Last updated 10th July 2024: 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 February 2009
Joseph Chamberlain's speech at Birmingham on 15 May 1903, which began the tariff reform campaign, produced divisions within the Unionist party on a scale unknown since the repeal of trie Corn Laws. Announced to a party tired and jaded after its difficulties in the conduct of the Boer War, imperial preference offered an outlet for frustrated imperialist idealism, a cause to which the enthusiasts of the party could devote themselves, ‘… in a few hours England, indeed the whole Empire, was in a ferment of indescribable excitement’ Enthusiasm for the new cause rapidly developed into intolerance towards any other opinion. In the summer of 1903 supporters and opponents of the new policy organized themselves into rival leagues: ‘For a decade the Unionist party, the great exemplar of political pragmatism, was consumed by ideological passion’. The epitome of this intolerance and ideological passion was the Confederacy, ‘this extraordinary phenomenon in English politics — a secret society with all the trappings of oaths, threats and codes’,s ‘a secret society of extremist wholehoggers … [which] … saw itself as the inquisitorial arm of the tariff reform movement…’ and whose avowed object was ‘to drive the enemies of tariff reform out of the Conservative party’.
1 Amery, L. S., My Political Life, I: England Before the Storm, 1896–1914 (London, 1953), 236.Google Scholar
2 Blewett, Neal, ‘Free Fooders, Balfouritcs, Wholehoggers. Factionalism within the Unionist Party, 1906–10’, The Historical Journal, XII, 1 (1968), 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Much of the material in this article has been subsequently published in Blewett, Neal, The Peers, the Parties and the People: The General Elections of 1910 (London, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, but in a form less pertinent to the present discussion. Subsequent references are to (he original article.)
3 Rempel, Richard A., Unionists Divided: Arthur Balfour, Joseph Chamberlain and the Unionist Free Traders (Newton Abbot, 1972), p. 176.Google Scholar
4 Blewett, , op. cit. pp. 117–18.Google Scholar
5 Gollin, Alfred, Balfour's Burden: Arthur Balfour and Imperial Preference (London, 1965), pp. 224–5.Google Scholar
6 Rempel, , op. cit. p. 187.Google Scholar See also Blewett, , op. cit. p. 119Google Scholar; Gollin, Alfred, The Observer and J. L. Garvin, 1908–1914 (London, 1960), p. 97.Google Scholar
7 Croft, Lord, My Life of Strife (London, 1949), p. 43.Google Scholar
8 Opinions on the date of the Confederacy range from ‘after 1904’ (Gollin, , Balfour's Burden, p. 225Google Scholar) and ‘late in 1905’ (Rempel, , op. cit. p. 176Google Scholar) to ‘early in 1907’ (Blewett, , op. cit. p. 117Google Scholar). The earlier dates appear to derive from Lord Croft's autobiography, where it is stated that the Confederacy was started at ‘about the same time’ as Croft's candidature for Lincoln against the sitting Unionist free trader, Charles Seeley (Croft, , op. cit. pp. 43–4Google Scholar). I have found no evidence to support Croft's assertion tiiat the Confederacy was formed as early as this, all other references indicating a date after the general election of 1906. If my argument that the Tariff Reform League and the Confederacy were virtually indistinguishable, with the exception of the critical period of late 1906, is accepted, then the possibility that Croft, writing after a lapse of some forty years, confused the two is too great to be disregarded. Cf. however: ‘The best account … is given by Lord Croft…’, Rempel, , op. cit. p. 176Google Scholar, and the long extract quoted in Gollin, , op. cit. pp. 225–6Google Scholar, for other opinions on Croft's reliability. Another alternative date, early 1906, provided by the statement of a Confederate in the Morning Post, 25 January 1908, is similarly retrospective, vague and unsupported. However, given the nature of the society's origins, on which all accounts are agreed, beginning as a small gathering of friends and later developing into a more formal organization, all these dates could be reconciled. Nevertheless, in the current state of information about the Confederacy, the weight of evidence points fairly strongly towards the winter of 1906–7 as the date for the emergence of something more than a gathering of friends.
