elements; and there is much trouble and vexation of spirit in trying to make them work together, I think the "classes'*, and the dependents of class" are the strongest ingred­ ient in our composition; but we have so to conduct our legislation that we shall give some satisfaction to both classes and masses. This is especially dif­ ficult with the classes - because all legislation is rather unwelcome to them, as tending to distur.b a slate of things with which they are satisfied. It is evident, therefore, that vie must work at less speed, and at a lower temperature than our opponents. Our bills must be tentative and cautious, not sweeping and dramatio. But I believe that with patience, feeling our way as we go, we may get the one element to con­ cede, and the other to forebear. The onpooite course is to produce drastic, symmetrical measures, hitting the olasses hard, and consecruently dispensing with their support; but trusting to public meetings, and the democratic forces generally, to carry,you through, I think such a policy will fail. I do not mean that the classes will join issue with ou on one of the mea­ sures whioh hits them hard, and beat you on that. That is not the way they fight. They still select some other matter on which they oan appeal to prejudice, and on which they think the masses will be indifferent; and on that they will upset you. My course, therefore, is strongly against the alternative; and it would be the same if I hadnno interest in the matter, and was merely an observer outside the ministry advising you. Your role should be rather that of a diplomatist trying to bring the opposed sections of the party together - and not thatgOf a Whip trying to keep the slugs up to the collar.

^Salisbury to Churohill, Salisbury Pacers, (November 7» 1886), vol. Ill, f. 225. Churchill Was disconsolatet Alas (he replied to Salisbury) I see the Dartford programme crumbling into pieces every day.*.I am afraid it is an idle school boy's dream to believe that the Tories can legislate, as I did stupidly. They can govern and make war and impose taxation and expenditure "a merveille" but legislation is not their province in a democratic constitution.2? The crisis between Churohill and his colleagues in the Cabinet reached a climax when Churchill's budget proposals were rejeoted in December. The Chancellor of the Exchequer submitted his resignation, and to Churohill's surprise, Salisbury aocepted it. In writing to Aretas Akere-Douglas, W.H. Smith, who suc­ ceeded Churohill as Leader in the Commons, revealed the com­ plexity of the situation. It was a power struggle in whioh Smith wanted Churohill to lose so that a steady course of ac­ tion oould be pursued: I am very sorry about Churohill, but the real truth is Estimates are a pretext - not the real cause. It was really Salisbury or Churohill and if Salisbury bad gone, none of us could have remained, not even those who are disposed with him on allotments and local government rather than with Salisbury.2® Smith also noted that the fortunes of the party depended on closer cooperation with the Liberal Unionists and that Salis­ bury would be more willing to further this end (as well as "swallow" more liberal measures suoh as local government reform and allotments) if Churchill were removed.2^ Churohill»s

^Churchill to Salisbury, Salisbury Papers, (November 8, 1886), vol. Ill, f. 326. 2& W.H. Smith to Akers-Douglas, Chilston Papers, (Decem­ ber, 24, 1886), U564, o. 25/2.

2 9 I b i d . 30

complicated, unpredictable, and abrasive personality made him a poor spokesman for the new forces within Conservatism and act­ ually impeded any full party commitment to moderate social re­ form. The reform-minded faction in time viewed Salisbury as a more effective leader; and without Churchill^ posturings, it believed that Salisbury would be willing to carry the standard for moderate measures. However, Salisbury had no desire to be a cruG&der on behalf of any cause; he would allow the Hadical Lib­ eral Unionists to assume this role. After the resignation of Churohill, the Government, in co-operation with the Liberal Unionists, moved to remedy the hardships of the depressed rural areas through land reform and the democrat!cation of local government. With Charles 0. Ritchie, the President of the Local Government Board, and Jesse Collings, Radical Liberal Unionist K.P. from Birmingham and a leading advocate of agrarian reform, taking the init­ iative, two allotments bills and a small holdings bill were in­ troduced in the Commons in I887 and 1888. These measures were designed to bring economio revitalisation and sooial stability to the oountryside by enabling laborers to own or rent their own plots of land. It was hoped that "the habits of thrift" would be enoouraged and that reliance on the poor rates would be lessened. ^ 0 Collings, in particular, hoped that the provision of allotments would also oheok rural immigration which was con­ tributing to the overcrowded conditions of the towns. Less competition in the labor market meant that urban workers would

^British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Third Series, vol. 317, '(July 18, 1&87), co1. 1303-1304. 31 have easier employment and better wages.3^ The idea that the solution of the urban problem lay in the enhancement of the rural areas was prevalent in all political circles. It Mao a panacea that, for a shorttime, enabled.politicians to evade the difficult responsibilities of direct tackling urban prob­ lems, such as employment and housing. The measures gave local sanitary authorities compulsory powers to intervene, at their ovm discretion, if reasonable rents were not obtainable by the usual voluntary methods. Al­ though only intended to serve as supplementary aids to bolster the traditional arrangements between landowner and tenant, they indirectly recognized that voluntary procedures in transfering land were not working swiftly or smoothly enough to sa^t the land-hungry lower olasses. The laborer was placed in en ecrual negotiating position with the landlord throughpublio support. If unfair practices were proved in the local courts, the sanitary authorities could purchase suitable land and 32 rent it to the laborers. However, loopholes, which per­ mitted enforcement only at the discretion of the local of­ ficials, made the implementation of the measures very dif­ ficult. Upper and middle oless ratepayers, fearful of the increase in expenditures for the purohaBing of land, were un­ willing to finance social experimentation. Thus the Conser­ vative Government's insistence on bolstering the faltering voluntary system with a scarcely enforceable publio scheme

3IIbid. vol. 326, (May 16, 1888), col. 452.

• 32Ibid. vol. 317» (July 18, 1887), col. 1304. 3 2 . undermined the objectives of the measures. On May 16t 1888, Henry Chaplin, K.P. from Mid-Lincolnshire and President of the Board of Agriculture, admitted that the attempt to safeguard th> voluntary principle had contributed to the failure of the legis­ lation^3 In spite of its caution, the Gove nment was trying to im­ plement one of the points of the "unauthorized programme’,of 188^ This attempt to placate the Liberal Unionists created a tension within the Conservative party. During the course of the debate, William Harcourt, Chancellor of the Exohecruer in the previous Gladstone Administration and Radical Liberal H.P. from Derby, chided Conservatives for supporting a principle which they had staunchly opposed before the 1686 alliance.34 In spite of this pressure, the Government gave the impression of tightening the 1887-1888 measures by passing an amendment bill in the spring a' I89O. This measure provided for the inoreased involvement of sanitary authorities in difficult cases. In aotual practice, however, reliance was still placed on voluntary rather than 35 public transfer. The traditional county insitutions were thus proved in­ capable of dealing- effectively with the practical problems of rural life. Popular expectations meanwhile had increased for the extension of democraoy to rural local government. Sinoe the countryside was the traditional souroe of Conservative leadership and support, the Government decided to initiate this reform before the Liberals had the opportunity to make sweeping changes. Both parties viewed the reform of rural local govern­

33Ibid., vol. 326, (May 16, 1888), col. 496-497*

34Ibid.. vol. 319» (August 11, 1887), col. 142.

35Ibid., vol. 342,(Maroh 24, 1890), col. 1723-1725. 33 ment as a means of developing the political consciousness of the rural electorate in ways that would benefit their respective positions. There was however the danger that a Conservative re­ form hill would raise an outcry among the landowners who for centuries had governed the counties as a non-eleoted oligarchy. Salisbury recognized the concerns of the rural elite; yet his empirical mind also took into account that any new system of county government based on the old Tory prinoiple of property qualification would get no support from the Chamberlainite Liberal Unionists or Tory Democrats. Therefore, Salisbury, at the in­ itiative of Chamberlain, aocepted a compromise between the groups, extending demooracy to the counties, but exoluding the Poor Law Board of Guardians and the parishes from the ar­ rangements. Writing to Chamberlain, he expressed his ap­ prehensions about the suocess of the measure: The bill will be a thorny one - for our people will be very discontented at the absence of the element of nom­ ination from the Counoil and 1 look forward to con­ siderable trouble. In spite of these doubts, the Local Government Bill was introduced in the spring of 1888 by Ritchie, as President of the Looal Government Board. It transfered the political and administrative powers of the Justioes of the Peaoe to sixty-

^^Salisbury to Chamberlain, Salisbury PaperB, (February 1, 1888), f. 202. 37 tvo elective county councils. This reconstruction did not fulfill the proposals of the "unauthorised programme" of 1885, * * whioh supported the oreation of popularly eleoted representative councils on the county, district, and parish levels; however, it did hear the stamp of Chamberlain’s persistent effort to have the Conservative leadership introduce the reform, if only in stages. A good deal of his success was related to his avoidance of attacks on the landed olasses, and.his willingness to take ao- 38 count of their ooruples. The measure, however, was immediately oritioized by Cham­ berlain's former colleagues in the Oladotonian party, who op­ posed the compromise. James Stansfeld, K.P. from Halifax and promoter of local government reform in the last Gladstone ad­ ministration, oritioized the failure to deal with the parish and 39 Poor Law Boards of Guardians. Henry Hobhouse, from Somerset­ shire, disliked the use of the munioipal, rather than the county- parliamentary franchise,^ and Forrest Fulton of West Ham con­ tended that the influence of the squirearchy remained powerful under i * the new system. Walter Long, Conservative from Wiltshire, de­ fended the cautious approach, stating that the Government be­ lieved that it was better to introduce reform first of all through

37 'British Parliamentary Debates. Commons, Third Series, vol. 324, (April 12, 188b), col.. 1109.

- J.L. Garvin, Life of Joseph Chamberlain, vol. II, New York, 1933, 412.

^British Parliamentary Debates. Commons, op. oit.. ool. 1113. 35 the county oounoils and then later to extend democratic govern- 42 ment to the distriots and parishes. Henry Broadhurst, a Lib­ eral-Labor M.P. from Nottingham, attaoked the Government for com­ mencing "at the wrong end, creating great bodies, great councils, and local councils, which would be monopolized by the aouire, the great farmer, and the paroon, but in whioh the laborer and the 43 village mechanic would have no part or parcel". This clash reflected the contest between the two parties as to the nature of demooraoy. The Liberals, seeking to break with the past, were intent on extending self-government consis­ tently and rationally through a complete administrative reform. The Conservatives, while reoognizing the inevitability of pol­ itical change, stressed the dangers of demooraoy and sought to oushion its impact. The major opposition on the Conservative side came from the traditionalist -landowners in the Lords. The Earl of Carnarvon at­ taoked the growth of "uniformity" promoted by the bill and in- direotly attacked the accommodation to demooraoy: The strength of the English Constitution has been in the fullest variety of classes, of interests, of subjects. Now they were going to reduce everything to the dead­ liest level of the most monotonous oonformity.••to please election agents, desirous of forming oaucuses.44

42Ibid., vol. 326, (June 7» 1888), ool. 1466.

43Ibid.. vol. 326, (June 7. 1888), col. 1468-1469.

44British Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Third Series, vol. 329, 7 July 31* 1886), col. 919-920. Salisbury claimed that it was not revolutionary and that "it would make our C^raditionalJ institutions more acceptable to tho people". 45 Ke realistically recognised that some traditions were more essential then others and that* in order to preserve the con­ stitutional harmony of Crown, Commons, and Lords in a democratic age, it was necessary to relinquish the less important features of the old order. Opposition to the Government's middle-of-the-road approach also come from certain middle ond upper middle class supoorters, particularly from the members of the Defense of Liberty and Prop­ erty League. This organisation, formed in the early l£80's to counteract the growth of demands for land reform, was originally composed of members of both parties; however, by the late eighteen- eighties, most of its affiliates were Conservatives. Lord Weymss, the leading aristocratic spokesman of the League, used h*: preeminence in the Lords to attack the "creeping socialism" of Tory legislation since 1874. He had hoped the Conservatives "would aot as a drag" on the trend toward "curtailment of individual liberty" and "the confiscation of property"; however, they "now­ adays anpeared to be nothing but the fifth wheel in the Social­ istic coach".^ Host moderately Liberal middle-class voters wouh not have supported Weymss in his extreme attack on Conservatism 37 as a betrayer of mid-Vic-torian values. They shared similar fears but saw Conservatism as the only alternative to radical­ ized Libemlism . According to F.F.L. Thompson, the "migration", which slowly transformed Conservatism into a traditional, liber­ al middle-class narty, was caused largely by Liberal legislation, diluting property rights in England and Ireland. A 1 In seeking to attract such supnort, while simultaneously engaging in cau- tiouB, conciliatory reform, Salisbury appealed to the safe past performances of Tory governments: It is our duty to do all we can to find the remedies for those evils, and even if we are called Socialists in at­ tempting to do it, we shall be reconciled if we can find those remedies, knowing that we are undertaking no new princinle, that we are striking out on no new nath, but are pursuing the long and healthy tradition of English legislation. As a result of legislative cooperation between the moder­ ate Conservatives and the Liberal Unionists, the Local Govern­ ment bill nassed both houses and received the royal assent in the 1688 session. The alliance was drawing closer together. In Birmingham on May 28, 1888, Joseph Chamberlain expressed his relative satisfaction with the Government and hinted at a per­ manent arrangement to confront Gladstonian Liberalism:

Thompson, "Land and Politics: Some Political and Economic Interactions in Late Victorian England", Royal Historicd. Society, Fourth Series, xxxi, (19^9)? 27* A ft Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Third Series, vol. 344t May 19, 1890, col. 1244* 3 8

I have often pointed out to you before that with the ex­ tension of the franohise and the spread of deraooratio ideas the old Toryism has died out. There may still be a few representatives of it, but I do not know who they are; and at all events their views have found no exponents in the present Government and their supporters can agree with us in preserving the Gnion of the country, they are not lesB anxious than us to promote reasonable and safe reformB. I am quite prepared to admit that this Govern­ ment does not go far enough for me, but I have never found a Government yet that did. They go a good deal further than the last Government did, and they go a good deal further than I had any idea that either Mr. Glad­ stone or any of his prinoipal supporters would go until they began to bid for votes and to fish for them with any imaginable bait. They are quite willing aocording to their recent speeches, to support the extremist ... views. That unauthorized programme is nothing to them. At the Conference of the National Union at Nottingham on Novem­ ber 26, I889, Albert Rollit, M.P. from Islington and a leading advocate of Conservative sooial reform, oalled for the creation of a "common programme" that would lead to the formation of a "Nation- 50 al party". The leadership and the parliamentary party ignored the suggestion. The opposition of the right wing to Chamber­ lain, as well as the proven effectiveness of the loose 1886 ar­ rangement, discouraged any endeavor on their part to solidify the alliance.

^T h e Times. May 29, 1888, 6.

*^The Annual Register. (November, I889), 241* What did serve to strengthen the alliance was the growing apprehension from the late 1880's onward about the state of the British economy. As a result of the "Great Depression", changes in investment practices of British stockholders, and a decline in teohnical expertise, Britain's economic growth rate declined in comparison with that of younger, advancing industrial economies in the United States and Germany. Left-wing middle class intel­ lectuals, disturbed by the presence of social inequalities, pro­ foundly scrutinized the laissez-faire, capitalist system in­ herited from the mid-nineteenth century and nronosed its modif­ ication or replacement by socialism. A growing tendency toward consolidation in both British industry and labor, though not as extensive as similar developments in other industrialized countries, strained the voluntaristic, personal arrangements that had smoothed over frictions in the days of smaller family- ovned firms and regional craft unions. 51 In response to these challenges, the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists also em­ barked on a defensive support of the older economio valueb , cor­ responding to their defense of the Union in the oolitical and constitutional realm. This negotive policy deepened a gulf al­ ready existing betv/een Conservatism and organized labor. In spite of having passed trade union legislation in the 1870's, the Con­ servatives never gained much trade union loyalty or support. The

^ See Henry Polling, A History of British Trade Unionism, London, 1963, 89-92; Eric J. Hobsbawn, Industry and Empire. The Pelican Economic History of Britain, vol. Ill, London, 19^8. 126-132. AO

Parliamentary Committee of the T.U.C. was officially non-par­ tisan; yet most of its officicle, inoliding Henry Broadhurot of the Stonem *rons, and Charles Fenwick and Thomas Burt of the Northumberland minera, were clorely identified with Cladstonian Liberalism. The rise of the socialist-tinged Hew Unionism among both skilled and unskilled workers in the l680fs broke the mon­ opoly of this older working-class Liberalism. It*also confronted Conservatives with a more thorough-going leftist offensive, tihich they viewed with much apprehension. Despite the New Unionism, the Conservatives were certainly not confined in their appeal to the urban laborers to such Tory working-class bastions as Lancashire and East London. As the Webbs observed: ...there is, among trade unionists, a great deal of what cannot be desoribed otherwise than as Conservatism. The abiding faith in the sanctity of vested interests; the strong presumption in favor of the status quo; the dis­ trust of innovation, the liking for distinot social olasses, marked off from eaoh other by corporate privileges and pec­ uliar traditions; the disgust at the modern spirit of self-seeking assertiveness; and the deep-rooted oonvio- tion that the only stable organisation of society is that based on each man being secured and contented in his in­ herited station of life - all these are characteristic of the genuine-Conservatives, whether in the Trade Unions or the State.5

52 ' Sidney and Beatrice Webb, Industrial Democracy, vol. II, London, 1897» 597-596. The Conservative leadership, however, failed to encourage a pol­ itical initiative among those trade unionists viho supported social reform but resented some of the strident activism of the rlew Unionism# It even failed to encourage the active participation of Conservative working men. This aloof attitude was not shared by the extra-par­ liamentary party organizations. After the 1626 election, calls were heard in the local constituency organizations for greater ef­ forts to win tiider working-class support. The national Union con­ ference, meeting in Bradford in the fall of l££6 , supported closer ties through working men’s clubs and other Conservative orgeniz- ations. In associating eaeh club directly with similar bodies in other parts of the country, the delegates hoped that Conservative working-olass identity could be established on a national basis as a challenge to Lib-Labism and working-claBo socialism. Albert Hol- lit exhorted the delegates: I x*ould call your attention to the neoeBnity of cultivating the closet relations with the organizations of labour...To­ gether with some of my political friends I went to toko as great an interest as we could in the proceedings of the T.U.C., and vie found that although all the leading men nearly were Liberals there was a minority, and an able minority (of Con­ servatives. ) and I venture to say that one of our ohief ob­ jects in the future should be to elicit and develop that feeling. The main strength of Liberalism in one cense of the term consists in the Trade Unions, I ask you...to rend the reports...to familiarize yourselves with the subjects whioh are disoussed there...and to try to look at those aueationG from a working-class point of view, so that you may induce the members of the Trade Unions to believe, whioh is a fact, that we have as great an interest in their welfare* as that which iB taken by any members of the opposite party.

**Conference Minutes. National Union of Conservative and Con­ stitutional Associations, Bradford, October 26, 1C66, 13* 4 2 J. Oswald, the delegate from Iiorth Worcestershire, wanted to over­ come some of the barriers created by upper-class condecenbion: Don't be afraid of rubbing your broadcloth against the fust­ ian. It will not snoil yours. It is not because the working- classes are disposed to look askance at Conservatism that they are not at all with you; but it is because of the neglect of going amongst them in order...to read your Daily Telegraph ...the old Radical utilitarian political economy of a cruarter of a century ago is narrow and inadenuate and is politically and economically played out. The ultimate objective of leg­ islation is not wealth but the welfare of mankind. Remember that the working classes are beings with hearts and souls and feelings. Recollect as a truth - as experience has shown - that they are not pawns to be moved on a chessboard by pol­ itical economists, but that they are pawns who may and per­ haps will take it into their heads to make up the bulk of the nation. They are men who with the employer and by the aid of capital are working out of a great tradition and for the trade enterprise of England, and the noblest aspirations and object of our statesmen is to try and to reconcile con­ flicting elements and to complete justice according to their lights between employer and employed. At Chatham in the fall of 1890, John Oorst, who was to beoome one of the lending promoters of Conservative social policies, oalled for the election of the first Conservative working-clasB M.P.s to Parliament: The interests and welfare of all sorts and conditions of the people must always be an objeot of anxious solicitude to every­ one who is engaged in publio affairs. Neither party is en­ titled, either from its paBt history or from its declared policy, to arrogate to itBelf the claim of being the sole friend of the labouring population. It is a pity that this fact is not made patent by the presence of Conservative as well as Radical working men in the House of Commons.5® In spite of determined efforts to grant some degree of recognition to the lower, olasses, moderate Conservatives continued to have little headway in convinoine the party leadership that the Con-

53Ibid., 122.

5 6 The Times, September 36, I89O, 4* 4 3 servative claim of toeing the national party involved the cul­ tivation of closer relatione with the working-classes. In latoor oiroleB, proposals, such as these, were often greeted with suspicion. At the annual meeting of the Trade Union Congress in September, 1887* there was strong opposition to the eg endorsement of Conservative candidates.7 Although many individual workers supported middle and upper olass Conservative parliamentary candidates, they lacked a well-organized representation of their opinions at trade union gatherings. Speaking to a predominantly Liberal gathering of miners in Leeds in August, 1886, Joseph Arch, president of the National Union of Agricultural Labourers, doubted the existenoe of a genuine Conservative working man and attacked 59 the Conservative party for "its wickedness and rottenness". Meanwhile, the gulf between Conservatism and organized labor was being accentuated by the laok of a strong labor presence in the Commons and the consequent frustration in having private mem­ bers * bills rejected in the Conservative-dominated Chamber. The Trade Union Congress also oritioized the Government for its lack of response to demands for Royal Commissions and inouiry com­ mittees to investigate sooial conditions. Angered by the Gov­ ernments refusal to oonoider a Royal Commission on fair merchan­ dising, Thomas Ashton of the Cotton Spinners complained: Had labour been open to the same allegations aB were made against the manufacturers, there is no doubt a Royal Com­ mission would have been iasued. without hesitation on the part of those in authority.60

•^Conference Minutes, op. oit., Liverpool, November 18, 1890, 20. •^Conference Report. T.U.C., Swansea, September 6, 1687, 26-32.

*^The Times. August 2, 1886, 5* ^Conference Report. T.U.C., ojw oit.. 13*- 4 4 Lib-Labs, in particular, retented Conservative electoral tactics in using anti-trade union socialist groups, such as the Social Democratic Federation, to divide the Liberal vote in parliamentary elections* The "Tory Gold" Scandal of 1885* in which Conservative aaent and former Marxist, Maltman Barry distributed funds from the Conservative coffers to S.D.F. London candidates, became celeb- 61 rated as a. case of Tory chicanery. Conservative apprehension about labor was intensified by in­ creased trade union militancy and the frecuency of strikes and demonstrations* On November 13, 1887» the Government banned a planned maos demonstration of the unemployed in London's Trafal­ gar Souare. Marches organized by various radical-socialist groups to protest this deoioion clashed with soldiers and mounted polioe* The violence resulted in the arrest and conviction of John Burns, an S.D.F* spokesman from Battersea, and Cunninghams 62 Grahame, the leading Scottish Radioal M.P. The rise of the New Unionism in the London area also alarmed the Conservatives. In the summer of 1889, a series of suoceBoful strikes by various groups of unskilled workers culminated in the Great Dock Strike. The grievances included low wages and lack of steady employment. Union organizers, such as Ben Tillett, Tom Mann (from the Amal­ gamated Society of Engineers), and Burns led processions and oon- duoted mass meetings throughout the city. After obtaining muoh publio support, the strikers finally received six pence on the hour - the dockerB* "tanner"- and organized a permanent dockers union. During the strike, the Government stood aloof from the conciliatory talkB sponsored by the Lord Mayor and Cardinal Man­ ning. As the defender of law and order, it aoted through the

See William B. Gwyn, Demoorao.v and the Cost of Politios in Great Britain, London, 1962, 155i and. Henry Polling, Origins of the Labour Party, Oxford, 1965, 40-41.

spelling, Ibid.. 42-43. Horn® Office and the London police to minimize violence and to protect oronerty. Its seeming disregard of the interests of the dockers proranted criticism. The Home Secretary wrote to Lord Salisbury to defend his subordinates against widesoread ac­ cusations by the workers of police brutality.^ There was also greater signs of militancy among older, staple trade unions in the North. The Oldham district of the Miners* Federation reported increased membership, especially among younger workers, and an improvement in its financial situation.^ Under the influence of Robert Knight, the head of the boilermakers* union, the craft organizations in the engine shops and shipyards 65 formed the Engineering and Shinbuilding Trades Federation. ' The Oldham cotton operators also gained recruits and displayed a growing willingness to strike in the wake of greater industrial organization among employers.^ In 1888, three-quarters of a million workers were trade union members; by 1692, this number 67 had increased to nearly a million and a half. In these disputes, the Government found itself on the side of the employers. After the Dock Strike, attempts were under­ taken to have the courts interpret more strictly the 1875 legis­ lation dealing with picketing. The Government tolerated, if it did not supnort outrightly, the hiring of "blacklegs". The Home Sooretary, Henry Matthews, aocused the dock strikers of vio­ lating the 1875 Act by using compulsion, rather than persuasion, 68 in influencing "blacklegs" to abstain from aoccpting employment.

^^Matthews to Salisbury, Salisbury Papers, Deoember 8, 1889. 64<^Oldham Evening Chroniole, January 4, 1692, 3 65,G.D.H. Cole, British Working-Class Politics: 1832-1914. London, 1941| 126-12^ 66 Oldham Evening Chroniole, January 25» 1892» 3* 67 Cole, ej3* cit., 128. 68 Matthews to Salisbury, Salisbury Papers, o£. oit. 4 6 The only positive action taken by the Government was the ap­ pointment of a Royal Commission on Labour, under the Duke of Devonshire (formerly Lord Hartington) to investigate the causes (JQ of labor unrest. This largely negative attitude was reflected in the extra-parliamentary bodies of the party. At the Liver­ pool Conference of the National Union in the fall of l£90, del­ egates affirmed the right of laborers to organize, but also in­ sisted that the Government "must protect" the rights of workers who refused to participate in union activity. The Conference gave Bupoort to the principle of the open shop, the use of "blacklegs", and the sassage of legislation restricting the use 70 of union funds for unauthorised ourooses, ie. strikes. Although the Tories were not officially committed to an ex­ tensive urogram of urb^n social reform, the growing industrial nroblem and pressure from labor and its Liberal allien forced the Conservative Government from l£C6 to IG92 to pass more em­ pirical legislation* There wan no desire to take bold, com- nrdhensive initiatives; instead, the Conservatives sought to respeot the traditional imbalance in the relationship between employer and worker. They preferred to concentrate on piece­ meal legislation to eliminate only the moot glaring injustices in the industrial system.

50 'Bernard Holland, Life of the Duke of Devonshire, vol. 2, London, 1911, 220-221.

7 0 Minutes, N.U.C.C.A., Liverpool, November 18-19, 1890, 8 4 —8 8 *. CHAPTER II THE SALISBURY ADMINISTRATION AND EMPIRICAL LEGISLATION (1886-1892)

Irish and rural problems in 1888 did not prevent the Con­ servatives from introducing a timely piece of industrial reform extending the number of workmen's compensation cases involving employers' liability* This was essentially non-oontroveraial. The Liberals in 1880 had passed an act which enabled workmen and their families to obtain adequate compensation from their employers for industrial injuries or death if the direct neg­ ligence of the employer was involved** Leaders of the Trade Union Congress since that time were dissatisfied: the aot was not comprehensive and employers were still legally entitled to plead exemption from liability if the injury was caused by a fellow-workman "in common employment” with the injured* In ad­ dition, the Trade Union Congress was opposed to the principle of the 1880 legislation which allowed workmen and employers to "contraot out” of the legislation if prior insurance arrange­ ments which met the government's standards had been made between them. The need for a reform of the 1880 legislation was further underlined by a Select Committee report in 1886 during the final 2 days of the Liberal Government* In spite of all this, the Conservative Government failed to respond until pressed by the Trade Union Congress* At Swansea in Septembert 1887, the Congress authorized the Parliamentary Committee to present its own bill.^ Although the labor bill made little progress, considering the Conservative majority in

^Henry Pelling, A History of British Trade Unionism* op* cit*, 85-86* ^wpast History of Employers' Liability Bills”, National Union Gleanings and Memoranda. (November, l893)» 243-245*

^Conference Report* T.U.C*, Swansea, on. cit., 12-13* 47 the Commons, the Government eventually recognized, the need for legislation. A Conservative measure was introduced on May 17* 1868, “by Henry Matthexjs, who was Secretary of the Boerd of Trade before becoming Home Secretary in 1689* It wan largely based on the moderate recommendations of the Select Committee appointed by the Liberal Government. The Government was opposed to the placing of a heavy liability on the employers; however, it sought to give a partial recogntionto the grievances of the workers by reducing the effect of unpopular legal forms, even legislating around them to "save face" and to eliminate complaints. Thus, . the bill retained the principle of common employment, which limited the employers* liability, but excluded from its protection the principal managers and agents to whom the employer etforessly del­ egated authority. Employers and workmen woullalso be allowed to oontraot out os in the 1880 measure.^ This refleoted the Conser­ vative desire to depend, whenever possible, or, existing,private voluntary schemes and to protect special interests. Through support of the "contracting out" plan, the Conservatives hoped to encourage the identification of the interests of workers and employers. A stable industrial situation was a primary concern end the Government hoped that the measure would reduce costly litigation over olaims. The bill waB too mild to satisfy the Lib-Lab M.P.s. Henry Broadhurst (Nottingham) opposed the oontracting-out principle as a means by which large firms would "bind the workers to the employers" and in effect "impose on the working classes of this

^British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Third Series, vol. 326, (May 17,THB15), col. 635-637-" 49 5 country the German system of compulsory insurance".' These Rad­ ical representatives of the craft and skilled unions were willing to accept an equal status with employers in the capitalist system. In demanding the elimination of "contracting out" and also, the placing of the burden of responsibility for all accidents on the employers, the Lib-Lab M.P.s were not primar­ ily taking an offensive stance against the system, but seeking to protect their freedom of action. The legislative inter­ vention of the State was supported, however, when it rec­ tified the imbalance of power between the employers and workers in the interests of the workers. Businoss interests of both parties opposed the bill. Sir James Joicey, one of the biggest coal mine owners in the North and Liberal M.P. from the Chestor-le-Street division of Durham, enumerated the finanoial difficulties whioh the bill would in­ flict.** On the Conservative side, Henry Tomlinson of Preston (Lancashire) and a paternalistic textile industrialist, argued the bill would indirectly penalize the working classes by re- 7 duoing the wages fund. W.G. Ainslie, Conservative K.P. from Lonsdale, Lonoashire, wanted exemptions or limitations on 0 liability for small businesses. Sir. S.S. Hill, Conservative M.P. from S. Bristol and representative of the shipowners, pressed for the oomplete exoluBion of shipping firms from the g measures due to their inability to supervise vessels at sea.' The Government found itself antagonizing both cideB. Con­ sequently, it decided to drop the measure under the added pres-

^Ibid., ool. 645*

6Ibid.. vol. 331, (December 7, 1888), ool. 1432-1433.

7Ibid., (May 18, 1888), col. 709- 53. time. In l690t a similar 13111 x

^"Paot History of Employers' Liability Bills", National Union Cleanings and Memoranda, opr oit., 245*

^Felling, Popular Politics and Sooiety, op. oit, 4. IP Philip Magnus, Gladstone, New York, 19&4, 39*>. 51 and governmental scrutiny. The growth of militant trade unionism helped dispel this public apathy. The beginning of scientific social studies, such as those of Charles Booth in Life and Labour of the People of London (I889-I9OI) and 3. Seebohm Rowntree in Poverty: A Study in Town Life (1901) also awakened the publio consoience by statistical revelation of the squalor that lay beneath the surface of Late Victorian prosperity. These findings were aocompanied by the growth of a new humanitarlaniom among all shadeB of opinion, including Tories in the Oastler-Shaftesbury tradition. Because of an organic view of society and a stress on elitist responsibility for the welfare of the less fortunate, certain strains of aristocratic Toryism were amenable to these collectivist currents. Therefore, the state interventionism implied in factory legislation was more acceptable to them than to many of their laissez-faire, middle-class party colleagues. Lord Dunraven, a prominent member of this group, launohed a personal crusade in the Lords against the "sweating" system. With the unofficial support of the Salisbury Government and relying on a Board of Trade investigation, he made a motion in February, 1888 for an inquiry either by the Lords or Commons in­ to the working conditions of unskilled labor. Referring to the abuses of small-soale shops and industries in the East End of London, he proclaimed that regarding hours of labour, earnings, and sanitary surroundings, the oondition of these people waB more deplorable than that of any body of working men in any portion of the oivilized or uncivilised world...these people, who were nominally 5'2

free men and women, free citizens of a free country, were just as much hound hy the environment as slaves were; and they might die of starvation or rot of disease and their masters would not suffer one farthing of damage. In the February, I889 issue of the Nineteenth Century, he re­ futed anti-interventionist arguments of the forties and called . upon Conservatism to consider a more daring course: Politics, in the broader meaning of the terra, are under­ going a radical and in some respects wholesome change. The people are beginning to require something more than the mere nutriment of a name in exchange for their suffrages, and the hero-worship of statesmen is losing votaries day by day. A feeling...that the relations of individuals toward the State and of the State toward individuals requires modification, is strong, though obscurely influencing their minds...All that they want is efficient help and protection through the action of organization, and by their own efforts, - and if neces­ sary - that where organization and self-help are power­ less by the aid of the State.14 Dunraven^ efforts led to the establishment of a House of Lords Commission.^ In its report in I89O, it condoned the system of sweating but recognized that abuses had occurred due to extensive subcontracting. Dunraven, feeling personally insulted, resigned from the commission and presented an oppos­ ition paper that condemned the entire system. His cause gained the support of maverick Conservatives, inoluding Lord Randolph

^Ibid., vol. 322, (February 28, 1888), col. 1603.

^The Earl of Dunraven, "The Future of Toryism: A Sketch", Nineteenth Century, vol. 25* (February, 1889), 199-200.

^Churohill to Arnold tfhite, Nay 25, 1890, Randolph Churchill Pacers, vol. 26, f. 3570. Churchill and Arnold Jhite, a, prominent Tvnesider grooming him­ self for the nest general election. Political expediency more than a concern for social reform probably dictated their support liony of the employers and workers in the small trades of East London were Eastern European Jewish immigrants* and there were fears that they were undermining British wane standards. Chur­ chill* in particular, sought to appeal to the anti-alien chau­ vinism. In a letter to ’dhito, he urged support of Dunraven's report for its willingness to challenge the Jewish community.^ fcfith the onset of populer urban enthusiasm for imperialism, this paradoxical blending of social reform and racist nationalism soon became the basis of the Conservative appeal to the native British working-class in East London. In June, 1890, with this dubious backing, Lord Dunraven presented his case for legislative elimination of sweating to the Lords. He cited the intense competition among employers for workers as the causo of low wagou and urgod the oreation of a 17 Department of Labour to monitor the labor market. Supporters of the Government feared that this extension of state regula­ tion would eventually make the settlement of wages a parlia­ mentary concern. According to the Earl of Derby:

l6Ibid.

^ British Parliamentary Debates, Lords, Third Series, vol. 345, (June 9, IC90J, col. 5 4 When the noble Earl (ilunraven) goes on to cay that he wants to out the sweater, the worker, and the employer on an e^ual basis, I think he is supfiesting that Parliament should do that which is utterly beyond the oouer of any legislation whatever to perform* Unless you are prepared to say that no work is to be taken home by workers or done in their own home and that all work is to be done in reg­ ular factories and workshops,there will be undoubtedly a greater freedom from restraint on the p»rt of "those who work in’their own homes than there is elsewhere. Lord Hiring found an inspectorate a "dangerous weapon whioh wouH lead to petty tyranny and petty interference, and that there was nothing which so rouses the feelings of peopleaaainst the law as 19 interference with their homes". Lord Monkswell, who signed the official report, was skeptical of the effects of legis­ lation, and thought "true progress would come from combination 20 among the workers and the awakening of a r-ublio conscience". In the face of such opposition, Lord Dunraven drooped the pro­ posal to have his report recognized over the official one. As the Lords was debating the sweated trades, John Gorst and a small minority of Conservative M.P.s exerted pressure on the Government to net an example as a model employer by pre­ venting indiscriminate sub-contracting and low wages in Gov­ ernment deportments. In a debate on April 6, IS8G, Arthur Baumann of Camberwell, Peckhem olno urged the abolition of overtime in Government munitions factories and shipyards os a way of providing jobs for the unemoloyed. 21 The Secretary of State for War, Charles Stanhope, stated that although the Gov-

l8Ibid., col. 311- 312.

l9Ibid., col. 454.

20Ibid.t col. 456. 55

ernment v;as concerned about the unemnloyed, it hod to conduct

its oper?»tions in the manner that would insure the most ef- 22 ficiency. Thus, the Government was unwilling to accommodate itself to social experiments, even of a minor nature lest they

imuede production for national defense. It w p s particularly resistant to pressures for accountability to the trade unions for unges oaid government omnloyees. The Commissioner of the Office of Works, D.R. Piunket encouraged this resistance. In a memorandum of January 15, 1-890 to the Cabinet, he wrote that the Government should not commit itself to giving in this way a general unconditional Banotion to the rates approved by the trade unions. Stren­ gthened by suoh countenance from the Government as well as from local authorities, it is a Question whether trade unions would remain long content with their present rates. I think that in making it a condition that no part of a special contract is to be sublet without the sanction of the First Commissioner of 'Works we already do all that we should be ahked to^do in such cases for the protection of men from sweating. Adamant on this point, the Government was more flex­ ible when it came to amending factory legislation. Such legis­ lation was in keeping with the Tory concentration on the improve­ ment of working conditions rather than interfering with hours of labor. Support came from the Lancashire cotton spinners and weavers who, apolitical in their official position, numbered Conservatives and maintainedgood relations with the Salisbury Government. In 1889, they secured government support for a privately-introduced Cotton Factories bill establishing max-

22Ibid., vol. 324, £pril 6, 1888) col. 608.

2^British Documents, Cabinet Papers (Cab 37/26) no. 3, January 15, IS90. *6.

p ^ imum humidities in th° U3e of steam in ’weaving sheds. ' In I69O, before the Government officially introduced its own bill, Henry James, Liberal Unionist M.P. from Bury and the leading representative of the cotton unions in the Commons, arranged con­ sultations between Lancashire Conservative M.P.s and delegates of the textile employers and operatives on the bill's major points. James expressed satisfaction with the "extreme moderation" of the 25 workers' proposals; James Mawdsley of the Cotton Spinners, the most prominent Conservative in tho trade union movement, aided the negotiations. It would materially assist in getting much legislation Qve reported} if our members would take a personal interest in the auestion and let their representatives know it...£but3 we say that no legislation will give a man brains who has not got them, or put bone in the back of a spineless crank. What the men of the country ought to have is a dear field. If and when that is obtained (and} we cannot hold our own, no legislation will permanently keen us up. ® Mawdsley had the same confidence in mid-Victorian middle-olass values 30 did orthodox Conservatives. On the basiB of these com­ mon values, a peouliar alliance emerged between the aristocrats and many of the ootton operative unions. It emphasized progress through individual self-development rather than institutional innovation.

2^H.A. Clegg, A. Pox, and P.A. Thompson. History of British Trade Unions Since 1889, vol. I, Oxford, 19^4* 244*

^ Cotton Factory Times, February 28, 1890, 6.

26Ibi'd., Hay 9, I89O, 7. The weavers, however, predominately Liberal and less imbued with the deferential individualism of the spinners, agitated for a claure requiring employers to supply their workers with a written statement of the rate of wages. In this manner, agree­ ments would be binding and the possibility of deception elimin- 27 ated.* This demand provoked controversy end led to abandonment of the joint employers-workers bill upon which the Conservatives hod placed their hopes. Consecruently, Henry James, with the sup­ port of the cotton unions, introduced a private bill in February of 1G9 1 .28 James1 amendment bill provided for the sanitary improvement and the proper ventilation of factories, and the fencing off of dangerous machinery. In compliance with the demands of the weavers, the bill, for the purposes of machine maintenance, re­ duced by one hour the number of weekly work hours and made man­ datory the wago "particulars" statement. Also, 0. working-class inspectorate would insure its implementation. At first, there were indications of wide Bupport. William Houldsworth, Tory M.P. from H.W. Manchester and the leading figure in the Manchester "machine", was certain of "a consensus of opinion" on the bill, which he stated "provided protection for good employers who were handicapped by others who are not inclined voluntarily to do the 29 same for their workpeople." * However, employers' opposition arose on both sides of the House. There werooomplaints that the operatives had induced James to produce a "class" measure that violated the interests of the general community.^ Caleb Wright,

27 Clegg, Fox, and Thompson, oj>, cit.. 244> 28 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 350, (Febru­ ary 18, I891) ool, 947*

29Ibid., col. 959-960.

Preston Guardian, February 7» 1091» 5* a Liberal from S . ’.f. teiph, Lancashire, complained that the bill would hamper employers by further reducing hours, putting the cotton industry in an unfavorable position in the world markets. James Mcleon, a Conservative from Oldham, found the legislation unnecessary since "the amiability of industrialists and labourers had made conditions more favorable in some factories than in the House of Commons"! The industrial interests were resolutely opposed to the passage of factory bills which would regulate hours as well an factory conditions. In their opinion, the needs of industry and of the community were identical, and any conces­ sion to the workers' demands would result in a diminution of national economic strength that would affect the working classes along with the upper olasses. The Salisbury Government retreated. The Home Secretary opposed the .working-class inspectorate on the grounds that moot laborers lacked scientific training. He rejected any cutbacks in hours, even for the purpose of cleaning meohinery.33 Realizing that some measure had to pass if only as a sop to public opinion, the Government amended the James bill to suit the wishes of the employers. However, the "particulars" clause, which specified the written confirmation of wage standards, was maintained. In spite of the disappointment of James, scattered Tory Democrats, and the Lancashire operatives, the Government had no difficulty 34 in getting a majority for the amended measure.

31Ibid., col. 965*

32Ibid., ool* 975.

33Ibid.. col. 979-981.

3^B. L. Hutchins, A History of Factory Legislation, London, 1911» 238. The extension of factory legislation coincided with the de­ mand of the coel miners for regulatory measures. Because of their geographic concentration and their organizational strength, the miners were able to lobby effectively through their Lib-Lab H.P.s, 2ven before the securing of parliamentary representation, the miners were able to obtain support for legislation. Ac a result of per­ sistent efforts, the Hines Regulatory Act of 1660 improved the in­ spection of pit safety measures, obtained the appointment of workers an checkweighmen, and provided for the protection of wages. The selection of checkweighmen from the trade unions strengthened union activity at each pit. Under Alexander MacDonald of the Miners National Union, these regional labor newer bases helned to secure further mine safety legislation in 1872. The Salisbury Government recognized that there was little politicp.l advantage in legislating for the staunchly Liberal miners However, as a result of the report of a Royal Commission on the Hines and a serious mining disaster in Lanarkshire, Scotland, it deoided to aot. At Birmingham in February, 1887» Matthews, the Home Secretary, promised reformand in June, a new mines regulation bill wos introduced. Matthews described it as a con­ solidating measure that would provide for a more efficient indus­ try and the protection of labor. Although recognizing the leg­ itimate demands of the miners for stricter regulation, ho affirmed

spelling, A History of British Trade Unionism, on.oit., 46.

^The Times, February 23, 1887, 10. 60 the Government'g intention of not introducing legislation which 37 would 4ieooardize the economically depressed industry. Aa in other instances, the Cabinet was willing to respond to demands for timely social reform only as long as it safeguarded good relations with the employers. The Government was strongly oooosed by the minerB and their allies. The T.TJ.C. Conference at Swansea oriticised the ministry for allowing the employment of pit women and for increasing the ape limit for boys from ten to twelve. It particularly disliked the clause aimed at lessening the influence of the trade unions in ^8 the selection of cheokweighmen. Thomas Burt, Lib-Lab from Kor- peth, condemned the failure to b^n the emnloyment of oit women end hoped "the Government would show as much desire for the pro­ tection of lives as it had shown in the measures to facilitate "39 the collection of landlord rents in Ireland. Prom the Radical far left, Cunninghams Graham dismissed "the terror of state super­ vision" and oallod for the nationalization of the mines.4^ The ministry refused to be pushed into reforms where it thought that change was not needed. P.S. Powell, Conservative from Wigan, defended a wider scope in choosing oheokweighmen as a move toward effioienoy. On the b^sis of the freedom of labour, he opposed state interference with the employment of nit women who wished to work and the right of boys to work at age ten.A^ W.H. Smith claimed the boys of ten to twelve years were needed by a depressed

^British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 316, (June 20, 1887), ool. 632-33. 38 Conference Renort, T.U.C., Swansea, op oit., 13. 39 Parliamentary Debates, op. oit., col. 634.

40Ibid.. June 22, 1867, col. 737*

41Ibid.. June 23, 1867, ool. 785-86. 61 industry. 42 However, ac a result of the precsui'e from mining con­ stituencies, the Government wisely conceded some of the provisions before the passage of the measure in August of 1887* Employment of boys under twelve was prohibited, and the selection of check- weighmen was left in the hands of the local trade union* Although a Conservative reform which met most of the demands of the miners had been passed, the Government had acted only under pressure and then hesitantly* Instead of crediting "the Salisbury Administration for its belated accomplishment, the miners pressed for more. The Conference of the Miners Federation of Great Britain, at Stoke-on-Trent in January, 1892, called for the extension of the new aot to metalliferous mines. Labor's most decisive challenge was the agitation for the eight hour day. The general econoraio crisis of the late 1880's caused unemployment and intensified grievances, such as long hours and unsatisfactory working conditions, particularly among the miners. Because of its relevance to a large number of laborers, the eight hours demand became the symbol for other political and social demands. Radioal and sooiali'st theories revived among mid­ dle-class intellectuals and certain segments of the working classes; and calls were heard for the taxation of the unearned inoorae of wealth, for land nationalization, for the nationalization of mining royalties, and for the eight hour day. In 1683, the Sooial Dem­ ocratic Federation became the first of these new leftist groups to officially support a legislated eight hour day for all trades. The idea was soon popularized among the radicals of the New Unions. In 1886, Tom Mann of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers and a leading

42Ibid.. (June 22, 1887), col. 735-36.

4^Oldham Evening Chroniole, January 15, 1892, 3. 62 organizer of the London dockers published "What a Compulsory Eight Hour Day Means to the Workers". In this pamphlet, the eight hour day was viewed, not only as a means to protect the workers* health and to extend his leisure, but also as a solution to unemployment At the conference of the National Miners Association in Edinburgh on October 11, 1887, a universal eight hour day and the limitation of output per worker were advocated as remedies to unemployment. The Trade Union Congress, at its annual conference in 186?, also sup­ ported a universal eight hour day against the opposition of its largely Lib-Lab executive committee.^ In spite of this pressure for parliamentary enactment, the first implementation of eight hours was brought about by industrial organization and agitation. In March of 1889, Will Thorne organized a union among the gasworkers of East Ham, London, and led a success­ ful strike against the Southern Metropolitan das Company for recog­ nition of the union and for an eight hour day. In the same year, the formation of the Miners Federation of Great Britain consolidated the regional unions in Scotland, Yorkshire, Lancashire, and Wales, creating a powerful force in support of eight hours. But the labor community was not united. The independent regional unions of Dur­ ham and Northumberland, whioh remained apart from the Miners Feder­ ation were strongly opposed. Having already won a reduotion of hours to seven, they feared that this advance would be eliminated by

^ S e e Polling, A History of British Trade Unionism, op. oit., 93I Jose Harris, Unemployment and Politics, op. oit., "&Q-0 L ; and Sidney and Beatrice Webb, History of Trade Unionism. New York, 1902, 370.

