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 Paga(s|“. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or 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 comer 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. 6. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zt«b Road Ann Aitor, Michigan 43100 75-3052 DUNCAN, Robert Samuel, 1946- BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY RADICALISM, 1886-1895: THE ORIGINS AND IMPACT OK THE NEWCASTLE PROGRAM. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974 History, modem Xerox University Microfilms ,Ann Arbor, Michigan 40106 © 1974 ROBERT SAMUEL DUNCAN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. BRITISH PARLIAMENTARY RADICALISM, 1886-1895I THE ORIGINS AND IMPACT OF THE NEWCASTLE PROGRAM DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Robert Samuel Duncan, B.A., M.A The Ohio State University 1974 Reading Committeei Approved By Dr. Philip P. Poirier Dr. R. Clayton Roberts Dr. Carl Boyd Department of History ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due to the staffs of the British Museum* the Colindale Newspaper Library, the Boaverbrook Library, and the Sheffield University Library for their assistance. A special thanks must go to the staff of the National Library of Wales whose friendly help and assistance made my stay in Aberystwyth a pleasure. 1 am indebted to Professor Philip Poirier for his patience in working with me on matters of organization and style. His suggestions were most helpful. To Professors Clayton Roberts, Carl Boyd, and John Muste go my gratitude for having taken time from their vacations to read this dissertation. For the constant encouragement and solace of my wife, Nancy, I will be forever grateful. Her aid as research assistant made completion of this dissertation possible. To her this work is affectionately dedicated. ii VITA December 5, 1946 Born— Lusk, Wyoming 1968 B.A., Denison University, Granville, Ohio 1969 Teaching Assistant, Department of History, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas 1970 M.A., Wichita State University Wichita, Kansas 1970-1974 Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field* Modern Britain, 1715 to the Present Tudor and Stuart Britain. Professor R. Clayton Roberts Modern France. Nineteenth Century Europe. Professor John A. M. Rothney European Economic History. Twentieth Century Europe. Professor Robert A. Gates iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................. ii VITA ............................................... iii Chapter I. RADICALISM AND LIBERAL POLITICS ........ I II. RECOVERY AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, 1886-1868 36 III. POLITICS AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, 1888-1891 86 IV. THE NEWCASTLE PROGRAM ................... 129 V. VICTORY AND THE FORMATION OF THE GOVERNMENT................................ 148 VI. RADICALS AND GLADSTONE’S ADMINISTRATION, 1892-1894 182 VII. RADICALS AND ROSEBERY’S ADMINISTRATION, 1894-1895 221 VIII. CONCLUSION................................ 282 APPENDIX I. RESOLUTIONS OF THE NATIONAL LIBERAL FEDERATION, 1886-1895 294 II. LETTERS CONCERNING LABOUCHERE’S EXCLUSION FROM THE GOVERNMENT, 1892 .... 297 BIBLIOGRAPHY 302 CHAPTER 11 RADICALISM AND LIBERAL POLITICS In the decade following the Home Rule split of 1886 the Radicals increasingly shaped and sometimes even controlled the stated policy of the Liberal party. However, the effect this Radical influence had on the parliamentary leadership of the party, particularly on Gladstone, was significantly less than the Radical section both desired and expected. Study of this decade indicates that in the years prior to the general election of 1892 the Radical section grew in size, in influence, and in respectability. New Radical leaders emerged to take the place of those lost in 1886 and it was expected that the next Liberal Cabinet would have a decidedly Radical composition, at least when compared to Gladstone's previous Cabinets. The Whigs were gone, or at least greatly reduced in numbers, and the Radicals no longer faced the fierce opposition to several of their cherished proposals that had confronted them before 1886. Year by year the program approved by the annual meeting of the National Liberal federation became more Radical. This process culminated in 1891 with the adoption of the Newcastle Program. That program was approved not only by the delegates assembled at Newcastle but also by Gladstone who seemed to give it his blessing in an address to the conference. The Radicals were euphoric. They felt they had taken over the party. Even the mighty Gladstone had acceded to their demands. In spite of the Parnell scandal and the lack of enthusiastic support for Home Rule by many Liberal politicians and voters* it was clear that the Liberal party should win the next general election. Radicals concluded that following this expected triumph their program* the Newcastle Program* would be transformed quickly into legislation. 1892 brought the anticipated Liberal victory* although the party was disappointed by their small majority. This was particularly true of Gladstone and the rest of the leadership which recognized that a large majority was necessary to force Home Rule on the House of Lords. Still it was expected that Gladstone and his Cabinet would carry important measures from the Newcastle Program. This was not to be. The next three years were years of almost constant disappointment for the Radicals. Gladstone*s Cabinet was composed mostly of the old guard. The Government did not move quickly. A year after the election Ireland was still the major issue before Parliament, Even after t he Irish question was temporarily disposed of and the L.prds had rejected the Home Rule Bill by an overwhelming margin the Government would not be hurried and only rarely resorted to closure to get bills through the House of Commons. Gladstone's resignation in the spring of 1894 signalled another downward turn for the Radicals and the Government. Conflict began when Rosebery accepted the Queen's commission to form a government. Dissension was the order of the day. There was dissension within the Government, dissension outside the Cabinet, and dissension between the leadership and the mass of the parliamentary party. That the Rosebery premiership lasted so long came as more of a surprise than did the crushing defeat of the Liberals in the general election of 1895. If "Radicalism" and "Radical" are to be used to describe a particular section of the Liberal party that can in some ways be identified as being separate from the rest of the party, it is necessary at the outset to establish a fairly comprehensive definition of Radicalism. An adequate definition is of great importance in any discussion of Radicalism because the terms of the definition tend to determine the size and the composition of the Radical group discussed. Too strict a definition, particularly in programmatic terms, excludes from Radicalism politicians who were obviously Radical in action and sympathy. On the other hand, a definition which is too loose broadens Radicalism to include the vast majority of the Liberal parliamentary party. Either extreme gives a misleading picture of the Radical wing of the Liberal party. Radicalism as a concept in politics is more susceptible to adequate definition than any particular group of radical politicians. Radicalism tends to a tabula rasa theory of government.* Horace M. Kallen in the 1935 edition of the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences defines radicalism as involving three major points.^ He contends that basic to radicalism is a “conspicuously stressed attitude or frame of mind toward one particular institution of society or toward the social order as a whole." Kallen stresses that the emotional tone of radicalism is one of