9 Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fos. 152–4, E. G. Brunker to Robert Cecil, 9 Jan. 1908.
10 ‘The Confederacy, By a Confederate’, National Review, 01 1909.Google Scholar
11 Croft, Lord, op. cit. p. 43.Google Scholar
12 Steel-Maitland Papers, GD 193/133, B. R. Wise to Steel-Maitland, 12 Dec. 1906.
13 Maxse Papers, 456, J. L. Garvin to L. J. Maxse, 4 Dec. 1906.
14 Hewins Papers, box 83, bundle 2, Austen Chamberlain to Hewins, 17 Jan. 1907.
15 Maxse Papers, 456, J. L. Garvin to L. J. Maxse, 4 Dec. 1906. Garvin felt that ' the cause is lost, unless we can form at an early date a definite tariff group in Parliament, I don't care how small, and unless we can act for ourselves in independence even of Highbury ', Maxse Papers, 457, J. L. Garvin to L. J. Maxse, 10 Jan. 1907.
16 Bonar Law Papers, 18/2/16, Arnold-Forster to Law, 24 Apr. 1906.
17 Steel-Maitland Papers, GD 193/133, B. R. Wise to Steel-Maitland, 12 Dec. 1906.
18 Ibid.
19 Bonar Law Papers, 18/3/28, L. J. Maxse to Bonar Law, 2 Jan. 1906 (sic). This letter has been incorrectly dated by Maxse and was clearly written in 1907. See also Law's reply, Maxse Papers, 457, Bonar Law to Maxse, 5 Jan. 1907, ‘The key-note of the position, however, as it strikes me, is that Balfour does not mean to take tariff reform seriously …’
20 The Outlook, 5 01 1907.Google Scholar See also Joseph Chamberlain Papers, 22/24, Austen Chamberlain to Garvin, 1 Jan. 1907: ‘… the new proprietors of the Outlook are, as far as I can see, keen on Tariff Reform and will not let its advocacy of that great movement the away. They have asked me for a message for next Saturday and I have written them a short but I hope useful article.’ Acland-Hood thought the article ‘a dangerous one’, Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49771, fos. 166–7, Hood to Short, 14 Jan. (1907). Lord Robert Cecil associated this article and Maxse's speech with a new threat of proscription. Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49737, fos. 62–4, Lord Robert Cecil to Balfour, 17 Jan. 1907.
21 Stevenage, 16 Jan. 1907. Maxse also spoke at Hitchin, but the speech was apparendy unre ported. See Maxse Papers, 457, Garvin to Maxse, 6 Feb. 1907. The comment is by Lord Robert Cecil, Balfour Papers, op. cit.
22 For a summary of this pressure, see Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49780, fos. 236–84, unsigned memorandum, ‘The Fiscal Question in February 1907’ Sir Chamberlain, Austen, Politics from Inside (London, 1936), pp. 48–52Google Scholar; Hewins Papers, box 83.
23 Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49771, fos. 166–7, Acland-Hood to Short, 14 Jan. (1907), Add. MSS 49765, fos. 9–10, Sandars to Short, 17 Jan. 1907, and fos. n-16, Sandars to Balfour, 22 Jan. 1907.
24 Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49736, fos. 18–20, Balfour to Austen Chamberlain, 23 Oct. 1907 (copy).
25 Austen Chamberlain Papers, 17/3/23, Austen Chamberlain to Balfour, 24 Oct. 1907 (copy). The original is in the Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49736, fos. 21–32.
26 Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49859, fos. 190–3, Ridley to Balfour, 1 Nov. 1907.
27 Ridley, tentatively, by Sandars, Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49765, fos. 76–7, Sandars to Short, 28 Oct. 1907. Goulding by Sandars, in Ibid., and by E. G. Brunker, Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fos. 152–4, E. G. Brunker to Lord Robert Cecil, 9 Jan. 1908. Goulding appar-endy was threatening an attack on Lord Robert Cecil as early as January 1907. Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49737, fos. 62–4, Lord Robert Cecil to Balfour, 17 Jan. 1907.