^ J o h n Wilson, A History of the Durham Miners * Association: 1870-1914. London, 1907, Chaplin Papers, Durham County Council Archives, D/LO F552, 199*

^ Conference Report. T.U.C., Dundee, September 2, 1889, 52* 63 a universally-applied statute.*^ The -textile operatives of Lanca­ shire also refused to endorse the principle, on the grounds that their markets would be affeoted and wages would be lowered* Although sympathetic to the voluntary introduction of eight hours, the Government opposed any compulsion* Salisbury was skeptibal of the State's ability to proteot the laborers from the hardships of what was seen as a generally beneficial system: Everybody would sympathise with the desire of the working man to improve his own position by the exertion of his own fac­ ulties and his own industry, but..*an eight hours bill would be a very great mistake though I do not for a moment say that there was not a great deal of too long work in a great many trades.48 For the sake of industrial growth, commerioal expansion, and re­ sulting material benefit to the workers, eoonomio gyrations had to be endured. State intervention, rather than bringing seourity, would undermine the prised values of individualism and enterprise upon whioh the nation's prosperity was based. At the conference of the National Union in Liverpool in I89O, F. Dixon Horttand, M.P. from Middlesex, repeated the same theme: any eight hours measure AQ would "destroy liberty of aotion". 7 At Chatham on February 12, I89I, even the Tory Demoorat, John Corstdoubted that eight 50 hours legislation would oure all ills". He opposed its uni­ versal enforcement due to the opposition of strong minorities in the labor oommunity among whom he hoped to obtain support for Conservatives. He also oited the laok of applicability of such a measure to agriculture and small trades. As an experiment to test the effectiveness of eight hours, Qorst oalled upon the Qov-

^Pelling, A HiBtory of British Trade Unionism, op. oit.. 105-06.

4®The -Times, «<. November 27» 1889, 6. ^Minutes of the National Union. Liverpool, November 18-19» 1890, 6. 50 The Times. February 14» I89I, 15# 64 erment to limit the hours of its own employees* Michael Hicks Beach, the President of the Board of Trade, objected to eight hours legislation on the grounds that it lacked the consensus of the na- tional community.^ All of this resistance rested on the belief that, before receiving the approval of Parliament, any such far- reaching endeavor had to be tested in individual, local cases and assimilated slowly into the habits and experiences of national life* Some Tory Democrats, for humanitarian and political reasons, disagreed* The Bari of Dunraven felt that such a measure would af­ ford more leisure to workers for the development of their intel­ lectual and politioal interests* Like many progressive Conser­ vatives, he believed that an instructed worker would exercise a 52 "wise use of the vote" for the "well-being of the Empire".*' Lord Randolph Churchill also urged enactment, stating that state inter­ ference was better than national contention over the issue* Con­ sciously playing the role of Disraeli, he asserted that "where it was made out that a particular kind of work was carried on under conditions which were distinctly inimical to the health and strength of the people...and tended to the deterioration of the race, the maxim applied Salus populi supreme lux (the well-being of the people is the supreme law), and tho liberty of the individual, sacred as it was, must give way". Churohill was aware of the need to conciliate labor. He also reoognized that, in the past, hours limitation had not proved dangerous to industrial progress. However, Churohill never aotively campaigned for the particular reform, rejecting a re­ quest of the Dundee Miners Assooiation in Deoember, 188$ to promote 54 legislation.*^

*^The Annual Register, Ootober, 1690, 211-212* ^The Times, January 10, I89O, 6* *^The Campainn Guide, "Political Speeches" supplement, Third Series, February ll-November 21, I89O, February 18, 1890, 19-20* 54 Churohill to D*M*A», Churohill Papers, 1/25, vol. 25, December 1, 1889, no. 3343, December 9, 1889, no. 3344* In spite of Conservative opposition to the principle, eight hours legislation "became a reality in the case of the railroad ■workers* Because of the excessively long hours (as much as 16^ hours a day), public sympathies were in favor of the railway workers’ demands for a reduction; many advocates of eight hours hoped that, if granted, this would establish a precident for 5 *5 eight hours legislation in other trades* ' The Conservative M.P. a attempted to blook the motion with the objection that cap­ ital uould be disrupted. It was a "case of interference by out­ siders between the capitalist and his men", said H*K* Uoworth of S. Salford, of "philanthropists intervening in questions which "can only be solved in accordance with the laws of supply and d e m a n d " . H i c k s Beach claimed the Board of Trade lacked the 57 expertise of authority to interfere• The task of establishing hours for the various categories of railway workmen, he con­ tended, was too complicated. Charles 0* Ritchie (Dundee) feared that suoh aotion would lead to the nationalization of the 58 railways, "with poor service and political corruption" . 5 But the Government tried not to appear "hardfaced" and decided to 59 refer the subject to a parliamentary inquiry committee.*^ In the summer of 1892, the Railway Hours Committee con­ firmed the excessively long hours, but refused to give a blanket endorsement to the eight hours principle; however, it recog­ nized it in some instances. In the light of this report, the Salisbury Government finally passed a Regulation of RailB Act in 1892 whioh improved the standards of working equipment and dis­ couraged the praotioe of excessive overtime.. As a result of widespread sympathy for the railworkers, eight hours was con-

^?The Tory. August, I892, 103. 56 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Third Series, vol. 349, June 23, I891, ool. 905. 66 0 0 ceeded in a very limited number of cases, While railway legislation wes being considered, the sunoorters of eight hours legislation organized their forces to oresent a pri­ vate member eieht hours bill for miners. Cn January ??, l£90, the Minero Federation, meetinp in Birmingham, urged symnathetic Lib-Lab M.P.s and Conservative sunoorters, such as the Earl of Dunraven and Churchill, to ownnort their cause. Due to the time schedule, the bill wes not introduced. R. Cunninshame-Crahame (Radical Socialist K.P. from LannrkPhire) and Ben Pickard (Lib-Lab from the West Riding, Yorkshire) presented a bill in 1891 but met with no success due to fS X Conservative and Liberal intransigence. The Salisbury Government remained in control of the situation, confident that oublic oninion, fo-ring a rise in coal prices, would not give suuport. The ap- nointment of the Royal Commission on Labour aave some hope to eight hours supnorters, but in a speech on March 4, 1891, at the London Chamber of Commerce, Lord Salisbury discouraged any high anticipations. The commission would consider eight hours legis­ lation as a remedy, but legislative interference on the question of hours vms only applicable to women and children. He characterized eight hours legislation as a rigid imposition that would be unen­ forceable and would therefore, provide little protection given the 62 oyolicel process of the economy. The Prime Minister reflected the general Conservative lack of confidence in the ability of leg­ islation to solve problems and the belief it was best to rely on society to heal itself through the separate voluntary actions of oitizens and organizations. The Campaign Guide, which informed

^^The Tory, op. oit. 61 Clegg, Fox, and Thompson-, on oit., 242. A? The Times. March 5, 1891, 6. 67

local party agents of political iscuec from the viewpoint of the Central Office, echoed this vie;; in a humorous parody which, in ef­ fect, begged the rrueotion: The condition of society under an eight hourn law is hardly realizable. The cook would have to stop the preparation of the dinner, the waiter would fly from the table, the nurce would drop the child, when the eight hours were up. Every club and hotel would require three sets of servants. If as Mr. Cunninghame Graham and other Radicals propose, members of parliament were paid, there would need to be two sets of shifts, as the House often cits more than eight hours, be­ sides committee work. The cabman would have to turn out his "fare" and gallop back to the stable in time to un­ harness and stable up before his time had run. Every patient requiring constant attention would need at least three nurses. Shopkeepers who opened at 9 in the morning would have to close at 5, nuch to the astonishment and disgust of the housewife or workman who wished to go chopping in the evening. Such Jocularity evaporated within a years time as Conser­ vatives realised how much pressure was being placed upon Con­ servative M.P.s from mining constituencies. Sir Frederick Milner of Bnssetlaw, Nottinghamshire, opposed eight hours legislation but noted the "considerable number of miners who claim they will not support anyone who will not vote for the bill".^ In March, 1892, Cunninghame Graham, aware of the division in Conservative ranks, introduced another measure, but the private interests of many M.P.s outweighed party diooiplino. A sizeable minority of Conservatives ond Liberal Unionists, inoluding Lord Randolph Churohill, Sir John 65 Gorst, ond Joseph Chamberlain voted for the enactment of the bill. Churchill had sought earlier in the debate to make the Government

^Tho Campaign Guide. IC92, 214*

^British Parliamentary Rebates, Commons, vol. 2, Fourth Series, March 23, 1892, col. 1592-1593- 65 ■'Clegg, Fox, and Thompson, oj>. cit., 242. 66 more amenable to the leeinTotion. In a letter to A.J. Balfour, who became Leader of the Commons after the death of U.rl. Smith, he Dieted: Of course, I do not exoect that you and the Government can nunnort this bill, but I nrev you for two things. I.) do not treat it no n party ouestion. ?.) If you sneak on it, as I hone you will, deal with it in a gentle and conciliatory man­ ner# I hone you will on no account allow Matthews to open his mouth. Your electoral authority will tell you that any Tory candidate for districts w.here there is a pressing vote must nledge himself to the bill if be wiBhes to get in. Also, that conniderablggmembers of Tory M.P.r end candidates h?vo already done so. Churchill als.o reminded him that the Conservatives had an oppor­ tunity to gather suoport among the new labor unionism by sup­ porting the measure: Halos, Yorkheire, Lancashire, and Staffordshire workina minrs are all behind this bill. After all, it is not a mere indiv­ idual question. The nolitieal nrinoinle is rained by it. To humor the wishes of the masses of labour on ouestionn af­ fecting their own interests is in accordance with oast Tory nolioy. The L’ew Unionism that goes for eight hours has al­ most entirely broken down the Old Unionism which was ordin­ arily mentally hostile to Toryism. Eisht Houre will, I believe, oorry with it as a necessary oonBeouence an in­ creased coot of production and a return to protection that me.y take the form of a customs union - a reuult agreeable to all our party traditions. As a narty, it can do ud no harm. If it is found bv experience to be economically un­ sound, either the law will become a dead letter, or the men will desire to repeal it, when u<* can nnain meet their wishes.0 '

Churchill to Balfour, Balfour Papers, British Museum, March 19» 1890, vol. 13, no. 49695*

67Ibid. The Government refused Churchill's advice, and in soi+e of defection^ was able to bloc*: of the eieht hours bill, appeals to in­ dividual freedom end voluntarism could only pertly disguise growing doubtn about the efficiency of British industry and British labor in the face of overseas comoetition. Although the pr>st legis­ lation for women and children revealed that a reduction of hovrn did not hinder productivity, the gloomy circumstances of the late eighties and early nineties made the Government vary of extending thin orinoinle to adult moles. Conservative support of housing legislation was another leg­ acy of the Disraeli Administration which failed to produce much results. Despite a lack of interest in the party in chronic urban overcrowding, Salisbury in 1883 had braved party criticism by suggesting that low-cost government loans be given to building firms to erect houses at reasonable rates for workers. In addition, he suggested that the Liberal government should net an example by sub­ sidizing houses for some of the worst paid of its own employees 68 in the post offioo, polioe, and custom houses. Concern about the condition of working-olass housing, and resoonse to Andrew Hearns' Bitter Cry of Outcast London, and to a series of articles in the Pall Hall Gazette by its editor, W.T. Stead, prompted the ^ appointment of a Royal CommiBBion on Housing on February 22, 1884. Its report advocated greater powers for munioipal authorities to support building projects. In 1885, the London Metropolitan Board of Works was empowered to build and let working-class homes; and in IC90, its successor, the reform-minded London County Counoil, extended this "munioipal socialism" by authorizing the oonstruo-

68 Lord Salisbury, "Labour and Artisans' Dwellings", The National Review, vol. II (November, 1083)» 301-316.

^Bentley Gilbert, The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain, London, 19^4• 70 tion of homes end lodging houses for individuatenade homeless by nlum clearance. It trao also granted permission to use the rates 7 T for commilsory nurchase of land for construction. Ab a result of this piecemeal encouragement of local init­ iatives, the Conservatives were forced to give seme attention to housing reform. But they continued to think in terms of Disraelinn sanitary legislation rather than embark on new ventures. Primary stress was still Dlaced on the local authorities with Westminster only establishing the guidelines. In November, 1889, Ritchie of the Local Government Board argued that, if the existing laws in regard to slumB were faithfully executed, no new legislation was necessary. Ke prooooed instead a consolidation act that would 71 streamline the six existing acts. In July of 1890 Ritchie introduced such a measure. It re­ moved the red tape in the earlier Acts that hindered the removal of old homes acnuired by local authorities. Tenants displeced were given allowances for moving to new areas, and limitations were placed on the omount of compensation given to the landlords of demolished slum* buildings. Recognizing the administrative reforms of the 1888 Local Government Act, the measure extended the housing Acts to the rural areas bv giving powers to the new county counoils to remove unsanitary buildings. 7? The striot administration of the Poor Law and, in Borne oases, the very system of poor law relief itself, had come under

70 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fourth Series, Vol. Ill, col. $50^ 71 The Annua1 Registrar, November, 1889, 24c. 72 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Third Series, vol. 347, July 21, I89O, col. 390. 71 criticism? end halting attempts bed been made to ad/just the sys­ tem to new ide^s and circumstances during the eighteen sixties and seventies. Hr,ry of the middle and upper classes, concerned about rising rates, tmd been oppoeed to the provision of relief outside of the workhouses. Nith recurrences of unemployment in the eiphtien, greater leniono.y was advocated. Public sympathy awakened to the plight of the out-of-work who were able-bodied and industrious. The first steps had already been taken toward the removal of the n\ sick and insane from the onus of the deterrent system. Now, in the middle eighties, there was more differentiation among the unemployed poor. Joseph Chamberlain, as Liberal President of the Local Government Board, issued a departmental circular in 1886 encouraging the boards of guardians to establish public works for the deserving and able-bodied unemployed. This aotion signified the first significant break from the ripidities of the 1834 Poor Law Aot and provided the principle of supplementary aid outBide of the traditional relief system. The creation of county councils in 1888 focused attention on the difficulty of the reconciling the oligarchic poor law authorities with the new democratic struoture.*^

73 Conservatives and Liberals had earlier expressed a concern about poor low reform from the standpoint of better discrimination. In 1861, Salisbury denounced the conduct of some guardians for their mistreatment of the homeless poor. During the 1860's under the Palmerston Government, palliative relief measures were introduced for rural areas and London. The Poor Law Board was made a perman­ ent department in 1867. During the Disraeli ministry, a Metropol­ itan AsylumB Bill was passed, separating the insane for special treatment. During the Salisbury Administration (I885-I806), voting disqualifications for persons reoeiving medioal assistance were eliminated. See Kail de Schweinitz, England's Road to Social Se­ curity, Philadelphia, 1943» 166-183? Paul Smith, Disraelian Con­ servatism and Social Reform, London, 1967» 140-143* 7A Jose Harris, Unemployment and Politics, o p . oit, 75-77* 72

The Conservatives and the Liberal Unionists however as a result of their compromise of lcUb, refused to allow the institutions of pub­ lic relief to come under the control of the lower classes. They were also reluctant to give the county councils any control over social expenditures and administration. The powers of the new dem­ ocratic bodies were narrowly circumscribed nnd their riehts to levy taxes severely limited. Ho'-ever, by the Poor Lav; Act of 1889, this opposition wntt niowl.v eroded. Increased grants and loans from West­ minster through the Local Government Board were placed at the dis­ posal of the counoils for noor relief purposes, although effective 75 control of these funds remained in the hands of the upner classes. The Conservative Government, however, was neither willing to assume the resnonsibility for this difficult task nor to provide large-scale emergency aid by activating the 1886 circular. Instead, it chose to provide funds on an individual case basis to the boards 76 of guardians. Anxious to see the local authorities assume the re- nnonsibility of providing for the unemployed in their own areas, Ritohie viewed this assistance as s stimulus to self-help, but this ad-hoo response underestimated the seriousness of the prob­ lem. Dissatisfied with Ritchie's polioy, two unemployment oonfer?ncec one . in January, the other in December, 1867» urged the Qovern- 77 ment to comprehensively investigate the problems of unemployment. The Trade Union Congress, particularly the representatives of the New Uhionism, sent deputations to Whitehall. However, Ritohie

^P.P. Aschrott (trans. Herbert Preston Thomas). The English Poor Law System; PaBt and Present, London, 1902, 104.

*^The Times, January 12, 1887* 10. 77 The Times, December 6, 1887* 6. discounted th° Tionribili+’f of emergency aoverrmentn.l intervention, cleininr th»t "nrernure on the poor Lav? authorities was not nre^t 78 end that charitable organizations could handle the plight". Is economic conditions improved, the Government reluctantly considered an overhaul of the system. In l8&7» the Local Govern­ ment Bo^rd disnatch^d insneotor Jomes S. Davy to Germany to in­ quire into the workings of the Elberfeld relief system, which com­ bined oublic assistance and private charitable aid. The Govern­ ment rejected the scheme an impractical. The House of Lords Se­ lect Committee on Poor Law Reform, anoointod in 1885 by the Lib­ eral Government and choired by Lord Kimberley, presented a report in 1888 that eBtabliohed official policy. It stated that improve­ ments could be made in the noor law system as lonR os the principles 79 of the 1634 Act were maintained. 7 Little positive incentive for Government action emerged from the report; and conseouently, the Conservatives placed Poor Law reform "on the shelf". Speakinr. at St. James Hall in London on July 16, 1&92, A.J. Balfour, Conser­ vative Leader in the Commons, stated that the poor lav; needed "modifications", such as the better classification of paupers, but added that any reform deserved "the most oautious treatment" 80 and that "the worst of the evils of the system had vanished". Since the 1870's, the protection of the aged poor from the hardships of destitution and the workhouBe had been a topic of publio debate. In 1878, William Blakely, a Hampshire reotor, pro­ posed the first voluntary insurance soheme, suggesting that every man between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one voluntarily give

7^The Times, January 15» l89lf 8*

79Ibid., June 16, 1692, 10. Da Bentley Gilbert, 0£. cit., 161-164. 74 L10 to on annuity fund through the Post Office. The employer 81 would supervise the deposition of savings in the fund. As a result of the economic depression, this proposal vras at the fore­ front of discussion from 1885 to 1887, hut the opposition of the friendly societies (the independent workers' insurance societies) and the Charity Organization Sooiety, who feared competition from any insurance scheme, prevented the progress of the Blakely plan. * The old age question engaged the attention of Chamberlain who, in a Birmingham speech on April 21, 1891, unveiled his first propo­ sal for direot assistance. Although admiring the comprehensiveness of the German system, he supported a voluntary, contributory plan in which the reoipient would begin with a B5 deposit in the Post Office or friendly society. Recognizing that many of the working classes were not saving in either the Post Office or the friendly societies for old age, he proposed a tempting offer to induce con­ tributions. The depositor would receive a Government oredit of L15, to be continued by forty yearly payments of h 1. At the age of sixty-five, the contributor would begin to receive 5° Pe? week for the remainder of his life. Chamberlain's soheme separated old age relief from the poor law and established it on a private, vol­ untary basis with governmental assistance. Underlying Chamberlain's plan was an obvious attempt to "dish" the Liberals who were con­ cerned with question. He linked this social reform with a patriotic appeals (Old age pensions were) a question whioh deserved the at­ tention of politicians and statesmen better than some of these theoretioal matters of constitutional reform- better

81 David Owen, English Philanthropy. Cambridge, Mass., 1964, 505-06j 508. 75

a great deal to keep together the hone than to break up a kingdom (with Irish Home Rule) . " 2 Chamberlain received considerable Liberal Unionist support; and at the annual National Union Conference in Birmingham in the fall of l891r his proposal was endorsed by the delegates. J He also secured the support of one hundred Conservative and Liberal Unionist M.P.s, but immediately had to reassure the friendly soc­ ieties that his plan would exclude regular sickness or accident O j insurance. 4 However, the friendly societies continued to point to the defioienoies of the measure. The Chief Registrar of the Friendly Societies stated that non-compulsory provision for old age insuranoe would "aid only those who could help themselves” and would not touch ^the 1/7 of the population over sixty who are pau­ pers”, Chamberlain also faced the growing demand for compulsion by supporters of a more thorough-going plan. Chamberlain's soheme was challenged in December, 1891 by Charles Booth, the Liverpool shipowner and Booial investigator, who announced his own plan for 86 universal, non-contributory, and tax-supported old age pensions. In spite of these challenges, Chamberlain was able to secure an ally in John Gorst, the Tory Democratic M.F. from Chatham, who also supported voluntary state-aided pensions. Gorst sought to allay the suspicions of the friendly societies by arguing that state assistance would only be given to stimulate the voluntary societies by removing the burden of old age support, enabling them

” The Times, April 22, 1691, 10. 3 1 “Minutes. N.U.C.C.A., Birmingham, November 8-9, 1891, 17* 84 The Times. May 14, 1891, IX* *The Annual Register. December, I89I, 227* 36 The Times. December 17, I89I, 10; see Charles Booth, Old Age Pensions: A Proposal. London, 1899* 7 6 . to concentrate on sickness and accident insurance. Considering the Chpmberlnin proposal the only "practical" scheme, he criticisrd the advocates of Booth's more radical plan for expected too much too soon: If people turned away from practical remedies end improve­ ments because they are smell, and because they were com­ paratively unimportant, and devoted themselves to great constitutional and social changes which were to alter everybody's state, and bring the millenium upon us before its time, he did not believe they were acting according . to the dictates of common cense. What he contended for, end what he honed the working classes of this country would address themselves to v;as modest reform, change where change vias necessary; to make modest alterations within the existing order of society; to nut an end to grievances which were nroved to exist; and to leave great developments to the future• The Salisbury Government, though hesitant, endorsed Cham­ berlain's plan because its principle, unlike Booth's, was based on self-initiative. Balfour replied to a Times correspondent: I do not think that this is a oueotion which can be de­ cided off-hand by the application of any abstract principle or principles, but only by the oarefully-balanced consider­ ation of the comparative advantage and disadvantage of definite sohemes worked out in detail. In the absence of any suoh scheme, I should be loath to offer any decided opinion, it must of course be borne in mind that such a scheme of pensions carried out by individual thrift and enterprise would be, if practicable, incomparably more benefioial than the automatic aotion of a government de­ partment. It must also be remembered that any finanoial proposals whioh embarrass national or local finances, and

Dn 'The Times, November 11, I89I, 7. 77

through them the trade and industry of the country, may do more hnrrn than good to the classes whom the pension scheme in specifically designed to benefit. The effect of any pension Bcheme upon existing benefits and other kindred soc­ ieties must also be taken into account. These are consider­ ations, which with others, though they need not involve ob­ ligations fatal to the proposal, suggest the utmost caution in attempting to deal with it. ™ The Camnninn Quide of 1&92 expressed doubt about the ability of the State to guarantee the pensions of friendly society depositors, considering that many friendly societies were in financial troubles over which the State had no control. It also expressed distrust of the ability of lower classes to nay the premiums for a remote goal.. f:Q To meet Conservative reservations, Henry Chaplin, President of the Board of Agriculture and an enthusiast of old nse pensions for agricultural workers, sought parliamentary approval for an in­ vestigation of the details of e. pension scheme along the lines proposed by Chamberlain. Balfour replied that the Kimberley Commission hnd sufficiently investigated the matter and that little could be added to the r e p o r t . M o n t ,Conservatives relied on the Poor Law and refused to consider even any mild reform that might undermine it. At his constituency in Oldham in January of l£92, James McLean argued that a more humane administration of the Poor Law would suffice rather than an extra-Poor Law soheme that would

88 The Times, January 20, 1892, 4.

^ T h e Caronaiffn Guide, 1892, 227« 90 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Fourth SerieB, vol. 1,(February 11, 1892), col. 202.

9IIbid.. ool. 203. 78 . "burden the taxpayer: If they went beyond thie, if they adopted wholocale mea­ sures for encouraging thriftlesrness by taking money out of the pockets of the thrifty,to nut it into thor

Hicks beech, in January, 1692» Guasested thet outdoor relief could be given more liberally than w^n the practice in many unions and declared: that (though) the principle of granting pensions to the indigent poor in old age was reasonable although in prac­ tice it would be found beGet with serious difficulties... . in the meanwhile, Stste aid might with advantage be given to looal authorities or landlords to improve the dwellings of the poor, and in other ways there was scarcely less readiness on the part of his colleagues to dabble with cer­ tain sooial problems than was evidenced by the party of conflicting fads (the Liberal party). As the prospects for a olone General Eleotion increased from I89O to 1092, both the Conservatives and Liberals attempted in a half-hearted way to compete on the issue of urban social reform. Liberalism was torn between support of Gladstone's pet projeot of Irish Home Rule and the demands of Radioalo in the National 94 Liberal Federation for domestic legislation. On the Conser­ vative-Liberal Unionist side, the leadership remained aloof from sooial reform appeals; but among the rank and file in the extra- parliamentary organizations, an appeal to the electorate on sooial reform was accepted as a matter of course. However, conflict de­ veloped on the Question of whether the emphasis of an electoral appeal should be centered on the glorifioation of past achieve­ ments or on new initiatives. At the Conference of the National

^20ldhara Evening Chroniole. January 11, 1892, 4.

^Speeoh at Bristol, January 5i The Tiroes, January 6, 1892, 10. ^See Michael Barker, Gladstone and Radicalism, Harvester Press, Sussex, 1975* 233-240. Union in November of l£90, Stuart Wort leyt the Undersecretary at the Home Office, believed that an anneal to the Conservatives* 95 past record was enough to defeat the Liberals. So did Sir Ed­ ward Clarke, M.P. from Plymouth, who stated that "there was no need for the Tory Party to introduce a new labour programme, in as much "s they alone h^d introduced legislation in the past which 96 hod been of advantage to the working classes". However, the other side contended that, without new pledges, the Conservatives would not be able to rain the support they needed. James Pettifer, an advocate of tariff reform and working class Conservatism, called for sooial reform "to be in the future", an it has been in the past, a main feature of Conservative oolicy". 97 At the Confer­ ence of the IJntionpl Union at Birmingham in 1091, Albert Rollit, M.P. from Islington, and H.H. Marks, M.P. from St. Georges, East, demanded" a sooial reform initiative, affirming that Conservatism could not rest on itn past record. Morks stated that the East End of London was grateful for Conservative efforts, but that its sup- Dort in the ooming election rested on "anticipation of things to come". 96 The most single-minded advocate of Conservative social reform, Gorst, warned Salisbury of the consequences if the leader­ ship refused to aot: Upon thin labour question, I have not at all lost the con­ fidence of the Conservative party either in the House of Commons or the country. But I fear mBny of your colleagues are wholly out of touch both with their oarty and with public

•^Minutes, N.U.C.C.A*, Liverpool, November 18-19, 1890, 84. 96 Preston Guardian, April 11, 1691, 5*

97Minutes, National Union, on. oit., 83*

9 8 Minutes, N.U.C.C.A*, Birmingham, November 1-2, 1691, 99* 8 0

oninion unon the subject. Uor am I unwilling to act cord­ ially with members of the Cabinet: it i^ come of them who from foolish .jealousy will not act with me. I h*ve already reoeived invitations to make soe echos on the labour rruestion this autumn in every part of the country. I am receiving fresh invitations daily. I have no desire to make an exhibition of independence. I would much rather let by­ gones be bygones and act as far as possible after consul­ tation with you and under your direction...But I cere a great deal more about this truest ion then I do about of­ fices and seats...1 am comnelled to proceed by my own poor light in the best way I can...99 Gorst hnd cast himself in the role of a new Disraeli, or Churchill. Out of frustration at not having received high office, he sought to assume a oronbetio role to bring light to the party. A con­ stant defender against the old guard of the extra-parliamentary inotitut ionerfhioh he had helped to orente, he broadened the fiaht to include a personal crusade on behalf of urban sooial reform. Like Churchill, Gorst aroused the ire of the p»rty leadership for his unorthodoxy. However, in contrast to him, the H.P. from Chatham lacked any broad base of ponular supDort in the constit­ uencies. Some Liberal Unionists, responding to these amorphous stir­ rings for sooial reform, attempted to establish a common effort with Conservatism on some broader basis than the Irish ouestion. It was honed that the arrangement of l8£6 would be strengthened by a party program advancing social reform, with the unifying

^Gorst to Salisbury, September 10, 1891, Salisbury Papers. e i force of national tradition r?tber than class. Chamberlain was the loading spokesman for this ;-oinl3f view. Unlike the Conser­ vative reformers, Rollit end Gorst, he was not hound to the Govern­ ment and, consequently, had more flexibility in suggesting proposal" Also, his ch-’rirm-’tio personality and his earlier refutation as a municipal reformer while Lord Mevor of Birminrhnm in the 1870*0 rave him a wider decree of noon lari ty then was accorded to any Conservative nolitician with the exception of Churchill. Chpjnber- lain alno had a practical bent in hiB political temnerament. His faith in a rational anproach and his nonconformist business back­ ground msde him a promoter of the cause of efficient, pragmstio, and balonoed government. The Liberal Unionist leader distrusted both the nostalgia of traditionalist Conservatism and the utonian expectations of Socialism. After 1886, his earlier Radicalism end distrust of aristooratio government were temnered by the ex­ igencies of accommodating to the Conservatives and by his own oer- sonal rruent for the substance, if not the form, of power. On April 2, 1891, Chamberlain announced in Plymouth this new approach. It provided the major thrust of hiB oampaign up to the General Election* He openly called for the Conservative leadership to accept sooial reform, declaring that the Conservative party could not exist "on a purely negative policy of resistance", and that it could only secure victory with a "oolioy of oonstruotive l e g i s l a t i o n " . P l a c i n g expediency and pragmatism above the traditional Conservative regard for tradition and continuity,

l00The Times. April 3, I89I, 7.

% he presented a variety of reforms designed to appeal to the interests of all classes: small holdings; housing legislation; old age pen­ sions; and industrial arbitration, lie avoided controversial! class- oriented legislation, such as the eight hour day. In taking this intra-class approach, Chamberlain, however much his strategy was daring from the Conservative perspective, conformed to the basic instinots of Conservatism, which sought to avoid class conflict and to stress the enhancement of national unity through sooial amel­ ioration and individual enterprise, ne desired to order and arrange without imposing undue suffering on any one class. The relief of sooial needs would be realized by spreading the burden of social cost on all classes and by using the facilities of private instit­ utions Regulated by the State. In utilizing the new electoral method of issuing a programme, the Liberal Unionist leader was adopting democratic forms to secure middle olass values. In spite of Conservatism's aristooratio attachments, these values were dominant in the oonstituenoles and would assure Chamberlain the sym­ pathy of moderates, forging olooer ties between the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists. Chamberlain's proposed reforms included the economio and sooial rehabilitation of agricultural desses, based on the "unauthorized programme" of 1885* However, he eliminated its anti-Conservative points, suoh as Churoh disestablishment, extensive land reformB and taxation, and striot licensing legislation. Advocating the re-establishment of the peasant olass through publio provision of freeholds and allotments, he hoped that this would appeal to Con­ servatives as encouraging a loyal, self-respeoting, and property- owning demooraoy. Chamberlain also made an appeal to those who might fear the influx of rural migrants into the highly competitive urban job marketst ...it would be better.••to have the labourer on the land pro­ ducing for himself, and a customer for your productions, rather than to have him rushing into town...to be a competitor in pro­ ducing with you.*-0*- 83

In m-my ways, Chamberlain's agricultural scheme mbs anachron­ istic in this n-riod of greater industrial concentration. The growth of a. l^rge urban market necessit-ted lorger and more inten­ sive agricultural producers, backed bv significant outlays of cap­ ital and scientific training. Rector-' tion of peasant nlotn would not suffice. Alnot the denth of the agricultural denression made Chamberlain's scheme irrelevant, cince the basic nroblemB of Brit­ ish agriculture involved the entire ranp° of British fiscal and trede policy. In its commitment to free trod© and the exoort of manufact­

ured goods, Parliament hed establish© d n course which made chean food imports an inescmeble o^rt of the system. Ac a result of the industrial unrest and the growth of trade unionism in the late eighties and early nineties, Chamberlain turned »’ir attention for the first time to the urban scene. He suggested remedies for some of the nroblemo between employers and the workers, but he vino mainly interested in nrnmoting order and efficiency in the industrial world without appreciable govern­ mental intervention. Chamberlain desired to undergird both the enternrisina employer and the voluntarist working-olaoo organiz­ ations, enabling the emnloyer to operate with minimal interference and the workers to be thrifty and self-reliant. He particularly hoped to appeal to the buffered elements in the upper strata of the working claSBos, whioh were seen as a sooial hnrmonizer between

the employer and the worker. Fearful of the Iobb of their craft union status, with the rise of the new industrial unions, they were lesB prone to aooept a large governmental role in economic affairs. Chamberlain would use them- as allies. His reforms in­ cluded a reform of the 1880 Employers Liability legislation, in whioh the employer was responsible in all cases in whioh the ac­ cident was not the fault of the injured. This proposal extended 84 the IC87 Conservative proposals. Favorable to the workers in one sense, it olpccd a burden upon them in another. Fixed sums of o'wment by the employers to the injured would however be ctin- ulated; and the charge would be counted as a cost o** nroduction and would foil on the consumer through increased prices. The emulo.yer would be protected, in the short run, by private insurance lQ? arrangements. * In futher specifying the extent of employer responsibilities, the Liberal Unionist- leader hoped to reduce social costs and to further inter-class harmony by limiting lit­ igation.10-^ Having politioal considerations in mind and concerned about the creation of a more orderly society, Chamberlain attempted to escape the legal technicalities of employers liability by cir­ cumventing the matter of "common employment" end automatically extending the right of compensation to most injured workers; to assuage the employers, he pronosed accident insurance through orivate insurance companies to help bear the cost. Chamberlain also proposed voluntary industrial arbitration oourts on the regional level. They would help avoid strikes.10^ The amount of industrial unrest had alarmed the Salisbury min­ istry to suoh an extent that in: 1891 appointed a Royal Com­ mission under the Duke of Devonshire, the Liberal Unionist leader in the Lords, to investigate the causes and to propose remedies • In line with thin endeavor, Chamberlain wanted the State to in- sit utionalize voluntnry channels of communication between cap­ ital and labour. However, in standard nineteenth century liberal fashion, he was reluctant to grant extensive powers of compulsion to the oourts to impDement the deoisions of the proposed arbit­

102 Chamberlain to Balfour, January 151 1891? Chamberlain Papers, University of Birmingham, JC 5/5/47? o. 1*

103Ibid. 10^The Times, April 3, 1891? 7* 65. ration boards, trusting public opinion to promote an atmosphere of good will. A rational dialogue between the disputon+s could thus be established, leading to a harmonious resolution of conflict without recourse to authority or to threats of violence* Chamberlain finally hoped to have the Government provide a voluntary means of ravine for old are pensions. In part, his motive wan humanitarian. The deterrent principle of the Poor Lav; •hod caused hardships and was failing: one out of three elderly persons was on relief. But he vias also influenced by a pragmatic concern* Many of the middle classes were complaining of the rise of the rates, and Chamberlain recognised that some type of reform was essential to cut costs and to save the system itself. He there­ fore sought to preserve the Poor Law by shifting some of the re­ sponsibility to the friendly societies and the State. Ho pro­ posed that any working-class individual who insured himself in a friendly society for 2s 6d a week for.old age benefits would have ios his contribution supplemented by the State. The scheme ohould encourage working-class individuals to rationally plan for their future. Although basically relying on voluntaryism, Chamberlain recognized the weaknesses of basing any proposal on "self-help" alone. As a result of greater outlay than income, the friendly sooieties were in sagging financial conditions and needed encour­ agement from the State. Chnmberlain honed that a supplementary state benefit to individual participants would attract working olass recruits and strengthen the friendly societies. At the same time, the workers would be learning middle-olasB values of thrift, enterprise, and careful planning* Chnmberlain also realized the importance to the Unionist alliance of the strata of workers outside the traditional working-olaes institutions and therefore proposed a 8 6 complementary old ?re insurance scheme for the*’’ through the post office. In having these individuals open nortal accounts Chom- berlain wanted to encourage the traininc of the i/orkinf’-clasoes in "good" habits. Not wishing to deal with the reformation of the entire poor Law, he honed to reduce the mouitine social pressures im pedina its onerations. As in hin other proposals, he did not elaborate on the specific features of the pl?n, considering it an a tentative suarestion that waited for its develooment on the re­ action of public opinion. Chamberlain hoped the Conservative leadership would ouoport his views and snoncor the measures in a social reform uackage in the Oueen's speech at the ooening of Parliament in the fall of 1892* "The Conservatives, esoeciall.y when they were assisted and supported by the Liberal Unionists, are eminently rruo.lified and competent to pass social reform", Chnmberlain stated at Sun­ derland on October 21, 1U21. Joachim Gosohen, the Liberal Unionist Chancellor of the Exchequer and the moot influential member of his party in the Cabinet, likewise called for a common program and 107 supnorted Chamberlain’s plan for old ape pensions. Leonard Hobhouse, M.P. from Somersetshire, East, at the lJationa.1 Liberal Unionist Conference at Manchester in Ilovember, Iti^l, called for the "promotion of further legislation for the improvement of the 10Q social conditions of the people of the United Kingdom". Another delegate statedr Vie muBt listen fairly to the demands of the labouring classes, and make ourselves thoroughly acmieinted with their views and needs, and must see that in bringing, about desirable changes

106The Times, October 2?, 1891, 10.

*^The Times, October 16, l891» 10. 1 nP Minutes, National Liberal Unionist Federation, Manchester, November 9» 1891, The Liberal Unionist Memoranda, 1892, 42. 8 7

r.othinn done to mrece',:p'*?ilv banner individual \iT 3o^*tv. In addition to that we must do nothina that would driv<* tr-’de end manufacturing from these shores.

Careful consideration '.-nc /riven to tr-dition*,l Conservative scruples.

At Manchester, it won stressed that "they must ra-iember that th«ir rl"tfarm did not i^volva ?n attack noon our •'ncieot institutions.

They were working in harmony with there whose special nrovince wan to he the protectors of the ancient institutions of this country.

Th« Liberal Unionists sought to assure the Government that, while

Liberal Unionism initiated social reform, Conservatism supplied the orderly framework that mad** it safe and constructive. Liberalism, like Coneervatirm, won also being influenced by the currents of social reform; and it was experiencing conflict *mong, its various adherents - Celtic nationalists, Nonconformists, and Rad ice. I reformers. Although Gladstone was able to hold these s.rouoc together by the sheer force of his nersonality, his nowers were declining. H£ could not imnose his single-minded devotion to Irish Home Rule on the restive radical elements in the National Liberal Federation-, who were demanding more attention to sooial is­ sues. The Conservatives and Liberal Unionists would counter Lib­ eralism by stressing stability and pood administration for the ben­ efit of all olcsses. Free of concerns with constitutional reform, Conservatism could alone advance erection! social reform. Chamber- lain called Conservatism "the party of the time" in which the traditional prinoirle of organic ohange was reconciled with the Liberal principle of "the greatest happiness of the greatest num­ ber". The Liberal party was attacked for being outmoded; it had

109Ibid,, 46. 8 8 re-lized ita eo^ls "to remove nrivileaes and to lftava the individual free1*. T^e Conc'srV'’tive party would provide the caoatoue to nineteenth century British civilization bv oromotine social reform in accordance with its traditions and with the asris.t.ance of t he Liberal Unionists.^ ^ Chamberlain believed that, as a result of the Liberal chal­ lenge, he could relv on Cemerv*>tive reformist elements to suonort his core. At a private dinner p.iven by Nathaniel Curzon in July of 1892, Chamberlain attempted to convince distinguished Conservatives of the political noceunity of a sooial reform nronrem. In uritin", to Hie uncle, Lord Salisbury, Balfour ruioted verbatim Chamberlain's comments: It will be extremely difficult for me to maintain my uosition here (in the Midlands ) without a substantial oolioy on which to take my stand. It seems to me that in the strictest ac­ cordance with your speeches you minht nromise to deal with such ouestions ao these: Employers Liability, Courts of Concil­ iation, end Provision for the Deoervinn in Old Acte. Thin in a Conservative policy nnd it in not one they (the Liberals) could (initiate )...They could not take old one pennionn without Tendering themselves obviounly ruilty of annroorietinn our policy. Salisbury sew difficulties in Chamberlain's nuneestion for a Queen's speech if social reform were used an an electoral opoenl. The Con­ servatives would be onlit into a left nnd riaht wina nnd would face the Liberals as n demoralized ccmn. Buimore importantly, he felt that the Conservatives would not be true to themselves in hasty nun- nort of social reform for oiaotorel edvantanec. He revealed his underlying concern to Balfour: But the nropora.l for o proprnmmetio speech is a. very serious matter. It implies that we have bills ready - at lea3t in out­ line - to sustain our oropramme-which ’.re have not. It must

l U The Tines, October 22, lf?9l, 10. HP Balfour to Salisbury, Balfour Pavers, July 26, 1892, vol. 8, no. 49690, f. 64* 8 ?

^ ? 1 ?t*+v rvbjectr on vhioh n?cnla ore ver1' cenvitive on both ridest tho,,.',h ve m'*1' wee o*1 t*"o*?^ ’’blob will ~ \ ° ^Jon — we "rrt in no dolne -’lorm * '’''cd mopy ■noorle who b?ve always baon with us. X fear these social '-uestions are dertined to brack up our party - but why incur the denser, before the necessity has arrived. O f course, this d '-rear may be averted or mitir.oted b1' o wirhy-w^chy speech, but surely th-’t course would combine all the dicedventaaeo.^13 Salisbury did not want total!1' to preclude social reform. He ac­ cepted the volnrt^ristic nremieec of Chamberlain's proposals but re­ jected bis insistence on mekina tbem an issue of democratic nol- itics. In Salisbury's estimation, to remain united and to novern effectively, the Conservative p°rty bod to be free from the burden of electoral commitments. It certainly wno nonrible (be said in a sneech in 1892) for reoklrtss agitators, and men only thinking of the votes they could net, to nlunpe un into courses which would not only not benefit, but would irretrivobly injure, the very classes vihom it was intended to sustain...the imnrovement in the con­ dition of the laboring olannes was not a matter that we could hone to anin in a day by a sinp.le measure, or by any royal road, nnd that no olasr of men ever ros e to any permanent imnrovement except by relyinn on their own personal efforts. The only true laetina benefit which the statesman can pive to the noor man is to shape matters that the nrenteot pos­ sible liberty for the exeroiae of hie own moral end intel­ lectual ruialities should be offered to him by law.^4 In excluding social reform as a political issue, Salisbury also wanted to keen the Conservative Party free of any commitments or indebtedness to Radical Liberal Unionism. This was difficult, oinoe a precedent of cooperation had been established on agrarian

^ ^Salisbury to Balfour, Ibid., July 26, 1892, f. 65*

*^At Exeter, February 2, 1892, from The Times, February 3, 1892, 6. 90

lirl'.tion. He was susniciouc Chamberlain's intentions gnd strat­ egy, although recognising Chamberlain as ^ pood parliamentary ally. Shortly before tha electoral ca.mnaian of 1692, be cautioned Cham­ berlain against interpreting the Tory record in social reform as in any vny a. fulfillment of the "unauthorized proaremme": I can ouite understand that you should describe our legislation a.G liberal, progressive, and so forth; and even that you should be more indulgent to te in that reonect than we deserve. But what I nm afraid of are the references to 1885* To say that the Tories have supported measures whose Liberalism you ap- nrove, will only be interpreted b.v them os showing that knowing them better, you do th^m more .justice. But if you say that they have Riven in on all of the points on which you differed from them in I885 - you Rive them an uncomfortable feeling that they have deserted their colours end chenped their costs,.. I don't think there is any around for such a self-reproach th ouph I believe it is true that they have nroved - and that you hnve found them - more liberal on many points then in 1885 you could have imoninod. But if you wish to praise us on this head - no may be very expedient - do it absolutely and.without any unnecessary reference to the constitution of 1885* On June 29, 1892, Parliament was dissolved and the electoral campaign beaan. In spite of the lack of official encouragement, Conservative candidates in workinp.-cless areas, in Lancashire and London, stressed moderate sooial reform. This wan partly to counter­ act the Radical Liberal Newcastle Programme. In the London borough of Hammersmith, the Tory candidate opnosed eir.ht hours legislation but spoke favorably of the "municine1 socialism" of the London County Council.In Stockton, Lancashire, the Tory made it a noint of taking into his confidence the opinions of the local trade union leaders. Althou/jh rejecting their demands for abolition of mining royalty rents as a "dispossession of nroperty", he favored use of taxation to prevent exoessive profits. Suonort was also Riven to

HR "Salisbury to Chamberlain, Chamberlain PaoerB June22, 1892, Vol. 4, Chap. 74, f. 402. 116 Major General IT.T. Goldsworthy, Kensington News, June 25, I892, 6. rnform of the Poor Lav? thnt would eliminate franchise di''rpal- 117 ifictions for outdoor relief. The candidate in Oldham, L^n- c^shire, nupoorted factory legislation "for th“ nrterial well­ being of the workers", but insisted that "he never bowed down to workinp-clescee a.s the sole n?rty in the country" end "thet he iid won elno concerned for the well-being of the community". In their anneals, the e Conservatives thus attempted to reach a modus vivendi with th°ir working-class conr.tituents, opposing labor measures which, were ennoble of arousing class discords while supporting those which could be identified with o. notional or community interest. The workine-class electorate was not very responsive. The Cotton Factory Times remarked, "th* two political parties do not core two straws about them (the working classes), eycent in so for 119 as they can be used to nlac® one or the other in power". Henry Hyde Chamnion, an ex-artillory officer who hod passed from Tory Democracy to Socialism, presented an anti-party proprom in the Nineteenth Century that stressed a shorter workinp day, land re­ form to relieve the urban unemployed, hon-oontributory universal old ape pensions, and a graduated income tax. ...It muBt be made very clear to the political parties (he wrote) that there must be no triflinp on the subject. Should prove danger from without threaten our country, the Labour party wili hold its hand from its speoiol work until suoh

^ ^ Horth Star Eleotion Supplement, June 28 , 189?, Chaplin Papers, Durham County Council Archives, D/LO F545t 141*

1 lO J.M. Molean, Oldham Evening Chronicle. June 21, 1892, 1.

