1. Much of the material in this article appeared in different form in my doctoral dissertation for Columbia University, prepared under the direction of Professor Stephen E. Koss, to whom I am also indebted for his helpful criticism of this manuscript.

2. Spender, J. A., Life, Journalism and Politics (New York, 1931), I, 66–67Google Scholar; Spender, J. A. and Asquith, Cyril, Life of Herbert Henry Asquith, Lord Oxford and Asquith (London, 1932), I, 146Google Scholar.

3. Semmel, Bernard, Imperialism and Social Reform (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), pp. 52–64Google Scholar.

4. Searle, G. R., The Quest for National Efficiency: A Study in British Politics and Political Thought, 1899-1914 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1971), esp. ch. ivGoogle Scholar.

5. For example: Robert Rhodes James in his biography, Rosebery (London, 1963), titled chapter v, covering 1883 through 1885, “Liberal Imperialism”; he dated the party split over “Liberal Imperialism” from 1885, p. 158. A. P. Thornton dated the ”‘Liberal-Imperialist’ platform” from a Rosebery speech in 1888 in The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies (New York, 1968), pp. 93–94Google Scholar; see also pp. 100-101. Moore, R. J. in Liberalism and Indian Politics (London, 1966), p. 64Google Scholar, wrote that Liberal Imperialists supported the partition of Africa as well as the Boer War. Jeffrey Butler's position is quite different. He traces some of the characteristics of the split between “pro-Boers” and “Liberal Imperialists” to the party's reactions to the Jameson Raid and warns: “It is important not to date too early the divisions which appeared during the South African War and which led to the formation of groups imprecisely called ‘Liberal Imperialist’ and ‘pro-Boer’ respectively. … It is not easy to define the content of ‘Liberal Imperialism’ as it appeared in October 1899.” See Butler, Jeffrey, The Liberal Party and the Jameson Raid (Oxford, 1968), pp. 282–83Google Scholar.

6. Rosebery twice publicly denounced Little Englandism when he was Prime Minister. Times, 25 April, 1894; Lord Roseber's Speeches 1874-1896 (London, 1896), pp. 265–66Google Scholar. On the causes of the weakness of the party see: BM, Rosebery to Lord Ripon, 13 Aug., 1895, Ripon Papers, Add. MSS, 43516, fols. 220-21; National Library of Scotland [hereafter NLS], Rosebery to Lord Spencer, 12 Aug., 1895, Rosebery Papers [hereafter RP], Letterbook; NLS, Rosebery to Lord Farrer, 13 Aug., 1895, RP, Letterbook; NLS, Rosebery to Lord Brassey, 7 Feb., 1896, RP, Letterbook; Times, 19 Oct., 1895.

7. Times, 13 Oct., 1898.

8. Stansky, Peter, Ambitions and Strategies (Oxford, 1964), pp. 252–75Google Scholar; Gardiner, A. G., The Life of Sir William Harcourt (London, 1923), II, 471–72Google Scholar.

9. Times, 18 Jan., 1899.

10. For example: “I should say that until you have the Liberal party as it was before 1886, reconstituted in some form or another, or until you have a new party which will embody all the elements which existed before 1886, you will never achieve that pre-eminence in the country which existed when I began public life.” “I hope that this Liberal club will endeavour to forward that view [fusing imperialism and the old Liberal spirit], will endeavour to get within its walls both sections of the party formerly united.” Times, 6 May, 1899.

11. Gardiner, , Sir William Harcourt, II, 496–97Google Scholar.

12. Bodleian Library, Asquith to Rosebery, 6 May, 1899, Asquith Papers, Box 46, fols. 10-13.

13. NLS, Rosebery to Grey, 21 Oct., 1899, RP, Letterbook.

14. Times, 28 Oct., 1899.

15. NLS, Rosebery to J. A. Spender, 2 Nov., 1899, RP, Letterbook, never sent.

16. NLS, Rosebery to Charles Bathurst, 28 April, 1899, RP, Letterbook. For similar definitions by Rosebery see Times, 28 April, 1900, speech at the City Liberal Club; 4 Hansard 88: 43 (6 Dec, 1900).

17. NLS, Rosebery to Haldane, 4 Nov., 1899, Haldane Papers, 5904, fol. 208.

18. NLS, Rosebery to Sir Edward Russell, 5 Dec., 1899, RP, Letterbook.

19. 31 Oct., 1899, quoted in Spender, J. A., The Life of the Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (London, 1923), I, 253–54Google Scholar.

20. Ibid., I, 261, 2 Nov., 1899.

21. Ibid., I, 257-58, 24 Nov., 1899.

22. Times, 24 Jan., 1900.

23. 4 Hansard 79: 27–34 (15 Feb., 1900)Google Scholar.