28 Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fos. 152–4, E. G. Brunker to Lord Robert Cecil, 9 Jan. 1908.
29 Harris, James, Earl of Malmesbury, The New Order, Studies in Unionist Policy (London, 1908).Google Scholar The identity of The New Order as ‘Piatt's Book’ can be established by textual compari son of the published chapter on labour by Steel-Maitland with the draft chapter in the Steel-Maidand Papers: GD 193/79/9, file labelled ‘Piatt's Book’ (Dec. 1907).
30 Steel-Maitland Papers, GD 193/135, T. Comyn Piatt to Steel-Maitland, ‘Friday’ (1907).
31 Malmesbury, , op. cit. p. 4.Google Scholar
32 Steel-Maitland Papers, GD 193/136.
50 Private distrust of Balfour remained. See Blewett, , op. cit. p. 109Google Scholar, Joseph Chamberlain Papers, 22/96, Maxse to Joseph Chamberlain, 23 Nov. 1907. Maxse here foreshadowed the arguments to be used to justify pressure on the Free Traders and hinted at such action in the future. ‘… Tariff Reformers must work for the solidarity of the party; otherwise whatever our Parliamentary majority, we can never hope to carry the policy, as we shall find ouselves at the mercy of a handful of Free Food malcontents in a new Parliament. I imagine the best thing would be for the constituencies to take separate action, and insist that these recalcitrants shall toe the line, and accept the very moderate programme which Balfour has laid down, and which Tariff Reformen are prepared to accept for the sake of party unity…’ Also Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fo. 29. G. S. Bowles to Lord Robert Cecil, 10 Jan. 1908. Bowles reported that Watson of the Yorkshire Post had been told by Bagley, secretary of the Tariff Reform League, that the Tariff Reformers were not at all pleased with the Birmingham programme but were prepared to accept it as an instalment.
51 Blewett, , op. cit. pp. 111–13.Google Scholar
33 The term ‘M.P.’ indicates membership of the House of Commons at some time between 1906 and 1910. Thus E. A. Goulding and Fitzalan Hope are described as M.P.s because both re turned to the House after by-election victories in 1908, whilst Sir John Rolleston, M.P. for Leicester 1900–1906, is not. An asterisk (*) indicates election to the House of Commons in 1910 or, in the case of W. A. S. Hewins, shortly afterwards.
34 Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fos. 152–4, E. G. Brunker to Lord Robert Cecil, 9 Jan. 1908.
35 Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fo. 127, G. S. Bowles to Lord Robert Cecil, 10 Jan. 1908.
36 Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49737, fos. 84–5, Lord Robert Cecil to Balfour, 13 Jan. 1908.
37 Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49765, fos. 74–7, Sandars to Short, 28 Oct. 1907.
38 Daily Graphic, 21 Jan. 1909.
39 Bonar Law Papers, 18/7/214, Croft to Law, ‘Saturday’, n.d.
40 Bonar Law Papers, 26/4/29, 33, Long to Law, 20 and 21 June 1912, enclosing copies of his correspondence with Comyn Platt.
41 Croft Papers, MA/23, Maxse to Croft, 7 Feb. 1908.
42 Bonar Law Papers, 33/2/20, Croft, B. E. Peto, Ronald Macneill to Law, ‘Thursday’, n.d.
43 Steel-Maitland Papers, GD 193/133, B. R. Wise to Steel-Maidand, 12 Dec. 1906.
44 P. Deb. 1909, vol. 1, col. 265, 18 Feb. 1909.
45 Hermon was allegedly Sir Joseph Lawrence's son-in-law, and active in Nottingham.
46 Watson, editor of the Yorkshire Post, from whom Bowles obtained his information, suggested that Marks was supporting the Confederacy financially. His inclusion in the Daily Graphic list in 1909 led to subsequent denials.