^^The Cotton Faotory Times, July I, 1892, 1. 92

for^ipn oomolic,'ti one be nettled. Ur.dnr “n" 0+h'"" circrm- rt~nc®'' it w ill rtriv® fn* th® ®t+®innent of itr ob',®o+r ' Tit h th® r'0 ''i c®m*il.et® ir d iff« r e r .c ® t® t ^® convenience o** 1 n A ' nnvoren®ni or +>® Oo-®nition. Son® v®rkirp—c l e m r*j®a®rt®rr nroferred. the Cor.r®rv~tlve f?- cord on coci®l refer" to th-t of the Lib®r®l *'-rty. Thor® v m absolutely no diff«rerc® between the two political •'®rti®R {cl*’im®d Hilliem Morris) it w?n alwo.vc a toes no tnon rn.v piven acoeocion ®n to which would po th® furthest in the direction of r®cinl r®form. Th® only tbinr th®t could be m i d Mgr th®t th® Tories remired ® little nor® mishine, ^id the work nor® thoroughly Mh®n thev were pushed. Th® Cotton Ehctory Tlnen lauded th® effortn of th® Liberal Unionist cnndidrte from Bury, Sir Henry James, the cunrorter of factory legislation, "not bemuse vie morove of his politico, which to on ®r® nothing, bit for the lemons that he h m rendered nolendid ser­ vice to the workers. "!■9 ? The ronults refloated the uncertain mood of the oleotorete. ?71 Lib®r*»l.s, 8l Irish UationalistR, nnd I Labour men were elected us oroosed to 269 Connerv®tives and /I6 Liberal Unionints. Q u e e n Victoria summoned Gladstone to form a new government. Although the Connerv®tiven were disappointed, the olone mamin of their defeat oonvinced then thnt they had not loct the nuooort of the majority on the Hone Rule issue; therefore, the party oontinued to rect itn case on the secure pos tion which had brought into existence the Unionist allinnce in 1686: the oaune of national integrity end unity. The priority which the Oledntonian Libernln noon gave to Hone Rule, over the notlev dpm®otio proposals of the Newcaotle Programme, leooened th® urgency for social reform; end the n«*-

1 9 0 H.H. Champion, "The Labour Platform at the Next Election", The Nineteenth Century, vol. 30, December, 1891, p. 10/12.

1 91 ~ Kensington News, Sentember ?, 1891, 6. TOO The Cotton Factory Times, July 15, 1892, 1. 93

'»r*’V"tion of th? within Lib^r”.lien between th? F ^ ° Hulers "•nd Radicals eventually redounded to th? benefit of th? Cono**‘rv-,tiv?o.

Social reform, much '>% it won a cortinuina concern ^mona segments of th? electorate, continued to b? recorded by th? Conservotiv? leoder- sbio ro nolitically detrimental and no"?ihin/i to b? avoided. In suit? of enteraement of th? electorate, volition was still con­ ducted by th? traditional nolitical classes for th?ir otm b?n?fit. is th?y hod don? from 1886 to IBB0* "th? Conservative leadernhin, "bile in oonosition, would not dlscourore th? discussion of social reform but continu?d to onnone any ov?rt commitments. This reluc­ tance won reinforced by th? normleritv of foreign, imperial, end Irish issues, mettero which th? Conservatives could more effectively eroloit within their own fr^mev/ork of values. CHAPTER III THE CONSERVATIVES IN OPPOSITION: THE SEARCH FOR AN ELECTORAL APPEAL (1892-1895)

With the formation of the fourth Oladotonian ministry in July, 1892 the Conservative Opposition anticipated that Irish Home Rule would he the primary concern of the new Parliament* The small Liberal majority, the reliance on Irish Nationalists, and the ab­ sence of favorable prospects for Liberal agreement on a coherent domestio polioy obliged the new Government to concentrate on Home Rule* However, the Irish problem was also a liability to the Liberals* The Parnell divorce aeandal of 1&90 and the sub­ sequent Irish split had weakened the Home Rule crusade. Pros­ pects thus seemed favorable for a Conservative resurgence. As­ sisted by the Lords, the Conservatives blocked the passage of the Seoond Irish Home Rule Bill in September, 1$93* The Gladstonian Administration, lacking a firm electoral mandate on the issue, re­ frained from oalling a general eleotion* The Conservatives reoog- niaing Liberal weakness, initiated a strategy of using the Lords to obstruot Liberal measures wbioh laoked strong public support*. With the Irish question in abeyanoe, the social cmestion emerged as a primary public issue* For electoral reasons, it was necessary for the Conservative leadership to present a suitable alternative to the Newoastle Programme of 1891* Stubborn opposition to all social reform would be fatal? yet agreement on anything pos­ itive was more difficult for the Conservatives to aohieve than it was for the Liberals. Right-of-oenter moderates, suoh as Sal­ isbury and Balfour, gave top priority to the maintenance of. party

94 95 unity;and the development of an offioial Conservative stance on social reform was continually ignored. Individual Conservative M.p.s however cooperated with their Liberal Unionist colleagues in freely expressing their personal positions. The Tory uemooratB were the major promoters of the positive polioy. However, they lacked status and the organizational abil- ity to present their conoems effectively to the leadership. The desires for personal advancement mitigated their reformist zeal. a s a result, their influence was exerted more on an individual basis through outspoken backbenchers, Buoh as Albert Rollit lIs­ lington) and John Oorst lChatham)• Lacking firm representation in the upper eohelons of the party, the Tory Derooorats had to look for support among disaffooted elements in the constituency or­ ganizations. This alliance was not necessarily oongenial but the cause of Tory social reform soon became olosely associated with middle-class demands for greater democratic management of the party In the Ootober, 1892, issue of the National Review, Francis Rad- cliffe, a Tory reformer-publioist, revealed growing grass-roots dissatisfaction with the elitism of the Conservative leadership when he stated that "there probably never was a time when the real power in the Party was so much in aristooratio or rather plutooratio hands". He doubted the ability of the Tory leadership to reform itself and believed that the only hope for a "forward" polioy of party demooratization and social reform lay in an alliance between the Tory middle-olasses and the Liberal Unionists.* Oorst warned of the fatal consequences if the leadership ig­ nored popular aspirations.. In particular, he held up the possib-

*"The Future of the Tory Party", National Review. Ootober, I892, vol. 20, 146* 9 6 ility of a separate Labour party in the Commons drawing support from the working-class supporters of both the major partiesj how­ ever, he remained optimistic that the party leadership would, in time, take heed. Contending that he based his concern for social reform on orthodox Conservative principles of authority and tra­ dition, Corot stressed that the good of the people was only real­ izable through careful reform of the existing system and not by revolutionary change*. He advocated boards of arbitration to pre­ vent strikes, eight hours for particular trades in certain local­ ities, and the establishment of model standards and conditions in 2 government industries* The right wing of Conservatism viewed these demands as a dan­ gerous concession to the radical moods of a fickle electorate* Sulking over their failure to halt even the mild measures of the I686-I892 Salisbury Government, they continued to make known their disfavor regarding Conservatism's compromise with democratic ideas and techniques* The Spectator* at the opening of the Parliament (f I892, warned of any hasty concessions: The workman is king today, and all parties are anxiously paying oourt to him* And there is the consequent danger of legis­ lators dependent on his favor persuading themselves into the acceptance of a polioy whioh they have not sufficiently thought out, or to the imperfections of whioh they have half-oonsoiously closed their eyes* Conservatism is no more exempt - Qorst and the Tory Deraooraoy are willing to go to questionable lengths to oonoiliate the labour vote*. CorBt endorses Chamberlain's programme of State Sooialism and even further, advocates the eight hour day in the government dockB and universal pensions for the deserving.••But benevolence alone does not alter facts or give a statesman power to deal with them, and the truest sympathizers with the workers will refuse to mook them in socialistic sohemes which would only sap the foundations of the industries by whioh they live*.3

^The Times* Ootober 21, 1891, 9-

^"The Conservatives and the* Labour Question", The Speotator* November 12, 1892, vol* 69, 677"78» 97 The Conservative rightists were not totally opposed in practice to all ameliorative measures. Many were in favor of softening the rigidities of the Poor Law, so long as the pauperization associated with the pre-1834 law was not revived in the process; and some also considered the establishment of voluntary courts of arbitration to settle industrial disputes. But they adhered to an essentially laissez-faire position. They also doubted the practicability of distinquiBhing the deserving needy from the non^-deserving and con­ sequently dismissed any scheme of state-aided pensions.4 An economio slump in I892 intensified the pressure for af­ firmative action to remedy sooial ills. The steady deoline of British agriculture since the l870's waB further aggravated by a sharp slide in agricultural prices. Migration to the oities from the countryside was bringing unskilled labor into the industrial sector at a time when trade was depressed. Trade unionism seemed 5 everywhere on the defensive. While the Liberal Government was on the whole more positive than the Conservatives, it hesitated to aot deoisively in the emer­ gency, allowing the initiative to shift temporarily to the oppos­ ition. Joseph Chamberlain recognized the growing dissatisfaction of the electorate and sought to move the Unionist alliance toward some firmer commitment. In the November I892 Nineteenth Century he presented a comprehensive labor program that marked a distinctive Unionist approach half-way between laissez-faire individualism and oolleotivism. Sooial reform was allied to a nationalist ap­ peal that sought to promote intra-olass unity,and a willingness was expressed to consider the efforts of unions to repeal the olauses of the 1875 Act whioh banned "intimidating" forms of

4Ibid.

^Manchester Guardian. January 2, I893, 7» 98

picketing. However, Chamberlain accused the New Unionism of "Par- nellite" tactics in its efforts to extend unionism among non-union­ ized labor, in linking industrial unreBt with the political unrest in Ireland, he sought to discredit radical trade unionism as a dis­ loyal movement that violated British notions of “fair play", "vol­ untarism”, and “compromise”. He appealed to working-olass volun­ tarism by aocepting eight hours legislation on “an optional basis”. For the same reasons, he opposed British adoption of either the German Bystem of oompulsory, contributory old age pensions or the Booth scheme of universal, state-finanoed pensions. Instead Cham­ berlain continued to favor a state-aided, voluntary, contributory plan that would stimulate thrift and self-reliance. The proteotion of the friendly societies was also an important consideration; and workmen wereencouraged to save rather than spend, fearing that the use of munioipal funds for the support of public works would under­ cut private enterprise and savings and would increase.destitution, he supported only a flimited reform of the poor Law permitting "out­ door relief”. Linking the workers' material interests to the promotion of Britain's imperial mission, he enoouraged workmen to "take an in­ terest in foreign polioy" sinoe their standard of living depended on the security of British trade and the acquisition of guaranteed overseas markets. Chamberlain was slowly moving, at least in terms of trade, from a strictly laisses-faire polioy to a mild form of protectionism, while continuing to support "aheap food", he para­ doxically advooated restrictions on foreign immigration to lessen competition with British labor.^ This latter suggestion had the

^Joseph Chamberlain, "The Labour Question", The Nineteenth Century, vol. 32, November, 1892, 677-710*. 99

added advantage to Conservation of attributing the source of social distress to outside factors rather than to internal weaknesses. An appeal for social reform that would benefit all classes while hin­ dering none became a noticeable characteristic of Chamberlain's campaign from 1892 to 1895* In promising a brighter future, he deliberately linked sooial amelioration with the maintenance of a stable sooial order; and sought to rally working-class support against the collectivist trends by stressing that drastic ohange would bring disorder and further hardships. In making his points, Chamberlain sought to affirm the Conservative myth of the essential' loyalty of the British working-olasses to national community rather than to olass: But do not believe that the working classes of this country have any sympathy with anarchy or confiscation. Believe me they have shown that they have no love for a policy of sep­ aration (of Ireland from the United Kingdom). They do not desire to do anything that would weaken the influence of thiQ country in the councils of Europe that would destroy its greatness.,.Heither do I think it will be found that the bulk of the working classes have any real faith in the now theories put forward by the trade unions of today, whioh are borrowed, and I think not completely understood, from foreign sources. I have found that working people are quite ready to appreciate the fact that this policy of collectivism, which has been, I admit moot frankly and clearly stated, is a pol­ ioy of collectivism, which iB neither more nor less than a confiscation of every kind of property - of the savings of the poor quite as much as of the capital of the rioh.• In linking pro-Horne Rule sentiment and collectivist!o ap­ proaches together as both unpatriotic, Chamberlain was appealing to Conservative instinot in the working olass while at the same

^The Times, September 27» 1894» 8 1 0 0 time assuring the upper-class Conservatives and Liberal Unionists that the working-olasses were reliable if their more reasonable de­ mands were met. On Ootober 1, 1894, he outlined what he considered to be the necessary Conservative approach: What is the ancient way? It is to survey the whole field, to choose those points whioh are the most ripe for practical leg­ islation, those whioh command the largest amount of general support; then to submit them to the electors of the country for full disousBion, for criticism, to aooept any amendments, to make any concessions whioh are demanded by reasonable op­ ponents, bearing in mind that half a loaf is better than no bread, and the gradual reform is more permanent and more cer- g tain than violent changes, whioh may provoke a great reaction. While in opposition, the Conservatives gave verbal support to Chamberlain*s suggestions; and in slow, unthinking fashion, they developed a critique of collectivism that justified support of dem­ ocracy and sooial reform while advocating elitism and free enter­ prise. Salisbury aocepted the Chamberlain proposals on the basis of their oonformity to general Conservative principles rather than on the basis of sooial utility: I do not know preoisely the nature of these proposals whioh he recommends on these matters. Everything depends upon de­ tails. But I am satisfied that there is no taint of oonfis- oation in anything that he has proposed and I am Bure that the general object whioh he has in view will join with it „ the hearty oonourrenoe of all seotions of the Unionist party. However, in Edinburgh, on Ootober 30, 1894» he expressed support of the use of state maohinery over voluntary methods for the aohieve—

Q Standard. Ootober 12, 1894, as quoted in National Union Gleanings and Memoranda. November, 1894* 312.

^The Times, Ootober 31, I8y4, 7» 1 0 1 went of objects “in whicft the community generally agreed”.*0 m response to Chamberlain*s initiative, Balfour also reflected on the relationship of the practical forms of democracy with the traditions of the national community. Zn an address at Sunderland on November 14, l894i he affirmed that demooraoy could not oreate values but was itself created and sustained by them; and that any form of gov­ ernment had to draw the moral justification for its aotions from a living national tradition that also served to correct its inherent defects: Believe me no democracy, nor any form of government, .will of itself free itself from its own characteristic dangers, from the perils which beset it, and from which nothing but patience, patriotism, public spirit, and public unselfishness will suf­ fice to save it. He also stressed the limitations of the democratio process in recon­ ciling conflicting interests and noted its susceptibility to med­ iocrity. The mitigation of those weaknesses was provided bv a traditional elitist leadership, capable of providing elements of stability and of direoting the inoboate opinions of the masses toward realizable goals: Demooraoy is of all forms of government the one whioh most re­ quires that leaders should lead. We have got to deal with the people who are in obedience, we have got to defend against all attaoks the unity of a Constitution whioh politioal cir­ cumstances have imperilled; we have got to solve sooial prob­ lems. • .forced upon our attention by those who know very well what they want, but have seldom been in the position to con­ sider all of the collateral consequences of oarrying out their desires.. There should be consideration of all of the ramific­ ations at a time when the general Sooialist feeling ooinoides in time with the extension of the suffrage to large classes who have but very little practice in political affairs.I

*°The Times. Ootober 3f 1894, 7*

**The Times. November 15, l894» 6* 12 Standard. June 22, 1894* National Pnion Gleanings and Memor­ anda. July 1894, 54-55* 1 0 2

Within this context of a national community, enriched hy the individual efforts of its members and guided by a talented leader­ ship, Balfour and other Conservatives upheld the essential principles of the free enterprise economy. The operations of capitalism were not viewed in theoretical form, but as a oonorete reality that fused individual initiative. Socialism, on the other hand, was viewed as an abstract, theoretical illusion which, when imposed on the organic nature of society, smothered material and moral progress in the vain effort to realize social equality. Socialism is absolutely impraoticable ([said Balfour in Man­ chester in January, 18940 end frankly I admit that 1 look to any endeavor to carry out the soheme as injurious to the working-classes of this country, chiefly and principally beoause I fear it would discourage the investment of capital in industry and remunerative enterprise. It is after all upon th&t investment of capital that the working olass de­ pends. * Geoffrey Drage, Conservative social investigator, underlined the moral and social effects of Socialism from a similar viewpoint: •..the future of the labour movement largely depended on an answer to these questions: Were we to see an inorease in bureauoratio control, and a decrease in the sphere of vol­ untary effort? Were we to be governed, or to govern? Were the forces whioh make for character, the training of as­ sociative effort, the joy of individual suocess to give .. place to the deadening influence of the Socialistic state? 4 In stressing these Conservative objections to Sooialism, Bhlfour and his associates did not discourage the role of the State in giving aid to the unfortunate to help themselves. According to Bhlfour: ...what we have to.look to undoubtedly will be the experiment made by the State for the amelioration of those members of the community who need the most assistance; and I am not one of those who would disoourage for one moment, the fair trial of

15 JThe Times. January 14t 1894v 5*

^Geoffrey Drage, The Unemployed. London, Macmillan, 1894* 20. any such experiment provided it did not touoh interests with whioh the prosperity of the community waB too nearly bound up. I think there are large numbers of things which a community can only do in its oolleotive capacity.*5 On the other hand, he felt that one olass could not benefit by "robbing" another; and though legislation was important, it was the individual alone who the responsibility for raising his standard of life. He also mentioned that only sooial reform whioh would pre serve and improve traditional institutions could be considered.^ Offioial organized labor reacted cautiously to the Chamberlain proposals and was suspioious of the new Conservative rhetorio. Thomas Burt) Lib-Lab M.P. from the mining constituency of Morpeth in Northumberland, accused Chamberlain of making the labor question a partisan I s b u o . He pointed out the opportunism underlying the program which eliminated the partB of the 1885 "unauthorized pro­ gramme" unpopular with the Conservative leadership: the taxation of ground rents, Churoh disestablishment* and. extensive land law reforms. However, Burt revealed uneasiness about his own peculiar position as a "conservative" in the labor movement in his criticism of Chamberlain's sharp distinction between the old and the new unionism. Chamberlain's continual endeavor to reach the rank and file unionists over the heads of the trade union leadership prob­ ably mode Burt more concerned with the divisions within the labor movement whioh the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists could ex­ ploit. He opposed Chamberlain's advooaoy of looal option on the eight hours question, but was willing to support the call for vol­ untary courts of arbitration. Maintaining his allegiance to Liber­ alism, Burt supported Gladstonian efforts toneform employers lia- 17 bility along lines that would exclude contracting out.

^ Standard, June 22, 1894» ££• oit.

^Manchester Courier. January 17* 18951 5* 17 '"Reaction of Labour to Hr. Chamberlain's Programme", 1, Thomas Burt, Nineteenth Century, vol. 32, December, 1892, 864-874* 104 Henry Hyde Cha/npiont reflecting a Socialism derived from Con­ servative roots, stripped Oorst's paradoxical Tory Democracy of its traditionalism and carried it to its logical conclusion: an egal­ itarian form of nationalism with strong racist overtones. He acknow­ ledged Chamberlain's personal sincerityt but doubted that the main­ stream of the Unionist alliance would wholeheartedly accept it: What guarantee - there can be no guarantee in politics - what reason oan Conservatism show for hoping that, if his programme does attract the support of the working classes, and another Coalition government is put into power, that power will be used so very much better than it was from 1886 to 18927... Chamberlain forgets that those great Tory traditions are now entrusted to the hand of any polyglot finoncer who can keep ^ out of prisbn , and of any shopkeeper who has made his pile. Champion however admitted Gladstone's weaknesses as a sooial re­ former and expressed a willingness to support a Unionist program cnly "if they oan give evidence that they will do so when entrusted with 19 a new lease of power". ' Keir Hardie, the only independent Labour M.P. (Merthyr Tydfil), found the program "niggardly in its proposals". He disputed Cham­ berlain's claim that the conditions of the working olaSBes had im­ proved over the course of the century. Reflecting a strong olass antagonism toward privileged wealth, he insisted that the rich had to finance the payment of pensions for the aged poor and that the reform of employers' liability necessitated the elimination of era- 20 ployer-sponsored insurance schemes. Labor disunity enabled the Conservatives to remain ecpiivooal on sooial issues and to exploit the labor vote. The Trade Union Congress was only gradually aocepting a collectivist viewpoint due to the influenoe of the Hew Unionism. Although advooating univer-

18 Ibid.. II, H.H. Champion, 881.

l9Ibid. 882. PO Ibid., Ill, Keir Hardie, 883-890. 105 sal pensions, and the abolition of night work in bakeries, T . U ^ officials still held to the general outlines of Oladstonian Liber­ alism. They supported the right of workmen eligible to vote in par­ liamentary elections to become jurors, the compulsory provision of allotments by looal government authorities, and the payment of M.P.s Support was also given to particular labor concerns whioh Conser­ vatism was inclined to sponsor. Many of the proposals made at T.U.C. conferences at Belfast in 1&93 and at Norwich in 1894, such as the extension of the faotory aots to docks, warehouses, and ships, were easily acceptable to moderate Conservatives. Contrary to the inter­ nationalist free trade perspective of Liberalism, trade unionists demanded legislation limiting the immigration of foreign laborers 21 into the United Kingdom. Such a proposal was more apt to receive a positive response from Conservatives than from Liberals, although the Conservatives supported suoh a measure for the protection of the social and economic status quo while labor did so to eliminate potential blaoklegs. By the end of 1893, the Liberal Government, preoooupied with Home Rule, was losing the support of Radicals and Socialists, who felt that the provisions of the Newcastle Programme were being ne­ glected. In addition, Liberalism was fragmenting into sectional groupings. Welsh M.P.s were angered at the delay of legislation for Welsh disestablishment and the payment of M.P.s, measures whioh would reduce the privileges of the small Anglo-Welsh elite. Labor M.P.s were dissatisfied by the failure to pass eight hours legis­ lation for miners and by the laok of government initiative in ai- 22 leviating the plight of the unemployed. In November of 1893, the Fabians, George Bernard Shaw and Sidney Webb, recognizing the fu-

21 T.U.C. Conference Reports. Belfast, September 4 to 9, 1893, 5-6; Norwich, Speteraber 5 to 8, 1894, 3-6*

22 Daily News. September 2, 1893, National Union Gleanings and Memoranda, September 1893, 105* 1 0 6 tility of the "permeation" of the two major parties by socialism, wrote the pamphlet "To Your Tents, 0 Israel", in an attempt to rally trade unionists to form an independent labor party. The Independent Labor Party, founded in Bradford in January, 1893 espoused an ethical socialism that strongly appealed to the Nonconformist trade unionists in the North. Keir Hardie, one of the leading founders of the I.L.P* attacked the Liberals in a way that momentarily seemed to make the Conservatives the lesser of two evils: It is rubbish to talk about the Tory party being exclusively the capitalist party. There are so many rich men in the Liberal ranks, without whose support the Liberal party would be practically helpless, and nearly all of whom are oppposed to working-class legislation, that the Liberals, even more than the Tories, are hampered in whatever desires the more democratic members of the party may h a v e . ^ 3 In spite of the inability of the Liberal Government to meet the expectations of labor, the party, itself, was not standing still. Through their influence in Parliament and in governmental depart­ ments, young Liberals - H.H. Asquith (Home Seoretary), Sydney Buxton (tJnder-Seoretary at the Colonial Office), Arthur Aoland (Vice-President of the Council), and R.B. Haldane (M.P. from East Lothian) - sought to reoonoile Liberal and urbane traditions with the growing trend toward oolleotivism and imperialism. In addition, many anti-imperialist Radicals, centering around C.P. Soott, the editor of the Manchester Guardian and the social theorist, Leonard T. Hobhouse, devoted their attention to labor and sooial problems. These two groups of Liberal progressives were alarmed at the future proBpeots of a Liberalism saddled with an outmoded Gladstonian oreed and oalled for a new approaoh. In pointing out unsavory Conservative tendenoies, they hoped to prod the mainstream of the party toward a forward-looking vision.^

^People, August 6, 1893* Ibid., 106.

Massingham, "The Government and Labour", Contemporary Review, vol. 64* December, I893t 778* 107 During the Gladstonian and Rosebery Administrations, by elections from 1893 to I895 in Liberal strongholds - Hereford, Horn- castle, and Evesham - went to the Conservatives.2*’ In March of 1895, the elections for the London County Council, noted for its Liberal** Progressive "municipal socialism1*, saw a Conservative inorease, In I892, eighty-four Radicals and thirty-four Conservative-Unionists served on the counoil; after 1895» there were fifty-nine Radioals 26 and fifty-nine Conservative-Unionists. In the wake of these electoral viotories, the Conservatives sought to appeal to labor by taking advantage of Liberal difficulties; they stressed their party's concern for working-olass problems. In Cardiff, J. Jeffrey, M.P. from Chelsea and a member of the Royal Commission on Labour, stated that while the Conservatives had passed ten measures in support of. trade unionism during the nineteenth century, the Liberals hod passed only one. He ouoted statements of Keir Hardie to show that the Conservatives rather than the Liberals "wore Labour's true 27 friendB". In the Rational Union Cleanings and Memoranda, a Conser­ vative publication of preBs articles and speeches for the benefit of party workers, attacks were made on the conduot of the govern­ ment in using troops against striking miners in Northern England. The Liberals were accused of hypoorisy in using the same methods of "coercion" whioh they had oritioized the Salisbury Government for using in Ireland. Gladstone was also singled out for his fail- 28 ure to accept a tax on mining royalties.

^National Union Gleanings and Memoranda. September, l893» 101; February, 1895, 123.

26Ibid.. April, 1895, 224.

2^The Tory, no. 18, July 1, 1894, 12. 28 Mational Union Gleanings and Memoranda. September, 1893, 86, 106. 1 0 6

The unemployment situation remained a critical issue; and criticism was leveled by labor spokesmen at the failure of the Poor Law authorities to deal constructively with the situation* In September of 1693* Keir Hardie asked for a grant of authority by the Local Government Board to boards of guardians to acquire land for unem­ ployed urban workers* Henry W. Fowler, President of the Loo&l Government Board and a Btaunch advocate of economies in the Poor Law stated that such an notion amounted to "parochial relief" whioh, like other relief measures, entailed disenfranchisement* Although unwilling to waiver this penalty for the benefit of the unemployed, 29 he promised to investigate the problem* 7 Conservative reformers also applied pressure on the Government* Gorst urged on Fowler a%heme for the London area to provide relief works for the unemployed. He suggested the acquisition of waste­ land in the East End for agricultural purposes under the direotion of workhouse authorities* Disputing contentions by economy-minded Conservatives and Liberals that it would oorapete with local private industry, Gorst oontended that publio works would only add to the food resources of the city. However, the Cabinet was reluotant to consider the proposal.^ To measures providing for unemployment relief, the majority of Conservatives remained resistant. As a result of their leverage in the Lords, they were able to block the implementation of munioipal job programs to restore Vauxhall and Lambeth Bridges and to oon-

^The Times, September 15, l893f 6.

^Standard. September 15, 1893, National Dnion Gleanings and Memoranda. March, 1894, 201.- 109 struct approaches to the newly-completed. Tower Bridge. London Conservatives, in particular, feared that expenditures for these projects would lead to higher rates in the wealthier boroughB. The upper House even drastically amended a London public works bill supported by the London County Council and introduced in the Com­ mons by the Liberal Unionist, Sir John Lubbock. The original measure had passed in the Liberal House of Commonsf but after the action of the Lords,’ the Liberal Government refused to accept the truncated bill.^* The Conservatives, by and large, opposed public or State re­ lief outside of the Poor Law. Unemployment was viewed as an un­ fortunate, but inevitable, part of a cyclical process that char­ acterized an otherwise beneficial system that had brought economio growth to the nation and prosperity to all classes. Little concern was shown regarding the unecrual distribution of this wealth, and any attempt to interfere with the laws of supply and demand for the sake of sooial justice was viewed as socially disruptive and morally destructive. ...suoh aotion would tend to delay the attainment of social peace (contended Geoffrey Drage}and would thus only tend in- direotly to intensify the evil whioh it sought to remedy... To justify State interference the cause of distress must be exceptional.•.’ In an address on January 17* 1095* Balfour stated that the problem of unemployment was basically irremedial: But if you ask me whether anything in the power of the Unionist party, or any other party, whether anything within compass of

^^Evening News and Post, January 17, 1894» National Union Gleanings and Memoranda. Haroh* 1894* 201.

19 Geoffrey Drage, The Unemployed, op. oit.. 205* 1 1 0

the wit of man to device, is sufficient to prevent the curse of want of employment from now and again touching heavily great masses of the population, I fear that we can look forward to no prospect of that k i n d . In order to mitigate the hardships of unemployment, the Conservatives stressed reliance on short-term voluntary efforts through organized charity, economical systems of private relief works, and the provision by trade unions of unemployment benefits. In addition, emphasis was also placed on reforms, such as cheaper municipal working-class housing projeots, that would alleviate overcrowding and improve the environmental surroundings of the distressed. Although professing a distaste for bureaucracy, Conservatives advocated greater cooperative efforts among employers to eliminate oasual labor by equalizing the workload throughout the year. Balfour stated that urban local govern­ ment also hod a role to play in rationalizing work loads: I do think it is possible that our great municipalities should so contrive to apportion, between different times of the year, the labour of whioh they can dispose, that the inequal vol­ ume of the labour market would to a very great extent be min­ imized and planned away. That could be done, and no economio disadvantages would follow from it, and no burthen upon the the poor or rich, and I think with considerable alleviation of the cohdition of the unemployed. 34 Conservatives were also sympathetic towards the monitoring of in­ dustrial activities, the expansion of quantitative surveys by govern­ mental departments, and the establishment of boards of oonoiliation for the settlement of potential or actual trade disputes. However, these proposals were only seen as supplementary aids, not alternatives 35 to the traditional voluntary methods. ^

^Manchester Courier. January 18, 1895» National Union Cleanings and Memoranda. February, 1895, 83.

34 I b i d . 35 "TJrage, oj>. oit., 218. I l l Although the parliamentary leadership stressed the limitations involved in dealing with unemployment, Conservative and Liberal Unionists in the constituencies were more optimistic* At the Nat­ ional Union conference in Hewcastle-on-Tyne in 1894, Maltman Barry, ex-Marxist and a Conservative propagandist, stressed the importance of parliamentary notion although he did not make any specific 36 proposals. Others found a solution in imperialism or tariff pro­ tection* On July 6, 1895, Chamberlain stated that the alleviation of unemployment was possible through an expansion of the Empire and the resulting benefits for trade: I wiBh sometimes that the working classes would pay a little more attention to the history of the growth of the Empire(he saidj. I wish they would think more of the questions con­ nected with its future expansion*..Sinoe Britain survived economically on the benefits derived from foreign and colonial trade, there was a need to find new markets*37 Proteotion would do more for the unemployed than a thousand other acts of Parliament that we could ever put on the statute book (paid one Newoastle delegate}, because what the working men want is good trade and good wageB.^ The Empire sas also viewed as an outlet for emigration of the un­ employed* Albert Rankin stated that "the municipal and county councils should have power in oases where it was found neoeBBary and expedient to emigrate persons who oould not find employment at home."3'* In spite of these various proposals, most Conservatives tended to ignore the full implications of unemployment on the pol­ itical morale of the working classes* With the return of eoonomio

^Minutes, N.U.C.C.A., Newcastle -on-Tyne, November 5 to 6, 1894, 3B1-3B6.

37The Times. July B, 1895, 5- 38 Minutes* N.U.C.C.A., Newcastle-on-Tyne, o£. oit*.400*

3 9 I b i d * * 4 3 0 . 1 1 2

prosperity, unemployment became less of a burning issue. Conse­ quently, pressure was reduced on the Government and on the Conser­ vative Opposition to treat the problem seriously. By March 1, 1895» parts of the country, it was assumed that unemployment was capable of being met by the traditional means of private oharity.^ The growing threat of widespread labor unrest to the socio- eoonorjiic health of the country concerned both the Government and the Opposition. The need for more effeotive means to achieve con­ ciliation between the classes led by A.J. Mundella, Liberal Pres­ ident of the Board of Trade, to introduce legislation in 1893 that permitted the oreation of voluntary courts of arbitration to settle strikes. Hoping to prevent the Gladstone Administration from benefiting from thiB proposal, the Conservatives, led by Gorst, unsuccessfully sought to delay passage of legislation until the 41 oompletion of the work of the Royal Commission on Labour. The Opposition was indireotly aided in this effort by Ben Pickard,' one of the old Lib-Lab unionists, who feared that the Government would eventually allow suoh courts of arbitration to intervene with 42 the wages of workers. Both the old-guard Conservatives and the Lib-Labs shared a common dislike of state interference with vol­ untary associations, but for opposing reasons; the Conservatives feared the powers of the state in the hands of a maos democratio electorate repreoented by a Liberal Government and the Lib-LabB resented the use of state regulations by the upper olasses to con­ trol working-class institutions. Lord Salisbury was deeply per­ turbed by the outbreak of violenoe in the Yorkshire ooal mines in early 1893, fearing that it would infliot sufferings on the workers

^Birmingham Daily Post, Mar oh 1, 1895* 5*

^ Daily Mews, September 1, 1893? Rational Union Gleanings and Memoranda. Ootober, 1893* 175* 42 The Times, September 4, 1893, 5« 113

and pose dangers to commerce and to inter-clacs harmony. He hoped that persuasion would convince workmen to refrain from suoh activity,^ Lord Grey, a Conservative peer, alBO expressed con­ cern to Matthew Henry Ridley about the prevalence of strikes and the need to advise prudence to the workers: The injury that has already been done to the country by the strikes that have been going on in various trades and espec­ ially in the coal trades is so very great, and there is so rauoh reason to fear that they will beoome greater Btill, that I cannot help thinking that a more vigorous attempt should be met than there yet has been to open the eyes of workmen and espeoially of the collieries to the evils that they bring upon themselves, if they aot in such a manner as to prevent this subject from occupying my thoughts more than perhaps 1 ought and it has in consequence recurred to me that there is a modeof trying to convince the pitman of the mistake they have been making whioh has not yet been attempted,44 Hiohael Hioks Beach commented on the danger of the dook strikes in Bristol in December, 1895, olaiming that they disrupted British oommand of world markets and caused trade to divert to rival mar­ kets, He urged his listeners to do everything that their influenoe would command in im­ ploring employers and employed to compose their differences for their own sakos as men, for the sake of their families, and for the Bake of the oountry of whioh they were all so proud,45 However, some conservatives were willing to aooept instit­ utional means to bring order to the industrial scene, Balfour, in a speech to the Manchester and Halford Equitable Cooperative Soc­ iety, favored the use of voluntary oourts of arbitration to elim­ inate the frictions between employers and labourers that resulted

^Western Mail, November 29» 1^93, National Union Gleanings and Memoranda, December, 1893, 315*

^Lord Grey to M«H. Ridley, Matthew Henry Ridley racers, Northumberland County Counoil Archives, September 29, 1893, 25/ 97/24,

^ihe Times, December 19, 1895, 8, 114 in strikes*^ Although the conservatives were concerned ab.out methods of oreating sooial narmonyt the fear of state intervention still created an ambivalent attitude* Lord Salisbury accepted ar­ bitration as a last resort but had fears about arbitration dis­ rupting the economy: I only hope when he lan arbitrator; comes to do it he will remember that he has not one danger, but two dangers to avoid* Ho may by an unjust deoision for the lowering of wages inflict unjust and unmerited suffering upon a most meritorious vigorous English industry* But he may- if he lays too heavy a burden on capital - he may produce another evil or almost greater magnitude*. He may diminish the area of employment, so that instead of many people paid an in­ sufficient sum we shall have a great number who are not employed or paid at all*. That is a great and serious evil and all must bear it in mind whenever we consider these industrial conflicts, whioh have begun and whioh X feor, will be more and.more an incident of ihe experience of the passing generation. In the midst of the uncertainty which unemployment and in­ dustrial unrest posed to political parties that hesitated to dis­ card outworn eoonomio notions, the Royal Commission on Labour presented its report in the spring of 1894* The Commission had placed before itself the objeotive of finding ways to create harmony between classes and to emphasize the general interests of

the country* Ab a result, in investigating the causes of labour disputes and its effeots on the country, the report's finding were governed by premises favorable to Conservatism and inimical to the labour movement* It emphasized the general improvement of the standard of living of the working classes during the nineteenth oentury. Credit was given to reforms whioh had shortened working hours and had improved working oonditions. However, the report did consider the implementation of safe reforms* It oited the

47 ^'Western Mail* op.oit* 115 the difficulties in the enforcement of sanitary legislation due to the insufficiency of inspection and advocated staff enlargements. The commission also proposed the extension of the scope of such reform to the sweated trades and also, the improvement of em­ ployers liability legislation to modify or end the legal prinoiple jfl of common employment. The Commission basically reflected an upper olass assessment of the role of trade unions in the national economy. Although the prinoiple of trade unionism was accepted, most Commissioners ideally viewed the organized labor movement in terms of the patterns of labour activity associated with the "Model Unionism" of the mid- nineteenth century. According to this viewpoint, unionism at its best was a junior partner with the entrepreneur in the operations of the industrial system and pressed for advances through persua­ sion and collective bargaining. Stress was put on the prinoiple of the voluntary cooperation of labor with capital. Strikes were consequently viewed by the Commission as an unnecessarily disrup­ tive aotivity. Having this attitude, the Commissioners were alarmed by the latest Bigns of assertiveness and linked industrial unrest to the strength of militant trade union activity: There appears to be some danger that, under pressure of, and in alliance with, strong combinations of workmen, suoh as­ sociations might obtain virtually the same power with regard to fixing prices and determining the methods of production that similar associations have derived in earlier times from legal monopolies.^ The recommendations did not propose any moderate, let alone sweeping, reform of the eoonomio and sooial system, maintaining a

^ British Parliamentary Papers, Cmd. 7421, 1894f "Report of the Royal Commission on Labour", 19*23.

49Ibid., 35- 116 strictly laissez-faire position that reflected faith in the inevit­ ability of material and sooial progress. State interference) through ♦ legislation) was seen as* on inappropriate means to solve labor un­ rest ! Many of the evils to which the attention of the Commission has been called are such as cannot be remedied by any legislation, but the Commission looks with confidence to their gradual amend­ ment by natural forces now in operation whioh tend to substit­ ute a state of industrial peace for one of industrial division and conflict.5® Although recognizing the need for a central governmental agenoy to assist voluntary arrangements of arbitration, the Commissioners re­ fused to countenance the establishment of a Department of Labour. Such an action waB viewed as an unwarranted support of one olass. Opposition was shown to a law fixing the maximum number of working hours. Eaoh individual trade could obtain legal sanction for hours legislation only after voluntary agreement between employers and laborers.Thus, in presenting its report, the Commissioners bol­ stered prevailing laissez-faire opinions in both parties and pre­ sented little, if any, positive directives to end the industrial impasse. Conservative misgivings about trade unionism became more pro­ nounced as the strikes inoreased from the local to the national level. The Campaign Guide refleoted these apprehensions by down­ playing the influenoe of the new trends and by affirming the loyalty of the majority of the working-olasses: At the same time, it must be kept in mind that large as is its constituency, the (Trade Union) Congress does not yet represent 1/5 part of the working men of the country; while its opinions, especially since the advent of the New Unionism, are not those of the average, but of the extreme workmen.52

5°Ibid., 112.

51Ibid.. 101-105.

52The Campaign Guide. 1894, 348. 117

At times the distaste was carried to a criticism of trade unionism, itself. The Kensington Parliament, a Conservative-dominated debating society in London discussed the relationship between trade unionism and labor. One of the delegates, O.K. Mori11, stated that the trade unions were injurious to the freedom of contract between employers and the employed, and were detrimental to the trade and' commerce of the country. Others, however sought to lessen radicalism by incor­ porating trade unionism into the system by developing a body of law granting unionism a legal personality. Through this means, the trade unions would be foroed to observe collective agreements. A.M. Talbot shared this attitude: Surely it is better to make use of that great foroe in order to maintain industrial peace, than to give it the cold shoulder and by so doing encourage it in the direction of industrial war.53 In advocating conciliation, Conservatives were confronted by their own lack of suitable channels of communication with the working-clasces. Conservatives professed a desire to promote,Conservative working- olaso candidates; however, they would aocept suoh a development only on their own terms. The working-olasses were viewed, not as the maj­ ority in- the eleotorate, but as an interest group equal in status to other social groups and subordinate-to the tiational interest". The Campaign Guide stated: To the general desire for workmen representatives, in so far as it is genuine, no exception oan be taken. As long as the eleo­ torate steers olear of the pemioious tendency towards paroch­ ialism - of the disinterests to the exclusion of all others, the wider and more varied the classes from whioh Parliamentary rep­ resentatives are drawn the better.54 The operation of parliamentary politics in the late nineteenth century bolstered this Conservative viewpoint, .although it oonflioted with

*^The Journal of the Kensington Parliament. Fourteenth Session, ■o. 8, New Series, January 26, 1895* ^3-^4. Ibid.. Fifteenth Session, no. 5 t December 14* 1895* 28-29*

^The Campaign Guide. 1894* 350* 118

the emerging democratic impulses which had created the extra- parliamentary organizations of the major parties as well as the politicized New Unionism. As long as the labor movement remained divided on objectives and unable to form an independent stance in Parliament, the only recourse open to labor was parliamentary rep­ resentation within the major parties; in allying with traditional parliamentary parties, labor had to "trim its sails" and to conform to a framework of political values that were alien to its aspirations for social justice. The prospeot of Conservative working-class candidates appealed to many reformers in the party for the very reason that it would limit the growth of an aggressive and independent political movement. At the Sheffield Conference of the National Union in December, 1892, Conservative working-olass candidatures were seen as a means of ral­ lying Conservative workers against the "tyranny" of the Radical majority. ^ Conservative delegates were alarmed at industrial un­ rest and traoed the origins of militanoy to the olose alignment of sooialism and the industrial trade unions. Little discrimination was made between hadicalism, collectivism, and sooialism; all three strains of labor politioal expression were seen as part of a rising leftist offensive that challenged the "national" viewpoint whioh the Conservatives sought to defend at home and abroad. Domestic, Irish, imperial, and foreign policies were handled by Conservatives in terms of the need to defend the integrity of the nation*against hostile, disruptive forces. In the industrial realm, the Conservatives posed as the defenders of the freedom of the individual laborer and, in terms of this larger soheme, sought to promote the oause of ConBer-

55Minutes, N.U.C.C.A., Sheffield, December 13 and 14, 1892, 74. 119 vative and apolitical minorities against the Radical majority in the organized labor movement. They identified themselves with in­ terests of labor outside of the T.U.C. Sir Harry Tomlinson, M.P. from Preston, viewed Conservative working-class candidatures as a means to break the dominance of Radical political associations 5 6 which managed to "collar" the leading trade union organizations. The growth of politicized trade unionism and the beginnings of an independent labor politics .were seen as socially discordant and motiv­ ated by narrow, olasB considerations that failed to consider the "national interest". Referring to the Independent Labour Party (X.L.P.) A.J. Balfour stated: I dissent from it in the interest, fundamentally, of the great labouring population themselves, who are after all the majority of the population of this country and whose interests ought to be first. It is because I think that their interests would not merely not be furthered by oarrying that programme, but beoause on the contrary, any attempts seriously to oarry it into law must inevitably produoe such disasters to trade, ouch disloc­ ation of industry as we have never seen, and that the effects of that would reooil not upon the capitalist, but upon those who are e m p l o y e d . 57 In spite of the benefits which many Conservatives saw in spon­ soring working-olass candidates, there were many difficulties in the way of oarrying out this endeavor. The weakening of the remaining traditional political supports of a hierarchical society was a pros­ pect viewed with alarm in parliamentary oiroles. Some party members feared that the introduction of Conservative working-olass candidates would entail the payment of H.P.s, resulting in a decline of politioal caliber and a I o b b of high political standards.^® Another faotor in

56Ibid., 77-78.

•^Manohester Courier. January ItJ, ltJ95* National Union Gleanings and Memoranda. February, 1895, 86.

