Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:33:13.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Liberalism and the Rise of Labour, 1886–1906

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David Powell
David Powell
Affiliation:
The College of Ripon and York St John, York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The political history of Liberalism in the twenty years after 1886 was dominated by two great concerns: the need to find a unifying platform for the party which would be capable of sustaining it as an effective political force in the post-Gladstonian era and the need to come to terms with the growing economic and political strength of organized Labour. It was axiomatic that the two concerns were closely connected and that ‘social reform’ was the crucial link between them. It seemed clear that a more active social policy would not only renew the reforming impetus of Liberalism, but would also enable the Liberals to retain working-class support and so help to prevent the formation of a separate Labour party. This was the assumption that spurred Liberals to a redefinition of their political creed and led to the formulation of a ‘new Liberalism’ committed to policies of state intervention and social reform of the kind implemented by Asquith, Churchill and Lloyd George after 1906.3 However, while the New Liberalism may have acted as a cohering influence on the Liberal party (itself a moot point) and provided a firm intellectual justification for its policies, it proved less successful as a means of retaining Labour's undivided electoral support. With the formation, first of the Independent Labour Party in 1893, and then of the Labour Representation Committee in 1900, there was set in train the formal organizational separation of the Liberal and Labour parties that was so drastically to affect the subsequent fortunes of Liberalism and so decisively to shape the pattern of modern British politics. The question that remains is whether this rift was the result of the tardiness with which the Liberals adopted their new policies, whether it was the product of other, quite separate factors, or whether in some way the nature of the New Liberalism itself may have contributed to the breach.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 369 - 393
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This view was expressed by, among others, the M.P, Atherley-Jones, L. A, in an article entitled, ‘The New Liberalism’, Nineteenth Century (08 1889)Google Scholar.

2 Histonans have generally accepted this analysis, although Henry Pelling has cautioned that interventionist social policies were always likely to be regarded with suspicion by the working class See his chapter, ‘The working class and the origins of the welfare state’, in Pelling, Henry, Popular politics and society in late-Victorian Britain (2nd edn, London, 1979), pp 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also Thane, Pat, ‘The working class and state “welfare” in Britain, 1880–1914“, Historical Journal, XXVII, 4 (1984), 877–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which appeared after the present article had been written

3 This process is traced in Freeden, Michael, The Mew Liberalism (Oxford, 1978)Google Scholar

4 This view is most cogently put by Clarke, Peter in his vanous works, notably, Lancashire and the New Liberalism (Cambridge, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar,Liberals and social democrats (Cambridge, 1978Google Scholar, and ‘The progressive movement in England’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, XXIV (1974), 159–81Google Scholar For statements of the ‘inevitabilist’ view, stressing the importance of social and economic change I and the growth of working-class consciousness, see Pelling, Henry, ‘Labour and the downfall of Liberalism1’, Popular politics and society, pp 101–20Google Scholar, and McKibbin, Ross, The evolution of the Labour party, 1910–1924 (Oxford, 1974)Google Scholar

5 Vincent, John, The formation of the Liberal party (London, 1966)Google Scholar, section two

6 It is worth recording that the first two working men returned to parliament, Thomas Burt and Alexander Macdonald, were elected in 1874 (for Morpeth and Stafford respectively) and sat as Liberals.

7 ‘Self-help and liberty, order and progress these are what I advocate’, said Arch, Joseph, the agricultural labourers' leader, when summing up his philosophy in The story of his life (London, 1898), p. 404Google Scholar. Arch was one of the Lib-Labs elected in 1885, although he lost his seat again the following year. The others included the secretary to the T.U.C. parliamentary committee, Henry Broadhurst, who became the first working man to hold ministerial office under the Crown when he was appointed under-secretary at the Home Office in Gladstone's third ministry.

8 Broadhurst, for example, had to fight off a fierce attack from Hardie, Keir at the T.U.C. meeting in 1887. T.U.C. annual report, 1887, p. 29Google Scholar. At the same meeting there was a lively debate over Labour's future relations with the Liberal party. On the general background, particularly the beginnings of independent Labour politics, see Pelling, Henry, Origins of the Labour party (2nd edn, Oxford, 1965), pp. 62–99Google Scholar.

9 Hobson, J. A., Problems of poverty (London, 1891), p. 227Google Scholar, quoted in Clarke, , Liberals and social democrats, p. 49Google Scholar.