47 See also Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49737, fos. 88–9, Lord Robert Cecil to Balfour, 4 Mar. 1908.
48 Sandars reaffirmed this. Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49765, fo. 80, Sandars to Balfour, 5 Nov. 1907.
49 According to the Daily Graphic, Caborne was an open opponent of Bowles at Norwood.
52 Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51158, fos. 142–53, draft letter, Lord Robert Cecil to Philip Magnus, 18 Dec. 1907, marked ‘Not Sent’. The same magic number of twenty seats occurs in E. G. Brunker to Lord Robert Cecil, 9 Jan. 1908 (Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fos. 152–4) and G. S. Bowles to Lord Robert Cecil, 10 Jan. 1908 (Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fos. 127–9). Lord Robert refused to concede any distinction between the league and the Confederates, Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49737, fos. 84–5, Lord Robert Cecil to Balfour, 13 Jan. 1908.
53 Blewett, , op. cit. p. 117.Google ScholarClarke, P. F., ‘British Politics and Blackburn Politics, 1900–1910’, The Historical Journal, XII, 2 (1969), 316–17Google Scholar, quoting Balfour to Selborne, 6 Mar. 1908 (copy).
54 See Joseph Chamberlain Papers, 22/80, Goulding to Joseph Chamberlain, 25 Mar. (1908): ‘You will have seen that we are active at Marylebone and everything has been done through the local people.’ It would appear from this that the wholehoggers had decided in 1908 to trap Lord Robert Cecil into an open repudiation of the Birmingham policy, in order to fight him, in con trast to their attitude the following year: ‘… a meeting is to be held next week to discuss the situation and Cecil will attend - Boulnois is going to move that they will not support any candi date at the general election who won't support the fiscal policy laid down at Birmingham by Mr Balfour. Cecil won't do this: he told one of his chairmen that he won't tax corn and is op posed to a general tariff. I have got promises of £600 to pay election expenses of a candidate if necessary.’ In contrast to this action against the combative Cecil, W. F. D. Smith, who offered to retire, was to be thanked ‘for his considerate action’ and permitted to remain until the general election.
55 Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fos. 120–21, G. S. Bowles to Lord Robert Cecil, 6 Jan. 1908. Campbell, president of the Norwood branch of the Tariff Reform League, was summoned to the Constitutional Club where he met ‘a number of wealthy persons who, calling themselves “Confederates”, have resolved, at whatever risk, to start and pay for Tariff Reform candidates in all seats whose candidate is not satisfactory on Tariff Reform’. Campbell was, according to Bowles, a moderate whose major concern was for local party unity but who was afraid that if he associated too openly with Bowles he would provoke a revolt by local extremists. Campbell was seen by the Confederates as an ‘old fogey’ who had to be ‘stirred up’.
The Constitutional Club would seem to have been a hotbed of wholehoggers at this time. The dominant influence was again Goulding, who, in November 1908 prevented the Cecil Club, which met there, from giving a dinner to Lord Robert Cecil. He was backed up by Remnant and Collings, and his action was endorsed without dissent by the committee of the club. Collings felt that for a dinner to have been given to Cecil in the Constitutional Club with Balfour present to support him would have been ‘a scandal’. Joseph Chamberlain Papers, 22/44, Collings to Joseph Chamberlain, 8 Nov. 1908.
56 Croft, Lord, op. cit. pp. 41–2.Google Scholar
57 Clarke, P. F., op. cit. p. 317.Google Scholar
58 Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49737, fos. 29–32. Copy also, Elliot Papers, MS 4246, box 14, folder 86.
59 Rempel, R. A., ‘Lord Hugh Cecil's Parliamentary Career, 1900–1914: Promise Unfulfilled’, The Journal of British Studies, xi, 2 (1972), 122.Google Scholar
60 Bonar Law Papers, 18/5/84–88, Goulding to Law, Jan. (1909). Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51159, fos. 23–9, Goulding to Lord Robert Cecil, Jan. 1909.