^ Minutes. N'.U.U.C.A*, Sheffield, 0£. oit». 79~80* 1 2 0 preventing the acceptance of working-class candidates was the lack of identity and organizational drive among the Conservative working- classes. Writing to J. Powell Williams, Liberal Unionist M.P. from Birmingham, Balfour discussed this paradoxical stance of Conservative workers who supported the deferential system on an individual basis but refused cooperation with it on the collective level: Our difficulties are not in the main with the middle classes- still less with the upper - but the Conservative working man, though cruite ready to be led, loathes the very idea of anything which savours of what he calls the *»caucus", and any attempt to diotate to him, or to bully him, makes him 10,000 times more determined to stick to his course.59 In many instances, Conservative support among the working classes was based, not so much on the workers' regard for authority and tradition, but on their defense of the empirical, individualistic values of roid- Viotorian Britain againBt the visionary, collectivist innovations of the leftist groups. Speaking on February 9» l&95v at a cotton oper­ atives meeting, the leading Conservative trade unionist, James Mawd- sley advocated a moderate labor approaoh to politios that was based on praotioal self-interest rather than enduring politioal loyalty: The next endeavor was to make the legislative machinery oome more direotly in accordance with their (workers') wishes. Those talked nonsense who stated the millennium could be aohieved tomorrow. Whether sooialism or any ism beoame the prevailing spirit, they oould only advanoe step by step. Let the working people think less of their political principles, and oranks, and fanoies, whioh meant only misrepresentation and oppos­ ition. Let them be determined to say something for their own

^Balfour to Powell Williams, Balfour Papers, April 23» 1895* 49850, f. 12. - 1 2 1

bread and butter - each nan for hijs own trade - and when the working men of this country realized the absolute necessity of direct representation in Government of their own affairs, they made the first step forward in their emancipation.^ As long as the Conservatives respected these assertions of working- class individualism, they were assured of moderate working-olass sup­ port*. However, once the development of labour's politioal con­ sciousness collided with Conservative attempts to oheok this pro­ cess, the base of Conservative working-olass support was steadily undermined. As a result of the growing strength of labor, the Liberal Govern­ ment took the first cautious steps toward acceptance of the demand for eight hours* In part, the Government aoted in response to pres­ sure from the Tory Democrats as well as from the trade unions* In 1893, Gorst pressed the Liberal Government to be a model employer of labour; and introduced a resolution that "no man shall be employed at wages whioh are insufficient for his proper maintenance" and that as an experiment", eight hours should be observed by national in­ dustries* ^^Af ter Gorst'a motion in the Commons, the Government deoided to introduoe the eight hour day at Woolwich arsenal in early 1694* Seeking to gain an advantage over the Conservatives by implementing non-oontentious measures, the Radioal Seoretary of War, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman also extended the eight hourB prinoiple to govern­ ment employees in the war office faotorieB early in 1894* In jus­ tifying his deoision to the Cabinet, he stated that the implementation of eight hours brought both gain to the employer and moral and phys­ ical benefits to the employees*. He also Btated that if the issue

^Liverpool Evening Express, February 11, 1895* 3*

^3ft*itiBh Parliamentary Debates. CommonB, Fourth Series, vol. 9, March 4, 1693, ool. 1110,1114-

« 1 2 2

were negleoted by the Liberals, eight hours in war factories would 6 2 be introduced by the next Conservative Government* John Gorst, not willing to allow the Conservatives to lose the initiative to the Liberals, pushed for a further extension of the prinoiple to the dock­ yards*^ Over the next two years, it was extended to the remaining ordnance factories, the dookyards, and two Post Office telegraph faotories.^ This limited pieoemeal introduction of eight hours, resulting from the competitive drives of the two parties, did not satisfy the miners and other trade unions who were more interested in its ap­ plication to their particular trades. Legislation for miners was finally introduced by Radical M.P.s in August, 1894, but was unsuc­ cessful due to opposition from the majority in both parties* Lib­ eral advooates of laiBsez-faire, suoh as James R. Pease, stated that such legislation would increase the price of coal and further 65 add to the depression in trade* J The unemployment situation would inorease, causing the jobless to move to districts already aggrav­ ated by unemployment.^ Conservatives also aligned themselves against the legislation, fearing that the provision of eight hours for miners would be the prelude to a universal enforcement of eight hours* The Campaign Guide expressed this conoem: Formerly, praotioal demands for state interference related mostly to the conditions of a particular trade or employment; the most extreme of the ourrent schemes cover the whole field of industry, and would virtually involve us in ooreplete state or rounioipal socialism,°7

62 Jose Harris, op. pit*. 70* 63rhe Times. January 12, 1894, 6* ^Clegg, Fox, and Thompson, og* pit*. 222* ^ Liberal Unionist Memoranda, vol. 5t **<>• 57, September 1, 1894* 165* g6Ibid*

^The Campaign Guide, 1894, 343« 123

The Conservatives relied on the dissident elements within the labor community to block the legislation, claiming that without the universal consent of labor, such a measure could not be considered by Parliament* Mr. W.D. Dacey of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, in particular, opposed universal enforcement of eight hours on the grounds that, while it benefited the majority, it deprived a minority of railway laborers of overtime money. The Conservatives hoped to gain some positive political advantages and status would be threatened by any scheme which automatically placed less skilled employees on on equal basis* Chamberlain denounced the prinoiple of eight hours as the inevitable outoome of the miners legislation. He doubted the feasibility of applying "one stereotyped rule to all trades and occupations" without oreating hardships for workers: With regard to the eight hours question, the late Government took credit for the reduotion of working time effected in certain departments but they did not mention that it had not cost the country a penny. If be werea miner he would ask himself whether it was possible to increase the price of ooal without losing the trade to foreigners. If that were possible he would vote for the eight hour day, but if it were not possible, without letting in American or continental coal, he would thidk twioe before he voted for a change which must mean that he must either work harder in the shorter time, than he ought to be called upon to do, or must take less wages than he ought to be called upon to take*69 The Conservatives however did not wish to appear too adamantly opposed to eight hours although they had joined Liberals to suc­ cessfully block the bill in 1894* The Lancashire miners were strongly in favor of eight hours for their trade, and the Conservatives did

6ti Sheffield and Kotherham Independent. August 8, l89ij, National Union OleaningB and Memoranda. Ootober, 1895» 176-177*

69The Times. July 18, 1895, 6. 124 not want to jeopardize their ctrong position among workers in this region. Ben Piokard and Sam Woods from the Northeast also appealed to Lord Salisbury and Balfour for supportf stating that the prin­ ciple was not a party issue and that it had support on both sides 70 of the Houses. The Conservative leadership contended that the passage of suoh a measure would interfere with the oost of produc­ tion and trade, but that it was willing to reconsider its position if evidence proved otherwise. Balfour olaimed that he was *'*in favor of diminished hours of work, so far as that increased the ef­ ficiency of the worker, but the present movement was expeoted by some of its friends to go further than that^.^ Thus, the conser­ vatives hoped to save face and to prevent labor alienation by maintaining an ambivalent position. The Conservatives however found themselves completely on the defensive regarding factory legislation and engaged in polemics with the Government to hide. In January of 1893, H.H. Asquith, the Home Secretary, had charged that1 the W 9 1 Faotory Acts were "very muoh a dead letter" under the Conservatives and promised en­ forcement by Government. He tightened the regulations, requiring employers to keep lists of their oontraotors and outworkers whioh enabled inspectors to monitor more easily any oases of sweating. * The Conservative rebuttal to Liberal accusations oame from J. Stuart Wortley, former Undersecretary at the home office, in a specoh on January 26 at Huddersfield: The quality of the administration and the provisions of the laws to be administered have been constantly improved by suo- oesBive parliaments, by Conservatives even more than by Lib­ eral Ministries.«

Liverpool Evening Expreoo, Maroh 1 5 ? 1 8 9 5 » 3 *

'W. VP National union Gleanings and Memoranda, November, 1893? 249-250*. 125

He cited the appointment of more inspectors, particularly working- class offioials, by the Salisbury ministry than by any Liberal Government. In spite of these remarks designed to enhance Conservatism's appeal before the electorate, the Liberal Government improved sig­ nificantly their record of factory reform. In Maroh, 1695? Asquith took the initiative in introduoing a Factory and Workshops bill. It provided for new regulations for the reporting and investigating of aooidents, and a new standard of protection against operating mach­ inery was enforced. Restrictions were placed on overtime working and the range of faotory legislation was extended to the docks and 73 laundries. The Conservatives later aoquieoed in the enactment of the measure after the resignation of the Rosebery Government.^ Employers liability legislation brought the Liberals and the Opposition into their most serious oonfrontation regarding the soope of social reform. Beoause of its oommitment to Irish Home Rule, the Gladstone Administration in 1693 had little time or energy to promote domestio legislation. However, it reoognized that Borne aspeot of the Newcastle Programme had to be implemented and chose? employers liability as a safe means of promoting social reform without risking widespread opposition. Although aocepting the extension of employers liability in prinoiple, the Conser­ vatives were ready to ohallenge the Government on the oontinuanoe of private, employer-sponsored aooident insurance soheraes. Reform- minded H.P.s in the Unionist alliance however opposed a striotly defensive posture* Desiring that the party avoid arousing the hoB-

*^Roy Jenkins, Asquith. New York, 1966? 85.

*^In the spring of 1894? Gladstone resigned in opposition to Cabinet plans to further naval expansion. The Queen, without con­ sulting the outgoing Prime Minister, appointed the politically inexperienced Soottish aristoorat, Lord Rosebery, as his suooeBSor. 1 2 6 tility of organized labor, Chamberlain and the Tory Democrat Al­ bert Rollit (M.P. from Islington) wanted the leadership to re­ frain from supporting the right of workers to "contract out" of 75 the Governments legislative provisions. In February, 1893, the Gladstone ministry's legislation was introduced in the Commons by Asquith. It abolishod common em­ ployment and "contracting out", making employers responsible for all injuries to employees in which other workers were involved. Mo reoourse could be made by firms to private schemes outside the scope of the legislation. In addition to this appeal, which was made to tho anti-employer sentiments of trade unionism, the Lib­ erals also sought to reduce the potential opposition (if not cap­ ture the support) of employers and the voluntary friondly societies. Clauses of tho bill stipulated that employers had to contribute to the friondly societies, and in turn, the injured party would use legal procedures to obtain recompense rather than making a direct 76 claim on the employers' funds. Joseph Chamberlain, the major Opposition spokesman,- sought to gain politioal advantage by proposing an amendment that would have made employers liable for industrial accidents in which responsib­ ility was difficult to locate. Chamberlain recognized that, for practical reasons, his proposal had little ohanoo of acceptance since it required the complex task of allowing time for the creation of insurance programs for the protection of employers against costly drains on funds.^ However, it had the intended effect of blunting the innovative thrust of the Liberal proposal and mode the Conser­ vatives appear to be more forward-looking than the Government. As

^Conference Minutes. M.U.C.C.A., Sheffield, ojj. oit.. 195- 196f Salisbury to Goschen, Balfour Papers, November 25, 1892, 49706, f. 124-129.

*^The Times. February 3, 1893, 5* ^Ibid., Kay 18, 1893, 4 127 a daring, politioally-inspired move, Chamberlain's action caught the Government by surprise and momentarily shifted attention from unpopular conservative efforts to preserve "contracting out". Having made his point, Chamberlain recognized that, failing to undercut the Government's legislation, the conservatives had as ■ their only alternative the inolusion of a Lords amendment permitting employers and employees to make their own private arrangements. In the view of the conservative leadership, the Liberals' rejeotion of this voluntaristio prinoiple, jeopardized the maintenance of instit­ utional supports for good employer-employee relationships. Addressing the Grand Committee of the Birmingham Liberal Unionist Association on Nay 17, chamberlain underlined the importance of inter-olass solidarity and the avoidanoe of oooasions for olass oonfliot: Under this bill, the object of these (voluntary; associations would be destroyed. That objeot is that employers and em­ ployed should remain on good and friendly terms, that they should not be quarreling in the Law courts, and also, that... the proper obligation of the employers towards their work­ people should be fully disoharged. But under this Bill, after entering into an agreement of this kind, any man may subsecruently throw it over and bring his employer into a law court-, if he is persuaded by some attorney or another that he oan get a larger sura that way than by resting upon the arrangements he has voluntarily made.' In this endeavor, the Conservatives were joined by dissident Liberal and labor groups. Walter McClaren, Liberal M.P. from Chesire, took a "middle-of-the road" position by introducing an amendment up­ holding "contracting out" for the preservation of existing arrange­ ments but prohibiting it for future oneB. He also required the sup-

^ T h e Times. May 18, 1893, 1 2 6 port of a two-thirds Majority of employees in a firm for "contracting out".7? Railway workers from the London and Northwest Company op­ posed T.U.C. hacking of the Government and affirmed their desire 80 to protect their private insurance arrangements. Similar sup- - port for a "contracting out" amendment came from other laborers in the gas and chemical industries. Although Conservatives had anticipated support for their cause from the independent friendly societies, Liberal promises to protect the interests of these bodies mollified opposition to the Government's legislation. Although non-partisan societies, suoh as the National Order of Free Gardeners and the Monmouthshire and South Wales Mines Provident Society, allied with the Opposition, most Conservative support oame from sooioties that wore basioally auxiliaries of the fil Conservative party. At the National Conference of Friendly Soc­ ieties in London in March, 1893, delegates viewed "contracting out" as a hindrance to their interests. T.B; Steed, representative of the Foresters Society, expressed the widespread opinion that, under the Conservative plan, "••.membership in insurance funds or soci­ eties in shopB or works would greatly restrict the area from whioh friendly sooieties are drawn, and also that legislative efforts to prevent accidents are of more importance...than the securing of 82 compensation after an accident.•.". While refusing to become involved in a Trade Union Congress-sponsored campaign against "oon-

80 Daily News, September, 18, I893, National Union Gleanings and Memoranda. Ootober 1893, 164* ^ Standard'. Maroh 24, 1894, Ibid.. April, I894, 267. West Mail. Maroh 28, 1894, Ibid., 269. ^ D a i l y Chronicle. Maroh 22, 1894, Ibid., 266-67. 129 tracting out", some of the most important societies, such as the Ancient Order of Foresters and the Manchester Unity Oddfellows pressed Lord Salisbury to allow the Government's legislation to become law. In spite of opposition within the labor movement to their pro­ posal, the Conservatives persisted in obstructing the passage of the Government bill. In December, 1893, the Conservative-dominated Lords refused to accept the McLaren compromise amendment (whioh had also been rejeoted by the Liberals) and supported an amendment by Lord Oi Dudley.^ The Dudley olause went beyond the McLaren amendment, re­ affirming "contracting out" for future arrangements and allowing its operations by a bare majority. Lord Salisbury, although aware of the dangers of antagonizing labor, stated to Dalfour that the re­ tention of traditional allies waB more important: I have not received any indication from trade unions that they attach any importance to the difference between the McLaren amendment and the Dudley amendment and I know of their general hostility to the proposed notion of the Lords...but they as a rule are in deadly.hostility to us everywhere and always have been. If we abandon the friendly societies, we throw over the whole of the shipping interest. 5 Salisbury, however, remained non-oomittal regarding whioh amendment to support. Chamberlain strongly supported the Dudley amendment as a better alternative than the McLaren amendment although it would risk the destruotion of the entire bill. He claimed that all "contraoting-out" arrangements should be legally respected under certain conditions: the agreement would not apply to cases in whioh direot or indirect negligenoe of the employer was proved; the Board of Trade would judge the "reasonableness" of any compensation; the employer had to oontribute at least one-third of the funds; and that

63Paily News, Maroh 3, 1894, Ibid., 266.

^ British Parliamentary Debates. Lords, vol. 19, December 8, 1893, ool. 750-51.

^Salisbury to James, Lord James of Hereford (Sir Henry James) Papers, December 6, 1893, H45/638. 130 the agreement was not binding on laborers as a condition of employ- O/ ment. Lord Salisbury, however, hesitated to accept the Chamber- lainite conditions attached to the Dudley amendment and was willing to aocept the complete MoLaren amendment as .a "stop gap" measure in order to protect the voluntary arrangements until a future Con­ servative government was able to pass its own legislation: I am inolined to think that the aoceptance of the MoLaren amendment would be an easier and more practicable course than the one Chamberlain reoommends. His new conditions would alienate the owners to a great extent...On the other hand, 1 cannot find out that the working men would like his proposals a bit more than the Dudley amendment. So we should fall between the stools...He oannot stop all the evil the bill would do - but we can stop that which 1b urgent and most threatening - the destruction of the existing sooieties; once threatened they would not be easily re-established and harm would be done, which could not be repaired. It is therefore illogical to say that the danger by the MoLaren amendment is very muoh more pressing than the other; and that under ciroumstances we may fairly leave the other to later legislation...I should certainly vote against it and rather lose the Bill than aocept it. Stuart Wortley, Undersecretary at the Home Office, agreed with Chamberlain concerning the Dudley amendment and confidently af­ firmed that it would not arouse the rank and file workers: I admit the same officials of trade unions are against con­ tracting out, but I do not believe the non-offioial rank and file of trade unions either are or need to be against it... Now contracting out interferes neither with the freedom, of trade unions to combine or with the funds that they fight with. It may make less frequent the oooasions for fighting. If anyone will suffer by that it is certainly not the non- offioial members of trade unionism.•.The Government bill then does no more to prevent negligenoe than is shown to be done by the contraots. It is doubtful indeed whether the Bill, or so much or it as is new law, does anything at all to prevent negligence. It gives compensation only under very difficult and forbidding conditions, and only in a very limited number of oases. The exaot reverse is the oase with the oontraots, whioh give compensation

86 Chamberlain to the Duke of Devonshire, Chamberlain Papers, January 25, 1894, JC 5/22/154. ^Salisbury to Balfour, Salisbury Papers, December 26, 1893» f. 76. 131

promptly and in all cases and to an amount which the men can determine for themselves when they agree to the scheme. The promoters of Home Rule never tell these things to the working men; but they could not deny them in the House of Commons; and they never will and flgver can deny them in any place where they can be answered. Sir Harry Tomlinson also felt that the Conservatives should not waver in pressing the Dudley amendment, claiming that "new labour party. • .was selling tho work'ing men in this ouestion. He also did not believe, that trade unionists were in favor of the bill, but go that "a clique of agitators were selling it to them". * Other Conservatives, however, were wary of this "die-hard" stand. In a letter to Salisbury, Balfour stated, in January, 1894* that the Tory Democrats were opposed to a defiant position by the Lords as detrimental to tho party's chance of conciliating the working classes: Randolph (ChurohilO says that he will not fight Bradford if the LordB do anything whioh (as he is pleased to express it) 'des­ troy' the bill - by whioh he means of they do anything to whioh the government object sufficiently to make them drop the bill. I have directed Middleton QChtef Party Agent} to make confid­ ential incuiries through the manufacturing districts to form some estimate of what the eleetoral importance of the agitation against contracting out really is.°° Gorst also felt that tho insistence of the Lords on the Dudley amend­ ment would cause problems for the party in working-olass areas. To Salisbury, he stated that " the loss of the employers liability bill...will infliot a very heavy blow upon your working-olass usp- 91 porters".

bb England. Deoember 30, 1893* National Union Cleanings and Memoranda. January, l894t 25.

^Birmingham Gazette. January 10, 1894, National Union CleaningB and Memoranda. February,,1894 * 101.

^Balfour to Salisbury, Salisbury Papers, January 12, 1894, f. 476* •^Gorst to Salisbury, Ibid.. January 24* l894» f* 74* 132

The Conservative leadership finally decided that it Has better to retain the traditional supporters and a few labor dissidents rather than try to cultivate a base among diehard anti-Tory opponents of "contracting out”. The Dudley amendment was accepted, and on February 13, the revised bill was sent to the Commons. Gladstone, refusing to accept Conservative mutil­ ation of the bill, pr-jpoaed tho rejection of- the amendment. Thio motion was carried, and the bill was oonseauently lost, much 92 to the embarrassment of the Government. The debate concerning the Conservative approaoh to employersJ liability oontinued in the party after the demise of the Govern­ ment bill. Chamberlain admitted that the Lords action had ad­ versely affooted party candidates in by-elections held in man­ ufacturing districts and that the strategy of the Opposition had to ohange.^ As a result of the legislative impassse caused by by exoessive attach ment to "contracting out", the Chamberlain insurance Bcheme was revived. At the National Conference of the Soottish branch of the party on Ootobor 30, 1894* revision of the employers* liability billl was supported with universal pro- 94 vision of compensation for all accidents.On Nay 29, 3895, the Tory Democrat A.B. Forwood also proposed an employers* liabil­ ity reform, similar to that proposed by Chamberlain as a Conser- 95 vative alternative.^

^^National Union Gleanings and Memoranda. Haroh, 1894, 188.

•^Chamberlain to Balfour, Chamberlain Papers, January 11, 1894, JC 5/67/21.

^Minutes. National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations, Sootland, Edinburgh, Ootobor 30, 1894, 5*

^ standard. May 30, 1895, National Union OleaningB and Mem­ oranda. June, 1895, 344-45* The popularity of the old age pensions issue also created con­ tention between Conservatives and Liberals. Although desiring a change in the relief services of the Poor Law which would genuinely help the aged poor, the Liberal uovemment hesitated to make re­ forms for fear of increasing the involvement of Westminster at the expense of the local boards of guardians. Instead, emphasis was placed on the democratization of local poor law institutions. In keeping with the traditional Liberal stress on the furtherance of sooial change through the extension of the suffrage, the Olad- stonian ministry in early 1893 proposed to extend the provisions of the Local Government Aot of 1888 to the distriot and p&rifsh . level nr.. In Maroh, Henry W. Fowler, the President of the Local Government Board, presented the legislation to the Commons. Eleotive parish oouncils, with limited spending powers, would re­ place the churoh vestry, which was often dominated by the tra­ ditional hierarchical authorities of souire and priest. This legislation affeoted the poor law by extending the franchise for the popular election of the boards of guardians. The ex-offioio justices of the peace were eliminated from these bodies, plural ^ votes, alloted on the basis of property rights, were also dropped* The elimination of these ohecks was opposed by the Conservatives, who feared that the election of poor law offioials by the reoipients of aid would lead to proligate expenditures and an unjust burden on the propertied classes and ratepayers.*^ However, in parliamentary debate, Chamberlain also refleoted the realization of the Oppos­ ition that it would be politically disastrous to rejeot the Govern­ ment's legislation altogether; instead, conservative and Liberal Unionist M.P.s pressed for orualifioations that would oheok indis-

^Bfritish Parliamentary Bebates, commons, vol. 10, March 21, 1893, col. 608-722.

97Ibid.. vol. 18, November 28,1893, ools. 1948-1950* Ibid.. ools.. 26-32. 134 criminate expenditures by limiting or placing a ceiling on expend­ itures and by encouraging co-option of councillors. Some Conser­ vatives opposed the immediate consideration of any Poor Law reform, hoping that it would be handled in a separate piece of legislation. They found these remiests for postponements much to their political advantage. The realization that the equal strength of the largest parties in the House of Commons prevented the Government from ex­ ercising a firm hold on legislation gave hope that a general elec­ tion would soon be held, and that the consideration of Poor Law reform could be delayed until a Conservative government came into og, power,- Although they were unable to block the passage of the bill and to completely halt the extension of local democracy, the Op­ position was capable of effectively blunting a Radical attempt to transform the moderate Government proposals into a more progressive piece of legislation. The Government followed a similar course of moderation in ap­ pointing a Royal Commission in December, 1892 under Lord Aberdare to investigate the possibilities of old age relief. In taking this decision, the Government, realizing the complexity of the issue, hoped to delay facing it. The Conservatives, although eoually hesitant, sought to take advantage of the Government's difficult position and accused the ministry of indecision. Chamberlain orit- ioized the appointment, claiming that he was not a believer in Royal Commissions and the action was an attempt to save "the Govern­ ment of the day from the necessity of dealing with a question whioh '99 they think to be inconvenient"While re-assuring the friendly societies of the Opposition's desire to take their interests into

98 ' Robert Kohanr, British Political Attitudes and the Local Government Act of 1.894* Masters Thesis, Ohio State University, 1974*

•^Daily Chronicle. January 4, 1894, National Union OleaningB and Memoranda. February, 1894, 144* 135 account, Chamberlain sought to reconcile the need for greater State involvement with the protection of the interests of the voluntary groups: The deserving aged over sixty five have a claim upon the State whioh they have served during a long life of toil, and 1 am desirous therefore that the State would contribute to a scheme of pensions by which they may be able at very trifling ex­ penses to make provisions while young for old age* They would prefer this result through the friendly societies, and I believe that this oould be done without, in the slightest degree, interfering with the management and independence of these great institutions. Hitherto, the officials...have thrown obstacles in the way, but I believe this is owing to misapprehension of the nature of my soheme and I hope that further discussion may remove it. In the meanwhile I think that the case of the aged poor is muoh more pressing and more deserving of attention of British statesmen than any polioy of dis integrating the empire in order to satisfy the olamour of a clique of Irishmen who have shown themselves the worst enemies of their own, aBwell as of our country..lO° On December 6, 1894, he reiterated his proposal for a partnership with the friendly societies on whioh 2s 6d would be contributed by the voluntary bodies and 5s by the State. The objeot of the plan was to encourage thrift and to help the sagging coffers of the friendly sooieties by boosting subscriptions. State aid would be 101 withdrawn with the return of finanoial solvenoy. This Chamberlain plan was eclipsed in popularity among the working olasBes by Charles Booth's soheme of universal State-aided pensions based on taxation. In spite of the laborers' apathy regarding contributory pensions, the Unionist alliance was reluotant to mod­ ify its belief that State involvement was only justifiable if it enoouraged thrift and industry. Chamberlain attacked Booth and his

100 M L

*°*The Times, December 7t I894f 5* 136

supporters as the makers of schemes...who think only of what is desirable and never think of what is possible...Rome was not built in a day, and neither will a universal old age pensions scheme be created even perhaps in our own.

t o oounter Booth's flroal radical!cm and as a prelude to the even­ tually hoped-for introduction of ChamberIain's scheme, the conser­ vatives encouraged the formation of private annuity societies, whioh enabled members to make provisions for siokness, old age, and death, in the oase of the Mid-Gloucester Conservative Benefit society, the subscription rate was Id a day per share up to thirty years of age, and l/2d per month ertra after this period. After attaining sixty-five, eaoh member could take out the entire amount 103 standing to his oredit. In the midst of this publio disoussion, the Royal commission issued its report on February 2b, 1095, recommending that the tiov- ernment alter the provisions of the Poor Law to allow "outdoor relief11 for the "respectable11 aged poor. Beyond this suggestion, it was reluctant to endorse any new praotical schemes outside the 104 Poor Law to aooomplish this end. * This general recommendation was oritioized by some conservatives, inducing Charles Ritchie, M.P. from Baloell, and Sir Herbert Maxwell, M.P. from Wigtownshire, who wanted a clearer distinction drawn between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor. They aocused the Commission and by implication, the Government, of inaotion, warning that "the agitatiom against the present administration of the Poor Law may beoome irresponsible and lead to changes undesirable in the interests of eoonomy and roor- 105 • ality". *

102 Ibid., Maroh 10, 1894, 7*

The Tory. February 15, 1894, 11*

British Parliamentary Papers. Cmd. 7684, 18951 "Report of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor", p. lxxxiii.

^°^Ibid... p., x o i w 137- While opposing the Government's efforts to dealwith the prob­ lem through political reform and inquiry, the Conservatives ignored the complaints of their own right wing and presented legislation for voluntary, State-aided old age pensions. In March, 1895* James Ran­ kin, Conservative M.P» from Herefordshire, introduced a private mem­ bers bill with the support of Chamberlain and the tolerance of the party leadership. The bill stipulated that any person who acouired an annuity from a voluntary society or the post offioe, of not less than 2s 6d a week, would receive from the State a pension of t>6 10s a year from Bixty-five until death. If a recipient were deprived of the annuity and obliged to seek Poor Law relief, the guardians were authorized to give these persons out-door relief.This measure failed to receive wide support from members of both parties; how­ ever, its publioity enhanoed Conservative eleotoral appeal on the eve of a general election. The Conservatives also promoted the oause of housing during this period of Liberal deoline in eleotoral prospects. At the Sheffield Conference in 1892, Thomas Wrightson, Conservative M.P. from Stockton, emerged as the ohampion of this oause. In an address that reflooted the sentiments of grassroots urban Conservatism, he statedt ...it is the opinion of this meeting that the time has arrived when Parliament may well afford facilities for the acquisition by working men of their own homes. Municipal and other local authorities should be entitled to borrow from the state oertain monies every year in some reasonable proportions to their rate­ able value and. their building requirements and that they should lend the same to bona-fide workman. '

* ^ T h e Times, Maroh 14* 1895» 8.

1Q7Minutes. N.U.C.C.A., Sheffield, December 13 and 14, 1894, 46. 138

Albert Itollit, another Tory Democrat, gave his support to this mea­ sure, viewing it as a stabilising factor that would integrate the Tod working classes into national life. Many middle-class Conser­ vative delegates were appalled at the suggestion. One of them stated that if he had been "blindfolded", he would "have thought himself at a Radical meeting and stated that "in the municipalities, the Radicals would abuse it and there was also no demand from the working classes for it." Fears were expressed that the installments would not be punctually paid by the workers and that the laborers, especially in London, were migratory and lacked any interest. Also, it was suggested that limits be plaoed on the municipalities' ad­ vancement of funds.In spite of this opposition, the proposal received the endorsement of Balfour and Chamberlain and was sub­ sequently re-affirmed at party conferences at Cardiff in 1893 and in Newcastle in 1894- 1 1 1 In early 1893, Wrightson unsuccessfully presented his bill be­ fore the Commons. The same process was repeated in the 1894 ses­ sion. The Liberal Government refused to allow the Conservatives to make political advanoes through support of the measure. At Hull on January 22, 1895» Home Seoretary ABquith opposed the Wrightson pro­ posal for its impracticability in a mobile society; instead, he suggested that local authorities should buy land and let it on 112 reasonable termB to builderB. In spite of defeat, the Wrightson bill oontinued to generate widespread interest and support in the North and in Sootland, regions where the housing problem waB most aoute. To meet this opportunity, the Conservative Central Office reoommended that constituency agents

108Ibid., 61.

109Ibid., 69.

**®The Times. January 21, 1895» 5* ^^Minutes, N.U.C.C.A., Newoastle-on-Tyne, oj>. oit., 284-285. 112 Daily News. January 23, 1895» National Dnion Qleanings and Neraoranda. April, 1895, 265. 139 promote the Wrightson hill before working-olass audiences* The National Union of Conservative Associations for Scotland gave it support for working-olass ownership of homes on November 14, 1895* The momentum for housing reform was increased by Chamberlain's pro­ posal to enlarge the scope of the Wrightson proposal. On October 11, 1894, the Liberal Unionist leader stated at Birmingham that the Disraelian housing aots, whioh only permitted local authorities to actruire unsanitary property, had to be amended to allow for compen­ sation to take b u t rounding property for the purposes of improvement: If this change is carried out, and it cannot be held to be un­ just or injurious to any living being, then you will find the corporations of the country clearing the evil quarters of their c&ties, and making room for better homes, for better conditions of life*u 5 This issue proved to be a popular Conservative theme in the I895 Gen­ eral Election, especially in highly-ooncentrated urban, industrial areas* Bypassing the authority of the Duke of Devonshire, the senior Liberal Unionist leader, Chamberlain pressed Lord Salisbury to ao­ cept an offioial Conservative Booial reform program to counter the growing Radical discontent in the Liberal party* Salisbury did not categorioally reject this idea when it was first brought to his at­ tention in the spring of 1894» He ocpressed a cautious acceptance of a way "to find an alternative to wild schemes of confiscation and and revolutionary change; but he cautioned Chamberlain regarding the practical difficulties: "the difficulties between us", he wrote, "is tactics, not policy* • .and whether we shall g ^ g or lose by sub­ mitting to public oritioisms detailed measures." Salisbury also

U 3 The Tory. April, 1895, 9-10. ^ ^National Union Qleanings and Memoranda, December, 1895, 332* U 5 The Times* Ootober 11, 1894, 7*

^^Salisbury to Chamberlain, Chamberlain Pacers, November 9, 1894, JC 5/67/22- 1 4 0 mentioned the antagonism of traditional supporters and doubted that the proposals were "ademiate compensation among those who would otherwise not vote for us" and that it was not necessary at 117 the moment to treat in detail. Chamberlain continued to press his case. In an1 innovative and precedent-breaking proposal in the fall of 1894, he suggested to Salisbury that committees composed of Conservative peers serve as a shadow Cabinet, drafting social reform bills so that the Conser­ vatives would have a ooherent legislative package to present to the eleotorate in the forthcoming general election: "If they take a broad view of the situation, they might eaBily produce a scheme li8 of legislation whioh would be attractive, as well as safe*'. Although aocepting the role of the Lords as a constitutional check on "hasty" Liberal legislation, Salisbury dismissed as radical any 119 role of the Lords which made it an "originating chamber**. ' cham­ berlain was thus blocked in his attempt to motivate the conservatives to rormulate a social reform initiative that would challenge the Lib­ erals and attract public attention. Failing to win the support of the leadership, Chamberlain ap­ pealed to individual Unionist M.P.s and to the party rank and file. In furthering this end, he also hoped to transform the Unionist al­ liance into a "oentrist", national, and inter-class party. Henry James, sought to rally Liberal Unionists to support of this endeavor by stressing the ohange in the Conservative temper sinoe 1886: The men who passed the Local Government Aot of 1888 and the men who gave free education were not the TorieB of olden times. The

11.8 Chamberlain to Salisbury, Chamberlain Papers, Ootober 29, I894, JG 5/67/21.' ^^Salisbury to Chamberlain', Ibid., November 9» 1894? JC 5/67/22/ 141

(Liberal^ Unionists hnd to deal, fortunately with men of most liberal minds.••They had found within: that party men desired to forget that it was ever thought to be the duty of the Tory party to maintain class privileget to procure class legislation, or to cease from dealing out with an ?cual hand justice alike to every man in this country.120 However, this desire for unity was not universally affirmed. The Duke of Devonshire, still wanting to preserve the Whig indentity, 121 thought of the Unionist alliance as only a temporary arrangement.

Stronger opposition came from the Conservative party'b right wing, which detested Chamberlain's pragmatio brand of politios and wanted a lessening of Liberal Unionist influence. To counter this under­ current of dissatisfaction before it became widespread, Balfour defended the alliance as the only possible means to counteract Liberalism and hoped that it would emerge as "the Imperial party" 122 to whioh could be entrusted the well-being of the Empire. Sir William Hart Dyke, a prominent Home County souire and party man­ ager, also defended Chamberlain and the Liberal Unionists: ...no loyal Conservative oan note without deep regret the eccentric views which have lately been expressed in rel­ ation to Chamberlain and the Liberal Unionist alliance... Add now when the prospeots of this loyal alliance are at their brightest, some irresponsible men have taken upon, themselves the task of vilifying our most prominent ally... Some keen supporters of our Church may be heard to urge that after all Home Rule is preferable to disestablishment. I yield to none of them in my desire to oppose the disestab­ lishment of our Church, but oan there be Burer step to establishment than the breaking up of the Unionist party?

X20The Times. May 2, 1895» 6,

X2XLiberal Unionist Memoranda, July, 1895, vol. 2, 168.

12& e Times. April 27» 1895? 5*

123The Times. April 17, l895» 6- 1 4 2

This division in Conservative ranks between "traditionalists" and "pragmatists" could not compare with the fragmentation occuring in the Liberal party, particularly in the Rosebery Cabinet* This weakness in the Government made it increasingly vulnerable to the least Conservative onslaught* On June 21, I895, the Seoretary for War, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, was censured by the Commons for failing to supply the Army with sufficient amounts of cordite, a new explosive. The Cabtrt responded the next day by resigning, and Salisbury at once formed a new government and prepared for a July general election* During the eleotion campaign, Conservative candidates in working- clasB constituencies appealed for support on different levels with a variety of national and looal themes. There were the paternalistic type of politicians, who subtly aonruired votes by using private wealth to provide social services or by appealing to seotional tra­ ditions* The Darwen, Lancashire M.P*, James Rutherford, had es­ tablished an infirmary and a nurses training school to get working- 1 PA class support as well as to meet working-olass needs. There were similar undertakings in the East End of London* In Liverpool, the Tory political roaohine of Arohibald Salvidge was able to base an effective working-class appeal solely on popular, anti-Irish Protes- 123 tantism*. However, a number of other candidates, recognizing the anaohronism of the "deferential" approaoh , utilized the bait of social reform and stability* At Ardwioh, Manchester, Balfour em­ phasized legislation "for the welfare of the masses" without des- troying traditional institutions. At Bristol, Kiohael Hioks- Beaoh urged a moratorium on the constitutional struggle over Ireland

* ^ Liverpool Evening Express, Maroh 15, 4t ‘July 3, 1895, 2* ^Siiandolph S* Churchill, Lord Derby - "King of Lancashire", London:, 1959, 44- *^Standard, July 9, 1895, national Gnion Gleanings and Memor­ anda. August, 1^95, 98-99. 143 127 and in its placet a promotion of "constructive" social legislation* Much of this electoral talk was extremely vague, although some pol­ iticians gave clear support to particular issues* James P. Oswald and Robert Ashcroft, candidates in Oldham, supported voluntary boards of conciliation and urged the oreation of a local registry to aid the unemployed. They also supported an extension of employers liability I pO that exoluded "contracting out". Harry Samuels, from the Tower HamletB section of East London, also devoted his campaign to a blend of local and national themes*. Supporting Chamberlain's old age pen­ sion scheme and shorter hours for labor, he demanded a "fair share of shipbuilding" for East London to stimulate trade and emphasized the growing concern of East Londoners about the influx of aliens into their neighborhoods.1,2'1 The election gave the Conservatives a maj­ ority of 132 seats, inoluding 71 Liberal Unionists* Social reform was not a main faotor in this triumph, since dis­ satisfaction with the weakness of Liberalism and the growth of im­ perialist sentiment, exercised considerable influence, along with Irish Home Rule and a host of local issues. Even if social reform played a significant role, the results of the election did not influence the Conservatives to move wholeheartedly along reformist lines in the new Government* However, the election did achieve an objective of the Unionist reformers: the oloser integration of the Unionist allianoe. The Liberal Unionists were now willing to serve in the Cabinet and to take responsibility for the Government's pol­ icies, even if these policies fell far short of Conservative eleotoral promises and constituency expectations*

127 Liverpool Evening Express, July 2, 1895? 2.

* ^Oldham Evening Chronicle. July 5? 1895? 4»

l29East End News, July 6, 1895, 3i July 24? 1895? 3* CHAPTER IV

THE THIRD SALISBURY CCVEIUJKEIJT THE LIIII TATI 0H3 OP TORY RSFORMISK 1895-1699

After their triumph in 1895» the Conservatives expressed sympathy with demands for social reform hut continued to avoid any wide-ranging commitments. According to Lord Salisbury, at ttatford on October 30, 1895, "we have got, as far as we can, to make this country more pleaBant to live in for the vast majority of those who live in it,, but I am very far from holding out ex­ travagant hopes of the power of Parliament in that direction, However, the laioseg-fairo assumptions of late nineteenth century Conservatism were increasingly challenged by the organized labor movement. At the annual T.U.C. conference at Cardiff in Septem­ ber, I895, a majority of the delegates supported a universal eight hour day, employers' liability legislation minus-the "con­ tracting out" provision, and an amendment of the Poor Law that removed oivil disabilities and provided for the care of the agecl poor apart from the workhouse. The extension of factory legis­ lation to the unskilled trades, the oreation of public works for the unemployed, and the nationalization of land and industry were 2 also supported, reflecting the growing impact of the non-theor- etical eooialism of the New Unionism upon the older skilled unions. The Conservatives attacked this new collectivism as a danger to the monarohioal, parliamentary, and local institutions that<

*The Times. Ootober 3lf 1895* 10* O Conference Report, T.U.C., Cardiff, September 3~7» I895i 52-54. 144 145 maintained individual civil liberties. Their return to power gave them more self-assurance. The Tiroes, on September 9» 1*395* affirmed this mood: ...we have never supposed that the industrial classes of the country have been led away by oollectivist theories. The resolutions at the Cardiff Congress are Bignally out of agree­ ment with the votes given at the Oeneral Election when the working-claoses had a chance of speaking out on their own aocount.3 Claiming to represent the inarticulate majority of laborers, Conser­ vatives condemned Liberal reformism as contributing to olass con­ flict while lauding the Conservative contribution to eoonomio pros­ perity and national unity. At Trowbridge, on November 26, 1895» Halter Long contrasted Liberal polioies of "destructive" constit­ utional reconstruction with Conservative endeavors to stimulate economic and territorial growth: Hhat was the underlying principle of the present Government at this moment? Has it not a desire and a promise to do all they possibly could to restore prosperity to those portions of tie country which had been too long languishing under depression and difficulty?...and to strengthen the bonds that bound the colonies to the mother country, to open new markets, new fields for enterprise and new opportunity for capital?. ..-All they C ^ e Liberals} did was to threaten to disestablish a oburoh fin Hales}, to attempt to sever the union between Great Britain and Ireland, and to endeavor to introduce bad feelings between the master and the men. They had lost.the opportunity, and the Unionist Party now had theirs...4 Still, the inevitability of some form of accommodation to the newer trends was reoognized. As the Spectator put it: They £the Conservatives} will be under pretty muoh the same inducement to frame their policy on lines which will at- traot the labour vote...The labour reoord of the next Par­ liament, whether Liberal or Unionist, will probably show

^The Times. September 9* 1895» 7*

*Tbe Times. Nbveraber 27» 1#95» 11* 146

some doubtful experiments and some positive mistakes.••(but) if we are to have State pensions C?or the aged} and an Eight Hours Bill, we would rather have them with a Second Chamber and an Established Churoh than without them.5 But how much were the Conservatives willing to concede? Some held that the Government had to go at least half-way in meeting labor aspirations for the sake of social peace and for the promotion of Conservatism as a viable political option. Chamberlain and the Radical Liberal Unionists, for example, although slackening in their reformist ardor, were joined by "maverick" Conservatives, including John Gorst and Claude Hhy, in supporting a conciliatory approaoh to labor on issues, such as employers' liability, work­ men's dwellings, and the reform of the Poor Law* however, they lacked ooherence in both their organization and their proposals, and this diminished their influence in established party oiroleB. On the other hand, the right wing of the Unionist alliance organized a powerful anti-labor lobby. Many industrialist con­ tributors to the party coffers, alarmed by growing labor unrest, were determined to have the party support legal limitations on trade union aotivity. Some were even oalling into Question the existence of trade unionism itself. They had helped organize employers' associations and had assisted in the oreation of the National Free Labour Association in May, 1893* This body was composed of "independent", non-unionized workers and served aB a pool of "blacklegs" to break strikes. Concerned about the dis­ ruption of industry by trade unionists, its declared objectives were to proteot unorganized labor from the effeots of trade union "coercion" and to maintain industrial peaoe and prosperity from the tii influence of "socialistic anarchy".

^"The New Government and Labour", The Speotator. vol. 75, July 6, 1895, 6-9.

^The Times. September 13, 1#97» 1 4 7

Although the industrial, middle-class element was in the ascen­ dancy in the party, the attention of the Conservative leadership and the parliamentary party was also given to the tax relief of the declining agricultural interests and the support of tne denominational voluntary schools. In a situation reflecting the lessening of aris­ tocratic and clerical influence in the determination of party policy, the Government experienced considerable difficulty in implementing its educational program, which waB oriented more toward the protec­ tion of the Anglican Churoh than toward the extension of educational opportunities. It sought to work out a compromise enabling the vol­ untary schools to receive the rate benefits without being integrated into the secular eduoational Bystem esta blished in 1870 by the Lib­ erals. The Education Bill of 1896 intended to place the board school authorities under the supervision of the county councils, which would channel state and rate aid to both the voluntary and board sohools. The measure was attacked by clericals, who feared the subservience of religious instruction to the secular state, and the Nonconformist and secular Liberals, who viewed the act as an attempt to bolster the educational activities of the Established Churoh with non-Ang- lioon funds. Many moderate urban Conservatives were apathetio about the bill whioh mainly affected the rural areas; and after a split in the Cabinet, the legislation was eventually abandoned in 1897- 7 By this year, it could be seen that the performance of the Gov­ ernment on labor issues was meager aside from a trades disputes bill, a truok act amendment bill, and a mines regulation bill. A oon- oilation act, passed in 1896 and designed to provide support to

7 Henry R. Whates, The Third Salisbury Administration. Vaoher and Sons, Westminster, 1900, 395* 1 4 8 voluntary efforts toward industrial peace*) proved moribund. This faltering and aimless performance whittled away the prestige gained lay the 1895 electoral triumph. There was considerable labor unrest as a result of the political lethargy. In August, 1897, the Amal­ gamated Sooiety of Engineers demanded an eight hour day with no pay reductions. The hostility of the employers generated a trade union oampaign following the Trade Union Congress' support of the engineers. The London employers joined the national Employers'Federation of En­ gineering Associations and with this backing, imposed a "lockout" Q? that lasted from July, 1897 to January, 1898. The unions had to back down, but the powerful resistance of labor in what constituted the first major national strike further heightened Conservative ap­ prehensions about the growth of trade unionism. The Liberals were preoooupied with a series of leadership orises and neither party seemed to have any official alternative policy to collectivism, although minorities in both parties were attempting to formulate a response. Beatrice and Sidney Webb, leaders of the Fabian Sooiety, hoped to change this situation by permeating both parties with their pragmatic, issue-oriented socialism*. John Oorst confided to the Webbs his disoouragement with the laok of Conservative social reform.. Beatrice Webb recorded Oorst'a criticism in 1897 of the Conservative parliamentary leadership, especially of Balfour, the party Leader in the Commons: He OBalfouiQ doesn't know anything.•.We are on the eve of a crisis; there will be a revolt presently of the urban Tories. They oan't go on watohing their seats being taken from under them. As for sooial reform, all chance of that is gone,.. When first this Government came into offioe, they honestly1 intended to do something. I know, as a matter of fact, that a The Tory, vol. 7» Ootober 1, 1896, 186. • 9 Polling, A History of British Trade Unionism, og. cit.r 112-113* 149

that Salisbury said to Chaplin soon after the election and the Government was formed! 'Chaplin, can't you do something for the unemployed'? Other Conservative reformers publically protested the Govern­ ment's inaction. In the Fortnightly Review. Claude G. Hay and Harold Hodge observed: The election of 1895 rcay not seem to bear this out, but any­ one who is not a party agent and knows working men, and haB taken the trouble to examine the matter independently, must admit that the trade unionists, as far as they voted against the Radicals, did so from disgust at their doing so little, not from disapproval of Radical views.•.Even with a Conser­ vative measure before them so inestimably beneficial to work­ men as the Compensation for Aooidents Bill they will bless the bill rather than its authors...Their attitude is one of more or less aloofness from either party, but more so from the Conservatives...He are not suggesting any attempt at squaring things incompatible. If the olaimB of the working olasses are inconsistent with the prinoiples the Tory believes to be vital to the country's interests, he must frankly op­ pose them; if they are not inconsistent, and are otherwise justifiable, they must be admitted and satisfied, no matter what the indirect effect in the balance of party politios.il The writers contended that negative working-olasB reaotions to Conservatism were due more to a blundering and needlessly partisan application" of polioies than to any inherent defect in the nature1 of Conservatism. However, in seeking to present Toryism with a sooial oonsoienoe, they based their views on the equally unver- ifiable assumption that it was consistent with the rapid advance­ ment of the working classes and "that much of Labour policy now called Progress iB really Tory in nature". 12 Tenuous ideologioal oonneotionB were made between working-class collectivism) and tra­ ditional Tory paternalism in an effort to harmonize tradition with

^Beatrice Webb, our Apprenticeship, vol. I, Hew iork, 1948» 138. Claude GV Hay and Harold Hodge, ''Toryism and Toil", Fort­ nightly Review, vol. 62, July 1, 1897? 168.

l2 Ibid., 1 7 5 * change. Believing that the admission of the working-classes into political life had counterbalanced the parochial middle-class weight in national life by restoring an aristocratic balanoe, Hay and Hodge recalled a Conservatism whioh went beyond its nineteenth century bourgeois ethos to the roots of its tradition, whioh looked to the community rather than to the individual as the source of civic ac­ tion. They coupled the importance of organic sooial change at home with imperialism abroad. Britain had to maintain and extend its overseas markets and must tap the latent support among the workers for British expansionism. In the light of new political and sooial conditions whioh signified the collapse of the "sweet reasonableness" of the individualistic middle-olass creed, the upper and lower olasBes were coming together. ^ Thus, Conservatives oould conscientiously support some forms of state interference in the economy as the best means of improving living standards without surrendering completely to the anti-traditional aopectB of collectivism: The State cannot make wealth, or seoure real ecruality between men and men, but it oan do a great deal to prevent the minimum being too small, the lowest being too low...If we approaoh these working-class questions with an open mind, shall we find any­ thing in Tory principles inconsistent with the sooial advance­ ment of these classes, with the state regulation of the con­ ditions of labour, with a living wage, with reasonable hours, with trade unionism, with the state or munioipal promotion of public relief, with the collective ownership or oontrol of many/ common necessities of life?^4 By 1899, the oonduot of the Government bad still not improved to the satisfaction of the Tory reformers in spite of the passage of an important workmen's compensation aot. In January, Gorst upbraided 151 Salisbury for bis reluctance to push for the enaotment of child labor legislation: I hope you will not think I am unduly interfering in party matters, but I cannot help writing to express my opinion, that if the Children's Employment Bill fails to pass into law this Session, the Government will Io b o an enormous amount of support in the constituencies. People talk more freely to me than to the leaders of the Government,and I am well aware of the strong desire for a measure of this kind which now per­ vades all classes of the eleotorate, of whioh the majorities in the House of Commons yesterday is a sign. It has been a great regret to me that the Government have failed to gain the advantage whioh might have aoorued to them by being themselves the promoters of the Bill. It will be more dis­ astrous to our prospeots and the next general election if the defeat of the Bill can be attributed to our apathy by our opponents. ^ When Salisbury showed irritation at Gorst's outspoken oritioism, with their hint of demogoguery, appeals for office, and a lack of respect for the party's chain of command,^ Gornt reaffirmed his support of demooratio consultation in spite of its offensiveness to the sensibilities of the party elite: •••ever since I entered political life, a certain olass in the party has sensed at times to be half afraid of roe, at times to dislike me personally and to withhold from me its confidence and friendship. But those of the party who approve and sup­ port me, in Parliament and in the Constituencies, are vastly more numerous and though they mostly belong to a olass whose opinions are less likely to reaoh your ears, they are from the point of view of maintaining *the party majority in the elections far more important in building of that majority, whioh is the basis upon whioh your power rests. •.I-' At the same time, the Conservative leadership was faoing orit­ ioism from the right wing for drifting too far from its moorings* Muoh of this opposition was expressed in the Liberty and Property Defense League. Its forceful spokesman, Lord Weymss, oritioizdd

^Gorst to Salisbury, Salisbury Papers, January 6, 1899, 82. ^Salisbury to Gorst, Ibid., September 8, 1899, 89# ^Gorst to Salisbury, Ibid.. September 25, l899» 86. 152 the trend of governments since the eighteen-seventies "to play God by catering to voters"* He warned Salisbury that "licensed vic­ tuallers, Irish landlords, and employers were rapidly losing con- 18 fidence in the Conservative Party", In I899, League officials called for the formation of a free and pro-laisseg-faire Conser­ vative bloo in the Commons, Although this threat never materialized, rightist complaints led Governmentsupporters to play down the so- called "socialism1* of Conservative legislation": What we would insist upon is, that this outory against soc­ ialism is a false alarm; that the legislation whioh has provoked it has no affinity whatever to sooialism properly understood ; and that the material comforts, self-respeot, and independence of the working classes may be prompted by Btate assistance without deviating one bairs-breath from the truest conservative principles. The more contented the people are, the more secure are the Crown, the Church, the aristoc­ racy, and the whole Booial system under which we live; the more the working-olasses become owners of property, the more they will respeot its rights; and the more they are proteoted from the tyranny of employers, the less will they relish the trade unions. Hill any one affirm that the Con­ servative majorities at the last three eleotions combined with the more Conservative tone of all sections of the labouring population, is not largely due to the attitude token up by the Conservative and Unionist leaders? The party now led by Lord Salisbury has become truly and really a national party, and as suoh must of course take cognisanoe of what all dosses in the nation want. ° In the attempt to find a via media between the reformers and the "die-hards", the leadership was supported by Chamberlain and the Radical Liberal Unionists. The formation of a truly coalition'. government in 1895 and the growing co-operation of the party offices was viewed by Liberal Unionists as a vindication of their moderate

l8The Times. JUly 27, 1899, 9. Editorial ,"National Institutions and Popular Demands", Blackwood^ Edinburgh Magazine, vol. 165, February, 1899, 452* 153 brand of nineteenth century Liberalism. At a meeting of the West of Scotland Liberal Unionist Association in Glasgow in November, 1&97» the delegates affirmed that the Government, by its oonduct of publio affairs, has strengthened, its olaims to the confidence of the country. To Liberal Unionist;, this is extremely gratifying. From the large share which was given to their leaders in the formation of that Government,- they were led to expeot that the coming legislation would be leavened with sound Liberalism, and in that expectation, they have not been disappointed. Lord Salisbury has cordially wel­ comed the constructive genius of Mr. Chamberlain, and the re­ sult has been the passing of sooial and progressive measures,, whioh have won the confidence of the mass of the Conservative Party, and has been the cause of much satisfaction to Liberal Unionism.2® In any caBe, the Liberal Unionists under Chamberlain were themselves becoming less radical in outlook and program. As Colonial Seoretary, Chamberlain became involved in imperial crises and lessened his earlier preoccupation with domeotio issues. In Birmingham in Jan­ uary, 1899, he defended the conduot of the Government like a full- fledged participant in its polioies: As to the sooial reforms the Government has initiated I think that the oritioism of our opponents has mainly taken the form of a ohastened resignation and regret that they have been pre­ vented by oircumBtanoes beyond their control from undertaking and carrying out this legislation themselves.21 A universal eight hours bill remained the prinoipal labor issue of the late eighteeen-nineties whioh the Conservative Government re­ fused to endorse, this inspite of wide-spread support among workers, particularly the miners. The Trade Union Congress.sent deputations to the Home Office to press for legislation; Lord Salisbury encour- aged Matthew Ridley, the Home Secretary, to keep open the channels of

20 Minutes. West of Sootland Liberal Unionist Association, Book no. 2, November 11, 1897, 196. 21 Morning Post. January 30, 1896, 6. 154 communication V t w e e n the Government and organized labor, hut he refused to promise to introduce or support any measure, leaving each Conservative M.P. to exercise his own judgement on the issue. 22 Lib-Lab miners* M.P.s introduced a miners* eight hours bill in the spring of 1897 and. received the support of a minority of Con­ servatives. The most prominent of these Conservative backers, such as Flannery J. Forteseue (Liberal Unionist, York), Sir Ernest Flower (Bradford), Hilliam Lucas-Shadwell (Hastings), Sir Albert Rollit (Islington, South), Charles Seely (Nottingham), and Henry Seton-Karr (3t. Helena), were the baokbone of the small pro- social reform Conservative wing in the Commons. However, the maj­ ority of both parties opposed state regulation of working hours as an unwarranted intrusion in the contractual relationship between employer and worker. In May, their combined strength led to the 23 rejection of the private members bill. The Government was more responsive to demands for employers* liability legislation. In blooking the Ascruith bill of 1893, the Conservative opposition had committed itself to finding a suitable alternative. The Conservatives were determined to find a lasting formula even if it meant imposing more financial burdens on employers, but the Salisbury ministry was careful to discourage high expectations, emphasizing the experimental nature of its proposals, which applied only to heavy industrial trades having the highest aooident records.^

22 Ridley to Salisbury, Salisbury Papers, December 4, 1895* 23 Division List 20, Parliamentary Debates. Commons, vol. 48, May 5, 1897, col. 1J80.