24. Times, 14 March, 1900. On the origin of the Council, see Heber Hart, Heber L., Reminiscences and Reflections (London, 1939), pp. 198–201Google Scholar.

25. NLS, Rosebery to Heber Hart, 9 June, 1900, RP, Letterbook.

26. Extracts from Rosebery's speeches made up two of the early pamphlets issued by the Council. Hart, , Reminiscences, p. 203Google Scholar.

27. Campbell-Bannerman's opinion may be inferred from his references in letters after the election to “the Perks manifesto” (an I.L.C. post-election manifesto) and “Mr. Perks and his crew.” To Harcourt, 21 Oct., 1900, quoted in Spender, , Campbell-Bannerman, I, 297Google Scholar; to Herbert Gladstone, 22 Oct., 1900, Spender, , Campbell-Bannerman, I, 298Google Scholar; to Lord Ripon, 29 Oct., 1900, Spender, , Campbell-Bannerman, I, 298Google Scholar.

28. NLS, Perks to Rosebery, 22, 25 Sept., 7 Oct., 1900, RP.

29. NLS, Haldane to Rosebery, 25 July, 1900, RP; NLS, Grey to Rosebery, 26 July, 1900, RP.

30. The lists are in the Times, 25, 29 Sept., 2 Oct., 1900. Asquith was not listed, perhaps because of the “rude message” he had sent in May when asked to preside at an early I.L.C. meeting. See NLS, Perks to Rosebery, 28 May, 1900, RP.

31. Times, 20 Oct., 1900.

32. Times, 23 Oct., 1900.

33. Times, 25 Oct., 1900.

34. Times, 13 Nov., 1900.

35. Times, 16 Nov., 1900.

36. Rosebery, Lord, “Questions of Empire,” Miscellanies (London, 1921), II, ch, xxviiGoogle Scholar.

37. Semmel, , Imperialism and Social Reform, pp. 13-14, 24, 62–64Google Scholar.

38. We have seen that the program of May 5, 1899 assumed the popularity of the idea of Empire. See also NLS, Rosebery to W. T. Stead, 10 Jan., 1898, RP, Letterbook. Semmel himself, Imperialism and Social Reform, pp. 53-55, accepts the fact that the idea of Empire was quite popular at this time.

39. LordRosebery, , Miscellanies, II, 261–62Google Scholar. See also p. 232.

40. Although Searle refers to national efficiency as a slogan or catchword and says “‘National Efficiency’ was not a homogeneous political ideology,” he also regularly uses the term “ideology” and titles his chapter summarizing the ideas of national efficiency: “The Ideology of National Efficiency.” Searle, , National Efficiency, pp. 1-2, 54Google Scholar, and ch. iii, pp. 54-106. On the Glasgow speech as a source of the ideology of efficiency see pp. 72, 87, 111.

41. Searle, , National Efficiency, pp. 110, 111Google Scholar. On Rosebery's behavior, see ch. iv, “Lord Rosebery and the Quest for Efficiency, 1900-1902,” pp. 107-41.

42. It is true that many of the ideas Searle groups under the rubric “national efficiency” are in the Glasgow University speech; indeed many appeared earlier. But the absence of the label at Glasgow is nonetheless significant because Searle makes it the keystone of the ideology. It “served as a convenient label under which a complex of beliefs and demands could be grouped.” Searle, , National Efficiency, p. 54Google Scholar.

43. NLS, Rosebery to Perks, 6 Jan., 1901, RP, Letterbook.

44. Times, 21 June, 1901. The actual words of Asquith's suggestion were aimed to the left of Campbell-Bannerman. He said that the proposition that the war and its immoral prosecution were national crimes which could only be righted by unconditional surrender to the Boers “shall not go forth to the world, so long as I have a voice to be heard, without protest as the opinion of the Liberal Party.”

45. NLS, Rosebery to E. T. Cook, 25 June, 1901, RP, Letterbook; NLS, Rosebery to R. Munro Ferguson, 25 June, 1901, RP; NLS, Rosebery to R. Munro Ferguson, 28 June, 1901, RP; NLS, Rosebery to Grey, 29 June, 1901, RP, Letterbook.

46. Times, 2 July, 1901.

47. Times, 10 July, 1901.

48. Times, 17 July, 1901.

49. Times, 20 July, 1901.

50. Times, 20 July, 1901. Note that Asquith was trying to repair the damage Rosebery had done to party unity and to make “imperialism” acceptable to moderate party members, not to the working classes, as the “social imperialist” model would have it.