10 Sydney Buxton, the Liberal M.P. for Poplar, wrote that the dock strike of 1889 ‘helped to crystallize public opinion in favour of the general principle that men should be paid better wages and work shorter hours; and that whatever pedants might say, business principles should be A tempered by humanity…In a word, that profits should be more equitably divided between labour and capital, and the working classes be enabled to live more decent and domestic lives.’ Introduction to Smith, H. Llewellyn and Nash, Vaughan, The story of the dockers' strike (London, 1890), p. 7Google Scholar. Herbert Samuel also testified to the formative influence of the strike on his outlook. Samuel, Viscount, Memoirs (London, 1945), p. 6Google Scholar.

11 Hobson was probably the most prominent of the New Liberal economists. He published The evolution of modem capitalism in 1894 and The problem of the unemployed in 1896.

12 Hobhouse, L. T., The Labour movement (2nd edn, London, 1898), p. 46Google Scholar. That Hobhouse should have chosen this as the subject of his first book is itself significant of the importance of the ‘labour question’ in Liberal minds. For a fuller consideration of Hobhouse's thought see Collini, Stefan, Liberalism and sociology (Cambridge, 1979)Google Scholar.

13 Hobhouse, , Labour movement, p. 46Google Scholar.

14 This point was not lost on Liberal theorists. ‘In spite of their great achievements, trade unions I have been found inadequate to safeguard the freedom of the working classes against the overwhelming force of economic pressure’, wrote Herbert Samuelin 1902. Even where they were strongest, ‘the unions are often too weak to cope with the concentrated force of capital and in set battles find themselves outmatched again and again’. Samuel, , Liberalism (London, 1902), pp. 26–7Google Scholar.

15 In Hobhouse's, words, only the state could be charged with the ‘great work of regulating all that is most vital to society, and prescribing the unity in things essential, without which a nation cannot live’. Labour movement, p. 53Google Scholar. For New Liberals, the state became ‘the organized intelligence and will of the community’, the heart and mind of the social organism which prevented its health from being disrupted by internal disagreements. Progressive Review (10 1896), p. 6Google Scholar.

16 The veteran Lib–Lab, George Howell, remained steadfastly opposed to the ‘mischiefs of state regulation’. Howell, , Trade unionism new and old (London, 1891), p. 172Google Scholar. In the 1890s the Lib–Lab group in the commons was divided over whether to support the Eight Hours Bill for Mines.

17 For the standard accounts see Pelling, Henry, A history of British trade unionism (3rd edn, London 1976), pp. 109–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clegg, H. A., Fox, Alan and Thompson, A. F., A history of British trade unions since 1889, 1: 1889–1910 (Oxford, 1964)Google Scholar, ch. 4.

18 Saville, John, ‘Trade unions and free labour: the background to the TaffVale decision’, in Briggs, Asa and Saville, John (eds.), Essays in labour history (London, 1960), pp. 317–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 The articles were reprinted as Edwin A. Pratt, Trade unionism and British industry (London, 1904).

20 Harcourt to Liverpool Union Bank, 14 February 1892, Bod[leian L[ibrary, Harcourt Papers, MSS Harcourt dep. 730, fo. 228.

21 Quoted in Fowler, Edith Henrietta, The life of Henry Hartley Fowler (London, 1912), p. 404Google Scholar.

22 Speech to the Associated Chambers of Commerce, 14March 1894, reprinted in H. H. Asquith, Speeches, 1892–1908 (London, 1908), pp. 80–1.

23 Speech to employees, 3 December 1892, quoted in Mather, L. E. (ed.), The Rt Hon Sir William Mather, 1838–1920 (London, 1926), p. 280Google Scholar.

24 ‘It was in productive co-operation that they would find the solution of capital and labour’, believed Thomas Burt, Lib–Lab M.P. and secretary to the Northumberland Miners Association. Quoted in Channing, F. A., Memories of midland politics, 1885–1910 (London, 1918), p. 117Google Scholar. In an address to the Durham miners in 1895, Burt identified ‘the reconciliation of the interests of Labour and of Capital’ as ‘the great problem of those times’. Quoted in Burt, Thomas, An autobiography (London, 1924), p. 238Google Scholar.

25 Lord Rosebery to Harcourt, 3 April 1894, Rosebery papers, N[ational] L[ibrary of] S[cotland], MS 10145, fos. 184–6.

26 Armytage, W. H. G., A. J. Mundella, 1825–1897: the Liberal background to the Labour movement (London, 1951), p. IIIGoogle Scholar.

27 Corder, Percy, Life of Robert Spence Watson (London, 1914), p. 161Google Scholar.

28 A full account of the strikes of 1896–7 and 1900–3 is given in Jones, R. Merfyn, The North Wales quarrymen, 1874–1922 (Cardiff, 1982)Google Scholar.