*^Dally Chronicle. November 14, 1895» 155 On December 18, 1895» Chamberlain, keeping with a commitment made in the Commons in 1893, pressed the Home Office for a legis­ lative measure providing for automatic employers1 liability in cer­ tain trades with allowance for "contracting out" for legally ap­ proved private arrangements. The prinoiple of common employment waB waived; the only exception to the rule of employer responsibility was in cases in whioh the injured worker was legally responsible for the aooident. Limits of compensation were set at the equivalent 25 of three years wages or a maximum of S>150. Matthew Ridley, the Home Secretary, was privately wary of the scheme, fearing that it was unacceptable to both the industrialists and the trade unions* I# the former instance, business, would resent the costs; in the latter, the trade unions would oppose the initiative of a Conser­ vative Government in spite of the benefits. He was also worried that, in exeoution, if not in intent, the proposal would undermine existing insurance arrangements. In order to reduce the burdens on industry, his major concern, Ridley favored the German insurance model, funded by compulsory contributions from both employers and workers.i 26 Chamberlain recognised that the Bisraarokian Boheme was more oomplete than his own, but opposed introducing it due to the variety of British industrial forms whioh reauired the framing of a oomplex bill. In addition, such an insurance soheme involved the state in un­ necessary interference with private management. The finanoia! costs to industry, he argued, oould be alleviated by employer insurance

^Chamber lain to Ridley, Chamberlain Papers. December 18, 1895, JC 6/3/3/3*

Ridley to Chamberlain, Chamberlain Papers, Ootober 24, 1896, JC 6/3/3/5; February 11, 1897, JC 6/3/3/12. 156. arrangements Kith the charge spread among consumers; the trade unionb could take satisfaction that the measure would remove in­ capacitated workers from workhouses. Realizing that the only al­ ternative to the uerman system and his own plan was the asquith proposal and that conservative support of a Liberal measure would invite charges of "stealing" from the opposition, the colonial Seoret&ry preferred a new initiative: Up to the present time, the Government policy cannot be said to have any popular attraction. We have thrown sops to sec­ tions, but we have established no prinoiple and above all, we have not justified the claim made for the Conservative Party that it has always been the first in sooial reforms. We have now a great opportunity, and if it is not taken, I confess I hardly see how I, at any rate, could show my face on a public platform again.2? Ridley was not the only prominent Conservative who had doubts about Chamberlain's proposal. In addition to the difficulty of assuaging capitalist supporters, many in the party also were con­ cerned about the objections of the trade unions to both the Ger­ man scheme of oorapulsory insurance and automatio employers' lia­ bility BohemeB. A.B. Forwood stated that "the trade unions might oppose" suoh proposals, influenced by "a feeling that a final and satisfactory settlement of this question might weaken their in- 28 fluence" in induoing workers to subscribe to trade union benefits. This understanding of trade union response waB accurate, since the Trade Union Congress remained determined to press for the sub­ stance of Asquith's 1893 legislation. The London Trades Counoil, on January 14, 1897, also deolared its opposition to Conservative initiatives and proposed a financially definitive fixing of res-

2^Chamberlain to Ridley, Chamberlain Papers, February 11, I897, JC 6/3/3/13. ofl The Times, December 2, 1896, 2. 157 ponsibility for individual accidents on employers so that they 29 wouldr adopt a maximum of precautionary measures. J It was mainly on this point that trade unionists objected to Chamberlain's plan. Working-class leaders feared that, by tying employers' liability to a stipulated maximum payment with the conseqimce of leBs lit­ igation, Chamberlain had removed the threat of indeterminate and possibly costly compensations that forced employers to take ser­ iously their responsibility for the safety of working conditions. Conservatives were also dioturbed by the seeming volte face made by Chamberlain regarding private arrangements. Although sat­ isfied that "contracting out" was affirmed in the proposal, party officials, such as Riohard Middleton, the Chief-Agent, feared that the sweep of automatic employers' liability would damage existing agreements and jeopardize the Conservative reputation for integ­ rity among segments of the electorate. James Sandars, Balfour's private seoretary, warned Balfour of the possible politically- damaging consequences of the Chamberlain scheme: The Unionist contention at the Ceneral Election was that every encouragement should be given to the maintenance and develop­ ment of mutual arrangements. These are swept away in the terms by Mr. Chamberlain's bill*..My argument is that they will be swept away altogether, beoause the real employers and companies that subscribe to them will have no answer to the oharge of inoonsistenoy so far as their new policy tends to destroy these arrangements with influenoe to a large olass of ac­ cidents, ^ In spite of the lack of solid support within the party, the Cabinet oautiously endorsed Chamberlain's bill, and it was introduced in the Commons . During the debate on the seoond reading on May 3,

2^Paily News. January 15, 1897, National Union Gleanings and Memoranda, February, 1897, 101.

^°J. Sandars to Balfour, Balfour Papers, March 3, 1897, 49780, no. 99. 158

1897* A.B. Forwood (Liverpool) sought to mollify opposition from the representatives of the employers and the mutual insurance societies. He stated that the hill applied only to the most dangerous trades and that in many instances, employers and workers outside the scope of the Act had to depend upon their own insur­ ance arrangements,^ However, many M.P.s connected with indus­ trial interests in spite of reservations supported the Govern­ ment once the workmen's compensation soheme was introduced, Q.W. Wolff, the noted Belfast shipbuilder, olaimed that although he "oould not weloomo the hill with enthusiasm since a .large amount of compensation would have to come out of the pockets of employers'1, he was willing to support it "for the immense amount of good to the working classes, and its elimination of enormous litigation". Conservative progressives hacked it as a step in the right direc­ tion but oritioized it because it did too little. They doubted that the problem of industrial accidents could be handled by in­ dustry alone and advocated the intervention of the State, H, Soton-Karr (St, Helens) olaimed that the bill posed potential hardships for beleaguered industries, such as ooal, and that the community as a whole had to bear the responsibility for segments of it.33 Sir Albert Rollit (Islington, S.) advocated a state- financed insurance system.3^ The Salisbury ministry enoountered more stringent opposition in the Lords. Rallying last-minute support, the Marcruess of Lon­ donderry, and influential coal magnate in the Northeast of Eng­ land olaimed that it was contrary to Conservative values and "threa- tened oapital, industries, and the employment of many thousands of

^British Parliamentary Debates. Commons, IV Series, vol. 48, May 3, ifl^Ti col. 1442-1443. 32Ibid.. ool. 1487.

33Ibid.

^ I b i d .. col. 785-786. 159 men". However, his attempt was unsuccessful; through the parlia­ mentary skill of Lord Helper and Lord Selborne, the bill received enough support for passage and was given the royal assent in August, 1897. The enactment of workmen's compensation heightened the Govern­ ment's self-confidence, but some Conservatives believed that the interpretation of its motives by segments of the electorate posed difficulties for the party. Although *the Act had no significant political influence on the working classes, its passage did bring about a Bhift in trade union opinion from support of the Asquith proposal to a conditional acceptance of the Conservative measure. The miners gave more oredit to trade union agitation than to the Government. Ben Pickard, President of the Miners National Federation, 56 endorsed the Aot with reservations. William Abraham, President of the Cambrian Miners Association, also welcomed the Aot but wanted elimination of the olause blocking compensation to workmen respon- 37 slble for their own injury. ' The Trade Union Congress, at its annual conferences from 1897 to 1899, praised the inoreased ad­ vantages to workers but called for further changes. Delegates supported an inclusion of all trades, the elimination of "contracting out", the deletion of contributory negligence as an obstacle to compensation, and the Guarantee of payment to injured workers at 38 the equivalent of fifty peroent of weekly wages. The trade unionists acceptance of the gift while spurning the giver caused less concern among party officials than the dissension within its own ranks of the rightists. After consultations with

^Ibid.. Lords, vol. 51, July 20, 1897* ool. 530. 36' Daily flews. June 9» 1897, National Union Gleanings and Memoranda, July, 1897, 12..

^Western Mail. Jhne 29, 1897| National union Gleanings and Memoranda. July, 189/, 13.

^Conference Report. T.U.C., Birmingham, September 7HLI, 1897, 22; Bristol, August 29-september 3, 1898, 52; Plymouth, September 4-9, 1899, 67. 1 6 0 :

Middleton about opinion in the constituencies, Sandars painted a gloomy picture of the party’s electoral prospects to Balfour, In an age of political transition, attempting to be all things to everybody, while trying to preserve traditions, was placing the party in an awkward position; I saw Middleton today and I asked him about the disastrous poll at East Denbighshire, He said it was due to some ex­ tent to the stupid concessions made by our candidates on the subject of hours of labour and other cognate topics, but he attributed the result practically to the lack of interest taken by landowners and employers in the Unionist cause, it is also to be said that the Registrar has been slowly going against us since 1892* and that, the freehold vote, usually our strength in the constituencies is now largely in the hands of the miners and tells heavily against u b . ^ The Workmen’s Compensation Aot of 1897 contributed signif­ icantly to this rightist "backlash!? Much of the antagonism to the moderation of the Salisbury ministry derived from lingering suspicions among the aristooratio-industrialist "old guard" about the influence of Chamberlain and the Radical Liberal Unionists on Government domestic policies. In the September 1897' issue of the Nineteenth Century, the Marchioness of Londonderry engaged in poledios against the Act, claiming that it was a needless measure, not demanded by the working olasses and forced on the Cabinet by Chamberlain for his own political ends. She attacked "the weak provisions for contracting out", which "struok a blow" at private, voluntary arrangements and olaimed that it unjustly stigmatized employers by "inferring that accidents were due to the carelessness of employers" in spite of many whioh "were due to the employees"^0 Critioism also emerged from sooially conservative

^Sandars to Balfour, Balfour Papers, October 6, 1897* 49760, 114*

^Theresa, Marohioness of Londonderry, "The 'Conservative* Workmen's Compensation. Bill of 1097"* Nineteenth Century, vol. 42* September, 1897, 349* 161

Liberal Unionists, like Leonard Courtney, who based his skepticism about workmen's compensation on moral, rather than political, grounds: Its worst fault...is that it is an illustration of the general sentiment creating pecuniary responsibilities when no moral obligation is recognized, and thus at least for a time, cor­ rupting moral standards and developing predatory instincts. In the end, the new burden will come to be calculated as a trade chareoter of the workmen.^ Chamberlain stated that he "was not surprised" by the verbal at- taoks of the Londonderrys and their supporters, claiming that "younger Tories want to work with demooraoy rather than carp at i t . " ^ In a speech at Manchester in January 1698, Balfour also countered the charges of "socialistic" legislation: ...if they were going to brand as Socialistic, any measure whioh for some reasons or other, they disliked, the danger was that people who had no leaningB toward socialism at all would begin to say to themselves, 'Well, if this Bill be socialistic...socialism itself oannot be so very bad a thing after all. "'43 He stated that both parties had realized the inadequacy of the lts80 Employers' Liability Aot in many oases and that "the Govern­ ment in preferring their own measure to measure introduoed by Mr. Asquith did so beoauBe in their judgement it was one whioh gave a hope of finality and whioh conferred the greatest benefits 44. upon the classes immediately interested". The aot was thus justified as a legitimate expression of the Tory ideal of the national oomraonwealth. In spite of adding an ambitious pieoe of legislation to the the statute bookB, the ministry waB oareful not to ojrouse the right

^U.R. Goo oh, Life of Lord Courtney, London, 1920, 344.

^The Times, Ootober 16, 1897» 7* ^The TimeB, January 11, 1 8 9 8 , 8.

t 162 wing by engaging in any other new ventures. Insteadf it worked to improve the operation of existing legislation. Reforms asaociated with the Workmen's Compensation Act were introduced, although they came at a pace too slow to satisfy the trade unions. A Common Em­ ployment Bill was introduced by A.B. Porwood in February, 1898 to abolish the distinotion made in the 1880 Act between accidents due to the negligence of employers and those due to the negligence of workers.It was an attempt to come to the aid of laborers not enjoying the benefits of the 1897 legislation. However, it was re­ jected by most Conservatives as premature.^ The Government sought to assuage the demands of agricultural workers for the extension of the act. Balfour, after taking soundings in the constituencies to determine the attitudes of farmer-employers, expressed confidence that "in some parts of the country at least the large farmers would have no objections to the extension of the Act".^ Chamberlain at Wakefield on December 8, I898 also supported inclusion of other categories of workers after a trial period proved A ft the value of the legislation. The Government however encountered difficulties with employers who especially disliked the high premiums paid to insurance firms for protection against liability claims. The Colonial Seoretary assured them that the capitalist system would in time remedy the situation; competition among insurance bodies would bring down payments to a 49 satisfactory level.. Employers on the whole came gradually to ao- oept the Aot as its anticipated benefits became more obvious.

45 ^British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, IV Series, Vol. 54» March 9, 1898, ool. 1092..

46Ibid.( vol. 59. June 15, 1898, ool. 380.

^Balfour to Salisbury, Salisbury Papers, April 24. 1899* 40 Tk® Times, December 9, 1898, 7. 49 ^Liberal Unionist Memoranda,, vol. VII, January, 1899. 7« 163

The earlier Conservative commitment to poor law reform and old age pensions noticeably waned at a time when both subjects re­ ceived inoreased popular attention. This lack of enthusiasm was discernable not only among the leadership but also among the rank and file. At the annual conference of the National Union at Brighton in Novemberf 1895» old age pensions and poor law reform were dis­ placed as the primary topios of consideration by imperialism and alien immigration. However, some concern was expressed for the 50 better olassifiootion of the poor in workhouses. This subjeot was also discussed in the Commons in February, 1896. Henry Chap­ lin, President of the Local Government Board, announced that the Government would promote "more distinctive olasBifioation", but no promise was made that a bill would emerge in that session. In em­ phasizing administrative reform, the Conservatives were not making a new breakthrough, sinoe local initiatives in areas, Buoh as Kac- 51 clesfield and Birmingham, were already underway to separate the aged, sick, and young in poor law unions. In April, 1896, a com­ mittee, appointed by the Local Government Board under the Liberals in 1894, reported on means to improve the eduoation of London pau­ per ohildren under the jurisdiction of the Poor Law authorities. The majority of the members advocated the creation of a new sub­ division under the authority of the Poor Law administration; however, Gorst and Harriet Barnett urged the separation of pauper education from the Poor Law. The Local Government Board in July, I896, sent 52 out a circular to guardians based on the majority report proposals? But the Government remained reluotant to grapple with the complex­ ities of any thorough-going overhaul of the Poor Law.

•^"National Union Conference at Brighton", November, 1895» National Union Gleanings and Memoranda. Vol. V, Deoember, 1895* 358”59* ^^Parliamentary Debates. Commons, IV Series, vol. 37i February 21, I89S, ool. 815. 52 British Cabinet Papers. "Report of the Committee on Poor Law Eduoation", (Cab 27/44)1 April, 1896, 3; The Times. August 10, 1896, 6. 164

The ministry was eoually reluctant to carry out its electoral commitment on old age pensions. The report of the Aberdare Com­ mission, released during the previous Liberal administration, had been pessimistic. Chamberlain, the leading Unionist supporter of pensions, was now less enthusiastic, finding a larger outlet for his talents in the Colonial Office. He also faced opposition from the titular head of the Liberal Unionists, the Duke of Devonshire, who disliked Chamberlain's political style and resisted any im­ mediate implementation of a state-aided, old age insurance system: .•.anything which may be proposed in this direction roust be at first of an extremely tentative oharaoter, that any aid whioh may be given by the State to any system, the object of whioh shall be to assist labouring men in making provision for their old age, will not, at first, at all events, be very widesly made use of.^ Similar disinclinations to promote old age pensions were prevalent among rank and file Conservatives. There was a general tendenoy to believe that the working-olass poor were more oonoerned about their immediate prospects under poor law reform than about the future benefits of old age pensions. The Government, according to this line of thinking, had not been responsible for originating the idea and had no prospect of deriving political benefits from in­ troducing Chamberlain's moderate plan of state-aided pensions through the friendly societiesj therefore, the parliamentary party was not obliged to aot hastily. At the 1895 National Union confer­ ence at Brighton, a delegate from Berkshire doubted that pensions were a relevant concern of laborers because of the long delay in ireceiving the benefits; also, a comprehensive soheme would endanger the freedom of the existing friendly sooietiesramong the higher

*^Tbe Times, September 19» 1895, 6« • 165 54 class of workers. ^ A representative from Wiltshire pleaded on behalf of the “distressed" roiddle-olass rate-payerB who would have 55 to support state-aided pensions.Those needing the Poor Law were seen as the irresponsible element among the working-olasses - "the honest man never has'to resort to the Board of Ouardians: the cases *»56 were so few that private oharity could handle it. A delegate, although favoring the Chamberlain scheme, stated that "even were a vast scheme of old age pensions passed tomorrow.••still I cannot help feeling that we Conservatives will not get very much thanks for it."57 Accompanying this hardening of regional opposition, on July 7» 1898, the Rothschild Commission appointed by Balfour to investigate old age pensions, failed to reach agreement on a work- 58 able approaoh. While support for old age pensions was deolining in the party, the delayed effeot of Chamberlain's earlier proposal reinvigorated the friendly sooieties. Increased attention was given to arrange­ ments for old age benefits. Old age pensions, not financed exclu­ sively by the membership of frien&ly sooieties,was viewed as..a 59 "souroe of danger" by the friendly societies. ' Progressive Conservative M.P.e were dissatisfied with the neg­ ative oonolusions of the Aberdare Commission and petitioned Balfour to press for legislation "in fulfillment of the pledges given at the last general eleotion". Balfour acknowledged the petition and promised to consider their demands, but failed to aot. A group of one hundred and twenty parliamentarians organized a group and se-

M i n u t e s . N.U.C.C.A., November 19 and 20, 1895, Brighton, 210. 55Ibid.

56Ibid.

57Ibid. 5®The Times. July 8, 1898, 3.

^ T h e Tory, vol.. 7r so** 79» July 1, I896, 126. 166, looted a committee to press the issue, 6 o Laurence Hardy (Kent), Thomas Rankin (Leominster), and Lionel R. Holland (Surrey, North­ east) respectively served as chairman, treasurer, and seoretary. The formation of this parliamentary support signified the first organised effort of sooial reform-minded Conservatives to act in oonoert on the cuestion; the obvious disoreponoy between the elec­ toral pledges of 1895 and the performance of the government on old age pensions had disturbed many Conservative M.P.s, who feared the political oonsequences. The Liberals easily took the Conservatives to task for their failure to fulfill their eleotoral pledge. Chamberlain justified Conservative inaotion for the following reason: the workers were unwilling to aocept compulsory deduotions from their wages for pen­ sions; on the other hand, the state, because of the limitations of the fisoal system, could not afford to contribute to a voluntary scheme or grant universal pensions. The only course open to the Government was a long process of enquiry until a suitable system oould be found.^ As Chamberlain attempted to ward off oritioism, the opposition took the initiative in the Commons. The Government found itself in an embarrassing situation. Chamberlain appealed to Conservative leaders to allow a private member bill to be introduced from the Conservative side, thwarting the Liberals while still permitting 62 the Government to remain aloof. At the same time, pro-pension Tories would be satisfied. The Cabinet considered Chamberlain's

^^The Times, August 3f 1898, 10.

***At Manchester, The Times. November 16, I898, 7«

^Chamberlain to Salisbury, Salisbury Papers, January 21, 1899, 150; Chamberlain to Henry James, James Papers, rebruary 2, 1899» M 45/979; Chamberlain to Balfour, Chamberlain Pacers, February 2, 1899, JO 5/5/81. 167 request, and ’.falter Long, President of the Local Government Board, presented a memorandum whioh allowed local authoritieo to grant Poor Low relief and in special cases, old age pensions out of the Imperial and local rates. The document was not well received, hut the left-wing Tories were finally given the chance to present their hill in the effort to hlock the Liberals. In March, 1899, Fortoccue Flannery (Shipley) introduced a private members bill, with the support of the Government, whioh permitted any individual over twenty-five and insured by a friendly society to receive a state-aided pension of 5*J. a week beginning at sixty five. The bill was referred to a select committee, headed by Henry Chaplin, which conduoted an enquiry into overy eeotion the bill in line with the Governments gradualist approach to old ago pensions.^ The introduction of tho bill revived the debate within the party. In an article in the National Review, several Conservative publicists, representing the opinion of the right, urged caution, on the Government and warned against trying to outbid tho Liberals Wrote ono contributor: Let Conservative legislators continue to endeavor to improve the lot of wage-earners. Let them not slacken in this work which they may rightly claim to be traditional and histor­ ical policy. But when the economio faots whioh I have stated are borne in mind, surely we may plead for oaution before we irrevocably weigh with yet heavier burdens the rest of the oommunity for the very doubtful advantage of the working olassos. Let our Conservative reformers bend their energies to the discovery of new sources of national revenue, to a reconstitution of our system of looal taxation, and to the problem of securing adequate housing. They will then be doing more to meet the real needs and desires of the nation then by prematurely pressing upon this Parliament some bill for state-aided p e n s i o n s * 5

^ Bfritiah Cabinet Papers, "Old Age Pensions", (Cab 37/49)» no. 12, February IB, 1899• ^ T h e Times. Mar oh 13» 1899, 12. 65 •TS* Bond, "Is the Unionist Party Committed to Old Age Pen­ sions?", The Rational Review, vol. 33» no.. 197» July, 1899i 732. 168

State aid would undermine moral responsibility, particularly of children towerd their parents, nor was it a popular issue: I doubt if any class of voters -were the matter properly put before them - would be eager for the experiment; arid if there are those who think that the political support of large sec­ tions of the community might be secured by tho passing of an old age pension act, 1 would ask them to consider whether similar attempts by Bismarck did not do more to alienate his natural supporters than to conciliate the good will of those in whose supposed interests his measures were oonceived and carried through.^ Geoffrey Urage, noted Conservative sooial investigator, also ad­ ded at uxford, on August 3t 1899» proposed the oooperation of the poor law authorities and local charitable organizations in handling the problem rather than state-sponsored pensions. Government in­ volvement interfered with individual responsibility, and it was 67 dangerous to moke social reform a politioal issue. On the other hand, the Conservative progressives received a boost when the Chaplin Committee issued its report on September 4, 1699 claiming that a pension system was realizable. All British subjeots over sixty-five years having an inoome of less than 10s a week were entitled to receive a state-aided pension. However, those convicted of an offense within twenty years or having reoeived non-medical poor relief were excluded. The ad­ ministration of the system apart from the Poor Law was advocated. Committees would be appointed by the boards of Guardians but be 68 independent. Due to its liberality, the Chaplin report was not well received by the Cabinet. In response, Michael Hicks Beach submitted a mem-

66C.A. Whitmore, Ibid., 718.

^Morning Post, August 3, l899t 3. 68 National Union Gleanings and Memoranda, vol. XI, Ootober, 1899, 252-254. 169 orandum in November, 1899 which criticized the findings of the com- 6 Q mittee for discouraging thrift. ' Balfour also submitted another memorandum that emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between the deserving and undeserving poor - an improvement of the treat­ ment of the former and stiffening of the law regarding the latter. To relieve the problems of the aged and the ill, it was proposed that e combination of pensions, improved indoor treatment, and in- oreaed outdoor relief be implemented. Although the Government would contribute a stipulated amount from the Imperial treasury, the dis­ tribution of state aid would be administered by the boards of guard- 70 ians in proportion to the population. This proposal was only tentative since the Government remained reluctant to engage in any controversial initiatives. The long-standing shortage of decent housing faoed the Conser­ vatives with an issue which some hoped to use to extend housing ownership among the working-olasseB. It was hoped that the owner­ ship of homes by laborers would instill respeot for private prop­ erty and other middle-olass values. In the spring of 1896, a Working Menfs Dwelling bill was introduced by Sir Alfred Hickman (Wolverhampton, W.). It granted permissive authority to town and county counoils to lead a maximum of hk$Q to any individual laborer for housing purohases. During the second reading, Hickman olaimed that the legislation would create a large number of individual freeholders - a olass of men who would have something to lose and who, by that sense of poses- sion, would be made good citizens. Socialism was extending in foreign oountries but so far, we had not heard muoh of it in this oountry, and the best protection against it was to increase the number of freeholders.

^British Cabinet Papers, HiokB Beach Memorandum, (Cab 37/51), November lS, 1899.

^Ibid.. Balfour Memorandum, (Cab 37/51) 1 November 15, i'8 9 9. 71 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, IV Series, vol. 38, March 4* 1896, 001. 130*. 1 7 0

In opposing the Conservatives, Liberals, such as R.B. Haldane ^Had- dingtonshire), stated that only the upper strata of working men * could afford their own homes and urged that local authorities be empowered to purchase land and assist in providing homes for the 72 less fortunate.' The Government refrained from actively supporting the Hickman bill as well as another measure that was introduced by C.E. Howard Vincent (Sheffield; in ltJ9b. The major source of opposition within the cabinet came from the Home Secretary, Mat­ thew Itidley. He wrote to Half our, claiming that workers' dwellings legislation was not "a matter for his office” since "we have nothing to do with the sanctioning.•.of laws by local authorities for any purpose whatsoever". 74 In November, i8y8 and in January lti99» Chamberlain attempted to by-pass Hidley in encouraging Thomas vinghtson to introduoe a similar measure; however, he was unsuooessful in securing Cabinet support for the passage of the billB, which were referred to standing committees.^ Conservative inability or unwillingness to pass even labor legislation tailored to their philosophical viewpoint indicated the extent to which the Government and the party had cruenched the legacy of moderate sooial reform passed on from the Disraelian. period. The improvement of faotory conditions, whioh had always been at the center of Conservative reform, also received meager attention during the late nineties. Trade unionists demanded the extension, of earlier aots to sweated trades and the dockyards, which had been the focal point of the New Unionist activities Binoe the 1880'b . In addition, labor deputations to the Home Office insisted on greater

T2Ibid., col. 147-148,

*^The Times, June 9i 1898, 6. ^Balfour to Chamberlain, Chamberlain PaperB, JC 5/5/36A, November 22, 1898. ^North Stab, Beoember 22, I898, p. 20, Chaplin Papers, D/lO F549* 171

trade union involvement in existing machinery through participation in inspectorates and at coroners* inquests. Ridley, revealing his elitist attitudes, contended that a legal or educational background waB a requirement for the inspectorate and that trade union rep­ resentation at coroners* inquests depended on the expressed wishes 76 of the operatives. The Liberals also brought pressure to bear on the Government to enforce the Asquith Factory Act of 1893* In the Commons, Charles Dilke, Liberal Radical M.P. from Forest of Sean, charged that the Salisbury ministry was ignoring the existence of unsanitary conditions among domestio workers. In response, Ridley stated that inquiries had been made and that before aotion could be taken, it had to be proved that "the conditions of work...in­ volved speoial risks of injury or danger to the health, not only 77 of the persons employed, but also of the whole district. Ignoring the demand for the early closing of shops, the Con­ servative Government contended that parliamentary interference in the affairs of small businesses was only justifiable when dangers to the health of workers or publio utility were involved. The Early Closing Association however had a large amount of publio support and on its growing strength, sent deputations to the Home Offioe to seek Government assistance in the passage of a bill. The leading parliamentary spokesman of the organization, Sir John Lubbock (Lord Avebury), Liberal Unionist from London University, appealed to Conservative regards for public opinion, stating that the proposal for reduced hourB had the support of the majority of the shopkeepers in areas which petitioned the local authorities

"^The Times. November 14, 1895» 12«

^ T h e Times. June 23i 1896» 5* 1 7 2

for the change. Matthew Ridley, in the name of the Government, op­ posed the hill, believing that it was "the thin wedge to regulate adult labour and that there was the need for the greatest caution".^ Chamberlain, prior to I896, had aided in the arousal of publio op­ inion regarding early shop closing,^ but he distanced himself from this cause when it proved unpopular with the Government, As a result of Chamberlain's abdication of responsibility as the Unionist spokesman of social reform, the Government's apathy in­ creased during the late nineties, faoing no influential challenge from within the party ranks. The demands of the working classes were seen more as a threat than an opportunity. Although invoking the Tory reformist tradition in its eleotoral promises of 1895, the Conservatives, while in office, moved very slowly in introducing sooial reforms; Britain's international responsibilities as the custodian of a world-wide empire dominated Conservative conscious­ ness to the growing exolusion of domestic issues. The imperial mis­ sion, combined with the effects of the viotory of 1895, brought a heightening of self-oonfidenoe among the upper and middle classes, from whiob Conservatives drew the bulk of their support. Any moves that had the potential of alienating Conservatism from its traditional supporters was shelved in favor of themes that encouraged cohesion and conformity and provided the broadest baBe of support. In only one area, that of workmen's compensation, were the Conservatives amenable to making a decisive breakthrough. This action was pos­ sible because the passage of Chamberlain's proposal, in spite of its short-term controversial nature, was based on a parliamentary oommitment that oould not be avoided. In addition, it Buited the Conservative predileotion for reform that brought improvements without considerably shifting the economio and sooial balance of power. Although the measure did not enhance Conservatism's elec-

*^®IMd, December 2, 1897» 6. 79 '^Elsie GUlley, Joseph Chamberlain and English Sooial Politios, New stork, 1926, 261, 173.

toral support among the working classes associated with trade unionism, it provided enough justification for Conservative claims that the party was not unsympathetic to timely reform# Conservative officials generally did not anticipate recruits from the Radical or socialist camps regardless of what the Government accomplished# They were not intent on gaining the adherence of organized labor through popular measures in spite of the more democratic outlook of Chamberlain or Uorst. Instead, they hoped to appeal to individual workers who held conservative sooial and economic views and who were not fully iden­ tified with the uadical Liberals or the collectivist faotions in the trade unions# In trying to ally these workers with the middle-olass

and upper o I s b s supporters, the uovernment wanted to embody its claim as the "national” party. Far from being the object of the uovernment's attention, the Trade Union congress was seen by conservatives as an obstacle to this goal# in line with this conviction, the Salisbury ministry refused to release the trade unions from the effeots of gQ oourt decisions which sought to oontain growing trade union power. In turning a "hard face" to organized labor on this question and m ignoring popular social reforms, the uovernment overestimated the degree of existing working-olass commitment to Conservatism and under­ estimated the influence of labor institutions on the rank and file. By its indifference, it paved the way for the erosion of the re­ maining bastions of Tory working-class support whioh occurred in the succeeding decade#

80 In Tempertcn vs. Russell (1893)* trade unionB were held legally~responsible in boyoott actions whioh inflicted harm ott outside parties not directly involved in a trade dispute; In LyonB vs. Wilkins (1897-98) the right of picketing was curtailed by oourt injunction# See Pelling, Origins of the Labour Party, Oxford, 1965, 200-01 and A History of British Trade Unionisms op. oit., 111-112. CHAPTER V IMPERIALISM A1ID TITS ADVERT OP BALFOUR (I899-I9O5)

Prom I899 to 1905 the Conservative party hecame increasingly preoccupied with foreign and imperial developments. Enlarging its appeal from merely defence of the Union to the maintenance of the overseas empire, the Conservative leadership found in imperialism a suitable and captivating alternative to itB 1895 eleotoral promises of sooial reform. The Boer War from 1899 to 1902 heightened mass patriotic fervor and confirmed the identification of Conservatism with economic and territorial expansion. Before the war, Salisbury and the aristooratio "old guard" had only reluctantly endorsed African imperial ventures;however, in I899t they began to recognize the positive benefits of chauvinism to the promotion of national unity and the party's eleotoral prospeots. Overlooking earlier soruples, the leadership accommodated itBelf to "forward" polioies of the Col­ onial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, and the South African High Com­ missioner, Lord Milner. The enthusiastic backing of Chamberlain's imperialism by urban, middle-olass supporters weakened "grass roots" ooncern for domestio reform. Chamberlain actively sought Bupport for imperialism and for the war effort among the workers. Appealing to their material interests, he stated in London on June 29* 1900: Never before was labour so well employed or so well remunerated, and let me say.••that there is no reform, revolution, or otherwise, whioh is so important to the masses of this country 2 as that we should have full employment and proper remuneration.

^C.J. Lowe, The Reluctant Imperialists, New York, 1967» 210-14* 2The Tiroes. June 30, 1900, 7* 174 175

Chamberlain credited the Unionist coalition with fostering economic and social progress an$ through its imperial mission, providing new markets# Despite the founding of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900f labor as a political force hardly amounted to much and the Conservatives could with ease exploit imperial sentiment to win substantial working-class support for its imperial polioies# Lancashire and Ulster working-men, Protestant nationalists, career soldiers and sailors, and shipyard and arsenal workers, in areas suoh as Woolwich and Enfield , had dose ideological and material attachments to Conservatism.^ A meeting of the Conservative Working Men1a Federation at Manchester in February, 1900 called for the in­ corporation of the Boer territories into the Empire and praised the war effort.^ Although the socialist Independent Labour Party and the Marxist Sooial Demooratio Federation developed a trenchant oritioism of the war, based on an analysis of the expansionist drive of a developed oapitaliBm, the mainstream of organized labor in the Trade Union Congress was unable to speak with unanimity. In 1899, a resolution urging a peaceful solution of the confliot only nar­ rowly passed; and in the following year, although an anti-Covem- ment proposal received support, a large number of delegates ab- stained# The Liberal party, the focus of most working-claBB pol­ itical activity, was Bplit into faotions over the oonfliot; and it was losing touoh with laborers as a result of its failure to of­ ficially give working-olasB issues a prominent place in its program# Although collectivism was not influential at this time in providing a new basis for Liberal-Labour oooperation, opposition to Tory im­ perialism revitalized in Borne quarters the common traditional oora-

^Henry Polling, Popular Politics and Society in Late Viotorian Britain. London, 1968, 40-4 6; 243-255.

^The Times, February 6, 1900, 2#

^Conference Reports, T.U.C., Plymouth, September 4-9? 1899* 85-871 Huddersfield, September 3-81 1900» 80-82# 176 mitment to the radical principles of demooracy, anti-militarism, and internationalism.^ However, this alliance was to prove beneficial only after imperialist fervor had subsided. Although sooial reform and other collectivist issues were sub- meged from 1899 to 1901, the position of the Conservative party was not as secure as it seemed. Almost oontinual Conservative dominance sinoe 1886 had engendered widespread complacency among party sup­ porters. Sagging eleotoral fortunes were revealed in by-eloction defeats which from 1895 to 1900 had reduced the number of Conservative 7 M.P.s from 152 to 128. Meanwhile the Liberal opposition critioized the Salisbury ministry for using overseas ventures to stifle social o reform. Criticism on a more disinterested and sophisticated level was provided by a new school of Liberal intellectuals, especially J. A. Hobson and Leonard Hobhouse. These thinkers broke new ground in reconciling traditional Liberal regard for individualism with the 9 collectivist concern for state-fostered social improvement.' They pointed to the impoverished Conservative sooial record, in spite of the progressive intentions of Tory democrats. "A Colieotivist Lib­ eral11 noted in the Saturday Review of March 10, 1900t There is an almost inoredible arrogance and hardness about the conventional Conservative person when he delivers himself on working-olaos or sooial ouestions,..Let any advanced Tory with

The National Deraooratio; League, formed by N.M. Thompson, ed­ itor of Reynold1s Newspaper, was supported by trade unionists, Rad­ icals, and socialists. See Philip P. Poirier, The Advent of the British Labour Party. New York, 1958, 177, 214*

^The Annual Register. 1896. 48-49, 1897. 53-55? 1898. 145-46; 1899. 133-35- Q The laok of social programs in the King's speeoh was a prom­ inent topio at the Rugby conference of the National Liberal Federation in late February. The Liberal Magazine, vol. 9, no- 90, Maroh, 1901, 64. ^H.V. Emy, Liberals. Radicals, and Sooial Politics. Cambridge, 1973, 106-107. 177 the progressive tendencies we are told are typical, canvas a well-to-do district at the next School Board election, and he . will find his party needs a good deal of educating still.1-® * Party leaders, officials, and journalist-apologists oountered such criticisms by trying to draw positive significance from the Government's recent performance. At Whitehall, on March 1, 1900, Charles T. Ritchie, the President of the Board of Trade, representing a growing Conservative support for protectionism, called for the '•stricter regulation of imports" (which competed with the British home market and created unemployment), the improvement of sanitary legislation, and the enlargement of the number of Bub-inspeotors on the railways (to prevent accidents)."**• The Edinburgh Magazine. oiting workmen's compensation, housing, land reform, and eduoation, justified the Government's conduct: ...to do one thing at a time has always been the prinoiple of the Conservative Government, and the oonsequence is that the number of small and popular improvements which they have suc­ ceeded in effecting is out of all proportion to what the Lib­ eral reoord has to show.1,2 ...what we oall social reform (argued Chamberlain) has been vigorously pursued. The spread of education, the extension of local government, the promotion of a system under whioh the laborers in the country have been enabled to get upon the land by allotments and small holdings, the assurance whioh has been given to the artisans in the oities, and now to the agricultural population also, of fair compensation in case of aooident - these and a score more of measures, dealing with the mines and faotorieB and the relations between employers and laborers, form a great mass of praotical legislation whioh will contrast favorably with the revolutionary projects of the Newcastle Programme.13 In the spring of 1900, British forces in South Africa under Lord Roberts captured the Boer strongholds of Pretoria and Johan­ nesburg, and seemed on the verge of a viotory. Chamberlain proposed

^"Letters to the Editor", The Saturday Review, vol. 8 9, Maroh 10, 1900, 298. ^The Times, Maroh 2. 1900. 8. 12 — — "Their Sixth Session", Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. vol. 168, August, 1900, 295* ^The Times. June 30, 1900, 7. 1 7 8 an immediate general election. He pointed to the weaknesses of Liberal organization in the Midlands, Lancashire, and Scotland and expressed confidence that the Government would have a solid majority}^ 3y late September, the leadership of the coalition had been won over. During the 1900 eleotion campaign, Conservatives often lumped all Liberals together as anti-patriots. An appeal to labor was incorporated in this general strategy and consisted of a solid dose of "jingoism" and half-hearted promises of sooial reform. Chamber­ lain, speaking in his home territory of Birmingham, presented the Government as a stalwart champion of the working-classes and sought to deooredit the leadership of the Trade Union Congress, Of the dozen trade union leaders in the Commons, all were Liberals and (with the exception of Havelock Wilson of the Shippers) supported the anti-war movement.The Colonial Secretary accused them of being "in bondage to Irish nome Rule and to the party of pro-Boer and Little Englander sentiments1'. He also called attention to the opposition of many trade union officials to the Government's workmen's compensation soheme which, he olaimed, imposed respon­ sibilities on industry for the protection of the workers. Although reviving his support for contributory old age pensions, Chamborlain refused to pledge himself to its implementation*^ The Colonial Georotary was oritioized for this ambivalence at a rally in Leaming­ ton. In responoo, he affirmed that "social reform was not the is­ sue at present, thought the country was more likely to get sooial 17 reform from the Conservatives than from their opponents". In Manohester, Arthur Balfour, Conservative leader in the Commons, re­ fused to make commitments on sooial issues "since the Radicals had not put forward a serious programme either. It (the eleotion was

^The Times. Maroh 2, 1900,, 8* ^Chamberlain to Salisbury, Salisbury Papers, August 31* 1900, 184. 15 ^B.C. Roberts, The Trade Union Congress, London, 1958, 173-74* *^The Times. October 1, 1900, 11* 17 " 'Morning Post. Ootober 3, 1900, 3. 179 18 a question of imperial policy”.- Back-bench parliamentary candidates in working-class constituencies emphasized sooial reform more forcefully than did the leaders. A group of London. Tory radicals, known as the "Young Forwards”, including Sir Uilliam Bull (Hamraer- smith), Captain H.ll. Jessel (St. Foncras), and Sir Albert Rollit (Islington), stressed a combination of patriotism and limited in­ tervention by Westminster and local authorities in providing housing 19 and old ago pensions. ' Although the party displayed self-confidence during the campaign, some Conservatives privately were not taking an easy victory for granted. Aretas Akern-Douglao, the party’s obief whip who controlled the party finances, discussed the eleotoral proopeots with the chief agent, Hiohard Middleton, who sponsored party oandidatures. Akers-Douglan wrote Balfour: We stand to lose - for ue have to defend a lengthened position and have very much fewer opportunities of attaok than our op­ ponents. The war feeling is not nearly as aoute now as in July. It exists chiefly in the Metropolis (London) and in large towns, especially in the Horth - in dockyards, arsenals, and military centres - and affects in a very small degree oounty seats. Our great effort has been and rouBt be to keep the war in the foreground - theirs to ignore it and to stress sooial reforms.20 The Ootober "khaki eleotion”, due to the strong support of mid­ dle and working-olass voters in the boroughs, increased Conservative oontrol in the Commons, but by only four seats; thus, it failed to produce the deoisive majority whioh the Government had1 wanted. Even though seriously divided on the war issue and lacking in organ­ izational strength, the Liberals did reasonably well in the popular 21 vote, receiving 2,500,000 to the Conservatives' 2,600,000^ Con-

18 The Times'. September 27, 1900, 6. 19 *T3. Bristow, "Profit-Sharing and Labour Unrest", ed. Kenneth B. Brown, Essays in Anti-Labour History. London, 1974, 282* 20 A. Akers-Douglas (Lord Chilston) to Balfour, Chilston Papers, U 5^4, C1 23/l, September 19, 1900.. 21 B.C. Somervell, British Politics Since 1900. London, 1950, 12. 1 30

secruently, the eleotion left the Government without a dear mandate, in an indecisive political situation in whioh the opposition could con­ tinue to erode the Government's strength. In the following years, the Conservative leadership played into Liberal hands through a series of controversial policies that fragmented the party and isolated it from the electorate. The Government at first refused to heed this warning and viewed the viotory as a vindication of its claim to be the "national" party. In a poet-eleotion address, Salisbury, deviating from his usual caution, hailed the party's "progressive" transformation and welcomed the middle-olass pragmatism embodied in the coalition with the Lib­ eral Unionists: The Conservative party has itself been converted from Conser­ vatism. Great is the ohange in the politics of the working- class voters in London and the other large towns; it is no greater than the change in politics of what io called the Conservative or Unionist party in Parliament. Were it not idle to dogmatize about the would-have-been, we should have asserted the impossibility of the artisan elector's adhering to the Tory party as it was even in Lord Beaconsfield's day. The Unionist party of the end of the century wears its con­ victions lightly; is genially altruistic; and is very open to argument on such subjects as the rightB of property and sanitation. The Tory may croak about the Churoh, and groan over the opportunism of the Government; nobody marks him. Latitudinarian politios are the inevitable result of coalitions, and obviously the admission of the Liberal Unionists into the Government has had muoh to do with the abatement of Toryism. It is also due to the half-conscious perception that the Con­ servatism of fear that sprang from the Frenoh Revolution has lived its oentury and is exploded. We are pointing out some of the less obvious causes of the Conservatism of the large towns. On the imperial idea whioh Hr. Chamberlain has brought home to men's businesses and bosoms, we need not dwell, for do we not hear on Fleet Street every morning and evening that Diana of the Ephesians is great?^

23!the Prime Minister on London Conservatism", The Saturday Review, vol. December 22, 1900» V81-S2. 181

With the successful resolution of the South African conflict in Hayt 1902, the Government lacked a popular alternative to im­ perialism upon which to rely for electoral azpport. The appeal to labor's patriotism, whioh had been successfully utilized since the commencement of the Irish Home Rule controversy in 1886, was weakened by the national disillusionment with imperialism* Earlier in 1901* the expectations of a ouick, victorious oonoluBion of the war had been dashed by the taotios of Boer guerilla-farmers; and the im­ plementation of the Government's internment polioy came in for severe attack. In 1902, rising unemployment and inoreasing tax burdens and zood costs antagonized many workers. The Labour Leader, the newspaper of the Independent Labour Party, noted in Deoember : ...of Labour legislation, the session has been utterly barren. Huge sums of money have been voted away with a desire to avoid anything like genuine discussion. And the grievances of the toilers from whom the gold values are wrung, have received nothing better than supercilious oonterapt. ^ This restlessness contributed to the revival of sooial issues as a prominent political theme dividing Conservatism and the Liberal-Labour opposition. Within1 this politioal context, Conservatism was in a disadvantageous position). During its tenure of office from 1902 to 1905» the Conservative Government of Salisbury's nephew and suocessor, A.J. Balfour, who suooeeded Salisbury in July, 1902, faced the challenge of an in­ dependent politioal labor movement in allianoe with a revivified Liberal Radicalism. The Labour Representation Committee established

^ T h e Labour Leader. December 27, 1902, 409* 182 a foothold In Parliamentj and a secret Liberal-Labour pact in 1903 between Herbert Gladstone, the Liberal chief whip, and Ramsay Mac­ donald, the secretary of the L.R.C., eliminated Liberal and Labour 25 contests in many industrial constituencies. ^ The Conservatives underestimated the new political initiative. An indifference to working-class politioal and sooial aspirations, and a reluctance . to guarantee the security of the trade unions, strengthened the anti-Conoervative labor opposition. Balfour possessed the cool aloofness of the patrioian intel­ lectual and refused to take seriously the need for a comprehensive program of social reform. In his first public statement as prime minister, he stated that this is not the occasion on which either to discuss them (changes) or even think of them, and as for the question of policy I need hardly tell you that the polioy of |he Unionist party remains now what it has always been.2” His accession failed to maintain for very long the serablanoe of party unity that had been skillfully fostered by Salisbury. With the leadership transition, Chamberlain's influonoe on ooalition policy-making became more problematic. Under Salisbury, the Col­ onial Seoretary and Balfour had' a olose working relationship as equals in spite of their differing temperaments and backgrounds. After 1902, Chamberlain, in spite of his aoceptance of Balfour!s leadership, found it difficult to adjust to a subordinate position. His Nonconformist business effioienoy and programmatio aotivism soon oollided with the prime minister's upper-olass distain for oonoentrated legislative initiatives. This contest of personalities aooentuated latent divisions within the ooalition and oulminated in a orisis over the future oourse of the Government's eoonomio and fiscal

2**Poirier, oj>. oit.. 175-193.