51. Searle, , National Efficiency, pp. 113–14Google Scholar, suggests that Rosebery's behavior during July 1901 may be explained by his desire to preserve his independence because he wished to keep open the possibility of heading or joining a coalition government, this being a prospect if the Unionist Government crumbled in the event of Salisbury's retirement. This suggestion overlooks the depth of Rosebery's involvement in the fate of the Liberal party during June-July 1901. Moreover, the best and simplest way to preserve his political independence would have been for Rosebery to stay at Gastein.

52. NLS, Perks to Rosebery, 23 Aug., 1901, RP.

53. Hart, , Reminiscences, p. 218Google Scholar.

54. Times, 1 Aug., 1901. The parentheses are Rosebery's.

55. Times, 10 Aug., 1901, Heber Hart's public letter replying to Rosebery; Times, 23 Oct., 1901, account of the general meeting of the I.L.C.

56. For all references to this speech see Times, 17 Dec., 1901.

57. James, , Rosebery, pp. 427–29Google Scholar.

58. This usage of the phrase the “clean slate” probably owes its origin to John Morley's speech of 17 Jan., 1899. He said, “One thing I will not do; I will not go about the country saying fine things or listening to fine things about Mr. Gladstone, and at the same moment sponging off the slate all the lessons that Mr. Gladstone taught us and all the lessons that he set.” Times, 18 Jan., 1899.

59. Webb also connected that device to imperial purpose in his article “Lord Rosebery's Escape from Houndsditch,” published three and a half months before Chesterfield. He supported Rosebery's July statements on the Liberal party, attacked Gladstonian Liberalism, and demanded a new Liberalism to deal with new circumstances. He referred to Rosebery's remark that the country was ripe for a new domestic program as a call for a policy of national efficiency. Then he quoted Asquith's merger of social reform and imperial purpose in his speech of July 19, and said this was the right direction for a program of national efficiency. Nineteenth Century and After, CCXCV (1901), 375Google Scholar.

60. Semmel, , Imperialism and Social Reform, pp. 62-63, 74Google Scholar, treats the concept of efficiency solely as a form of “social imperialism.”

61. Searle, , National Efficiency, pp. 132-33, 139Google Scholar, argues that Rosebery at Chesterfield attempted to further the cause of coalition government, and he also argues that adherence to the ideas of efficiency narrowed Rosebery's options and pressed him into seeking a coalition government. However, Rosebery's political objective in these years was not to make a national coalition more likely but to remake the Liberal party either by a purge of Little Englanders or by a Liberal coalition of Liberal Imperialists and Liberal Unionists. The appeal he made at Chesterfield to the nation—leaving aside its long use as a rhetorical device—is explained not by his desire for a national coalition from all parties but by his belief that it was in the national interest to make the Liberal party viable by purging it of “all anti-national elements.”

62. Letter to Herbert Gladstone, quoted in Spender, , Campbell-Bannerman, II, 14Google Scholar.

63. See for example: NLS, Haldane to his mother, 19 Dec., 1901, Haldane Papers, 5906, fol. 195; Grey's letter to Asquith stating that if Asquith and Rosebery could not cooperate, “I go with him,” in Bodleian Library, Grey to Asquith, 2 Jan., 1902, Asquith Papers, Box 10, fol. 43; Asquith's two speeches supporting Chester-field, the second and stronger probably influenced by the letter from Grey, in Times, 20 Dec, 1901 and 15 Jan., 1902.

64. Spender, , Campbell-Bannerman, II, 15Google Scholar.

65. For Rosebery's account see The Marquess of Crewe, Lord Rosebery (London, 1931), II, 573–74Google Scholar.

66. For Campbell-Bannerman's account see Spender, , Campbell-Bannerman, II, 16–18Google Scholar.

67. Times, 14 Jan., 1902. Campbell-Bannerman had been told in the 23 Dec., interview that if Rosebery spoke again, it would be on Ireland. Spender, , Campbell-Bannerman, II, 16Google Scholar.

68. Times, 15 Feb., 1902.

69. Times, 20 Feb., 1902. The origin of this use of religious imagery is most likely the interview of 23 Dec. In Campbell-Bannerman's account he wrote that Rosebery had commented “in ecclesiastical phrase” on his relationship to the party, saying he was not “‘in communion with you.’” Spender, , Campbell-Banner-man, II, 16Google Scholar. That Campbell-Bannerman was recalling this interview is suggested by the statement accompanying his demand for clarification of Rosebery's relationship to the Liberal “tabernacle”: “I practically put that question to him a month ago, but he does not answer it.”