29 Wrigley, C. J., David Lloyd George and the British Labour movement (Brighton, 1976), pp. 50–8Google Scholar. On the wider development of industrial relations procedures see Brown, E. H. Phelps, The growth of British industrial relations (London, 1959)Google Scholar.

30 Pelling, , British trade unionism, p. 293Google Scholar.

31 Morgan, Kenneth O., Wales in British politics, 1868–1922 (Cardiff, 1980 edn), pp. 204–5Google Scholar.

32 Lord Penrhyn refused all offers of mediation by the board of trade. Since the conciliation Act required intervention to be requested by both parties to the dispute, this refusal left the government virtually powerless. There is some evidence to suggest that employers generally were reluctant to make use of the Act because of their suspicions of the pro-labour bias of the labour, department. Pratt, , Trade unionism and British industry, pp. 221–2Google Scholar, quotes figures to show that between August 1896 and June 1901 only 113 of 3,868 disputes were referred to the board.

33 Powell, David, ‘The Liberal ministries and Labour, 1892–5’, History, LXVIII (1983), 408–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Ibid. pp. 420–I 422–3.

35 Asquith insisted that ‘the interests of the community as a whole ought to be paramount over the interests of any class, any interest, or any section’. The Times, (31 January 1895), quoted in Matthew, H. C. G., The Liberal imperialists (Oxford, 1973), p. 247Google Scholar.

36 Simon, J. A., ‘Liberals and Labour’, in Essays in Liberalism by six Oxford men (London, 1897), pp. 118–9Google Scholar.

37 , S. Maccoby, English radicalism, 1886–1914 (London, 1953), p. 163Google Scholar.

38 Robbins, Keith, Sir Edward Grey (London, 1971), p. 103Google Scholar.

39 Havighurst, A., Radical journalist: H. W. Massingham, 1860–1924 (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 54, 99Google Scholar.

40 Hammond, J. L., C. P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian (London, 1934), pp. 72–3Google Scholar.

41 Progressive Review, (August 1897), p. 475.

42 Massingham to Daniel, 22 December 1896, D. R. Daniel papers, N[ational] L[ibrary of] W[ales], fo. 2527.

43 Massingham to W. J. Williams, 3 February 1897, ibid. fo. 2484.

44 On a motion of Asquith's in April 1903, calling for government intervention to end the dispute, 184 votes were recorded in favour, 318 against. Of the 184, 161 were Liberals. The 318 were all Unionists. Liberal Magazine (May 1903), pp. 213–14

45 In the commons, Keir Hardie used this fact to embarrass Gladstone's government, asking whether it were not true that the chief obstacle to a negotiated settlement was a member of the house and a government supporter. Parliamentary debates, Fourth Series, XI, 1492–3 (28 04 1893)Google Scholar.

46 Mather, (ed.), Sir William Mather, p. 20Google Scholar.

47 Memorandum, 6 May 1904, Viscount Gladstone papers, B[ritish] L[ibrary], Add. MSS 45988, fos. 101–2.

48 Money, L. G. C., Riches and poverty (London, 1905), p. 323Google Scholar.

49 Rosebery, to Harcourt, , 3 04 1894, Rosebery papers, N.L.S. MS 10145, fo. 189Google Scholar.

50 Campbell-Bannerman, to Gladstone, Herbert, 2 01 1905Google Scholar, Viscount Gladstone papers, B.L. Add. MSS 45988, fo. 140.

51 Powell, , ‘Liberal ministries’, pp. 420–1Google Scholar. It was only continued Labour pressure that forced the government to take any action. In February 1895 Keir Hardie put down a motion critical of the government's inaction and it was feared that the opposition and some Liberals would support it, causing a damaging defeat for the government. The attack was diverted when the government appointed a select committee under Campbell-Bannerman's chairmanship to inquire into the question of relief. Harcourt's, Lewis Journal (typescript copy), 5–6 February 1895, Bod. L., Harcourt papers, MSS Harcourt dep. 730, pp. 960–1Google Scholar.

52 For a detailed analysis of Labour' s policies see Brown, Kenneth D., Labour and unemployment, 1900–1914 (Newton Abbot, 1971)Google Scholar. See also Harris, José, Unemployment and politics, 1886–1914 (Oxford, 1972), pp. 212–34Google Scholar.