26The Times. July 14, 1902, 9* 183-

polioies. Sooial reform was absorbed, in a comolex of issues re­ lated to this question; in spite of their differences, both lenders shared a cautious attitude to social legislation which, depending on the political climate, they were willing to support or to disregard. Although social questions had lancuisned in Conservative ciroles since the late nineties, the growing popular interest in reform revitalised Tory radicalism among a minority of Conser­ vatives. They favored the further democratization of the party structure and the passage of legislative measures on housing, old age pensions, and reform oi the poor law. ItB representatives were a varied group of independent-minded Conservative H.P. b: Sir John Gorst (Cambridge), Winston Churchill (Oldham), Sir Char­ les Seeley (Nottingham), Ernest Flower (Bradford), Sir Forteocue Flannery (Shipley), Sir Albert Rollit (Islington), and Sir Claude Hay (Huxton). Although operating without any structured organ­ ization or clearly notioeable esprit de corps on proposed sooial reform issues, they tended to side with moderate Liberals in the Commons against both the Government and the radical left. Al­ though supporting the general pattern of the nineteenth century British sooial and eoonomio system, rooted in local institutions and free trade, thoy attacked Victorian oonoepts of limited gov­ ernmental involvement in economic and sooial problems; however, unlike their Liberal counterparts, they viere fervent imperialists and stressed more emphatioally the conservation of national tra­ ditions. National unity was stressed; the existenoe of an organic inter-relationship of all British classes and institutions, assumed. These Tory demoorats vehemently rejeoted Chamberlain*s political pragmatism for its subordination of spiritual to material values and its attempt to manipulate the masses for the sake of a oap- 124 italist elite. Their conception of cocial reform was an updated, modified version of arictocratic Tor;; paternalism informed hy liberal, middle-class, huTanist-Chrictian values and was justified by a cense of reverence for the well-being and uniqueness of the national community. Contemporary observers viewed this idealistic Conservatism ■ as a via media between the ceemingly irreconciliable positions of the Conservative establishment and radical-socialist groups, through a common interest in "the rendering of...services to the community by those best fitted to render them, the moot ef­ ficient sustenance of all workers for their various work, end the 27 refusal of opportunities and enjoyments unaccompaniod by duties". In spite of this mutual interest in the well-being of the com­ munity through service, the elitist nature of Tory democracy and the egalitarian principles of radioal-socialiot democracy hindered the supporters of these two views from seeking an aocord on either theoretical or practical levels. Tory democrats offended labor by their paternaliotio and traditionalist creed. Commenting on Sir John Oorst, the Labour Leader stated: The difference between him (Corot) and thoce who, like him­ self, would gladly remedy by State action the worst hardships of the poor, and the Sooialists who', while remedying that hardship, seek to destroy its oauce, is a fundamental dif­ ference. We cannot finally remove unemployment and poverty without oreating a system under whioh the appropriation of the nation's wealth by the rioh would be abolished. All the personal privileges, all the dominion and power of those with whom Sir John is politically and sooially associated must give way. It is sooial equality that the workers need, and not ambulance aid.2®

*^0.S. Street, "sooialists and Tories", The Fortnightly Review, vol.. 79, April, 1906, 625- 28 The Labour Leader, January 20, 1903* 502. 185 Sir Johnr 11.P. from Cambridge University, was the most con­ troversial of the Tory Democrats. His conservative-radical view­ point had crystallized in the mid-eighties when, in a loose al­ liance with Lord Randolph Churchill, he fought unsuccessfully for Greater democratic control of the Central Office by the National. Union. His latest post was Vice President for tie Committee of the Privy Counoil on Education (from 1895 to 1903), which enabled him to influence the shaping of the controversial Education Act of 1902. His cantankerous personality led to his departure from the Cabinet on this issue, and he was soon in a "chronic state of pro­ test" because of the negligence of his party regarding the welfare of pauper children. In a March, 1903 article in the nineteenth Century. Qorst defined his view of the obligations of the Conser­ vative Party: The happiness and welfare of the people have always been a vital article of the Tory creed, just as important as the maintenance of our Constitution and the defence of our Em­ pire...In 1895, the Tory leaders pledged themselves to an aotive policy of oocial reform.••it would go hard with us if we were unable to show that our pledges had been sub­ stantially redeemed.•.How long tho people of the oountry will continue to put their trust in one or other of the two politioal parties alternatively, and to feed on promises that are never effectively fulfilled, it is impossible to foretell. If they should ever come to lose their faith in both parties at once and the same time, the system of party government would be shattered.29 Winston Churohill was viewed as a spokesman for his father*s brand of Tory democracy, although he was influenced by Liberal Imperialism and its search for a party of the Centre. Eleoted as an H.P. from Oldham near Hanohester, he had inherited from his * father an instinct for opportunism and for romantic rhetoric.

2^Sir John GorBt, "Sooial Reform: The Obligation of the Tory Party", Nineteenth Century, vol. 53, Maroh, 1903, 521. 1 8 6

As a member of the Hughligans, whioh included other young Tories, such as Lord Hugh Cecil, Arthur Stanley, and Ian Malcolm, Churchill presented a pale reflection of the Fourth Party of the l880's as he oavalierly provoked the ineffectual Tory leadership in the Commons.3® However, in a letter to J. Moore Bayley, of the Midlands Conser­ vative Association, on December 21, 1901, he revealed at least a serious mental preocoupation with social reform that would become more openly expressed-after he became a Liberal in 1904t For my part, I see little glory in an Empire which can rule the waves and is unable to flush its sewers. The difficulty has been so far that the people who have looked abroad have paid no attention to domestic matters, and those who are centred on domestic matters regard the Empire merely as an encumbranoe. What is wanted is a well-balanced policy mid­ way between the Hotel Ceoil and Exeter Hall, something that will ooordinate development and expansion with the progress of sooial comfort and health. Because the Tory democrats were not united as a group, they were unable to devise a positive and coherent social reform strategy • that might have prodded the Government into a ction. The transform­ ation of Conservatism into a middle-olass party with aristooratio traditions, militated againBt the widespread aooeptance of a re­ newed Tory radicalism. Commenting on the negative effeots of the embourgeoisment of the party in relationship to the working-olasses and sooial reform, the Saturday Review had noted in 1901: They (the delegates of the National Union) are apparently 08*- livious of the changes that are ahead when the war has onoe been out of the way, and doraestio questions begin again to emerge from their present state of hibernation. The party is strong now because it is strong in the support of a national

^Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill, vol. II: Young Statesman: 1901-1914. Boston, 19?>7» 21-25*

31Ibid., 30-31* 187

approval of the war and the unpopularity of the opposition. It is also strong now because for some years now it has been receiving draftb from the capitalist Liberals who have be­ come Conservatives with the cry that property is in danger, and have carried over with them ideas and prejudices in favor of individualism which were never part of the Tory creed. With these people the party will have difficulties. They will hamper the party in dealing with the working classes when social and industrial questions, which are of permanent interest to those classes, come to the front after the tem- prorary withdrawal of their attention to the imperial conse­ quences involved in the war. It must be understood that the thinking of the working classes is done not upon individual but sooialist lineB. Their tendency to conservatism has been 32 caused by their aversion from the old principles of Liberalism. The only politioal group having affinities to Tory Democracy was the moderate wing of Liberalism, typified by a ooterie of young reformist Liberals, centering around C.F.G. Masterraan and G.P. Ooooh. These Liberal humanist-intelleotuals presented an impres­ sionistic critique of the sooial and political ills of British society in The Heart of Empire, showing the disorepanoy between Conservative promises and performance. The book probed into the spiritual and material poverty of urban life and attaoked the Conservative Government and the ruling olasses for allowing pre- 33 oooupation with imperialism to supplant concern for social justice. In his diary, Maeterman presented a view of a typical working-class district in London's West Ham, that was prone to view its distress in fatalistio terms, and called to aooount the Government's smug­ ness and complacency: Here is a plaoe ecrually forsaken as it seems of roan and God. Jerry-built houses run up on a marsh, in which children fall through the ceiling and are crippled for life, and whole ter-

32 The Saturday Review, vol. 92, Hovember 30, 1901, 673-74*

^C.F.G. Jfasterman (ed.), The Heart of Empire. Harvester Press, 1973 reprint, 1-6. 188

races, their owners incontinently absconding, are found to be unprovided with any sanitation system whatever. Any change one would think, must be welcome to such as these... (yet) in the first Parliament of the new century the friends of social progress will be numbered on the fingers of one hand.*4 Although Liberalism later assimilated a large number of Tory radicals upon the deoline of support for free trade within Con­ servatism, the lack of a common commitment, in the meanwhile, to an immediately pressing issue made their differing politioal temperaments and perspectives an impediment to the forging of a common front. Unlike their Liberal counterparts, influenced by either the Neo-Hegelian views of T.H. Green and Henry Bosanquet or the collectivist-radical arguments of the later John Stuart Mill, Ilenry George, and Stanley Jevons, the Tory democrats had only slight interest in social and economio theory. They were praotical, yet idealistio, men, committed to the hazy Tory vision of a commonwealth and disinclined to intense intellectual specu­ lation or empirical analysis. In their politioal life, they lacked the coherent programmatio emphasis of Chamberlain, whioh was to dominate their party by 1904* Showing little originality, they supported either the views of their Liberal colleagues, al­ beit adapted to Conservative emphases, or compromised their stan­ dard Tory outlook with the interests of their largely working- olass constituents upon whom they depended for votes. Conser­ vative s4 with an intellectual bent usually endorsed the anti- Booial reform, individualist thinking of W.H. Nallook, or, if inclined toward a sharp critique of the status quo, eventually faced suoh confliot that they had to abandon Conservatism al-

^Luoy Maeterman, C.F.G. Masterman, London, 1939» 37» 1 8 9

together. Of this latter group, Hubert Bland attempted to mix Toryism and Socialism, but finally found a congenial home in Fabian Socialism. Although a colleague of the Webbs, he opposed.the soc­ ialist permeation of the established parties and supported the formation of an independent sooiaiist party embracing all olasses. Revealing his Conservative roots in opposing the residual Glad- stonianism found in the leftist groups, Bland dismissed Conser­ vatism as too mueh a conventional, upper and middle-olass oreed 35 to engage in sooial reform* Thus, the Conservative party lacked in its enfants terribles the intellectual skills necessary for the formulation of a coherent party philosophy and program of sooial reform, an advantage which made the Liberal reformers a more deoiBive influenoe in their party* Of greater importance, the Con­ servative disposition to conserve, rether than to create, provided an obstacle to any really deoisive and well-argued position. Instead of taking the initiative on domestio issues, the Bal­ four ministry waited upon the pressure of oircumstances, giving its primary attention to foreign and military affairs in which it felt more sure of its competency. This preoocupation with national security provided a justification for the lack of limited, let alone comprehensive, aotion on sooial reform; when reform waB undertaken in response to politioal pressures, it was done with great hes­ itation and with the motive to preserve as much as possible those Conservative ooncerns which were identified with the national in­ terest.

^Norman and Jean Maokenzie, The First Fabians, London, 1977, 67-68; A,14. MoBrior, Fabian Socialism and British politics: 1884- 1918., Cambridge, 1962, 3-4, 96* CHAPTER VI CONSERVATISM IN RETREAT (1902-1906)

The growth of labor agitation in the late nineties had alarmed some Conservatives and brought demands for a strioter legal defin- ition of trade union practices that amounted to an infringement of the gains made by labor organizations since the 1870*0. From 1901 to 1902, a series of articles in the Times, entitled "The Crisis of British Industry", warned of the detrimental influence of trade unionism on eoonomio production and innovation, and upheld the Amer­ ican industrial model for the significant freedoms given to busineso to pursue its activities.* Trade unionists feared espeoially the intervention of the law oourts in labor disputes. In the Taff Vale oase of 1901, the law lords handed down a deoislon making unions liable for damages caused by the strike activities of their members. The anti-unionist trend of Taff Vale was reinforoed in the following month by the judgement of the oourts in Quinn vs. Leathen. making o " illegal the use of boyootts. The Balfour Government, confronted by growing trade union agitation to reverse Taff Vale, refused to considor the removal of the disabilities on the grounds that the determination of trade union status was a matter of law, not of parliamentary aotion. From 1902 to 1909, it opposed private member Lib-Lab trades dispute bills, whioh proposed incorporation to proteot union funds from oourt aotion, thus giving trade unionism a legally established position in national

*The Times. November 21, 1901 - January 16, 1902. See Felling, Origins of the Labour Party. Oxford, 1965» 214*

Selling, op. oit.. 212-213*

1 9 0 191 In regard to the 1902 bill, whioh determined the general scope of its successors, the Edinburgh Magazine reflected the standard Con­ servative ’contention that advocates of the measure favored a type of olass legislation that granted unprecedented powers to organized labor that were damaging to the interests of industry as a whole and especially, to laborers, themselves: •••we have seen that the interests of the trade unions are not always identical with the interests of the working classes,•• It is hard enough for a skilled workman to lead an endurable life outside of the ring fence whioh the unionists have put up round our staple industries* Under this (proposed) new law, it will be impossible - more unemployment and physical degeneracy.3 During the Commons debate, the Attorney General, Sir Robert Finlay, attaoked the bill for giving a privileged status to trade unions, olaiming that the Lords "applied the law of the land" to them "as to everybody eloe".^ In their anti-trade union attitudes, the Gov­ ernment’s supporters reflected a sincerely held Conservative belief that their party was a defender of the interests of the individual worker against the unrepresentative opinion of a trade union oligarchy. This illusory view was *refutod by a few Conservatives, who repre­ sented industrial constituencies.^ Aware of the regard' of organized labor for the defense of their own institutions, these M*P*s sup­ ported the Lib-Lab bill, but they had little impact on the leader­ ship, With the help of many pro-industrial Liberals, the Govern­ ment successfully withstood the measure, aligning itself with the anti-union position of the powerful Employers Parliamentary Counoil* In order to mollify labor, Balfour appointed a Royal Commission on Trade Disputes to investigate the legal status of unions; the failure to inolude prominent labor spokesmen in this however prejudiced

^"Why and Where are the Unemployed", Blackwood's Edinburgh Magaaine, vol. 177» April, 1905, 465* ^British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 108, Hay 14» 1902, col. 311 5 Fortesoue Flannery (Shipley) and Ernest Flower (Bradford); F, Bealey and E. Polling, Labour and Politios, New York, 1958* 93-*94. «

1 9 2

its findings from the start and alienated the unions, which refused to testify at the proceedings.^ In spite of the Government's intransigence in 1902, Lib-Lab M.P.s and the trade unions continued to press for legislation during the remaining years of Balfour's ministry; but their effortB were hin­ dered by differences in objectives. The Trade Union Congress and the L.R.C. supported legislative recognition of trade union status outside the scope of the law, a return to the conditions before Taff 7 Vale. The majority of Lib-Labs, aocepting the maturity of trade union organisation and its influence upon industry, favored legal incorporation and backed the trade disputes bills of David Shackle- ton (Labour K.P. from Clitheroe), J.M. Paulton (Lib-Lab K.P. from Durham), and T.P. Whittaker (Lib-Lab K.F. from Spen Valley). Shaok- leton's introduction of the 1903 bill, legalizing pioketing within the framework of incorporated trade union status, was fiercely op­ posed by Balfour and the Government's legal advisers. Conservatives feared that the pioketing olause provided a loophole for the allowance of intimidation by striking trade unionists against "blacklegs" and other non-unionized workers. Balfour aligned the Government in sup­ port of these laborers, stressing Conservatism's underlying at­ tachment to individualism and its disregard for the collectivist egalitarianism often (but in many instances, wronly) identified with the Trade Union Congress: Now no longer was the wealthy employer the one from whom op­ pression was feared...the action taken by organized workmen against some of those who were unorganized seriously mitigated § against that industrial freedom which the House desired to foster.

^Poirier, eg. oit., 219*

^Conference Report, T.U.C., Leicester, September 7-12, 1903, 67*

®The Times. May 9» 1903, 10.

i Wit Vi tl'.o support of the 0.01311101, the majorityof Conservative K.P.s patv-cd -or. amendment to the Gbuckleton hill proposed hy VI.J. Galloway (Manchester, S.’.I.) t^at rejected consideration of trade union leg- i elation until the presentation of the Royal Commission's report. The Government defeated the Sbackleton measure hy on uncomfortably narrow margin (246 to 22(5).' Conservative defoctionc and abstentions increased over the previous year and included a divcrco number of figures, including Dir Albert liollit (Islington), Forteccue Flannery (Shipley), Matthew W. Ridley (Stalybridge), Winston Churchill (Old­ ham), .Mid Sir R.F.R. Hatch (Lancashire, Gorton), who acted, in como cases, against their convictions because of the unpopularity of the Govenime.it’o position among their working-class supporters.^ In this crinis, the parliamentary tactic of using the Royal Commiocion as a moans to defuse gather ir.G controversy failed to save the Bal­ four ministry from acute embarrassment. Division in labor ranks regarding the pevmiscible limits of trade union immunity enabled the Conservatives to successfully side-step the issue for the duration of the Government’s existence. Only in 1906, after a crushing elec­ toral defeat, did the Conservatives relent in their opposition by refusing to block the reversal of Toff Vale by the Liberals. Education was another point of division and controversy; al­ though in this instance, the Government tool; the initiative in its Education Act of 1902. As a concecruence, it faced the hostile re­ action of a revitalised Liberal Nonconformity, which also expressed the political ond spiritual, if not tho sooio-economic, aspirations of many workers. In its legislative response to Britain's educational problems, the Balfour ministry laid the foundations of the modern

^British Parliamentary Dobrios, Commons, vol. 122, May C, 190^, col. 215; Morning Post, April 24, 1903, 9-

^Horning Post, Kay 9, 1903, 3» 194

British educational system; but it aroused an opposition that proved as damaging as Taff Vale to its electoral prospects. The Liberal-sponsored Educ/tion Act of IC70 established cecular elementary cchoolc under local "boards in arenc lacking church-af­ filiated voluntary schools. In order to inculcate democratic values among the masses, Liberal Radicals and socialists cupported the ex­ tension of thio system to provide free, compulsory, and cecular ed­ ucation for all. In lCCO, the Liberalc made elementary school at­ tendance compulcory; their support for the abolition of feeo and popular control of the voluntnry schools forced the Concervativea in I89I to pass legislation, empowering cchool boards to admit children freely to their cchoolc.To compenoate for the loco of feeo, the Government provided a now grant of lOo per child for all elementary cchoolc. Thio expenditure pai'ticularly aided the voluntary schools, which continued to be free of popular control and yet, had additional access to state financial support. Leftists remained dissatisfied, demanding uniform standards in a national, necular education system and increased opportunities for secondary end technical learning. 12 The Conservatives refused to respond to theco demands until the issue of secondary education was forced upon them by action of the courts. In the lato nineties, the cchool boards and the newly es­ tablished county councils vied fox* control of the oxtra-legal tech­ nical and secondary schools. Militant Anglicans, hoadod by Lord Robert Cecil, son of the prime minister, in 1901 successfully chal­ lenged local rate support to these institutions. In the "Cockerton

^ I n addition to pressure from the Liberulo, the Salisbury Government also wanted to avoid offending working-class supporters. Chamberlain wrote to Hnrtington in November, IS90 that "there will be a tremendous defeotion of working-class voters in towns and in ' the counties" if the Government refused to act. In spite of the 1891 legislation, many public elementary and voluntary schools still levied charges. In 1894? there were 600,000 fee paying students (Report of the Committee of Council on Education, 1896-97? ii*)» See Brian Simon, Educntion and the Labour Movement. London, 1975* 130-31. 12Ibid.. 132-33. 195

judgement”, the Court of the Queen's Benoh declared that the school hoards had not authority to support higher education* Because it was directed at the Liberal-dominated school hoards, the decision was unpopular among those workers who favored the provision of public eduoation for their children* The Yorkshire Paotory Times stated that the workmen's ohild appears likely for some time to come, in the absence of any suooesoful appeal, to lose the benefit of anything beyond the most elementary eduoation*13 As a result of the efforts of the Duke of Devonshire, President of the Council of Eduoation, and his assistant, Sir John Corot, the Balfour Government in 1902 was prodded to re-introduoe a comprehensive eduoational bill, designed to deal with the problems of both elem­ entary and seoondary-technioal education*^ The legislation was drafted by the Fabian-inspired Undersecretary to the Counoil of Ed­ uoation, Sir Robert Ilorant; in its provisions, it integrated the board schools, the higher educational institutions, and the volun­ tary schools in a rate-supported national system administered by the oounty counoils. Although the Liberal-Labour opposition was strong in Parliament, the Government, successfully defended the olauses granting rate aid to the voluntary sohools* The passage of the legislation in December, 1902, however brought Nonconformist threats of passive dis- obodienoe in the refusal to pay taxes and contributed to a strengthening of the traditional forms of radicalism among segments of the middle- 15 olasses, whioh had been drifting to Conservatism* ' At the same time, the particularly Tory features of the Act obscured its forward- looking provision of rate support for teohnioal and secondary education, thereby undermining any opportunities for a potential Conservative

*^A similar measure had been introduced in 1901, but was aban­ doned due to lack of parliamentary time. See Simon, 0£* oit.« 209*

Kunson, "The Unionist Coalition and Eduoation, 1695 -1902", The Historioal Journal, vol. 20, September, 1977» 643-645* 19& appeal to workers on this issue. The trade union and educational issues presented seriouB dom­ estic challenges to the Government, Other social problems the Con­ servatives met with what might be called ’'cosmetic" treatment. The overcrowding of urban areas by immigration from the countryside and from abroad, the population increase of urban working olasses due to the sharp drop in infant mortality, and the negative effects of slum olearance projects created a desperate housing shortage. The Government, hesitant to involve itself in an enormous undertaking, stressed the cooperative effort of private voluntary organizations and the role of local municipal authorities. C,T, Ritchie, Pres­ ident of the Board of Trade, stated on February 6, 1900 at a confer­ ence of East London offioials, that the Conservative Government placed its reliance on local institutions, because of their closeness to 16 the people and their awareness of the particular needs of each area. On February 22, 1900, the Cabinet accepted a Ritchie proposal to introduce legislation granting permissive powers to the London County Counoil and the Metropolitan Borough Councils to build working- olass housing in open areas beyond their jurisdictions. The Govern­ ment also considered increasing the availability of Treasury loans to private builders:. The Housing of the Working-Clasres Amendment bill, introduced by Henry Chaplin, was debated in the Commons in Hay and represented the major Conservative piece of legislation on housing during this period. The Liberals, placing social reform at the forefront of their rebuttal against the Government, critioized the Government’s failure to honor the full range of pre-Boer War promises and pointed out the bill’s lack of comprehensiveness.

***Tbe Times. February 7» 1900, 11. 17 The Spectator, vol. 8 4 * February 10, 1900, 200, 197

Sir VI.S. Robson (S. Shields) admitted that the Conservatives might have some reason for "postponing a task of such considerable 18 magnitude" t but many Radicals saw that the housing shortage sur­ passed the capabilities of municipal bodies and that it was a national question involving the intervention of Westminster. John Bum s , an independent labor M.p. (Battersea), tagged the bill as a "monstrous mouse" not authorizing compulsion on local authorities; he attacked the capitalist system as the root cause of the problem and placed his hope in the assumption of administrative power by the working classes: Unless personnel of parish, district, and county oounoilB is considerably altered, I don't expect to see rural elysiums for agricultural workers. The worst slum-ridden districts in provinces and London are governed by the worst of slum owners, who will do everything in their power in keeping the poor in slums. This bill whispers housing reform to the ear and breaks it to the hope of every poor workman. Balfour, still at this time Conservative loader in the Commons, 20 defended the measure d b a reflection of the party's moderation. Sir Henry Chaplin attributed the difficulty to "poor administration, 21 and not the law". Another Conservative, Henry Bartley (Islington, N.) was skeptical about any type of social reform, fearing an over­ reliance on even local authorities, and emphasizing the role of vol- untary organizations. 22 Although the Conservative measure was 23 easily passed (108 to 38), its reception in the Commons revealed

18 BritiPh Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 82, Kay 10, 1900, oo1. 12^0

19Ibid., vol. 85, July 12, 1900, ool. 1410, 1417. 90 ibid., vol. 83, Hey 17, 1900, col. 519-520.

21lbid., vol. 82, Hay 10, 1900, col. 1328.

22Ibid., vol. 83, May 17, 1900, 443-444.

2 iIbid.. vol. 8 5 , July 12, 1900, ool. 1422. 1 9 8

apathy, inertia, and lack of imagination on hoth sides of the chamber; and its limitations highlighted the Government's inability to consider comprehensive solutions which entailed any break with legislative traditions. In spite of Government encouragement, local authorities, even vfhen serious attempts were made, failed to cope with the enormity of the taBk. The largely Conservative London County Council began encruiries into housing schemes during the parliamentary debate. On March 26, 1900, a Housing of the rtorking-Glasses Committee presented financial estimates for -the oreotion of three blocks of dwellings in: the Strand area of London to aooommodate six hundred workers dis­ placed by one of the many slum ’clearance projects undertaken since the Torrens Act of 1874. The proposal was shelved, after considerable discussion, due to the high costs of private enterprise construction, that placed rents above working-olass means. Because of its col­ lectivist implications, the idea of subsidized housing under mun­ icipal authorities was not viewed ao 0. suitable alternative. In spite of the impasse, the Government expressed satisfaction with this attempt, but refused to intervene, except in promising legis­ lation to aid private construction b.y providing a time extension for 24 the repayment of housing loans. Within this narrowly oircumsoribed area, the Government encouraged investigations of the severe housing orisis in Scotland. In January, 1901, the Scottish Office enumerated the difficulties and propored solutions for the enforcement of the 1900 housing act. It cited the heavy burden of oost on rate payers as the predominant factor in the lack .of enforcement of housing legislation end oalled for a thorough

^The Annual Rericter« 1901. 97-98. 199 reform of local taxation to enable local authorities to derive more revenue to meet their responsibilities. The Office also proposed the re-settlement of workers away from unhealthy* overcrowded areas in Glasgow and Aberdeen end a more liberal grant of oompulsor.y powers to local authorities to acquire land; however* it was also stressed that exercise of these powers were subject "to oertain modifications designed to simplify procedure and to lessen the cost of a scheme to 25 the looal authorities.*1 ' In February of the following yeer, Bal­ four encouraged tbe formation of a Glasgow housing commission* hoping tbat its work would prove to the Government's oritios the praotical difficulties of reform conceived and enacted hastily. He would undergird the Government's commitment to looal initiatives: It would be valuable even if it only showed that...well-ad­ vertised panaceas were certain to be useless or pemioious... There is some danger at the present moment that the housing question will fall into the hands of emotional rhetorioians whoso well-meant advice can by ’no possibility benefit those whom they desire to serve. There is nothing in the world so easy as to string together harrowing descriptions of overorowded rooms and insanitary surroundings and nothing so useless. If indeed, the public consoienoe were recruired to be stirred on this great subjeot* appeals...like these might be useful..•; but the world has moved far beyond the stage of indifference and what we require now is not sentiment* but science* the unbiased investigation into the economical and social facts from which the evils of overorowding spring* into the remedies whioh have already been tried* and into any new ones which seem likely to be affected. We see great advantage in having oer­ tain of these inquiries* at all events, reotrioted in their areas. It iB possible, no doubt, that inasmuoh aB the oir- cumBtanoes of each place are different aSoheme whioh was suitable ir. Glasgow might not be suitable elsewhere. But in so far as this iB the case of Glasgow demands speoial inves­ tigation; while on the other hand* it is perfeotly certain that if the housing problem oould be solved for Glasgow, it would be in a fair way for all other industrial centres.26

25 ^British.Cabinet Papers,"Memorandum on the Provisions of the Housing of tbe Uorking-olasses Acts, as they Affect Sootlond", Scottish Office* p.R.B (Cab 37/56)t January 15t 1901* 2^The Times, February 24* 1901, 7 200

The cautious, pieceme al, and investigatory nature of the Gov­ ernment's handling of the cuestion, although reflecting the current interest in the application of empirical methods to the study of social problems, seemed to tbe Opposition unwarranted stalling* In January 1902 the Liberals and minor parties, in an amendment to the King's speech, accused the Government of ignoring its I895 and 1900 eleotoral promises on housing, contending that half-hearted legis­ lative endeavors bad created little response from the local author­ ities or among the general publio. Revealing the typical Liberal caution about an alternative course of action, T.J. Macnamara (Camberwell) appealed to Conservatives on their own ground by calling for a socially-reBponsible imperialism: If wo are to make our people love their country, as I desire they should, we must make their country lovely, and we_rauot learn above all that true Imperialism beginB at home* Tbe growth of grass-roots support for Liberalism did little to influence the Government on housing reform. In MBroh, 1902, a con­ ference on housing, sponsored by London local authorities, met at Bermondsey Trade Hall, to discuss the city's bousing problem. The delegates protested the failure of the twenty-one London Conser­ vative -Unionist M.P.s to support the Macnamara amendment* At an interview with a delegation from the Conferenoe at the Commons, several M.P.s - among them, H.C.J. Cust (Southwark*.Bermondsey) and Sir James Bailey-Newington (Walsworth) - resented the Liberal- Radioal tone of some members of the deputation, but expressed their Tory democratic sympathies with the need for more Government invol- 28 vement; however, they had no speoifio proposals.

27 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 101, January 17» 1902, 191* 28 Morning Post, Maroh 5» 1902, 5* 201 In meeting the suggestions of its parliamentary critics, the Government appointed a Select Committee of the Lords to further investigate the housing problem; and Halter Long promised future 29 legislation to provide a loan "spread" to aid private oonstruotion. The leading Conservative M.P. serving on the Committee was Claude Hay (Shoreditch, Horton), a Tory democrat, who in February, had criticised the Home Office for allowing the displacement of workers by the Croat Northeastern and City Railway extension plan, without providing suitable substitute accommodation.^® The report of the Committee, issued on August 4t 1902, advocated the oreation of a central housing authority to fix the rents of new, working-olaas dwellings.^ The Government ignored this central feature; however it was willing to permit the enactment of another proposal, the ex­ tension of railway facilities for commuting workers, housed in re­ settlement areas at a distance from their places of work. This legislation was introduced by a combination of reform-minded Liberal, Conservative, and independent M.P.s and passed with little contro­ versy; it provided the workers with cheaper and more frequent transportation between the oentral stations and the outer suburbs 32 and speoial, reduoed ticket costs during the rush hours. In 1903, the situation had little altered* Kacnamara, with the baoking of the opposition, continued to urge more Government intervention, calling for a reform of the rigidities of the land laws and the repayment of private construction loans by the mun­ icipal authorities.^ Sooial-reform-minded Conservatives Hay and Rollit forced to aotion by their London constituents, supported the coordination of the bousing aots by the Local Government Board or

• 29 'British Parliamentary Debates. Commons, vol. 101, January 17» 1902, ool. 226-227. ^®Morning Post. February 26, 1902, 3* ^National Union Gleanings and Memoranda, vol. 19* September, 1902, 129-130. ^lorning Po3t, April 18, 1903, 5* ^British Parliamentary Debates. Commons, vol. 118, February 18, 1902, col. 142-143. 202 some new central authority* Staunchly pro-Government Conservatives, however, opposed the enlargement of the Government * s activity. Wal­ ter Long, speaking for the Cabinet, doubted that "a government depart­ ment should exeroise parental supervision over municipalities11 and af­ firmed that "initiative must come from the locality".3^ Sir George Bartley (Islington, S*) did not want "a burden on posterity" and feared "increasing the powers of the Local Government Board and the municipalities would discourage private enterprise". After much pressure and many promises, the Balfour Government finally passed, at the end of the parliamentary session, a new housing act that authorised the time extension for the repayment of construction loan!. In allowing thio minor change, the ministry only slightly alleviated the housing "crunoh", leaving the problem to the next Liberal Gov­ ernment, which did not seriously begin to tackle the housing prob­ lem until after the First World War. Tbe Balfour Government was also able, from 1902 to 19°5» to re­ sist demands for the regulation of hours and employment in tbe ooal mines. In 1901-02, the general sooial unrest after the Boer War re­ vived the dormant miners' eight hours cause. Beginning in 1901, Liberal Radicals introduced bills on behalf of the Winers Federation of Great Britain, but met stiff opposition from both the Government and from "Lib-Lab" parliamentary representatives of the miners of Durham and Northumberland. The ministry favored postponement of discussion; and the miners' K.P.s in the Northeast of England sup­ ported local option, fearing the elimination of their constituents' 37 seven hour day by the parliamentary imposition of a national standard.

34Ibid., vol. 120, April 12, 1903, ool. 951-952.

35Ibid., ool. 946. 3%orr.infl post, January 1, 1904, 6.

British Perliaraentnry Debates, Commons, Karck 1902, vol. 104, col. 472-473, 475* Their stance bolstered the Conservativest whose .laissez-faire assumptions opposed state interference as a danger to mining productivity and to individual freedoms. Harry Tomlinson (Preston) attacked the measure’s "coercive" powers for "forcing people to do what they do not want to do" and imposing "a bard-cast iron sys- tbm" on all of the miners. Liberal contentions that long hours posed a health hazard were dismissed. Life expeotancy, Conser­ vatives claimed, was greater in the case of coal miners than in the case of all males, due to mechanioal improvements in the mines. Division regarding eight hours was not aooording to Btriot party lines; although most of the supporters of regulation were Radical or Labour M.P.s, a minority of Conservatives backed the eight hours proposal. On the other hand, many Liberals sympathized with the Government’s arguments. This sharp, non-partisan polar­ ization was releoted in the seoond reading of the 1902 debate when the eight hours bill was defeated by only one vote (208- 207).40 Recognizing the difficulties in securing hours legislation for adult mi-le.-workers, reformers sought to realize the smaller objective of placing limitations on the hours of adolesoent miners. This attempt was advocated by the powerful Miners Federation, whioh represented a large segment of politioally-aotive miners in Scotland, Yorkshire, and Hales; and it waB likewise opposed by "Lib-Lab" and Labour M.P.s from Durham and Northumberland. In the case of the adolescent miners, the miner-opponents opposed any parliamentary interference with the long hours of boys, upon whom their seven-hour schedules depended. As in tbe oaBe of adult eight hours, the Government was able to take advantage of this split in Liberal-Labour ranks to rally support for defeat 204 of the measure. Basing their defense on individualism and free enterprise, the Government's advocates claimed that the hill le­ galized state interference with the right of lahor to make vol­ untary hours and wages agreements with employers. Frederick Ban- hury (Camberwell, Peckham) attacked the measure "as an inter­ ference with personal liberty"}^ Charles Ritchie (St. Georges) viewed it as a otrike weapon whioh would prevent oolliery owners from increacing their staff or enlarging the output of the mines. 42 Ben Pickard, Lib-Lab K.P. from Hormanton, Yorkshire, tried to moke the measure acceptable to Conservatives by stressing its continuity with the Shaftesbury humanitarian tradition, but his typical "Lib- Lab" view of the bill as a prelude to an enaotment of eight hours ^ for adult miners only stiffened Conservative anti-unionist sentiment. Laurence Hardy (Kent) stated that "such a law would of oourse so operate that in the course of a few years, the Miners' Federation would be absolute roasters".44 Conservatives also oited the detri­ mental effects on the output of the coal industry and disputed "exaggerated" statistics concerning the poor health of adolescent miners. Colonel Blundell (Lancashire, Incre) admitted that the occupation was "arduous, difficult, and dangerous", but that it "bred men",4** an echo of the muscular imperialism that linked military preparedness and national power and prestige with the physical con­ dition of the raoe. The Balfour ministry also attempted to avoid the handling of the problem of physical deterioration among working-olass youth, an issue related to the question of netional decline that preocoupied imperial-minded Conservatives. How could an overseas Empire be maintained with a physically weak population at home? In 1903,

41Ibid., March 12, 1902, col. 1136. 42Ibid., ool. 1137. 43Ibid., ool. 1131. 44Ibid.. ool. 1140-41. 205

a memorandum from the War Office underlined this concern on. the part of Britain's military leaders, revealing that twenty-nine per cent of Boer War working-olass volunteers had failed to pass reoruitment physical examinations.^ An inter-departmental report of the Home Office, Board of Eduoation, and the Board of Trade re­ commended empowering of county counoils to regulate the employment of children under fourteen in dangerous tradeB that oaused' ill health,^but the passage of an Employment of Children hill was de­ layed a year by the Cabinet after parliamentary disagreements over its details regarding the definition of dangerous trades and the ift methods of regulation. In 1903* an inter-departmental oommittee, supported by the Liberal Unionist leader in the Lords, the Duke of Devonshire, began its inouiry into the need to investigate alleg­ ations of physioal deterioration. Its long deliberations finally prompted an enlargement of scope to deal directly with oases of deterioration. The pro-reform Seoretary of the Privy Council, Almerio Fitzroy, however, had little support from the Cabinet. The .eport of July, 1904 revealed that the lack of a nutritional diet was responsible for the widespread prevalence of poor health among working-olass ohildren;^ but the Cabinet refused to consider a scheme of publically-finanoed Bchool feeding. Lord Londonderry, the anti-sooial reform President of the Privy Council proposed a a similar oheok on tbe activities of a follow-up oommittee: We have on the one hand, to-arrange so that the Committee shall not be at liberty to make far-reaching proposals or recommendations upon lines, or in directions, whioh the Unionist party would decline to support - eg. such as would

^Bentley Gilbert, The evolution of National Insurance in Orefit Britain, London, 19b<), 85-87.

^British Cabinet Papers, "memorandum on the Employment of Children Bill", Charles T. Kitohie, (Cab 37/60) February 19, 1902. 48 Tbe rimes, July 11, 1902, 4? naroh 5» 1903, 4. 49 'Bentley Gilbert, 0£. oit., t>7-91. 206

result or tend toward universal provision from the rates of free meaLs for school children generally. And, on the other harid, if tbe terms of reference are too narrowly restricted, the Government will be accused of "shirking" discussion while taking no really effective steps to discover or to bring about any practical remedies for evils now generally admitted to exist ...(in spite of this; 1 am myself strongly inolined to the view that we cannot entertain any proposal involving a freBh charge upon the rates (or indeed upon the bxcheouerj, and that it would be politic to state this explicitly forc^he reassurance of many anxious members of the Unionist party. By 1905* public discussion and a press campaign led by Sir John Gorst, now a Liberal, forced the Commons to consider proposals for state-financed assistance for school meals. The Liberals and Tory Democrats advooated legislation for a carefully-regulated scheme of school feeding by looal authorities. Sir J. Bamford Slack, a Liberal M.P. from St. Albans, Hertfordshire, in supporting a non-partisan treatment of the issue, implied that the Government in refusing to consider the reform, was divorcing imperialism from it sooinl- humanitarian responsibilities: The future of the Empire, the triumph in sooiol progress, and the freedom of the British race depended not so much uoon the strengthening of the Army as upon fortifying the children of the State for the battle of life.-* Claude Hay stressed the traditional Conservative reliance on looal 52 authorities for such social improvements. The Government majority however refused to oonoider even this moderate proposal? it was olaimed that free enterprise had increasingly raised the living standards of conscientious laborers and that state interference would only encourage the lasy and the thriftless and endanger the moral initiative and the family life of the working-claoses. In this assessment, the plight of tbe disadvantaged was inevitably

50 British Cabinet Papers, "Memorandum on Underfed Children", Lord Londonderry (Cab 37/74) February 10, 1905 51 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 145» April 16, 1905, col. 531. 52Ibid., col. 539. 207 caused *hy personal moral fallings, not an inherent defeot of the economie system* Defending traditional Conservative support for voluntary efforts hy families or hy private organizations, Sir George Bartley (Islington, K.) opposed even the use of Poor Lav funds apart from the workhouse for the children of destitute homest If people were earning more wages, living Letter, spending more on drink, and paying no fees for education, it (seemed).•• a very serious matter that it should now he proposed to take from parents the hurden and responsibility of feeding their children. The most liberal proposal that the Conservatives were willing to con­ sider was some form of public support, chiefly through the direct use of Poor Law maohinery, with a means test and the disenfranchise­ ment of recipient parents as deterrents.On May 8, 1905* sup­ porters of school meals tried to ciroumvent the ministry by intro­ ducing a provision in the Soottish Educational bill, but this was 55 effectively blocked by later decisions of the law oourts. v The school feeding proposal thus became a dead parliamentary Ib s u o until raised by the Liberals in 1906. Parliament (said Gorst), instead of aoting like the Good Sam­ aritan to ill-fed ohildren, had hitherto, like the priest and the Levite, passed over to the other side.•.The State has dutieB also; it is under obligations, first, to see that the rights of ohildren are not ignored or violated by their parents; secondly, to give all possible help, by advice and otherwise, to parents in fulfilling their obligations; and thirdly, to perform the parental duties, itselfa where from death or in­ capacity the natural parents fail.55 The Conservatives remained under pressure from textile workers unions to strengthen faotory legislation. The United Textile Fao- tory Workers Association (U.T.F.W.A.), formed in 1886 as a merger of three conservative and established "oraft" unions (Amalgamated Associa­ tion of Operative Spinners, Amalgamated Association of Cord and Blowing

53Ibid., col. 542, 546.

