Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
In October of 1899 war broke out between Great Britain and the Transvaal Republic following a Boer attack upon Natal and Cape Colony. Thus opened what was destined to be the most melancholy chapter in imperial history.1 Although Britain ultimately achieved military victory, the circumstances surrounding the start of the war and the methods by which it was fought provoked serious domestic division and crisis, especially within the opposition Liberal party.
Because of the Boers' apparent aggression against British territory in South Africa, the majority of Britons, irrespective of social class, responded with an unprecedented display of outraged patriotism and national pride. The war was characterized by no less a critic than Keir Hardie as “the most popular ever waged in England.” “Mobs of workingmen”, he complained, “nightly invade and smash up public meetings held in the interests of peace and assault the speakers with stones.”
From the start, however, a small minority, derisively called pro-Boers, dissented from the national consensus, attacking Unionist policies and motives, and waging one of the most sustained anti-war campaigns in modern history. Though the movement encompassed socialists, trade unionists, clergymen, journalists, and a variety of intellectuals, at its core was a bloc of parliamentary Radicals and Lib-Labs which consistently espoused a position independent of the official Opposition. Variously denouncing the war as unwise, unnecessary, and unjust, the Radical bloc enunciated views during the war years which strikingly foreshadowed the anti-imperial rhetoric of a more modern era.
1 For the diplomatic background of the war see Robinson, Ronald, Gallagher, J., with Denny, A., Africa and the Victorians (New York, 1968), pp. 410–461Google Scholar; Pakenham, Thomas, The Boer War (New York, 1979), pp. 49–99.Google Scholar
2 Labour Leader, 21 March 1900.
3 See Price, Richard, An Imperial War and the British Working Class (London, 1972)Google Scholar; Koss, Stephen, The Pro-Boers, the Anatomy of an Antiwar Movement (Chicago, 1973)Google Scholar; Davey, Arthur, The British Pro-Boers 1877-1902 (Cape Town, 1978).Google Scholar
4 Auld, John, “The Liberal Pro-Boers,” Journal of British Studies 14 (May 1975): 78–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Koss, p. 173.
6 Women's Liberal Federation, Summary of Federation News (hereafter cited as Federation Summary), Oct. 1899, p. 1.Google Scholar
7 See Webb, Beatrice, Our Partnership (London, 1948), pp. 188–93Google ScholarPubMed; Norman, and Mackenzie, Jeanne, The Fabians (New York, 1977), pp. 269–70Google Scholar; Petrie, Glen, A Singular Inquity: The Campaigns of Josephine Butler (New York, 1971), pp. 283–84.Google Scholar
8 See for example First, Ruth and Scott, Ann, Olive Shreiner (New York, 1980), pp. 214–262Google Scholar. For Alice Green's views see Green, Alice, “A Visit to the Boer Prisons at St. Helena,” Nineteenth Century 42 (Dec. 1900): 972–83Google Scholar; “Our Boer Prisoners, A Suggestive Object-Lesson,” ibid. 43 (May 1901): 755-71. For Hobhouse's background and activities see Fisher, J., That Miss Hob-house (London, 1971), pp. 11–43.Google Scholar
9 Women's Liberal Federation, Annual Meeting of the Council (hereafter cited as WLF Annual Meeting), June 1901, p. 7.Google Scholar
10 Federation Summary, Feb. 1900, pp. 11–12.Google ScholarPubMed
11 Ibid., May 1900, p. 25.
12 Robb, Janet, The Primrose League (New York, 1943), pp. 49-53, 106–21.Google Scholar
13 Ibid., pp. 128-30. For the National Liberal Federation, its founding and functions, see Emy, H.V., Liberals, Radicals and Social Politics 1892-1914 (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 72–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For its attitude toward the Boer War see Watson, Robert Spence, The National Liberal Federation (London, 1908), pp. 229–44.Google Scholar
14 Robb, , Primrose League, p. 129.Google Scholar
15 Roberts, Charles, The Radical Countess (Carlisle, Eng., 1962), pp. 114–17.Google Scholar
16 Rover, Constance, Women's Suffrage and Party Politics in Britain 1886-1914 (London, 1967), pp. 140–41.Google Scholar
17 Federation Summary, May 1900, p. 11.Google ScholarPubMed
18 WLF Annual Meeting, June 1899, p. 100.Google Scholar
19 For Lady Aberdeen's feminist views see her address at the World's Columbian Exposition held in Chicago in 1893 titled “Women as an Actual Force in Politics” (The World's Congress of Representative Women, vol. 1, ed., Sewal, M.W. [Chicago, 1894], pp. 424–34Google Scholar).