53 Herbert Gladstone to Campbell-Bannerman, 10 December 1904, Campbell-Bannerman papers, B.L. Add. MSS 41216, fo. 247.

54 Bryce to Herbert Gladstone, 14 December 1904, Viscount Gladstone papers, B.L. Add. MSS, 45989, fos. 84–5.

55 Campbell-Bannerman to Asquith, 1 December 1905, Bod. L., Asquith papers, MSS Asquith 10, fo. 173.

56 Lloyd George wrote to his brother that the Bill was ‘one of the most revolutionary departures of modern times’ and ‘the Tories don't realize what they have let themselves in for’. Lloyd George to William George, 4 August 1905, quoted in George, William, My brother and I (London, 1958), p.173Google Scholar.

57 In a paper delivered to the Rainbow Circle on 3 May 1899, Samuel urged that a ‘progressive labour policy’ must not be presented too aggressively as nothing but a set of working-class demands It ‘must be inspired by full knowledge & sympathy with labour demands & must at the same time conciliate the employer by proving to him that the changes which it contemplates will not injure him if indeed they do not benefit him The party should moreover conciliate the commercial classes generally’ B[ritish] L[ibrary of] P[olitical and] E[conomic] S[cience], Rainbow Circle Minutes, 1, 85

58 When the programme for the first session of the 1906 parliament was being drawn up, Campbell-Bannerman wrote to Asquith agreeing that a Workmen's Compensation Bill should accompany the Trades Disputes Bill to which they were already committed ‘But,’ he went on, ‘If we have two sops for Labour, we ought to have some other Bill besides Educn of general interest, to balance them, otherwise will not the enemy blaspheme & will not colour be given to the assertion which seems to be their main weapon now, that we are in the hands & at the mercy of Labour (which is socialism)’ Campbell-Bannerman to Asquith, 21 January 1906, Bod L, Asquith papers, MSS Asquith 10, fo 200 The need to balance the claims of competing sectional interests and to construct a platform that would appeal to a broad range of voters was a crude illustration of the way in which the communitarian approach to legislation had direct practical consequences, albert sometimes of a kind which it was difficult to distinguish from more old-fashioned forms of parliamentary horse-trading

59 Samuel, Herbert, ‘The Independent Labour party’, Progressive Review (12 1896), pp 255–8Google Scholar

60 Hobson, J A, The crisis of Liberalism (London, 1909), p XIIGoogle Scholar ‘That conception is not Socialism, in any accredited meaning of that term, though implying a considerable amount of increased public ownership and control of industry From the standpoint which best presents its continuity with earlier Liberalism, it appears as a fuller appreciation and realization of individual liberty contained in the provision of equal opportunities for self-development’ For a general discussion of these points tion see Freeden, , New Liberalism, PP 150–8Google Scholar

61 Memorandum, 13 March 1903, Viscount Gladstone papers, B L Add. MSS 46106, fo 9

62 Speech to National Liberal Federation, 16 May 1903, quoted in Liberal Magazine (June 1903), p 272

63 Samuel described the Socialist programme as ‘too visionary to serve the purposes of practical politics B L P E S, Rainbow Circle minutes, 1, 85, 3 May 1899 Asquith was ‘all against wasting time and energy in going woolgathering with the socialists’ Speech, 13 October 1906, quoted in Asquith, , Speeches, 1892–1908, p 253Google Scholar For the opposing view see, for example, Hardie, J Keir and MacDonald, J Ramsay, ‘The Independent Labour party's programme’, Nineteenth Century, (01 1899)Google Scholar

64 Parliamentary Debates, third series, CCXLIX, 1005–6, 23 January 1891

65 Quoted in Robbins, , Sir Edward Grey, p 103Google Scholar

66 Speech to Eighty Club, 6 February 1903, quoted in Liberal Magazine (March 1903), pp 93–6

67 The phrases are Asquith's, quoted in Matthew, , Liberal imperialists, p 247Google Scholar

68 The Times, (3 March 1906)

69 John Simon, a young Liberal whose sympathies in the inter-war years were to take him into alliance with the Conservatives, summed up this attitude perfectly ‘So long as the employer is in a position of vastly preponderating influence’, he wrote in 1897, ‘the message of Liberalism is not misrepresented – rather, it is given special point and directness – if it is put in a form which suggests that the interests of the worker are the chief, or even the sole, concern of the party.’ But, he continued, ‘it is well to remember that a time may come when the very success of the policy may make it necessary to change the forms of its expression… To employ a mathematical metaphor, it is only so long as the forces of capitalism are infinite, in comparison with the forces of Labour, ‘that the claims of capitalism can be justly neglected as infinitesimal in comparison with the claims of Labour.’ Simon, , ‘Liberals and Labour’, Essays in Liberalism by six Oxford men, pp 100–1Google Scholar.

70 The story of Taff Vale is too well known to need to be described here. See Pelling, , British trade unionism, pp. 123–5Google Scholar; Clegg, Fox and Thompson, British trade unions, chapter 8.