54Ibid., ool. 557-558; 562. *^Sir John Gorst, The Children of the Nation. London, 1906, 2. 208

Room Operatives, and the Northern Counties Heavers Amalgamated) had emerged as a lobby for factory legislation in the nineties; its membership was divided along Conservative-Liberal lines; and in pressing legislation, it had refrained from direct political en­ dorsements, Because of the moderate tone of its demands, the U.ff.E.W.A. had, in contrast to tie other, Liberal-oriented trade unions, close working relationships with the Salisbury Government and Conservative back-benchers• However, the lack of any real social reform in­ itiatives had strained these ties. Cotton operatives organized the "12 O' Clook" movement to end work at noon on Saturdays and also, guarantees for the workers to be informed of particulars in the dal- oulation of wages. They also advocated further improvements in 56 working conditions.x In response, Ritchie, at the Board of Trade, introduced a Fac­ tory and Workshop bill in June, 1901, setting standards for the im­ provement of faotory ventilation, the prohibition of child labor in cleaning operations beneath heavy machinery, and the empowering of looal authorities to improve sewage oonditions. The Government refusal to legislate a Saturday noon work stoppage led to the de­ fection of some Lancashire Tory M.P.s in deference to the wishes of their textile union constituents. The ministry, itself, was un- enthuBiastio about itB bill and easily oapitulated to the Irish Nationalists in eliminating a clause whioh extended inspection to convent laundries. A compromise eventually made regulations ap- 57 plioable only to commercial laundrieB. By 1905, U.T.F.W.A. dissatisfaction had turned into outright revolt. The textile workers became more strident in pressing their

^Yorkshire Faotory Times, March 29» 190^-t 6*

^British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 95 (June 17, 1901, ool. 644, ^54, 674-75* 209

demands on both the Government and the Liberal opposition* The Cotton Factory Times uiged-iworkers to affirmative political action: So far as tbe textile workers are concerned, those employed* •• have not yet got to the point where they are willing to sink their differences, and concentrate on labour. But that ought not to count as e reason why we should not see to it that the ordinary party candidate should heve it impressed on him that he will be expected to support measures which, if passed, the operatives believe would be to their advantage. The oper­ atives are very muoh given to grumbling about the slow progress made with their proposals, but it is they themselves who have the matter in hand* Metaphorically they hove our would-be legislators grovelling at their feet asking for votes*..If the... M.P.s who sit in the next Parliament end represent ootton man­ ufacturing districts support and do their best to get what the operatives want, there will be little trouble in getting it. But if the workers prefer to send men who will be opposed to the passing of their Bills, it is to be hoped we have seen the last of the farce of officials of {trade union!} societies being blamed for not being able to do the work whioh the M.P. should attend to.5° The Taff Vale decision in 1901 and the death of the pro-Conser- vative Spinners' Seoretary James Mavidsley in February, 1902 elimin­ ated some of the lingering reluotance to adopt a more independent parliamentary posture. In Nay, 1902, tbe U.T.F.H.A. in the Bury by-eleotion endorsed the Radical-Liberal G. Toulmin, who opposed the Government's war taxation of grain and backed trades dispute legislation.^ Handbills, circulated by the U.T.F.W.A. among Yorkshire spinners and weavers in the aftermath of Taff Vale, cri't icized non-unionized operatives:

The Workmen' b Compensation Aot, the Factory Acts, and all other legislation beneficial to the workers have been brought about by trade union effort, lou do, to some extent, participate in these benefits, and yet you do nothing in return.°0

58 J Cotton Factory Times, September 21, 1900, 59 Bealey and Felling, o£. cit., 100-01* Morning Post, May 12, 1902, 6. 6ft Cotton Faotory Tiroes, May 26, 1905» 7* 210 As discontent with the older parties spread, the prospects of the Labour Representation Committee enormously improved. In 1902 and 1903* the Lancashire textile workers and engineers finally joined the trade union-socialist alliance, helping to increase the mem­ bership of the L.R.C. from 469*000 in 1902 to 861,000 in 1903«^ By-eleotion victories at Clitheroe in 1902 and at Woolwich and Barn­ ard Castle in 1903 showed the slippage of Conservatism in its labor strongholds in the North of England and in London. In 1905* expres­ sing dissastisfaotion with the Government's laok of enforcement of its 1901 faotory legislation, M.J. Cross, the Secretary of the U.T. F.W.A., oomplained that "the process of improvement in legislation is very slow. The best way to expedite matters would be to send a much larger number of Labour M.P.s to the House of Commons. The oosts of the war diverted attention from non-contributory, 6 ^ tax-supported old age pensions. 0 This negleot was also influenced by concern for the friendly societies, who feared that state-admin­ istered old age pensions was a threat to their existenoe. A national campaign for a universal system was led by Charles Booth, the noted Conservative social reformer, and the National Committee of Organ­ ised Labour. The Committee, supported by trade unionists and pol­ itical labor groups, advooated the payment of five shillings a week for every British subject over sixty-five.^ In effect, the agit­ ation of these pension enthusiasts revealed the widespread dis­ satisfaction with the ineffective administration of tbe Poor Law, whioh, in many instances, condemned aged workers to the workhouses. Although the Government refused to make any sort of commitment, some reform-minded Conservatives wanted to revive the pre-war sooial reform pledges. Lionel Holland (Bow and Bromley) introduced a

^Felling, Origins of the Labour Party, op. oit., 215*

^Yorkshire Faotory Times, January 13* 1905* 7* 63_ Bentley Gilbert, o£. pit., 160* ^Labour Leader, February 21, 1903, 64* 211 private mentors bill, favoring a voluntary scheme to members of ben­ efit societies; and Sir James Rankin (Stockport) proposed a state-aided deferred-annuity program* ^ In February, 1900, reformist Conservative- Unionist M.P.s took another step by sponsoring a forum, under the chairmanship of Laurence Hardy (Kent), designed to reach a common ag­ reement on parliamentary strategy regarding pensions. After consulting boards of guardians, friendly societies, and trade union organizations on the feasibility of a plan, they rejected T.U.C. proposals for universal pensions and supported a scheme along the general lines of the Chaplin Seleot Committee of 1899* recommending state-aided pen­ sions based on either membership in a friendly society or a means test.^ In the spring of 1900 these Conservatives introduced a bill, empowering county oounoils to provide assistance to members of friendly societies over sixty-five. J.F. Flannery (Shipley), in introducing the legislation, stated that Buoh a course bolstered private instit- 67 utions while saving the poor rates a sum of 4Kfc. He hoped to reassure Conservatives ooncerned about tho possible excessive oosts of suoh a scheme. It is as much tho duty of the community to suooour the help­ less (argued Flannery) as to punish the idle and the evildoer and to distinguish between idleness on one hand Bnd deserving helplessness on the other* The workhouse, whether inBide or out, was a bodge of disgrace. There was a greater need for a reformed Poor Law system, but this was not the ultimate sol- gg ution. There had to to independent pensions apart from it... The Government promised reform of the poor law as a more desirable objectivo. In August of 1900, the Looal Government Board proposed an enlargement of the classification system to enable the removal of ohildren from the workhouses to separote homes and to distinqruish

^British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 69, March 22, l899t col. 57t Ibid., vol. 66. February 10, 1899, col. 461, 462-3. ^ Morning Post. February 8, 1900, 3* 67 B ritish Parliamentary Debates. Commons, vol. 80, March 7, 1900, o o l. 313—314* Four pension b ills , in addition to Flannery*s proposal, were introduced.during the 1900-01 session. The Liberals Chonning, 212 deserving from undeserving poor in tbe administration of the syBtem. However, tbe Government made little effort to put these principles 69 into effect. 7 Its primary oonoern was to oombat the radicalism of a universal Gystem; and to that end, it opposed even moderate alter­ native proposals. In a subtle move, Chamberlain encouraged the large­ ly onti-pension friendly societies to consider the desirability of pensions and take "a practical step" in proposing a workable scheme, 70 a suggestion that was tantamount to dismissing the issue. C.A. Cripps (Stretford,, Lancashire), with the support of the Government took a more dlreot approach in attaoking all forms of state-aided pensions by critioising the Tory reform proposal as "an extension of outdoor relief". Instead he favored the effioient improvement of 71 Poor Law administration. In Kay 1900, !!ichael Hicko-Beaoh (Glou­ cestershire, Iv.) revealed the ingrained Conservative distrust of public expenditures for cooial reforms: Let them (advocates of old age pensions) seriously consider whether the time had not com© when they should have some re­ gard to the ancient virtue of economy. The oountry was rioh and prosperous, but there were signs that our prosperity might not endure for long.7^

Burt, and Burns introduced a universal Exchequer-financed scheme in February, Unionists presented three measures, two of which provided for payments to the deserving aged poor through the boards of guard­ ians. The third meacure allowed old age pensions only for military servioe veterans through .the county councils. All of these moasures failed to move beyond their first readings. See Liberal Kagasine, Kay, 1901, vol. 9, 224-229. 6elbid., col. 313. ^ T b e Times. August 10, 1900, 5* T0Ibid.. July 5, 1901, 9. In the fall of 1902, Chamberlain, in a letter to a Birmingham friendly society, blamed the failure of ' enactment on the T.U.C.: "...as long as extravagant expectations provail of what is possible, and as long as the friendly societies continue divided on the question. If there had been any general aooeptanc© of the coheme put forward by the Parliamentary Committee 213

In August of 1901 the Labour Leader, organ of the socialist Independent Labour Partyf was calling for a conference of trade un­ ions, cooperatives, and friendly societies to press for parliamentary 73 enactment of their proposal. Justice, the newspaper of the marxist Social Democratic Federation observed: "Mr. Chamberlain never seems to tire of excusing himself for having broken his promises with re­ gard to Old Age Pensions" and anticipated the radical demands of the conference. Meeting in January, 1902, the National Conference voted unanimously in favor of state-financed universal pensions, 75 without restrictions based on oharacter or thrift. J

(of the T.U.C.) some yeafro ago, that plan might have been law before now, and would have afforded useful experience. But the unreasonable views expressed by the T.U.C., and the partisan bitterness with which they denounce all other proposals do not augur well for the spirit in which a moderate and praotical scheme would be received. (Letter to a Birmingham friendly society, September 3, 1902, The Times. September 22, 1902, 10.)

"^British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 80, March 7, 1900, ool. 320-21.

72The Times. May 17, 1900, 12. "^The Labour Leader. August 3, 19°1, 245* 74Justice, January 11, 1902, 1. 75 Morning Post. January 24, 1902, 7* 214

In response to the growing popularity of the universal scheme, pro-reform Tories tried again to force the Government's hand. In March, 1902, an aged pensioners bill was presented to the Commons, 76 and posed a considerable ohallenge to the Oovernment. Halter Long, President of the Local Oovernment Board, urged a cautious firm ap­ proach on the Cabinet that would kill the bill with kindness: (it) is very difficult if not impossible to secure its direct rejeotion. It might be practicable to induce some such members as Sir Edgar Vincent or Mr. Grippe to move some amendment based on the heavy burden whioh tho Bill would impoBe both on the tax­ payers and the ratepayers, and thus to defeat the measure.•• If this cannot be done, it beoomes a question whether in the debate I should refer to the financial difficulties, and ex­ press the inability of theGovemment to aooept the liability whioh the bill would impose on the Exchequer, even if it passes a second reading. Another plan would be, assuming the second reading to be inevitable, to insist upon the bill being referred to a Seleot Committee for the purpose of its being examined in light of the Report of Sir Edward Hamilton's Committee, but looking to that Report there would not be muoh for a Seleot Committee to investigate. Mr. Channing (Liberal from Not tinghamshire]) has given notice of a motion on the second reading of the bill to the effeot that any provision for old age pensions should be universal and wholly independent of Poor Law maohinery. Henoe it might be possible to secure suffioient cooperation to secure the rejeotion of the bill. In the debate on the second reading, the Oovernment was able, in line with Long's suggestions, to exploit the situation for itB own benefit. A speeoh of W. Raymond Oreene (Cambridgeshire, Ches­ terton) illustrates the attitude of Tory reformers as to safeguards: Tbe vast majority of really hard-working poor find it impos­ sible to moke any adequate provision.•.although many had been able to make payments through the friendly societies for funeral and siok benefit subscriptions, oould they be able to Bave the

^British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 105, Msroh 19f 1902, ool. 448. 77 'British Cabinet Papers, "Aged Pensioners Bill*', Walter H. Long, (Cab 37/61), Maroh 12, 1902. 213.

the additional weekly sun required for old age pensions?.•• The objeotive of any neaBure should give the greatest am­ bition possible of needful help with, at the sane tine, the least possible encouragement to any undue reliance on the grant'; to guard against makine tbe sum so high as to induce a man capable of working to cease from doing so in the later years of his life. Nothing should be done that would be detrimental to the friendly societies. Prevention should be given from the stigma of pauperism to those who may be recipients. £Thus3 the removal of eleotoral disabil­ ities was essential.7® Leftists attacked the bill for itB exclusion of large numbers of workers on tbe basis of itB means test. Aooording to Sir Fred­ erick Channing (Nottinghamshire: ...easily seventy per cent of those sixty-five and over were not included.••Out of the whole population of the city of York, 27.84 per cent were in a position whioh renders them incapable of making that sort of provision whioh thiB Bill would insist upon as qualification of obtaining the pension.•• If you had a system of universal pensions you would at onoe get rid of the taint of pauperism. Using arguments employed by the Governments supporters against them, he pointed to the difficulties of discriminating between the deserving and undeserving and labelled the measure a ‘'glorified outdoor relief scheme".and criticized the Governments repeated summoning of Royal Commissions and Seleot Committees in order to delay reforms. With this "help" from the Opposition, the Government was able to bury the scheme. C.A. CrippB (Stretford, Lanoashire) denounced the measure as an extension of tbe Poor Law in a bad direction". He accused the Tory reformers of endangering individualistic values and the advancement of the working classes: Compulsion would be involved sinoe it (the payment of pensions) • would oome out of others’ pockets. Taxation would increase

7o British Parliamentary Debates, op. cit, ool. 448.

79Ibid.. col. 483. 216

the burden on the man who has got .his head above the level of poverty and reduce a large number of working men to that condition against which they have before...struggled*®0 Edward Bond (Nottingham) said the measure "endangered men earning 12s, 13s, or 20s (a week) who might have to contribute to the O' cost but would not be eligible themselveB". Reliance on such arguments could only further alienate working olass support. Long tenure of power had made the Government insensitive to shifts of mood within the eleotorate* After their disastrous defeat in 19°6» the Conservatives would reoognise their folly and yield to the pop­ ular demand for universal pensions, by refraining from opposing the Da Liberal Government's Old Age Pensions soheme of 1908* Unemployment was another problem, the number of jobless rising from 2$ in 1900 to 4# in 1904.88 The Poor Law administration had been the target of severe oritioism from both Conservatives and the political left since the 1880*0 ; the inability of the Poor Law re­ lief agencies and workhousec to handle unemployment heightened these grievances. Conservatives demanded ourbs on rate increases and oalled for an end to outdoor relief and to its abuses by popularly- elected boardB of guardians in predominantly working-olass Poor Law unions. Labour and Radical-Liberala advocated a dismantling of the entire system in favor of a social Bervioe state. Voluntary employ­ ment committees and private labor exchanges were established in Lon­ don; but the tendenoy to view the unemployed as "a speoies of crim­ inal, Beeing it aB largely their own fault that they were without jobs" made these relief works unpopular with the workers. Suspioious of the intervention of the State, the trade unions olamoured to be

ool. 487. 8lIbid.. col. 5°1* 82In ftaroh, 1904* Sir James Rankin introduced a pensions bill that empowered Poor Law union oomraittees to grant pensions from five to Beven shillings a week to the deserving poor. General sympathy was shown by Conservative baokbenohers, but Walter Long announced the Government's inability to finance tbe proposal. (Korning Post, Karoh 4 1904, 7. °iCenneth D. Brown, Labour and Unemployment .» London, 1971» 19°* 217 recognized as the proper channels for the placing of the unemployed in jobs.8^ Initially, the Balfour Government refused to see the serious­ ness of unemployment as a matter for state intervention. In a parliamentary debate on unemployment in February, 1903, Keir Ilardie, Labour M.P. from Merthyr Tydfil, urged the Oovernment to support an Exchequer-financed publio works scheme to provide jobs for tbe un­ employed on the land, and he received the backing of the Conservative- Unionists, Jesse CollingB and Sir John Gorst, who favored the re­ vitalization of agriculture and the use of state-supported, looally- 85 supervised oooial projeoto. ' Speaking for the Cabinet, Long dis­ counted "the exaggerations" of an unemployment crisis and refused to have the Local Government Board reissue the Chamberlain Circular (of 1886 and I892), whioh allowed looel authorities to collect private funds for the employment of workers on public works schemes. Stating that the unemployed failed to take advantage of the bureaux and othe"T private means that already existed, he upheld the Government's con­ tention that the looal authorities were oapable of alleviating needs 86 without involving Westminster. In spite of th^Govemment's evasions, more and more unemployment was coming to be Been as a national problem. On February 27» 1903* a conference on unemployment was held at the Guildhall under the auBpices of the non-partisan National Unemployment Committee. Chaired by the Tory democrat; '-Sir Albert Rollit, this meeting brought suoh reformist Conservatives, as Hay and Gorst, into contaot with Liberal, Radioal, and social proponents of government action. At tbe oonolusion, the delegates proposed a wide range of reforms that placed the burden of responsibility on the Government for both the prevention and al-

8^B.C. Roberts, oj>. oit., I84-I86.

^British Parliamentary Debates, CommonB, vol. 118, February 18, 1903, col. 247-254; 309-314? 324-325* 86Ibid.. col. 328-333. 218

leviation of unemployment: tbe establishment of a department in the Board of Trade to monitor tbe eoonomic cycle and "to promote # measures for the temporary and permanent utilisation of the unem­ ployed"; the enactment of public works projects under local authorities at trade union rates of pay, the removal of disenfranohisement penal­ ties on recipients of relief, and the creation of a Ministry of In­ dustry,®*^ Taking a less cautious approach, the Sooial Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party sponsored street demonstrations of unemployed supporters - f’rom 1902 to 1904 to force the Oovernment to act on the unemployment situation* The climax was a mass rally at Trafalgar Souare on December 21, 1903. A resolution was later presented to the Government, urging "a permanent national system" of ouaranteed employment for every deserving oitisen". Keir Hardie became the major parliamentary spokesman of this street orusade, ad­ vocating a department of labor to coordinate a program of agricultural 88 public works with local authorities. The Oovernment wan unmoved. On February 7, 1905, Balfour told a deputation from the T.U.C. Parliamentary Committee that "it was dangerous to substitute state machinery for private enterprise" in the attempt to deal with unemployment and that "the problem of dis- tinouishing the worthy from the unworthy" involved the difficulty of preventing state involvement from oreating "a permanent olaso of men 30 who are dependent upon the Sti,te for finding employment."^ The unemployment marches tended to harden conservative attitudes; they appeared a threat to law and order. Aretas Akers-Dougias reflected

°^The Times, December 24, 1903, 7*

H®ibid., February 23, 1903, 14*

®^Ibid,, February b, 1905, 8. 2;19

the hostility of the cabinet end the home Office, which in 1903 b u c - cesBfuily restricted the marchers* solicitation for fundett My oolieagues will recollect the great inconvenience and an­ noyance caused last winter by the repeated demonstrations through the streets of these so-called unemployed,..In an-' other winter, the "unemployed" distress, which is the alleged (and partially genuine) raison d*etre of the processions, may be more serious, and may express itself more vehemently; and there is reneon to fear that the measures hitherto successful may not, even if they could be sustained, be sufficient to keep the matter under control. I think that further powers are necessary 8nd thct Parliament would, in the circumstances, be ready to grant them...The remedy seems to me to lie in taking power to regulate striotly the collection of money in the streets. The regulations should be exhibited in public, and the ponalty for oontravention is a fine of forty shillings, with’ power to arrest without warrant.90 In spite of intransigence, the Government was forced by wor­ sening unemployment and by the near collapse of the Poor Law sys­ tem to begin steps which eventually culminated in the introduction of an Unemployed Workmen's Bill. The Looal Government Board, in November, 1904) began inrmiries into a public works scheme for the 91 London metropolitan area. A Central Committee, consisting of representatives from ad hoo employment committees, was formed and met with private social agencies, the London County Council, and the Looal Government Board. A variety of proposals were disoussed, those who advocated forms of state intervention dividing from those who supported private, voluntary endeavors. A particular issue of contention was the use of a means tent to distinguish between the genuine unemployed, who could be relieved outside of Poor Law machinery, and the paupers, whom the uovernment wanted to* r.emain under the

90British uabinet Papers, "Unemployed Processions", AretaB akere-JJouglas, ^uab 37/65J, 22, 1903*

^The Times, October 15, 1904, H » I!orninn Post, Ootoser 15, 1904* 7* 220

Poor Law. Tne Charity organisation Society, which supervised the administration of private oharite.ble institutions, shared the Govern­ ments position that contributions for public works from either the Exchecuer or local rates would contribute to "demoralisation by dis­ couraging self-help" and foster the view that public employment was a right. The Liberty and Property Defense League pointed to the Parisian national workshops of 1848 with "the stoppage of private trade, demoralization of workmen, and the reduotion of the Govern­ ment to bankruptcy". It advocated a more stringent administration 92 of the Poor Law as the only effeotive remedy. The Government finally decided to accept public works sohemes for London. On January 24, 1905, Halter Long submitted a scheme to the Cabinet that advocated the Government grant of statutory powers to the Central and looal committees to assist London looal eutboritien in sponsoring publio works. In the proposal, wage payments were es­ tablished below trade union rates, disenfranchisement was imposed on recipients, and financial operations were based solely on private q 1 subscriptions.^ The scheme, in effect, applied the deterrent prin­ ciples of the Poor Law to separote auxiliary bodies, which were vie\;ed by the Conservatives primarily as bulwarks against the erosion of the traditional relief system. In suonlemcnting the Poor Law with the work of the Committees, it was hoped that expenses of the Poor Law used to aid the unemployed would be eased, and that some of the stig­ ma attached to that institution would be reduced. Thus, the scheme, in accepting the idea of public works, had no intention of weakening Poor Law administration by lessening any of the disabilities whioh

92 7 The Times, November 25, 1904, 4• 93 British Cabinet Papers, "The Unemployed", Walter H. Long, (Cab 37/74J, January 24, I9O5. 221

were attached to relief; however, the Cabinet faced the procpeot of the difficulty of committees in procuring private funds. Long urged the limited use of rate support to offset the inevitable de­ mands for further state intervention: ...one of the objeots of my soheme is to prevent persons who, from oeuses over which they have no control, are out of em­ ployment from being obliged to have recourse to poor law relief, and so becoming a charge, end perhaps a permanent charge on the ratepayers. Thus, the scheme would relieve the rates, and hence it does not seem unjust that the rate payerB should make a limited contribution on the necessary expenditure involved. The soheme hoB attracted support even from our political opponents. There is however a strong feeling amongst a certain section in favor of the State providing em­ ployment and if my soheme broke doxm for lack of funds, as I fear might be the case if the rates are not to be charged, theg , demand for ouch State interference would be greatly strengthened. In considering a limited program of public works, the Conser­ vative Government involved itself in a commitment to the alleviation of the unemployment problem, but it was reluctant to move in the direction of state intervention towards which its actions pointed. In the process of trying to bolster the Poor Law system, the Cabinet ironically augmented public demands from the left for further action. Will Crooks, Labour K.P. from the ohronicnlly unemployed district of Poplar, advocated the extension of the soheme tocreas outside of Lon­ don as the first step in state support of the unemployed, claiming that without this exnansion, unemployment would be aggravated in the 95 metropolis by the soheme*s attraction of job seekers from the country. James Sexton, of the dockers* union, in addition to the extension of the Local Government Board scheme, reoommended the creation of farm 96 .colonies and land reblamation projects with state Bupport. Pete Curran of the Gasworkers supported "governmental systematization" of employment through labor exohnnges, and David She.ckleton of the Rail-

^British Cabinet Papers, "The Unemployed", on. cit.

^The Times, February 8, I905t 8. 222-

waymen and M.P. from Clitberoe urged the elimination of diBenfranchise- ment from all relief oualifications asnociated with unemployment* 97 Even Gorst.was willing for the Government to enaot such palliatives, although he, along with other moderate Liberals, opposed the final 98 goal of direct state intervention* In the midst of this mood of publio expectancy, Gerald Balfour, the brother of the prime minister and Long's recent successor as Pres­ ident of the Local Government Board, introducod the Unemployed Work­ men's Bill, based on Long's proposals, in April, 1905* During the second reading on June 20, he announced that a nev; system of looal committees supported by rate aid, would provide work for the unemployed in London and would also assist in securing employment through labor exohanges, farm colonies, and emigration. The administration was de­ signed to bolster, not to replace, the Poor Law system by relieving the Boards of guardians of supervising the deserving unemployed. 99 Balfour cautioned the radical members of the Opposition against ex- peoting too much from the legislation, but reoognized at least a limited degree of state responsibility: I do not intend to deal with the whole of the vast and complicated problem...The innovations proposed in the Government's Bill are more apparent than real. It was not practioal politics to prevent looal authorities from giving employment relief, and to insist that poor law guardians return to strioter methodB of relief and administration...Respectable persons out of employ­ ment through no fault of their own, but simply by reason of the fluctuations in our industrial system should have some prospect before them other than that of the workhouse or the general re­ lief y a r d . 100 This slight liberalization of the Government's attitude created div­ isions within the party. Lord Cranborne, eldest son of the late prime minister Salisbury and a leading Conservative peer in the Lords,

9 8 Ibid.; .The Labour Leader. January 20, 1905? 504; Percy Alden, The Unemployed* London » 1905, 137-144. See introduction by Gorst, iii. ^British Parliamentary Debates. Commons', vol. 147, June 20, 1905. ool. 1115-1121. ------100Ibid., col. 1 1 1 5 , 1 1 2 3 . 223 wrote to Balfour: I do not approve of it. I think there should be no direct access to the rates given to the new bodies, for the purpose of providing work for the unemployed though I would assent to its being given in order to provide machinery, and I am inclined to think, for emigration. Kit though I bold this view I dare say I may quite be wrong and if you and the Cab­ inet think otherwise I shall have nothing more to say.*01 Other Conservatives, however, were not willing to maintain oilenoe. Argued Sir Qeorge Bartley (Islington) - "a siok patient should not be given everything that it asked for. It would oommunicate the idea that an Aot of Parliament would give the people the right to 102 obtain employment whioh they could or did not get by themselves.” C.A. Cripps (Stretford, Lancashire) doubted that "the Looal Govern­ ment Board and the new authorities could handle the problem any better than the Poor Law authorities”. S i r Francis Powell (Wigan) disputed the existenoe of an unemployment crisis and feared that the measure would make the State a "dangerous competitor” with private enterprise for labor.The Spectator predicted "the creation of 105 a landed pauper class” and opposed "relief disguised as wageB”. The Liberals were also divided on the bill, split along the same collectivist-individualist lines as the Conservatives. Labor, recognizing tho general right to employment out of public funds, gave at least heBitant support. The T.U.C. Parliamentary Committee was cautious in its endorsement, fearing its wage provisions at less than trade union rates would lower the earnings of the regularly em­ ployed. Keir Hardie, Labor M.P. from Merthyr Tydfil, however ex­ pressed "satisfaction that a government had at length arisen which was prepared to make the unemployed question a matter of serious dis-

*^*Cranborne to Balfour, Balfour Papers, Maroh 5* 1905, 59758* 11, 12. 102 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, op. oit.. 1128-1129. 103Ibid., ool. 1166. 104Ibid., ool. 1167. ^^The Speotator, vol. 95* August 12, 1905, 215-216. 106 Cotton Factory Times. April 28, 1905, 7. 224 mission in tbe House" and urged a "national demonstration" at Hyde 107 Park to advocate the bill's passage. By July, the Conservative reaction againBt the hill and Labor's heightened expectations from it foroed the Government to back away from its original intentions. On July 13* Gerald Balfour indicated that the Government was eliminating support for the spending of rates upon payment of wages and the f,arm colonies. In addition, strioter regulations were imposed on the aooeptanoe of applications by the dis­ tress committees of London. As a result of fears of mass immigration to London from the countryside to receive benefits, the Government 108 decided that a residency requirement of a year was necessary. Clearly wanting to disoourage Labor's enthusiasm, the President of the Looal Government Board informed the town olerk of Poplar that "in the circumstances I do not believe that either the present or any other Government could at this stage usefully make further pro­ posals to the legislature, and a speoial session of Parliament were it oalled would only receive hopes which it would be impossible to fulfill."109 The reduction of the legislation to a "maohinery bill" sparked demonstrations of the unemployed in London and other oities during the summer. On July 9, the London Trades Counoil and the Labour Representation Committee organized marches of three to six thou­ sand uiveB of naviees, dookero, and casual laborers at Whitehall and Hyde Park to protest government inaction.110 As a result of these protests, the Government finally ended its stalling over the final stages of the bill; and the measure, in its reduced form, was en­ acted in the late summer.111 Labor's response was deoidedly neg-

. 107 'British Parliamentary Debates, op. oit,, col. 1175* dot-fcon Paotory Times, Kay 19* 19°5» Horning Post. August 10, 1905? 4* IQ^KorninR Post. Ootober 23, 1905? C* U oDaily Express. July 10, 1905? !• 111Henneth Brown, Labour and Unemployment' -j ££* oit.. 59“61. 225

alive. At the Trade Union Congress conference at Hanley in Sep­ tember! the president, James Sexton, attacked the act as "an abortion born of political expediency and desperation" liable to depress 112 wages and promote "blackleg" recruitment. To offset the pressures to extend or amend the act’s provisions in a more oolleotivist, pro-labor direction, the Balfour Cabinet, be­ fore the implementation of the machinery, appointed a Royal Commission on the Poor Law to inouire into the full range of poverty and un­ employment. In the light of this Conservative commitment to the maintenance of the primacy of the Poor Law system in relieving dis­ tress, the Unemployed Workmen’s Act, devised to last for three years, was only viewed as a provisional arrangement until the Poor Law was overhauled. Even in regard to sweeping reforms of the Aot of 1634, the Government showed a noticeable laok of enthusiasm. The Duke of Salisbury wrote to Balfour* ...it seems to me most important that...you should have a good finanoial man (as chairman of the Commission). Any new machinery will be expensive -the issue will be how ex­ pensive. ..I suspeot that the present Poor Law administration, is not only unnecessarily but extravagantly managed as well. The crueotion is how muoh per contribution can we save by suoh a reform?...The appointment is important - any mistake in the resettlement of the Poor Law might weaken the fabric of the nation and et the Bame time throw an intolerable burden upon the ratepayer.**' In response, the prime minister stated his general agreement with these ideas, but expressed a noted lack of interest in the CommiB- 114 sion due to the Conservatives’ declining political prospects.

112 Conference Report, T.U.C., Hanley, September 4 to 9t 1905» 48-49? 64.

^^Duke of Salisbury to Balfour, Belfour PapersSeptember 9* W 5 . .49753,43. u Balfour to the Duke of Salisbury, Balfour Pnpers, Septem­ ber 15, 1905, 49758, 46. 226

Although inadequate in coping with the unemployment question and refleoting the paralysis of a weak and ineffectual govemmentv the Unemployed Workmen's Aot, in its very failure, forced the Conser­ vative Government's Liberal successors to pursue more positive alter­ natives to the Poor Law; in the short run, it further.underlined the reluotanoe of Conservatives, even in response to popular pres­ sures, to radically alter the public welfare institutions inherited from the nineteenth century* Although modifying its attitudes, the Conservative leadership maintained a basic allegiance to the pol­ itical principles of retrenchment, limited state involvement, and support of voluntary efforts and the virtues of self relianoe, thrift, and productive work, not realizing the extent to which these older views were now being challenged by new social, economic, and intellectual foroes. Refusing to involve itself extensively in sooial reform, the Conservatives sought to maintain some degree of labor support by stirring patriot!o sentiments against the unregulated influx of foreign immigrants. In 1902, East London anti-alien n**oupure groups and an influential body of proteotionist-tariff Conservatives forded 115 the Government to appoint a Royal Commission* Linking the prob­ lems of urban overcrowding and housing shortages to the presence of East European Jewish refugees, they demanded an aliens bill to totally exclude foreign arrivals. The prospeot of restrictive

U 5 The Times, April 12, 1502, 12; April 19, 1902, 7

U 6 Ibid.t April 14, 1902, 6, 14; April 17, 1902, 9- 227 legislation was also discussed in the Commons. Some Conservative: K.P.s attributed the existence of poor houaing conditions, political radicalism, "sweated" industries, and a high rate of crime to undesir­ ables within the immigrant community* Sir Howard Vincent (Sheffield), a leading Conservative advocate of economic protectionism, related the aliens question to the problem of labor, stating that limita­ tions had to be placed on immigretion in order to proteot "the em- 117 ploymont, welfare, and housing of the working classes." He, along with S. Porde Ridley (Bethnal Creen) and other East London Conser­ vative K.P.c expressed concern about the revolutionary potential of alien radical groups in their constituencies,Liberals, ouoh as S.K. Samuel, a Jewish K.P. from Tower Hamlets, Whitechapel, dis­ puted Conservative contentions about the negative influenoe of aliens on British society, affirming the basic loyalty and enterprise of aliens, who "followed trades which they themselves hod intro­ duced.* .into the East End of London, trades whiob if stopped now, 119 would bring ruin to all the small tradesmen and shopkeepers", ' As c result of the inconcluoiveneso of public debate on the issue and prefering to wait on the roport of the Royal Commission, the Govern­ ment refrained from pressing any claims of its own. The Report of the Royal Commission, released in August, 1903, gave limited support to the proponents of aliens legislation and hastened government action. Citing a connection between unregul­ ated aliens entry and various social problems, it advooated legis­ lation that would permit the arrival of aliens only through a se­ lective process undertaken at various ports and coordinated by a department of immigration. Undesirable aliens, already in the country, would be expelled, and a court of summary jurisdiction would try dis- 120 Puted cases. In Larch, 1904» the Balfour Government introduced

117 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 146, February 23, 1302, col. 945. 118 Ibid., col. 943, 951-352. ll9Ibid., col. 963. inn The Anr.uol Register, 1903. 183. 2 2 8 legislation based on the findings of the Commission. In addition to the Commission's recommendations, as a result of the influence of Walter Long, the bill's sponsor, the Cabinet also empowered looal authorities to enforce Etrict housing standards to prevent over- orowding. 121 Conservative M.P.s warned that the continued flow of foreign labor would tend, to lower wages and to provide competition with British workers inthe job market. W. Hays Fisher (Fulham) stated that the "soualid pressure of poverty upon the subsistence of native Britons made it mandatory to oonsider the needs of British people first”. W.R.W. Peel (Manchester, South) oontended that most aliens discredited British standards by producing exports whioh •’were shoddy and were'not a good thing* for our name".i.21 Trying to ward off the racialist implications of the legislation and Liberal critioism of the bill's repudiation of Great Britain as a haven for refugees, the Conservatives focused more persistently on the preser­ vation of national homogeneity. Aretas Akers Douglas (Kent) denied racial or religious prejudice as a motive and stressed "the serious menace" of overorowding "to the maintenance of law and order", 124 Walter Long stated that the bill "had no intention of keeping out healthy and productive people". 125 As a result of the controversial nature of the legislation, the Government, unwilling to add a further problem to its accumulating burden of difficulties, diverted dis­ cussion of the bill to the Grand Committee of Law. Reflecting the Government's desire to evade responsibility for the measure, Sir Franois S. Powell (Wigan) noted "that it was only by slow degrees that T_P6 change oould be carried at all". Smothered by amendments in the

■ i pi British Cabinet Papers, "Memorandum on Aliens Immigration", Walter E. Long, (Cab 37/^7)* November, 1903. 122 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 133, April 25, 1904, ool. 1093. l23Ibid., ool. 1129. 124Ibid.. col. 1143. l25Ibid,, ool. 1110. Ibid., vol. 135» June 8, 1904, ool. 114&. 229 Grand Committee, the hill vias abandoned by the Government in July. 127 In April, 1905t ^he Government introduced a modified bill, designed to meet Liberal objections on the asylum issue. The Home Secretary, Aretas Akers-Douglas, whose department now had sponsor­ ship of the legislation, stated that the new measure would not ex­ clude immigrants "on the ground of want of means" if they "were seeking admission solely to avoid proseoution for an offence of a political character". "As a result of this significant concession, the Lib- eral opposition decided not to oppose the second reading. 129 ' However, the Government’s offer of tolerance for political refugees was troubled by difficulties, and the Conservatives had to back down on their oonoeosion. The poblems in making valid discriminations among immigrants was aocompanied by traditional Conservative regard for econ­ omy. In the 19C4 session, Sir Howard Vincent (Sheffield) had stated that unregulated immigration bad foroed burdens on ratepayers to sup- port destitute aliens; 130 and in April, 1909* with the introduction of the Unemployed Workmen's Bill, Conservatives were fearful of ag­ gravating aliens who would have to depend on the Poor Law or unem­ ployment committees. Liberals once again rallied in opposition to the bill for its lack of "traditional hoopitality to the foreign persecuted".Even staunch Conservatives, suoh as C.A. Cripps and Lord Huch Ceoil, joined tho Liberals in pressing the Government to grant a clear exemption for political refugees, but with no suc-

127Kornin£ Post. July 6, 1904, 9* 128 British Parliamentary Debates. Commons, vol. 145* April 10, . 1905, col. 466-67. *2*^The Annual Register. 1906. 140. 1 30 Parliamentary Debates, op. oit., vol. 133* April 25, 1904, col. 1149* *3*The Annual Register, 1906. 140. 132Ibid.. 182. On the question, Labor often found its Liberal-based ideals clashing with itB material interests. Many individual trade unions favored restricting alien competitors in the job market. The miners in Soctland were antagonised by the use of Polish workers as "black­ legs” in their region; and in the 1905 aliens debate, Keir Hardie sought to have potential strike breaking immigrants excluded from the oountry.*^ However, there was little inclination for the majority of rank and file labor to aocept the Conservative hook along with the bait. Loyalty to Liberal principles of internationalism and humanitarianism kept labor from identifying with the Conser­ vative brand of economic and raoial nationalism. In spite of Labor's reluctance to positively endorse a Conservative measure and muoh opposition among Liberals and even Conservatives, the Government was able to pass the controversial bill in the summer of 1905* Is the case of tariff reform, however, the Government faced a greater test of its strength that further revealed chronic weaknesses in its policies.

135 British Parliamentary Debates, Commons, vol. 145» May 2, 1905* ool.. 778-779. See Bealey and Polling, oj>, oit., p. 199 and. Roberto, op. oit.. 182-184. CHAPTER VII TARIFF REFORM AND PARTI DISUNITT (1903-1905)

The Conservative stance on social questions was deeply affected by the free trade-tariff reform debate that emerged after the Boer War. While Salisbury was prime Minister, the party avoided attempts to deal with radioal fiscal change lest it irritate the staunchly free trade Liberal Unionists. After Balfour*s accession, fears oonoerning the performance of the eoonomy, unemployment, and tho rising cost of living encouraged the revival of proteotionist views. Fiscal reformers advocated not only tariffs to proteot industry and workers of the mother country, but also a comprehensive economic policy that would forge oloser trading links to tho overseas Empire.* In the summer of 1902, the colonial conference of imperial prime ministers supported a sys­ tem of mutual preference in trade between Britain and the dominions. The Conservative party*0 National Union conference at Manchester in Ootober passed a resolution favoring both preferential treatment and 2 a regulation of foreign immigration. The tariff question had been thrust into the political arena by the Chanoellor of the Exobequer, Sir Michael Hicks-Seaoh, who intro­ duced a c o m duty in April, 1901, to finance the war debt; but he considered the tax only a temporary infringement of free trade and re­ fused to take steps to reform fisoal polioy. Refleoting the indif- ferenoe of Balfour and the rest of the Cabinet, the Chanoellor advo- oated a retrenchment in state expenditures and soolded the T.U.C. for demanding universal state-supported old age pensions.^ But at the Bame

*See Richard A. Rempel, Unionists Divided. Newton Abbot, England, 1972, 19. ^National Union Cleanings and Memoranda, vol. 20, December, 1902, 357- 35^ The Times, September 30, 1902, 4« 231 232

time, labor was pointing out the barrenness of government policy. In December, 1902, the Labour Leader noted: Of Labour legislation, the session has been utterly barren. Huge sums of money have been voted away with a desire to avoid anything like genuine discussion. And the grievances of the toilers from whom the gold values are wrung have received nothing but supercilious contempt. If...the gentlemen who do not labour are kept by the people who do, and the brain­ workers depend for food on the handworkers,...the mass of Britishers had grievances worth Parliamentary mention. The average M.P. still relies strongly on the stupidity of his • constituents.4 Joseph Chamberlain, having earlier allowed legislative initiative to pass to Balfour and Devonshire regarding education, decided to use tariff reform as a Conservative response to this labor chal­ lenge. Alarmed by the drift in Conservative policies, he slowly worked out a comprehensive argument that integrated protectionism, imperialism, and sooial reform. After Charles Ritchie, the new Chanoellor of the Exchequer, announced his decision to repeal the corn duty, Chamberlain was forced to make a public declaration of his viewpoint. The Colonial Seoretary had hoped to use the duty as a limited experiment in imperial preference, but failed to get the support of the Cabinet when the Budget was presented in April, 1903. Balfour, seeking to prevent a split in the party leadership, obtained Cabinet approval for tho Ritchie proposals and promised an inouiry into imperial preference. Breaking the tradition of collective responsibility, Chamberlain appealed to the country at Birmingham on Hay 15, 1903 for a preferential trade with the Empire, import duties on speoified non-imperial foodstuffs, and old age 5 pensions funded by tariff revenues. Later in Glasgow, in October, 1903, he would extend his program to include a ten per cent duty on

4 The Labour Leader, Deoember 27, 1902, 409* 5 ^See Julian Amery, The Life of Joseph Chamberlain, Vol V., Joseph Chamberlain and the Tariff Reform Campaign, New York, 1968, 233 manufactured goods. Chamberlain's Tariff Reform Campaign was the most creative Conservative initiative to reconcile alienated labor to the indus­ trial-political establishment since the Disraelian reforms of the 1870's. Unlike the piecemeal, empirical reformism of the earlier period, Chamberlainite reform, attempting to harmonise large com­ binations in industry with the growth of organized labor, empha­ sized a program of national efficiency* This comprehensive view of British economic organization appealed to Conservative indus- 1 trialists and businessmen; however, it was viewed with suspioion by most aristooratic and professional class Conservatism, who pre­ ferred either the traditional laissez-faire, free trade assumptions or the less ambitious sohemeB of W.A.S. Hewins* non-imperial pro- 6 7 teotionism and William Cunningham's autarkic "national" economios. Chamberlain, recognized the divisive effects of his views among the Conservative leadership, resigned from the Cabinet in the fall of 1903.and engaged in a national effort to oonvert the Conservative party and the electorate to tariff reform. Balfour attempted to assume a middle-of-the road position betv»een Chamberlain's supporters and free traders. Baoioally in­ different to the fiscal debate, Balfour had forged on expedient polioy of selective tariff retaliation to reduce foreign tariffs dangerous to British trades. In order to promote his case, he de­ layed in announoing Chamberlain's resignation and ousted Free Traders, who had the mistaken impression that Chamberlain was re- O maining as Colonial Seoretary. Thus, Balfour was able to aohieve

^Heuins eventually became a strong supporter of the Tariff Re- form Campaign; in 1903, he aooepted the secretaryship of the Tariff Commission after having served as President of the Fabian-inspired London School of Economios. See W.A.S.Heuins, Apologia of on Imper­ ialist. vol. I, Hew York, 1929, 100-103; Maokenzie, 0£. cit.. 280-81. *7 _ 'Bernard Seromel, Imperialism end Social Reform, l!ew York, 1962, 207. g Balfour unveiled his polioy at the Rational Union oonferenoe at Sheffield, October 1 and 2, 1903* The three free traders were 234

a degree of Cabinet stability, but at the expense of effective leadership* The Tariff Reform League, formed in the summer of 1903, gave focus to Chamberlain's campaign. At first the appeal was expected to win working olass support* Arthur Pearson, publisher of the Dally Express, propagandised workers through the Trade Union Reform Association.^ At the inaugural meeting of the labor branoh of the Tariff Reform League at Exeter in November, 1904, Sir Charles Fol- lett, a prominent local Conservative figure, affirmed inter-class solidarity and his conviction that the workers preferred the cruar- antee of employment under tariff reform to the economio insecurities of free trade: ...legislative power rested in the hands of the working classes, and it rests with them to say how those (finoal) questions should be deoided. Government exists for the greatest hap­ piness of the greatest number. Some would have you believe that the interests of the working classes ore diametrically opposed to the interests of those who employ them, ond you will hear public speakers urging people not to consent to “roponals because they will not benefit producoro...You ccn- not ruin producers without ruining those they employ...The cause of these predicaments (tho competitive doclino of the iron and steel industries, the outflux of investments and ooal to pay for imports, unemployment, end alien immigration) was traced to high tariffs abroad and none at home.^ Attempts were mode by the Tariff Commission, the "think tank" of the Tariff Reform League, to include working-class representatives in its work of preparing "a sketch tariff which would be submitted to the working men of tho country for their approval".Lepold 3. Aroery, correspondent for the Times and a noted expert in imperial affairs, optimistically assumed that the workers were capable of grasping the

Chr.rlec T. Ritchie (Exchequer), Balfour of Burleigh (Scottish Secretary), and Lord George Hamilton (Indian Secretary). The Duke of Devonshire (Lord President of the Council), in spite of Balfour's efforts to have him remain at his post, resigned shortly afterward in deference to his free trade parliamentary colleagues. ^3emm?l, 0£. cih. 101-102.

10 ' Tariff Reform League Tract no. 60, Library of Political and Ec­ onomic 3cier.ce, London. 11 The Times. January 16, 1904» 14* 235 logic of Chamberlain*s argument: My experience of working-class audiences was that they could grasp any economic argument, however complex, providing it was not blurred in their minds by some unfamiliar or half understood word. In all of their appearances before public audiences, the tariff re­ formers presented the standard message that the rise in unemployment and the cost of living was caused b.y free trade, which encouraged the unfair competition of cheap, imported goods with the products of the home market. This situation, according to their line of reasoning, threatened the living standards of the workers, who were dependent upon the continued prosperity of British industry* To insure the welfare of labor, the British economy needed tariffs for protection from foreign competition and also, imperial preferences for guaranteed sources of food stuffs and raw materials. The anticipated increase in food prices through home tariffs would be compensated by higher wages and by old age pensions, the expenditures for which would be provided by tariff revenues. Chamberlain was still recognised as a champion of sooial reform despite his recent controversial preoccupation with imperialism in the Boer War, and the former Colonial Secretary consoiously appealed to this image in his public addresses. At the outset of the camp­ aign, he stated in Birmingham that X represent Labour as it constitutes the majority of the people of this country, and as it is characterized by the virtues and the rualities that have made this country what it is - by Labour, that is, whioh thinks of itself not as a olasB, opposed to another class in the commuhity, but as responsible for the obligations of the country and the Empire to whioh it belongs, and as par­ ticipating in all that concerns the prosperity and the wel­ fare of the whole.*3

**X.S. Amery, My Political Life, vol. I, England Before the Storm: 1696-1914. London, 1953, W f 7

^The TimeB. Key 16, 1903» 8. A residue of the Tory democratic tradition, inherited from the Dis- raelian period, remained among the vorkera of Lancashire and East London. Chamberlain and his supporters sought to revitalize these Tory Btrongholds by linking the workers' economic and social con­ cerns to patriotism. The campaign was also direoted to the unem­ ployed and to those working in depressed craft or infant industries threatened by foreign competition. Xn June, 1903, a Colonel Eyre, Conservative agent in the Midlands, stated that the workers in his region "are with Hr. Chamberlain", although he was not certain of the role which the promise of old age pensions had in this response.1^ The Conservative agent in Cardiff, Wales, refuted Conservative free traders in their contention that the workers were opposed to tariff reform: At this orisis, I feel thQt...the fiscal policy foreshadowed by Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain is the most popular polioy it is possible to touoh upon in working-class audiences, and if Sir Michael Hicks-Beach or Mr. Ritchie have any doubt upon this point, I would like them to address a meeting and chal­ lenge debate in either of their constituencies. I am firmly convinced that we oan win the next fight on this question and that we shall inevitably lose of we fight on any other issue.*5 The results of by-eleotions, however, disproved these optimietlo assessments. The new labor initiatives, aligned together with a Liberal resurgenoe, contributed to eleotoral support for leftist candidates based on a wide range of issues, including the defense of free trade. This development was particularly revealed at Barnard Castle, where a three way oontest was held in the summer of 1903 between a Unionist tariff reformer, a Liberal free treder, and

Colonel Eyre to Joseph Chamberlain, Chamberlain Papers, Julian Amery, The Life of Joseph Chamberlain, vol. V: Joseph Chamberlain and the Tariff Reform Campaign, 310-11. 237 a Labour free trader. Conservative officials anticipated that the free trade vote would split, allowing the Unionist candidate to win. The Unionist candidate, Thomas Wrightson,noted for his support of housing legislation, wrote to Chamberlain on July 19i stating optim­ istically: I have just returned from the Bernard Castle division where 1 have been speaking last week almost exclusively on the fiscal question. The people there are intensely interested in the subject and seem to oare for little else. The winning of this seat is very important, and I believe there is every probability of your obtaining it as the fruit of your bold policy.16 These expectations were dashed by the victory of the Labour oandidate, Arthur Henderson. This achievement indicated that the strength of working-class support for on independent position, olosely allied with radical Liberalism, arose from a deep-rooted disenchantment with established politics that included but transcended the fiscal contro­ versy. In spite of the dynamism of the Tariff Reform campaign, which contrasted markedly with the inertia of the Balfour Government, working- class institutions, primarily the Trade Union Congress and groups within the L.R.C., such as the Independent Labour Party, were highly oritical of Chamberlainite protectionism and remained staunohly loyal to free trade. The Liverpool branch of the I.L.P., located in on area of traditionally Tory working-olacs politics, expressed interest in tariff reform; but it also wanted assurances that the sacrifices would be worthwhile. In a letter to Chamberlain, its officers revealed their Buspioion of Chamberlain's oonneotions with British capitalism, stating that "it would seem difficult to believe the commercial coro- muhity would pay higherwageB without strikes. When food prices in-

^Tbomas UrigbtEon to Chamberlain, Chamberlain Papers, July 19, 1903, Ibid., 313. 238 17 cre&Be, would wages go up simultaneously?" The general improve­ ment in trade statistics, beginning in late 1903 and 1904* under­ mined Chamberlain*s appeal and benefited the pro-free trade advocates in all parties. A b a result, even the traditionally conservative workers of the beleaguered cotton industry, anticipating that econ­ omic recovery would enable their manufacturing produots to scale most tariff barriers, affirmed in a joint resolution with the employers in July, 1903 (and supported every year thereafter until 1905) that •••the Cotton Employers Parliamentary Association and the U.F.T.W.A., firmly convinced that the great cotton industry of the United Kingdom owes its pre-eminence to and only can be maintained by the polioy of free trade, pledges...to oppose to the utmost•••any proposals which, by imposing taxes on food or raw materials, and so raising the cost of production and living, will cripple (the) already severe struggle to uphold its position in foreign markets, by which eighty per oent of its produce are absorbed.* Tariff reformers, especially those imbued with Tory democratic sentiments, enoouraged Chamberlain to make direot, personal oontaot for potential support with pro-Conservative labor leaders, Henry Chaplin, whose Conservative rooto were nurtured during the days of Disraeli, had maintained dose relationships with Lancashire unionists. He urged Chamberlain in the fall of 1903 to offset trade unionist al­ legiance to free trade by opening negotiations with Thomas Ashton, seoretary of the Cotton Operatives: HiB (Ashton*$ influence among the workers is undoubted. It would be worth everything to you to get them on your side at this juncture. But their tendency at this, moment, being ex­ tra sensitive on food..., inolines the other way. That is the reason of my persistence in seeking to arrest your own personal attention to this phase of the eruestion. How is the tendency to be reversed? The best plan...would be for you to see one or two of them yourself...Concerning the food issue, a moderate pre-

^MessrB, Daniel and Blair to Chamberlain, Chamberlain Papers, June 12, 1903, Ibid.. 312. 18 Cotton Factory Times. January 13» 1905» !• 239

Bentation must be given# Some duty...there must be ; but to start with, till the superstition dies out, the more moderate the better. It would be easy to increase them later if revenue was essential. The recipients of small fixed incomes might ob- jeot but it could also be met by further reductions or remissions of income tax.*9 Chamberlain was hesitant to accept this advioe, fearing the embar­ rassing effects of a public disclosure and the likelihood of a fur­ ther disruption of the party. Refusing to involve himself, he aBked Chaplin to assume responsibility for contacting labor: Could you not manage to see the working man you Bpeak of your­ self, and find out from his own lips how he Btands, and to what extent, he oould help us? It would be well worth the while of the Tariff Reform League to give moderate sums to a few leading Trade Unionists and to set them to work to counterbalance in every way the Radioal orew.,.If we oould get a manifesto signed by a number of respeotable names to be followed by a meeting.•• they would oarry on the discussion in their own way.•.As a rule when trade union leaders Bpeak the workmen are afraid of op­ posing them in publio although they do not hesitate to vote against them at the ballot.20 At Glasgow on Ootober 6, 1903, the Colonial Secretary attempted to dampen labor antimosity to tariff reform by modifying his stance on the rate of imported food duties and proposed reduced taxation on popular working-class commodities, ouch as tea, sugar, oocoa, and ooffee. He also stressed the imposition of duties on foreign manu­ factured imports that competed with .British industries and assured consumers that articles not extensively produced in Britain would be ?1 allowed to enter the oountry duty free. Thus, Chamberlain hoped to convince labor that the fisoal burden would be placed on foreign producers and exporters, allowing protection for British industries • end.consumers. In a speech at Liverpool later in the month, he ep-

^Chaplin to uhrmberlsin, Ubfimberlain Papers, Auguct 4, 19^3, Amery, oo. cit., 313-314* PO Chamberlnin to oheplin, Chrmberlain Paners, Ootober 12, 1903, Ibid., 3lo.