20 For the Radical agenda of the 1890s see Maccoby, S., English Radicalism 1886-1914 (London, 1953), pp. 92–4Google Scholar; Emy, , Liberals, Radicals, and Social Politics, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
21 Roberts, , Radical Countess, pp. 116–17.Google Scholar
22 WLF Annual Meeting, June 1899, p. 29.Google Scholar
23 For a detailed analysis of the composition of the Liberal Party after 1886 see Emy, , Liberals, Radicals, and Social Politics, pp. 38–103.Google Scholar
24 Women's National Liberal Association, Quarterly Leaflets (hereafter cited as WNLA Leaflets), Jan. 1899, pp. 3–4Google Scholar; June 1898, p. 8.
25 Ibid., Oct. 1899, p. 7.
26 Ibid., June 1897, pp. 3-4.
27 Ibid., p. 23.
28 For attempts at reunification initiated by the WLF see Federation Summary, May 1899, p. 2Google ScholarPubMed; June 1899, pp. 6-8; July 1899, p. 3; Aug. 1899, p. 2. For the attitude of the WNLA see WNLA Leaflets, June 1899, pp. 18-20, 22.
29 WLF Annual Meeting, June 1899, p. 15Google Scholar; WNLA Leaflets, June 1897, p. 23.Google ScholarPubMed
30 See for example remarks by the editor of the Pall Mall Gazette: “We must own to an old fashioned feeling that that kind of thing [domestic reform] seems somehow more properly feminine than war and diplomacy” (ibid., Jan. 1898, p. 14).
31 Ibid., April 1899, p. 1.
32 Ibid., June 1899, pp. 3-4; Federation Summary, Feb. 1899, p. 5Google ScholarPubMed; April 1899; pp. 4-6; May 1899, pp. 4-5, 8-10.
33 WNLA Leaflets, April 1899, p. 22.Google ScholarPubMed
34 Ibid., Oct. 1899, pp. 2-8.
35 Ibid., Dec. 1899, p. 3.
36 Auld, , “Liberal Pro-Boers,” pp. 79–80.Google Scholar
37 Federation Summary, Dec. 1899, pp. 3–11.Google ScholarPubMed
38 Ibid., p. 11.
39 Ibid., pp. 12-13.
40 Ibid., April 1900, p. 12. Mrs. Sheldon Amos, a highly active member of the Executive Committee of the WLF, was also an officer of the Stop-The-War Committee which she helped to establish at a Conference of Friends of Peace in Exeter Hall on Jan. 11, 1900 (Koss, , The Pro-Boers, p. 70).Google Scholar
41 Federation Summary, March 1900, pp. 5–14.Google ScholarPubMed
42 Of all WLA's contacted, only eight reacted negatively (ibid., Feb. 1900, p. 4).
43 Ibid., pp. 4-6.
44 Holmes, Colin, Anti-Semitism in British Society 1876-1939 (New York, 1979), pp. 63–70.Google Scholar
45 War Against War, 24 Nov. 1899; Ethical World, 23 Dec. 1899.
46 Federation Summary, Feb. 1900, p. 8.Google ScholarPubMed
47 A term used by a delegate to the annual Council meeting of 1900 to distinguish between those Federation activitiests who were the wives of members of or candidates for Parliament and the rest (WLF Annual Meeting, June 1900, p. 24Google Scholar).
48 Federation Summary, Feb. 1900, pp. 4–5Google ScholarPubMed. C.A.V., Conybeare subsequently rebuked his sister for her statements, insisting that she was but a “globe trotting tourist” with no special expertise in South African affairs (ibid., April 1900, p. 8). Mrs. Craven, undaunted, replied as follows: “The pro-Boer fever has so affected Mr. C.A.V. Conybeare's mind that arguments are as useless with him as with the Stop-The-War enthusiasts.… They have pumped up an affection for the Boer they never felt before” (ibid., May 1900, p. 7).