70. Times, 21 Feb., 1902.

71. NLS, Rosebery to Grey, President of the Liberal Imperialist League, 28 Feb., 1902, RP, draft; Times, 11 March, 1902. Grey had become President on 30 Oct., 1901 after the voluntary retirement of Lord Brassey. At the same time Haldane and R. Munro Ferguson became Vice-Presidents. Hart, , Reminiscences, pp. 220–21Google Scholar.

72. NLS, Perks to Rosebery, 13 Jan., 1902, RP.

73. John George Lambton, 3rd Earl of Durham (1855-1931), grandson of the author of the Durham Report. Lord Durham's brother, Captain Hedworth Lambton, served in the South African War; after his return he ran for Parliament in the general election of 1900 with Rosebery's public endorsement.

74. Ronald Crauford Munro Ferguson (1860-1934); served in Grenadier Guards, 1879-84; M.P. for Ross and Cromarty, 1884-85; M.P. for Leith Burghs, 1886-1914; Rosebery's private secretary, 1886, 1892; Governor-General of Australia, 1914-20; created Viscount Novar, 1920; Secretary for Scotland, 1922-24.

75. Charles Mackinnon Douglas (1865-1924); Lecturer in Moral Philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, 1892-98; M.P. for N.W. Division of Lanarkshire, 1899-1906.

76. John Lawson Walton (1852-1908); called to the bar, 1877; M.P. for South Leeds, 1892-1908; knighted, 1905; Attorney-General, 1905-08.

77. NLS, Memorandum, 24 Feb., 1902, RP. The statement on Liberal Unionism was added by Rosebery at the time of correction.

78. Times, 3, 11, 15 March, 1902. See also Campbell-Bannerman's demand for further enlightenment on the purpose of the League, Times, 6 March, 1902. Note that three days after the League's founding, the Libral Unionist Council at its annual meeting expressed pleasure at Rosebery's renunciation of Home Rule but discouraged the idea of their reconciliation with the Liberal Imperialists. Times, 28 Feb., 1902.

79. Times, 11 March, 1902. In this speech Rosebery first combined the rhetoric of imperialism with the concept of efficiency, defining efficiency as “a condition of national fitness equal to the demands of our Empire.”

80. The Liberal League (London, 1902)Google Scholar.

81. Liberal League Publications [hereafter L.L.P.], Nos. 3, 9, 11, 12, 15-23, 25, 29, 33, 35, 38-41.

82. L.L.P., No. 9. See also L.L.P., No. 21, and the rather defensive definition of “Liberal Imperialism” in L.L.P., No. 18, which stated that a Liberal Imperialist believed “that the external policy of Great Britain is one that should be founded not on interference, but on reticence, and an independent attitude of our own.”

83. L.L.P., No. 20, pp. 9-12.

84. L.L.P., No. 33.

85. Times, 20 May, 1903.

86. Helm, Elijah, Chapters in the History of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and An Address by the Earl of Rosebery (London, 1897)Google Scholar, speech of 1 Nov., 1897.

87. Times, 10 June, 1903; L.L.P., No. 47, speech of 12 June, 1903, at a League dinner. Searle, , National Efficiency, pp. 146–47Google Scholar, argues that Rosebery's speech of 19 May was “rather in the tone of a critical, but friendly, supporter of Tariff Reform.” However, even though Rosebery said that free trade was not the Sermon on the Mount and limited himself to offering questions about Chamberlain's scheme that his audience might pursue, the speech was entirely in keeping with the moderating role he had played when he was President of the Imperial Federation League, an organization that had been troubled by a division between free traders and advocates of imperial unity through tariff arrangements. Moreover, the argument in the speech of 12 June consisted largely of Rosebery's own answers to the questions he had raised on 19 May, suggesting that those questions had been formulated in the expectation that the responses would be anti-Chamberlain.

88. Times, 14 July, 1903.

89. NLS, Asquith to Rosebery, 9 July, 1903, RP.

90. NLS, Rosebery to Asquith, 10 July, 1903, RP.

91. NLS, Asquith to Rosebery, 10 July, 1903, RP.

92. NLS, Asquith to Rosebery, 27 July, 1903, RP.

93. L.L.P., No. 106, p. 18. See also L.L.P., No. 165, pp. 19-20.

94. Lord Rosebery, preface, Montague, Edwin S. and Herbert, Bron, Canada and the Empire (London, 1904), pp. ix–xGoogle Scholar.

95. L.L.P., No. 62. The same comparison of food imports was used by Rosebery in a speech on 25 Nov. See L.L.P., No. 106, p. 12.

96. L.L.P., No. 46, p. 9. For Rosebery's version of this argument see L.L.P., No. 111, p. 19.