61 Croft Papers, WA/2, Goulding to Croft, ‘Saturday’, CH/23–1 Joseph Chamberlain to Croft, 15 Dec. 1908, CH/24, Croft to Joseph Chamberlain, 25 Jan. (1909), CH/25 Joseph Chamberlain to Croft, 26 Jan. 1909, Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51159, fos. 19–22, Abel Smith to Lord Robert Cecil, 25 Jan. 1909.
62 Bonar Law Papers, 18/5/87, Goulding to Law, 25 Jan. (1909).
63 Bonar Law Papers, 18/5/84, Goulding to Law, 9 Jan. (1909).
64 Bonar Law Papers, 18/5/87, Goulding to Law, 25 Jan. (1909).
65 Ibid.
66 Blewett, , op. cit. p. 117Google Scholar; Clarke, , op. cit. pp. 315–20.Google Scholar
67 Sir Chamberlain, Austen, op. cit. p. 142.Google Scholar
68 Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49765, fos. 74–7, Sandars to Short, 28 Oct. 1907.
69 Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49771, fos. 170–71, Hood to Sandars, 11 Jan. (1908).
70 Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51159, fo. 92, H. A. Gwynne to Lord Robert Cecil, 15 Feb. 1909, fos. 94–7, Lord Ridley to Cecil, 18 Feb. 1909, both expressing regret at the breakdown of negotiations and offering their mediation. See also Sir Chamberlain, Austen, op. cit. pp. 138–41.Google Scholar
71 Clarke, , op. cit. p. 319Google Scholar; Rempel, , op. cit. pp. 196–7.Google Scholar
72 In contrast to previous tariff reform manoeuvres, Jebb's candidature appears to have been arranged without reference to Joseph Chamberlain. See Joseph Chamberlain Papers, 22/17, Mary Chamberlain to Lord Bessborough, 21 Oct. 1909 (copy). Jebb was eventually adopted despite a letter from Chamberlain supporting the compromise: The Times, 23 10 1909.Google Scholar Austen Chamber lain also supported compromise: Sir Chamberlain, Austen, op. cit. p. 181.Google Scholar
73 Bonar Law Papers, 18/7/214, Croft to Law, n.d., ‘Saturday’.
74 The Nation, 18 Jan. 1908, quoted in Gollin, , Balfour's Burden, p. 225.Google Scholar
75 Bonar Law Papers, 26/4/33, Long to Comyn Piatt, 20 June 1912 (copy).
76 Balfour Papers, Add. MSS 49765, fos. 205–6, Sandars to Short, 5 Jan. 1909.
77 Speech at Birmingham, The Times, 23 01 1909.Google Scholar Chamberlain's phrasing was naturally oblique but free traders at least interpreted the sense as ostracism. See Elliot Papers, MS 4246, box 15, folder 83, E. G. Brunker to Elliot, 29 Jan. 1909.
78 P. Deb. 1909, vol. 1, col. 265, 18 Feb. 1909. See also Joseph Chamberlain Papers, 22/33, Henry Chaplin to Joseph Chamberlain, 18 Feb. 1909 (copy). Elliot Papers, MS 4346, box 15, folder 103, E. G. Brunker to Elliot, 18/19 Feb. 1909.
79 Croft, , op. cit. p. 43.Google Scholar
80 Rempel, , Unionists Divided, p. 191.Google Scholar See also the reports in the Morning Post, Jan.-Feb. 1909.
81 Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fos. 62–4, Long to Lord Robert Cecil, 2 Feb. 1908.
82 Quoted in Blewett, , op. cit. p. 117.Google Scholar
83 Robert Cecil Papers, Add. MSS 51072, fo. 121, G. S. Bowles to Lord Robert Cecil, 6 Jan. 1908. Campbell did however stress the urgency of the situation, and felt that if this opportunity was lost, a letter from Balfour might have little influence in the future (fo. 131, Campbell to Bowles, to Jan. 1908 (copy)).
84 Austen Chamberlain Papers, 17/3/79, Lord Ridley to Austen Chamberlain, 22 Jan. 1909.