49 Ibid., April 1900, pp. 9-23.
50 WLF Annual Meeting, June 1900, p. 65.Google Scholar
51 Federation Summary, March 1900, pp. 6–9.Google ScholarPubMed
52 Ibid., p. 8.
53 Ibid., April 1900, pp. 2-3. The resolution, unanimously carried by the Executive Committee, read as follows: “That the Executive Committee of the Women's Liberal Federation deplores the violence from which those who disapprove of the war have suffered in many parts of the country; and believes that the consequent suppression of public opinion is a danger to that freedom of thought and speech of which the Liberal Party is the traditional champion. They therefore appeal to all Liberal M.P.'s to be on the watch for indications of violence or coercion; and when such cases occur to promote full enquiry that will ensure the vindication of the law and the compensation of the injured” (ibid., p. 3).
54 WLF Annual Meeting, June 1900, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
55 Ibid., p. 66.
56 Ibid., p. 76. For similar equivocations on this issue see The Aborigines Friend, Nov. 1899.
57 WLF Annual Meeting, June 1900, p. 75.Google Scholar
58 For Lady Carlisle's strongly enunciated reaction to the election in which members of her own family were pitted against each other see Roberts, p. 79, 108-09. For canvassing activities by Federation members set Federation Summary, Oct. 1900, pp. 2–4Google Scholar; ibid., Nov. 1900, pp. 3-4.
59 Ibid., Dec. 1900, p. 11.
60 Ibid., p. 3.
61 For Lawson's campaign in Commons to suspend war credits see Britain, Great, Parliamentary Debates (House of Commons), 4th Series, 78: 421 (19 Feb. 1900)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Pari. Deb.); ibid., 83:1583 (28 May 1900).
62 WLF Annual Meeting, May 1901, pp. 19–23.Google Scholar
63 Ibid., p. 42.
64 Wilson, John, A Life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (London, 1973), pp. 347–49.Google Scholar
65 Concord, July 1901, p. 104Google ScholarPubMed; Reynolds's Newspaper, 23 June 1901; Federation Summary, July 1901, p. 1; Sept. 1901, p. 2.Google ScholarPubMed
66 Ibid., Nov. 1901, pp. 8-9.
67 WLF Annual Meeting, May 1901, pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
68 WNLA Leaflets, Oct. 1899, pp. 11–15Google ScholarPubMed; Jan. 1900, pp. 14-16.
69 Ibid., Oct. 1899, p. 2.
70 Ibid., Jan. 1900, p. 9.
71 Ibid., April 1900, p. 21.
72 Ibid., p. 3.
73 The Times (London), 16 May 1900, p. 12.Google ScholarPubMed
74 WNLA Leaflets, July 1901, p. 22.Google ScholarPubMed
75 Before the war began, Bryce had written to J.A. Spender that “we ought to do all we can to swim against the tide and endeavour to get the real issues unerstood” (Bryce to Spender, 9 Sept. 1899, Papers of J.A. Spender, British Museum, Add. MSS. 46391, fols. 49-52). For the evolution of his views on the war see Bryce to Campbell-Bannerman, 21 Sept. 1899, Papers of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, British Museum, Add. MSS. 41211, fol. 45; same to same, 3 Oct. 1899, ibid., fol. 55; same to same, 11 Nov. 1899, ibid., fol. 63; same to same, 13 Dec. 1899, ibid., fol. 72; same to same, 15 Jan. 1900, ibid., fol. 89.
76 See for example Bryce's remarks in Commons on 28 March 1901 (Parl. Deb. 4th series, 92: 114-25).
77 WNLA Leaflets, July 1901, pp. 9–15.Google ScholarPubMed
78 Ibid., Jan. 1902, pp. 3-22.
79 For Fawcett's role as head of a women's commission investigating concentration camp conditions in South Africa see Pakenham, , Boer War, pp. 546–49Google Scholar. See also Fawcett, Millicent, What I Remember (London, 1924), pp. 157–62.Google Scholar
80 WNLA Leaflets, Jan. 1902, p. 26.Google ScholarPubMed
81 Ibid., April 1902, p. 16.
82 WLF Annual Meeting, May 1902, pp. 3–4Google Scholar. See also Roberts, , Radical Countess, pp. 118–19.Google Scholar
83 WNLA Leaflets, Jan. 1903, pp. 7–12.Google ScholarPubMed
84 Ibid., July 1902, pp. 3-6.
85 WLF Annual Meeting, June 1900, p. 63.Google Scholar