2l The rimes, uoxooer o, tyOA, 4* 240 pealed to rank and file labor against the Trade Union Congress, ar­ guing that free trade, "a middle-class movement", was irreconcilable with trade unionism. The corporative goals of labor, he claimed, were only realisable in a protected economy, whioh would guarantee full 22 employment and high wages. Although logically sound, Chamberlain's position was politically ineffectual since it failed to recognize the solidarity between the membership of the unions and their representatives on free trade. A rational defense of the advantages of tariff reform, especially with the proposed modifications, was incapable of assailing the almost religious reverence given to free trade by its supporters. What impact Chamberlain had on unorganized labor is difficult to as- oertain because of its lack of articulate spokesmen. The Tariff Re­ form League appealed primarily to the Conservative middle olasses, in whoso name it sought to protect the profits of industry and to promote the eoonomio solidification of imperial oonneotions. Tho laok of conorete labor support for tariff reform throughout 1904 and 1905 led the reformers to lessen their emphasis on tariff- finanoed social reform and to give primary attention to the protection­ ist and imperialist aspeots of the campaign. In a letter to the Cov­ entry Trade and Labour Counoil in tho fall of 1905* Chamberlain post­ poned any commitment to old age pensions: ...old age pensions are not a part of the tariff reform program... The disposal of revenue is left for later consideration when the working classes, who', of oourse, constitute the majority of the electorate will be able to make their wishes known.23

22 In response to Chamberlain, W.J. Davies of Birmingham, General Secretary of the Rational Society of Amalgamated Brass Workers, stated: "The Trade Union Congress is essentially a movement to obtain a fair... share of the profit made by manufacturers with the help of labour. Fis- oal protection creates a fiotitious value by putting on taxes whioh the Englishman has to pay, and not the foreigner. Its premise is bad be­ cause., .none of the profit reaohes the aotual producer, who has to pay the extra taxation...If in his opinion, trade unionism is a com­ bination to strengthen...protection, why has he not been consistent? ...He voted againBt a trade disputes bill..." Cotton Factory Times. June 2, 1905» !• JThe Times, Roverober 4, 1905» 11. The labor appeal wen thus Bhifted from issues that pertained to the working-classes as a whole to the patriotic themet which was used, in line with the general Conservative strategy, to reach laborers with particular grievances. Although Chamberlain had linked the aliens is- cue with his demand for preferential-protective tariff legislation from the beginning of his campaign, he exploited this issue with great vigor as a substitute for social reform. Speaking in East London in May, 1905, he warned that the continued flow of foreign labor would tend to lower wages and to provide competition with British workers in the job market.2^ His support for the Aliens bills of 1904 and 1905 represented his perennial attempt since the late nineties to avoid a single-minded commitment to social reform issues, too controversial for the Conservative party to handle without saorificing some of their particular interests. In the early stages of the tariff reform OB-mpaign , social reform was acceptable to reformers due to its containment within a larger package that spec­ ifically catered to widespread Conservative needs. When this exped­ ient course proved to bring no benefits, old age pensions were aban­ doned, as they bed been in the past, in favor of patriotism. Using ingrained "nativist" sentiments in the working dosses to obtain electoral support, Chamberlain and bio supporters hoped that the alienB question would divert working-olass attention from social problems. The Conservative tree traders, in their opposition to tariff 25 reform, refused to even consider a limited sooial reform program. Maintaining a commitment to traditional laissez-faire policy, they .lacked any positive alternative to the innovative formulations of

2*Ibid., June 5, 1905, 7*

^Jlempel, on. oit., 113-114* 242

Chamber lain. Although the Tor.y Democrats, Winston Churchill, Sir J. Dickson-Poynder, John Seeley, and Sir John OorBt were members of the Unionist Free Trade League, their pro-social reform position in this body was diluted by the dominant conservatism of the majority on sooial and economic Questions. Failing to recognize that further installments of social reform rested on the enlargement of the sources of tax revenue, either through tariff reform or levies on the unearned inorement in landed or monied wealth, the Tory champions of social improvement idealistically du n g to platitudes without realistically counting the cost. Like most of their less humanitarian, but more praotioal-minded colleagues, they relied on the initiative of local authorities to promote sooial reform through administrative adjust­ ments, envisioning only a supervisory role for Westminster. At Man­ chester, in February, 1903, Corot stated: Don't put too much faith in central offices and departments of Government...there had been a disposition to expect a good deal too muoh from the central government. There was a greater hope of obtaining administrative reform from looal aithorities closer to the people and more under the control of looal opinion. They were also more ready to make experiments, and were not so wedded to any particular routine system...Devolution to looal author­ ities need not throw the entire expense on the ratesf subventions can be made out of taxes. Disliking both Chamberlain's program of industrial efficiency and the New Liberal-sooialist variants of collectivism, the Tory Democrats rai counter to prevailing sooial and economic tendenoies. Caught between the two alternatives and having little coherent comprehension of their role and objectives, Conservative social reformers, in their advocacy of individualism and localism, became defenders of nineteenth-century values and lost their prophetic voice in Conservative party oiroles.

The Times. February 11, 1903, 5» 243

Still, the Unionist Free Traders found themselves allied with the majority of organized labor on free trade; and with the excep­ tion of national and imperial concerns, shared similar fears about the consequences of tariff reform. The Duke of Devonshire, the leading Conservetive-Unionist peer of free trade convictions, ex­ pressed his worry about a decline in living standards among the working olasses and its negative effeots on the established order: If political advantages £ln the proposed ohanges3 oould only be purchased at the expense of privation and hardship and dis­ content on the part of our ovm people then I can conoeive of no policy which would certainly or more Hwiftiy tend to the dissolution and disintegration of our Empire. ? In regard to depressed industries, Unionist Free Traders felt that the Chamberlain proposals would even worsen the situation. At Preston, in January, 1904, Gorst stated that protection would disrupt trade, seriously endangering the cotton trade upon whioh the area depended, and would, through the food tax, inflict hardships on the poor.2® The social reform asceots of Chamberlain's oampaign proposals were severely oritioized. Reflecting the elitiBm whioh rendered im­ possible any real accord between Unionist free traders, even Tory democrats, and labor, Lord Hugh Cecil looked askanoe at the demagog- uery of the Tariff Reform Campaign: ...it (tariff reform) is to be sweetened by old age pensions for the working classes. Surely this almost madness in its reokleBsness...Protection will be for us what Home Rule has done for the other,

^Bernard Holland, Life of the Duke of Devonshire, vol. II, Hew York, 1913, 315-316, 28 The Times, January 4, 1904, 8.

2^Huah Cecil to Balfour, Balfour Pacers, Hey 24, 1903, 49759, 36. 244

Detached from working-class and social issues, the Unionist Free Traders found a compensation in a more congenial bond with moderate, free trade Liberals. In early 1903 and 1904' secret negotiations were conducted between tbe two groups for closer pol­ itical unity. Expectations were raised that a free trade cabinet under the Duke of Devonshire would end the paralysis of the Balfour Cabinet, providing a more effeotive and broader centrist position. However, fearB of radioal social reform by Liberals kept most Unionist free traders loyal to Conservatism. Likewise, Liberal opposition to the Unionist free traders on eduo?tion blocked a re-alignment of pol­ itical forces on the fisoal cuestion.^ In spite of Conservatism's ability to maintain the loyalty of the majority of its free trade adherents, the political restlessness ad­ ded considerable strain to the already strained connections between the Balfour Government and the Tory Democrats. Agreement on free trade provided a bridge by whioh Churchill, Seely, Diokson-Poynder* and Gorst passed over to the Liberal party in the spring of 1904* On January 26, 1905, at an Oldham free trade rally, over whioh Chur- ohill and he presided, Gorst defended his defection on the grounds that "the people had power by peaceful and legal aotion at the polls to subvert any Government or party in the State which did not make the interests of the people its first object"* He pointed to Cham­ berlain's program as the faotor precipitating his conversion to Liberalism, but his criticism also oontained an implicit rejection of the policies of the Balfour ministry: ...there were leaders who had departed from this sound constit­ utional prinoiple (of consulting the interests of the people), and who looked upon the demooraoy of the country as a body to

^Poirier, ojj. cit., lJjti-160. Rempel, os. oit., 90* ■255

be deluded and persuaded to vote for things which were not to their interests hut to that of the ruling class. The masses of the people at home were to make sacrifices, not for their own benefit, but for the advancement of our supposed greatness and interests abroad.31 By the end of 1904, tariff reform had coneruered most looal Conservative organizations and had seriouoly undermined Balfour's party leadership. On October 27, 1904 oame the passage of an un- 32 compromising proteotionist resolution by the National Union. Austen Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leading advocate of his father's tariff reform policy in the Balfour Cabinet, urged the acceptance of tariff reform by the Government to improve the party's hopeless electoral situatioh: At the present time, the Party viewed as a whole is timid, un­ decided, vacillating. It has no constructive policy. It does not know what is to be its future. It iB exposed to a most oreative and dangerous attaok and it stands timidly on the defensive. How, no party can win on these lines, and, as things stend now, we are already disastrously beaten and every month's delay will only make our oBse worse. But there is no reason why we should thus sit still and let the tide of dis­ aster swamp us. W ecannot win now but we can lay the foundations of future viotory, and even now we may profoundly modify the results of the next eleotion.33 On the other hand, Devonshire warned Balfour of the fatal conse­ quences of any acceptance of tariff reform: The realdanger seems to me to be, not free trade, but to the future of the Unionist party, whioh 1 believe, by the adoption of this polioy would not only for yee.rB exclude itcelf from power, but would weaken its meanB of resistance to the Rad- ioal measures which you a p p r e h e n d . 34

^lThe Times, January 27, 1905, 8* 32 Minutes, N.U.C.C.A., Southampton, October 27, 1904*

"Austen Chamberlain, An exohange of letters with a .J. Balfour, Highbury, Birmingham, August 24, 1904, Politics from the Inside; An Epistolary Chronicle, 1906-1914, New Heven, 1937, 22.

"^Devonshire to Balfour, Balfour Papers, November 8, 1905, 49770, 231-232. p ‘/s’* •255 be deluded and persuaded to vote for things which were not to their interests but to that of the ruling c Is s b . The masses of the people at home were to make sacrifices, not for their own benefit, but for the advancement of our supposed greatness and interests abroad.31 By the end of 1904t tariff reform had concuered most local Conservative organizations and had seriously undermined Balfour's party leadership. On October 27» 1904 came the passage of an un- compromising protectionist resolution by the National Union. Austen Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leading advocate of his father's tariff reform polioy in the Balfour Cabinet, urged the acceptance of tariff reform by the Government to improve the party's hopeless electoral situatioh: At the present time, the Party viewed as a whole is timid, un­ decided, vaoillating. It has no constructive policy. It does not know what is to be its future. It is exposed to a most oreative and dangerous attack and it stands timidly on the defensive. Now, no party can win on these lines, and, as things stand now, we are already disastrously beaten and every month's delay will only mrke our case worse. But there is no reason why we should thus sit still and let the tide of dis­ aster swamp us. Vie cannot win now but we oan lay the foundations of future viotory, and even now we may profoundly modify the results of the next eleotion.33 On the other hand, Devonshire warned Balfour of the fatal oonBe- fruences of any acceptance of tariff reform: The realdanger seems to me to be, not free trade, but to the future of the Unionist party, whioh 1 believe, by the adoption of thiB policy would not only for years exclude itself from power, but would weaken its means of resistance to the Rad- ioal meaBureB which you a p p r e h e n d . 34

^*The Times, January 27» 1905,

^Kinutes. N.U.C.C.A., Southampton, October 27, 1904*

Aurten Chamberlain, An exchange of letters with a .J. Balfour, Highbury, Birmingham, August 24, 1904* Politics from the Inside; An Epistolary Chronicle, 1906-1914, New Haven, 1937, 22.

•^Devonshire to Balfour, Balfour Pacers, November 8, 1905, 49770, 231-232. 246

In order to prevent a disastrous sohism and to prolong the Government*e tenure to oonolude its new diplomatic ventures, the prime minister maintained an enigmatic course of impartiality between the tariff reformers and free traders. In the light of his difficult position, no further controversial issues, such as social reform, were seriously faced; and a dextrous game of parliamentary manuevering was pursued, jjalfour, fearing the radical social implications of a Liberal return to power, . doggedly avoided any parliamentary confrontation with the opposition on any matter that threatened to exploit party differences and to bring down the uovernmont. Attempts were made in publio by Balfour's "retaliationist" supporters to smooth over the differences between the prime minister and uhamoenain; and party leaders, such es Lord Salisbury, in private urged postponement of ficoal reform until the matter was discussed at a oolonial conference and later endorsed by a. national mandate. 35J A.J. Sanders, Balfour's private secretary, found the party's prospects bleak: If some well-considered scheme of Imperirl unity or preferentirl trade with the Colonies could be propounded whioh did not in­ volve a tax on food, it would...be enthusiastically received by our part. In Yorkshire and Lancashire...food taxes are strongly objeoted to. In Sootlnnd, the food tex proposals will ruin our chances. the other hsndj it is impossible for free trade to be selected Cr o ^ur primary electoral isnue3» There is also n dearth of good candidates, many possible candidates refusing to come out until the position is mcr.*e developed. The party paralysis war increased by the rift between party progressives and traditionalists that antedated tariff reform. The right wing bemoaned the party's break from ito aristocratic moorings and its acceptance of democratic politics. In the Rational Review,

^Salisbury to Balfour, Balfour Papers, June 7, 1905, 4975®, 20- 22. " Scndnrs to Balfoi’r, Balfour Panere, December 13, 1?05, 49764, 130-31. 247 a reader found Balfour's Brand of Conservatism lacking in principles: This feeling (of political dominance) has prevented any really Conservative measures being initiated and has disheartened their supporters, who hoped that something tangible might be done to give effect to their views. Of course, it may be said, criticism is easy, whereas constructive legislation is difficult; but surely, from the speeches of Hr, Balfour and others when in op­ position it was not unreasonable to hope that the death duties (passed by the Liberals in 1895) would have been at any rate modified, and that some of the gross injustices and anomalies of the system of rating whioh press so heavily on the landowner and farmer would have been remedied. What has been done? Next to nothing.^7 To the progressive "rump", the Balfour ministry appeared to be drifting without a helmsman: Hr, Balfour possesses in an eminent degree the quality of intel­ lectual detaohment (remarked the Horning Post, He has the rare gift of taking in completely a disinterested view. It is a fine quality in a statesman, for without it the breadth of mind and the fi:ll and impartial grasp of any subjeot are difficult to ob­ tain, But we suspect Hr, Balfour to have an excess of this noble Gift (with) perhaps too little in contaot with oommonplaoe re­ ality- . 38 By the end of 1905, the Government was close to collapse as a result of these divisions; hoping to benefit from Liberal internal 39 squabbles over the question of Irish Home Rule, ' Balfour resigned in December, I905 to prepare for a forthcoming general election. The results of the election of January, 1906 revealed the full extent of the loss of Conservative support in the oountry.

57'Robert Greeley, "Discontent Among Conservatives", Rational Re­ view. vol. 45, April, 1905, 365-366.

^Horning Post. April 7» 19°5» 6.

^Poirier, op. oit., 247-248. 248 With the exception of Chamberlain*s stronghold in the Midlands and Arohibald Salvidge's baliwick in Liverpool, where the looal party machine appealed to anti-Irish home rule sentimentst every­ where the Conservatives suffered setbaoks. This was especially noticeable in the traditionally Tory working-olasB constituencies of Lancashire and East London, where the Conservatives lost forty- two seats to L.R.C., Liberal, and independent candidates.^ Receiving the support of the cotton operatives, the Labour Representation Committee by 1906 had extended its influence in Lancashire among Conservative workers who sympathised with its free trade position and its demand for the reversal of Taff Vale. In a leading editorial on January 12, 1906, the Cotton PaotOry Times foretold the widespread defection of workers to Liberal and Labour candidates: Parliament has too long been the playground and olubhouse of the rich, and reforms have come with painful slowness. In faot, in Trade Union matters, we have actually been regressing of late yearB, and there will be considerable leeway to make up before we reaoh the ante-Taff Vale position. Then there will be much to do before the trade unions enjoy the liberty ac­ corded toother combinations. The parliamentary problem has been more serious than it had been for forty years. The unemployed question has become a pernicious crime against sooiety. The old age pensions difficulty has beoome more acute, whilBt housing, wages, loud, eto. have all pressed Labour into taking notion on its own behalf.4* In spite of the attempts of individual Conservative candidates to present a flexible attitude in their campaigns, the unpopular rec­ ord of the Government made working-olass voterB suspioious of theBe

^Stanley Salvidge, Salvidge of Liverpool. London, 1934, 48-49* A.X. R u b b s II, Liberal Landslide, Newton Abbot, England, 1973, 152, 156. ^T h e Cotton Paotory Times, January 5» 1906, 4; January 12, 1 9 0 6 , 4 . 249 appeals. In Bolton, Labour's i.H, Gill defeated both the Moderate Liberal George Harwood and the staunch free trade, bat anti-sooial refora, Unionist oandidate, G,J, Gosohen,^2 The Unionist Jases T, Travis-Clegg, although affirming the need for a fair trades dis­ pute bill, was defeated at Stalybridge by the Liberal J,F, Cheethaa. on the basis of his unpopular commitment to industrial protectionism^3 Even Conservative free trade supporters were rejeoted as a result of their close association with Balfour polioies. In Ashton-under-Lyme, H.J, Whiteley advocated free trade, the extension of the Workmen's Compensation Act, the taxation of ground values, and trades dispute legislation; but he lost to the Liberal JUH, Soott as a result of 44 his willingness to aooept fiscal reform, The depth of working- olaBB estrangement from Conservatism in the Northeast was moBt poignantly reflected in Balfour's defeat in East Manchester to an 45 unknown Liberal barrister, T*C« Horridge, ** In East London, Conservatives appealed to the aliens issue and to trades dispute legislation and other pro-labor proposals, but their efforts were generally unsuccessful. In Limehouse, Sir Harry S, Samuel cited his role in the Government's provision of compen­ sation to unemployed lightermen (whose ferrying trade had been jeo­ pardised by London bridge construction) and hiB advooaoy of retal­ iatory tariffs as evidences of his interest in the working classes. However, workers, more oonoerned about the effects of tariffs on 46 living oosts, supported his Liberal opponent, W, Pearoe, In the Bow and Bromley division, Arthur du Cros supported extensive working- olass measures, such as anti-sweating legislation and a comprehensive

^2Ibid.. January 12, 1906, 1, 43Ibid., January 5, 1906» January 19, 1906, 1, ^Ibid,

^ T h e Times. January 7* 1906, 4» 46 East End News, January 6, 1906, 5» January 19* 1906, 1, 2 5 0 unemployment bill providing publio works at Government expense* Bis support for retaliatory tariffs, however, contributed to the viotory of the Liberal candidate, W*S*S* Brooke.47 The only sig­ nificant Conservative triumph was in Stepney, where the support of anit-aliens legislation and trade union immunity quarantees over­ shadowed fiscal reform, enabling Sir W. Bvans-Cordon to retain his seat.4 The eleotion of 1906 significantly altered the balanoe of power in Parliament. Before the polling began on January 12, 370 Conser­ vatives and 218 Liberals sat in the Bouse of Commons; the Liberal landslide plaoed 157 Conservatives in opposition to 377 Liberals, 83 Irish Nationalists, and 53 Labour members (oomposed of 29 sup­ porters of the L.R*C* and 24 Lib-Labs)*4^ Severely deflated by the results, Balfour maintained an unrepentant attitude and attributed Conservative losses to Labour's oleotoral influenoo. On January 27, writing to Lord Stanley, who had loot his Lanoashiro seat to tho Labour oandidate, W.T. Wilson, he stated that I never doubted that your defeat was due to Labour* And you probably had the same experience that I had, namely, that the constituency did not the least want to argue any question at all exoept Chinese Labour, whi.oU was a convenient peg upon whioh to hang their programme*5° After the eleotion, Balfour was also challenged from within his own party by the Chamberlainite supporters, who attributed the eleotoral loss to the failure of the party to take a firm, offioial stand in support of tariff reform* Of the 157 Conservatives eleoted

47Ibid.. 6.

48Ibid., January 19, 1906, 1. ^Poirier, op. oit*, 247-248. **8DonniB Judd, "Radioal" Joe. London, 1977» 261, In 1904* the Balfour ministry allowed South African mine owners to import and em­ ploy Chinese coolies. The squalor of the workers' compounds aroused indignation in Britain. The polioy of "Chinese slavery" particularly angered uorkers, who viewed it as a reflection of the Conservative Government's low regard for the rights of labor* 251 to the Commons, 79 *e*e strong supporters of the Chamberlain program; .51 another 23 leaned in that direotion. Consequently, the former prime minister was faced with the loss of the party leadership if he failed to make oonoeBsions to the tariff reformers. Chamberlain called for a meeting of the party leadership on February 17 to of­ ficially support tariff reform. To avert this threat, Balfour in the "Valentine Letters" oompaot with Chamberlain, aooepted the principle of tariff reform in return for the support of the tariff reformers! X hold that Fiscal Reform is, and must remain, the first con­ structive work of the Unionist Party. That the object of such reforms are to secure more equal terms of competition for „ British trade, and oloser commercial union with the colonies. The asoendanoy of tariff reform in official Conservative oiroles was aooompanied by demandB from Chamberlain's supporters for a reorgan­ isation of the party along more demooratio lines. On February 17* 1906, Chamberlain wrote to Archibald Salvidge, Liverpool Tory boost X am anxious that the representative Associations of Party shall now be reviewed, especially with the objeot of pop­ ularising them and of securing the oordial aBSistanoe of the working olasses. They form the vast majority of the electors and they ought to have a prominent plaoe in all our organis­ ation. He have a great deal of popularisation work to do, but we have time before us, and, having satisfactorily determined the basis of our polioy, we can proceed with confidence to secure a more effioient and democratic representation. Tariff reform and the demoorstisation of party structures were not the only oonoerns. Sooial reform, along safe and constructive lines, reemerged as an issue with whioh to challenge the Liberals.

Times, February 15, 1906, 5. 52 *' Chamberlain to Salvidge, Chamberlain Papers, February 17, I9O6, Amery op. cit., 864. 252

In the Westminster Review, the Conservative commentator, Dudley S.A. Crosby oalled for the party to abandon its preoooupatlon with the fiscal question, which was not a genuinely popular attraotion, and to devote its efforts to sooial improvements* The stem and respected Constitutionalism of the late Lord Sal- ' isbury has given place to an opportunistic regime, in whioh party triumph has counted more than efficiency in government* And of Conservatism is ever to regain its former position in the country, it must reconstitute itself more in harmony with the twentieth century requirements of a thoroughly up-to-date demooraoy, whioh is no longer dependent on what is told by the publioan over a mug of beer at his counter* The demooraoy of the oountry has commenced to think and judge for itself, and the wisest policy.••for the Conservatives now to pursue, is to drop the fisoal bogey and seek to re-unite the party on a strong policy of sooial reforms. For why should it be thoughts that Liberals only have a monopoly of ideas for sooial reform? In the Nineteenth Century, another publicist, Fabian Ware, eohoed these Tory democratic sentiments in his oastigation of both the Bal­ four Government and the tariff reformers for failing to hoed the wishes of the electorate: ...murmurs are, indeed heard form the party rank and file, oom- plaining that it was because the Conservative leaders had lost sight of the essential principles of lory demooraoy that they so utterly failed to command the oonfidenoe of the people at the recent eleotions. But deeper and more widespread is the consciousness that the abandonment of these principles aooounts for the lack of oohesion throughout the party, itBelf, far more than the immediate issues raised by the Fisoal question.74 In spite of artioulate support for sooial reform without tar­ iffs in the Tory preBB and among many of the rank and file, tariff reform sffeotively oaptured the party in the years following the 1906 General Eleotion. It became the baBis of a Conservative alternative

^^D, Crosby, "The Conservative Disaster and What It Signifies", Westminster Review, vol. 165* March, 1906, 236.

^Fabian Ware, "Conservative Opportunists and Imperial Demooraoy", Nineteenth Century, vol. 61, Raroh, 1907, 405* 253

to the Liberal Government * a intention to finance its social programs by land taxes and increased death duties and income taxes. Although Chamberlain's stroke in 1906 lessened his personal contribution to this effort, Balfour and other Conservative leaders had gradually con­ verted by 1909 to the use of tariff revenues to fund old age pensions and armaments. Mistaking partisan ends for the national interest, the Conservatives had used their majority in the Lords to block Liberal constitutional, educational, and agricultural measures from 1906 to 1908, With the introduction of the Lloyd George "People's Budget" of I909, the Conservative tariff plans were undercut; and the alarmed Conservatives, still smarting from their eleotoral humiliation and faced with the prospeot of sooial and armament Bohemes finanoed by the upper classes, vainly attempted to continue their course of acting against demooratio conventions. However, in confronting the Liberals, they were careful not to direotly oppose the Government's sooial re­ form legislation. These measures (suoh as trade union immunity; uni­ versal, state-financed old age pensions; labor exchanges; minimum wage standards for sweated trades, and the provision of children's meals) fulfilled public aspirations for reform whioh the majority of Conser­ vatives had ignored while in office; in exercising disoretion, the Opposition, in spite of its continuing intransigence in other areas, had at least learned the lesson from 1906 that the working classes oould not bo opposed on sooial reform without risking the party's existence as 0 viable political force. 254 Conclusion

Pro* to 1905 , the Conservative leadership oontinned to operate within the framework established during the Disraelian era. However, the growing tensions within British polities, oaused by the threatened diminution of Britain*s supreme position as a mil­ itary-industrial power and hy growing domestic dissatisfaotion with sooial inequality, prevented the developnent of new initiatives. A broad politioal alignment among the defenders of the status quo for the preservation of the Union with Ireland allied the party with Liberal Unionist opponents of Gladstone's Bone Rule. This development contributed to Conservative electoral viotofies, en­ abling the Conservatives to maintain politioal dominance during most of the period. The leadership became almost smug and oomplaoent about the breadth and durability of the party's appeal, espeoially its appeal to traditional working-olass supporters. The speotor of divisive olass politlos was associated with the promotion of any extensive sooial reforms; and in spite of the protests from a minority, the party ohiefs avoided any measures that would spot­ light sooial cleavage, alienate propertied interests, and undermine what was considered a most advantageous political position. This illusion of politioal seourity within ,the oontext of the Btatus quo meant that the parliamentary party continued to pass timely and safe sooial legislation, but failed in adapting its traditional formulas to the oolleotivist politioal tendenoies of the late nine­ teenth and early twentieth oenturies. The stress on the imperial commitment and national unity to the neglect of social issues* was successful in the time of Disraeli but disastrous in the time of Salisbury and Balfour. The Tariff Reform Campaign of 1903-1905, when an original all-encompassing Conservative-Unionist approach to the solution of the sooial and economio problem was proposed 255 by Joseph Chamberlain, nearly tore the party apart; but even in this case, social reform - including old age pensions - took Beoond plaoe to the strengthening of ties of empire and to the protection of British industries. Although the party leadership laoked the flexibility and imagin­ ation to re-arrange the Disraelian priorities, it was also impeded by oiroumstanoes beyond its oontrol that favored the olaBS-orlented politios it wished to avoid. The growth of the politioal and eoon- omio power of the organised labor movement was inimical to Conservative interests no matter what type of olive branoh was extended to the Trade Union Congress. Labor was demanding greater, if not total, self-determination and was emerging aB an independent politioal foroe or as a pressure group allied with a more sooially-aware Lib­ eralism. After 1898, the Conservative leadership was able to avoid the full implications of the sooial issue by concentrating on pressing international and imperial affairs or by containing the disruptive effeotB of the sooial issue in a larger effort, such as tariff re­ form. But the importanoe of the sooial question oould not be ig­ nored or trivialised if the party wished to survive a major debacle. Considering the unpopular educational, military, and liquor lioensing measures passed by the Balfour Government from 1902 to 1905 and the divisions in the party oaused by Tariff Reform, a more forthright commitment to sooial reform would not necessarily have enabled the Conservatives to maintain enough support to win the 1906 eleotion. But it might well have served to make the Conservative rout less severe. The lesson learned by this massive defeat foroed the party to re-evaluate totally its relationship with the eleotorate. 'BIBLIOGRAPHY

Private Papera

Arthur J. Balfour Papere. British Museum. Joseph Chamberlain Papers* University of Birmingham Library* Henry Chaplin Papers* Durham County Counoil Archives* Aretas Afcers-Douglas (Lord Chilston) Papers. Kent County Council Arohlvec Randolph Churchill Papers* Churchill College Library, Cambridge* Michael Hicks Beaoh Papers* Gloucestershire County Council Arohives* Henry James (Lord James of Hereford) Papers* Hereford and Worcester County Counoil Arohives* Lord Salisbury (Robert Ceoil) Papers* Hatfield House Library, Hertfordshire* Matthew W* Ridley Papers* Northumberland County Council Arohives* J*W* Sandare Papers* Department of Western Manuscripts, Bodleian Library, Oxford*

Unpublished Offloial Reoords (Great Britain) Publio Reoord Office* Cabinet Papers*

Published Documents (Great Britain) Parliamentary Papers* Cad* 7421* I894. "Report of the Royal Commission on Labour"* Cmd. 7684* 1899. "Report of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor"*

Other Official Published Reoords (Great Britain)

Parliamentary Debates, 4tb Series, Bouses of Commons and Lords*

Conservative Party Documents* Minutes of the National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations, 1886-1909* Minutes of the Glasgow Conservative and Constitutional Association, 1885-1905.

256 257 The Campaign guide and Election Notes, 1885-1906#

National Onion OleaningB and Memoranda, 1893-1906,

The Tory. 1892-1906,

Tariff Reform League, Leaflets and Annual Reports, 1903-1906.

Liberal Onion 1st J&2M£I l£b .

Liberal Unionist Memoranda, 1893-1906,

Minutes of the Liberal Unionist Association of Sootland. Western Division, 1886-1906, vols, 1-3} Eastern and Northern Division, 18B6-1906, vol. 1.

Liberal Party Documents,

Liberal Magasine. 1894-1906,

Labor and Trade Union Documents.

Annual Reports of the Trade Union Congress, 1885-1906, Annual Reports of the Labour Representation Committee, 1902-1905*

Hagasines and Journals (Primary) The Annual Register. 1886-1906, Blackwood1» Edinburgh Magasine. 1886-1906. The Contemporary Review. 1886-1906. The Eoonomist. 1886-1906. The Edinburgh Review. 1886-1905* The Fortnightly Review, 1886-1905* Journal of the Kensington Parliament, 1894-1895* The Nation. 1902-1906. National Review, 1886-1906, Nineteenth Century. 1886-1906, Quarterly Review. 1886-1906. Saturday Review. 1886-1906, Spectator. 1886-1906, Westminster Review. 1886-1906. I

258

Books (Primary) Alden, Percy. The Unemployed. London, 1985* Aschrott, P.L. (trans. H.P. Thomas). The English Poor Law System Past and Present. London, 1902. Ashley, Sir W.J. The Tariff Problem. London, 1920. Booth, Charles. Life and Labour of the People of London. London, 1903. Chamberlain, Joseph, (ed. Charles Boyd). Mr. Chamberlain*s Speeohes. Hew Tork, 1914. Drage, Oeoffrey. The Unemployed. London, 1894* Oorst, Sir John. The Children of the Hation. London, 1906. Vhates, Henry R. The Third Salisbury Administration. Westminster, 1900.

Hewspapers (Primary) Blackburn Weekly Standard. Birmingham Daily PoBt. Birmingham Oasette. Cotton Paotory Times. Daily Chronicle. Daily News• East End News. Evening News and Post. Justioe. Kensington News. Labour Leader. Liverpool Daily Post. Liverpool Evening Express. Oldham Evening Chroniole• Manchester Courier• Manchester Guardian. People Preston Guardian Sheffield and Rotherham Independent. 259

Standard, The Times.

Web tern Kail, Yorkshire Paetory Tines•

BooIcb (Seoondary)

Adamson, J,W, English Education, 1789-1902, Cambridge, 1950,

Allan, C.S. The Bousing cf the Working Classes Acts. 1890*1909,

Amery, Julian. The Life of Joseph Chamberlain: The Tariff Reform Campaign, vole. 5 and 6 (Garvin and Amery. The Life of Joseph Chamherlaln. vole. 1-6), Hew York, I960,

Amery, L.S. My Political Life, vol. 1 (England Before the Storat 1896-1914). London, 1955.

Ashworth, W. An Boonomlc History of England. 1870-1939. London, I960,

Barker, Kiohael. Gladstone and Radicalism. Harvester Press, Sussex, 1975.

Battisoomhe, Georgina. Shaftesbury: The Great Reformer. Bhston, 1975*

Best, G.F.A. Shaftesbury.. London, 1964.

Bealey, P. and Polling. H. Labour and Polities. 1900-1906. London. 1958.

Beer, Samuel. Modern British Politics. London, 1965*

Blake, Robert, The Conservative Party from Peel to Churchill. Hew York, 1971.

. Disraeli. London, 19

Braine, Bernard. Tory Demooraoy. London, 1948.

Briggs, A. and Saville, J. Essays in Labour History* London, I960.

Briggs, A. Viotorian Cities. London, 1963.

Brown, Benjamin. The Tariff Reform Campaign in Great Britain. New York, 1945------260 Broun, Kenneth, (ed.) Kbsaysin Anti-Labour History. London, 1974*

. Labour and the Unemployed. London, 1971*

Bruoe, Maurice. The Cowing of the Welfare State. London, 1965.

Butler, B.S. The Eleotoral System in Oreat Britain. London,

Ceoil, Lady Gwendolen. Life of Bohert. Marquis of Salisbury. Vole. 1-3, London, 1921-1932.

Chamberlain, Aneten. PolitioB Proa the Inside. Rev Haven, 1937*

Chapman, Stanley B. The History of Working-Class Housing. Newton Abbot, England, 1971.

Chilston, Visoount E. Chief Whip* The Politioal Life and Tines of Aretea Akers-Douglas/London. 19t»l.

Christie, O.F. The Transition to Demooraoy. London, 1934*

Churchill, Randolph S. Lord Derbyt King of Lancashire. London, 1959* ; Winston Spenoer Churohill. Vol. 2 Young Statesman. 1900-1914. London, I967.

Clegg, H.A., Fox, A. and Thompson, A.F. A History of British Trade Unionism Sinoe 1989. Vol. 1. Oxford, 1964*

Cole, G.D.H. British Working-Class Politics: 1632-1914. London, 1941. Cole, Q.D.H. and PoBtgate, Raymond. The British Common People. 1746-1938. New York, 1939-

Be Sohweints, Karl. England»s Road to Sooial Security. Philadelphia, 1943. Driver, C. Tory nadical: the Life of Richard Pastier. New York, 1946.

Emy, H.V. Liberals. Radicals and Social Politics. Cambridge, 1973*

Ensor, R.C.K. Englandt 1870-1914. Oxford, 1936.

Feuobtwanger, E.J. Disraeli. Demooraoy. and the Tory Party. Oxford, 1968.

Fraser, W. A History of British Public Health. 1834-1939. London, 1950. 261

Gartner, Lloyd P. The Jewish. Immigrant in England. 1870-1914. Wayne State University, I960.

Garvin, J.L. Life of Joseph Chamberlain# Tola. 1-4* New York, 1932- 1933*

Gilbert, Bentley. She Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britain. London, 193&*......

Gooch, O.P. The Life of Lord Courtney. London, 1920.

Gnlley. 5. Joseph Chamberlain and English Sooial Politioa. New York. 1926. ------Gnttsnan, W.L. The British Political Elite. London, 1963.

Gwyn, W.B. Deaooracy and the Cost of Politioa in Great Britain. London, 19*>2.

Halevy, Elie. A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Centnry. Vol. 4* Viotortan Years. 1641-1895. 1951; Vol. 5: Imperialism and the Biae of Labour. New York* 1931* Haaer, B. The Radioal Programme. Harvester Press, Sussex, 1971.

Banes, David. 0. The First British Workmens* Compensation Aot, 1897. Dew Ileven, Conn., 1968. — — — 4 Banham, H.J. Elections and Party Management. Politics in the Time of Disraeli and Gladstone. London, 1939*

Harris, Jo b s . Unemployaent and Politics. Oxford, 1972. Eeamshaw, F.J.C. Conservatism in England. London, 1933*

Hewins, W.A.S. dpftlogia of an Imperialist. Vol. 1. London, 1929*

Hill, R.G. Toryism and the People. 1832-1846. London, 1929*

Hobsbawn, Brio. Industry and Empire (The Felioan Eoonomio History of Britain, Vol. III). London, 1968. Holland, Bernard, Life of the Duke of Devonshire. Vol. I and 2. London, 1911. 262

Hurst, Michael, Joseph Chamberlain and Liberal Reuniont The Round- Table Conference of 1887. London. 1967*

Hutohias, B.L. A History of Factory Legislation. London, 1911.

James, Robert Rhodes. Lord Randolph Churchill. London, 1958.

Jenkins, Roy. Asquith . New York, 1966.

Jennings, Sir Ivor. Party Politics. Vol. 1-3* Cambridge, 1961. Judd, Dennis. "Radical" Joe. London, 1977*

Kennedy, A.L. Salisbury. London, 1953* Kirk, R. The Conservative Mind. Chicago, 1934*

Lindsay T. and Harrington, D. The Conservative Party Leadership. 1916-1970. London, 1974-

Lowe, C.J. The Reluctant Imperialists. New York, 1967*

Lynd, H.K. England in the 1880*8. London, 1945*

Maokensie, R.T. Angels in Marble. Chicago, 1968. . The British Political Parties. London, 1955*

Maokensie, Norman and Jean. The First Fabians. London, 1977*

Mackintosh, J.P. The British Cabinet. London, 1968.

MoBriar, A.M. Fabian Socialism and British Politiosi 1884-1918. Cambridge, 1962.

MoDouell, R. British Conservatism. 1832-1914. London, 1959*

Karr, T.R. Housing Conditions in Manchester and Salford. Manchester, 1904. Kasterman, C.'F.’G. (ed.) The Heart of Empire. Harvester Press, Sussex, 1973*

Master man, Luoy. C.F.O. MaBterman. London, 1939>

Miohaels, R. Politioal Parties. London, 1913*

Kowat, C.L. The Charity Organisation Society. 1869-1913> London, 1961. 263

Hordlinger, Erie. The Working-olaBG Tories. Berkeley, 1967*

OBtrogorski, K. Democracy and the Organization of Politioal Parties. Hew York, 1902.

Owen, David. English Philanthropy.

Polling, H. A History of British Trade Unionism. London, 1963*

. Popular Politios and Society in Late Victorian Britain. London, 196&.

. The Social Geography of Britioh Elections; 1665-1910* London, 1967*

Petrie, Sir Charles. Walter Long and His Times. London, 1936.

Poirier, Philip P. The Advent of the British Labour Party. Hew York, 1958.

Price, Iliohard. An Imperial War and the British Working-Class. London, 1972.

Hcmpel, Richard A. Unionists Divided: Arthur J. Balfour, Joseph Chamberlain, and Unionist Free Traders. Hewton A^bot, 1972.

Robb, Janet. The Primrose League. Hew York, 1942.

Roberts, B.C. The Trade Union Congress, 1666-1921. London, 1958*

Robson, R.A. (ed.) Ideas and Institutions of Viotorian Britain. London, 1971*

Russell, A.E. The Liberal Landslide. Hewton Abbot, 1973*

Salvidge, A. Salvidge of Liverpool. London, 1934*

Searle, G.R. The ?ueet for National Effioiency. Berkeley, 1971*

Seromel, Bernard. Imperialism and Sooial Reform. Mew York, 1982.

Simon, Brian. Education and the Labour Movement, 1870-1920. London, 1965. "

Smith, F.B. The Ilal:ing of the Second Reform Bill. Cambridge, 1966,

Smith, Taul. Disraelian Conservatism and Sooial Reform. London, 1967*

Somervell, D.C. British Politico Since 1900. London, 195°* 264

Southgate. Donald (ed.) The Conservative Leadership. 1832-1932. New York, 1974.

Stansky, Peter. The Victorian Revolutions Government and Sooiety in Viotoriaa Britain. New York, 1973.

Thompson, F.K.L. English Landed Sooiety in the Nineteenth Century. London, 1963.

Thompson, P. Socialists. Liberals, and Labours Struggle for London. 1 8 8 5 -1 9 1 4 : ------

Ward, J.T. The Factory Hours Rovegent. London, 1962.

Webb, Beatrioe. An Apprenticeship. London, 1928.

. Our Partnership. London, 1948.

Webb, Sidney and Beatrioe. The History of Trade Unionism in Great Britain. London, 1920.

. Industrial Demooraoy. London, 1897.

White, B.D. History of the Corporation of Liverpool. 1835-1914* Liverpool, 1951*

White, R. The Conservative Tradition. New York, 1950.

Wilkinson, W.J. Tory Demooraoy. New tork, 1925*

Young, Kenneth. Arthur James Balfour. London, 1963*

Zebel, S.H. Balfour. Cambridge, 1973.

Magasines and Journals (Seoondary)

Aydelotte, William. "The Conservative and Radical Interpretation of Early Victorian Sooial Refora", Victorian Studies, vol. 2 (December, 1967), 225-36. Bretner, J.B. "Laisees-Faire and State Intervention in Nineteenth- Century Britain", Journal of Economic History, vol. 8, supp. 1948, 59-73. 265 Blesett, Neal. "The Franchise in the United Kingdom, 1885-1918", PaBt and Present, vol. 32, (Deoember, 1965), 27-56. Brand, G.F. "Ihe Conversion of the British Trade Unions to Politioal Aotion", Anerioan Historical Bevies, vol. 30, 1924-1925, 251-70. Cornford, Janes P. "The Transformation of Conservatian in the Late Nineteenth Century", Vlotorian Studies, vol. 2, 1958-59, 289-304. Bnnbahin, J.P.B. "The Politioa of the Establishment of County Counoila", Hlstorloal Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, 1963, 226-52. Enaor, B.C.I. "Sose Politioal and Eoonomio Interaotiona in Late Viotorian England", The Royal Historical Sooiety, 4th aeries, vol. 31 (1949), 17-28. Fraser, Peter. "The Liberal Unionist Allianoe. 1886-1904", English Hiatorloal Review, vol. 77 (January, 1962), 53-75* Olickman, Harvey. "The Toryism of English Conservatian", Journal of British Studies, vol. 1 (November, 1961), 118-132. Hart, J. "Nineteenth Century Sooial Befornt a Tory Interpretation of Our History", Past and Present, vol. 31, 1965, 39-61. Mallalieu, W.C. "Joseph Chaaberlain and Workmen's Compensation", Journal of Eoonomio History, vol. 10 (Hay, 1950), 45”57. HunBon, J.E.B. "The Unionist Coalition and Eduoation, 1895-1902", Historical Journal, vol. 20,(September, 1977), 642-659* PumphrdSp, B.E. "The Introduction of Industrialists into the British Peerage", Anerioan Historical Review, vol. 125, 1959-60, 1-16. Roberts, B. "Tory Paternalism and Sooial Reform in Early Viotorian England", Anerioan Historical Review, vol. 63 (January, 1958) 323-337* Tholfsen, T.R. "The Transition he Demooraoy in Viotorian England", International Review of Sooial History, vol. 6, 1961, 226- 245; Thompson, F.H.L. "Land and Politioat Some Politioal and Eoonomio Interactions in Late Viotorian England" Royal Historical Soo­ iety, 4th Series, vol. 31 (1949), 17-28. Tuoker, Albert V. "W.H. Mallook and Late Viotorian Conservatism", University of Toronto Quarterly, vol. 31, (January, 1962), 223-241* Urwin, D.W. "The Development of Conservative Party Organisation in Scotland", Soottish Historical Review, vol. 44 (Ootober, 1965) 89-111* 266 Unpublished Works (Seoondary)

Gartner, B. The Aliens Invasioni the Origins of the 1905 Aliens Act* Ph.D. Dissertation, Cartridge University, I909. Kohan, R* British Politioal Attitudes and the Booal Government Aot of 1694. Masters Thesis*- Ohio State University, 1974*

«