71 Matthew, , Liberal imperialists, p. 247Google Scholar.

72 Clegg, , Fox, and Thompson, , British trade unions, pp. 368–9Google Scholar

73 Asquith to Dilke, 15 October 1902, Dilke papers, B.L Add. MSS 43877, fo. 23

74 Speech on ‘The law of trade combinations’, 6 February 1903, quoted in Liberal Magazine, (March 1903), p. 93

75 Herbert Gladstone to Campbell-Bannerman, 8 February 1903, Campbell-Bannerman papers, B.L. Add. MSS 41216, fo. 247. Campbell-Bannerman agreed: ‘I do not see how there can be any difference about the Trade Union question, & as you say Asquith's speech is useful.’ Campbell-Bannerman to Gladstone, 9 February 1903, Viscount Gladstone papers, B.L. Add. MSS 45988, fo. 33.

76 Liberal Publication Department, leaflet no. 2054, quoted in Russell, A. K., Liberal landslide (Newton Abbot, 1973), p. 72Google Scholar.

77 Ibid. p. 71.

78 Clegg, , Fox, and Thompson, , British trade unions, pp. 322–3Google Scholar.

79 Speech on ‘Trade combinations’, 6 February 1903, quoted in Liberal Magazine (March 1903), p. 96. Another Liberal M.P., Atherley-Jones, put the point more sharply. He refused to accept that the unions should be given ‘freedom from responsibility for wrongful acts knowingly committed by them’. Such freedom ‘was in remote times afforded the clergy; the common sense of the community abolished that odious privilege. What was denied to the church should not be conceded to trade unions; fair and impartial justice to all should govern the actions of the legislators as much as the judges.’ Atherley-Jones, L. A., Looking back: reminiscences of a political career (London, 1925), p. 156Google Scholar.

80 Gladstone, Herbert, ‘The Liberal party and the labour question’, Albemarle Review, (02 1892), p. 57Google Scholar.

81 Bryce to Herbert Gladstone, 24 March 1892, Viscount Gladstone papers, B L Add MSS, 46019, fos 28–9.

82 Speech, Newcastle, 18 April 1903, quoted in Liberal Magazine (May, 1903), p. 236

83 Bryce to Arnold Morley, 15 March 1892, Viscount Gladstone papers, B L Add MSS 46022, fo 186.

84 Bryce to Herbert Gladstone, 28 March 1892, ibid 46019, fos 30 I ‘it is not from party motives but in th e interests of the nation and not least of the working classes themselves – that we deprecate the creation of a “class” party It would mean a lowering of civic duty and patriotism’.

85 Arch, Joseph, The story of his life, p 358Google Scholar

86 There is a fuller consideration of these points in Powell, David, ‘The Liberal party and Labour, 1886–1906’ (Unpublished D Phil dissertation, University of Oxford, 1982, ch VI, on which this paragraph is basedGoogle Scholar

87 Attercliffe provided the occasion for Ramsay MacDonald's final breach with the Liberal party ‘Liberalism’, he wrote to Hardie when applying for membership of the I L P, had to ‘definitely declared against Labour’ by its attitude to the Sheffield election Quoted in Pelling, , Origins of the Labour party, p. 165Google Scholar MacDonald had also suffered the personal disappointment of being rejected as candidate by the Southampton Liberals Marquand, David, Ramsay MacDonald (London, 1977), p. 36Google Scholar. For a wider study of the question see Howell, David, British workers and the Independent Labour party, 1888–1906 (Manchester, 1983)Google Scholar.

88 There were, however, some notable exceptions. John Morley, for instance, blamed his defeat at Newcastle on his personal opposition to an Eight Hours Bill. Morley, Viscount, Recollections (London, 1917), II, 47Google Scholar. For a more detailed consideration of individual constituencies see Pelling, Henry. Social geography of British elections (London, 1967)Google Scholar. See also Powell, , ‘Liberal party and Labour’, pp. 204–7Google Scholar.

89 Although the I.L.P. secretary, Tom Mann, polled well at North Aberdeen in May 1896, losing to the Liberal by only 430 votes, there followed a series of embarrassingly heavy defeats. At Barnslev in 1897 Pete Curran polled only 9·7 per cent of the votes cast. McLean, Iain, Keir Hardie (London, 1975), pp. 68–71Google Scholar.

90 Letter to The Speaker (9 Januar y 1892), quoted in Freeden, , New Liberalism, p. 126Google Scholar.

91 See, for example, Rainbow Circle Minutes, 1, 14, 19 June 1895.

92 Ibid. p. 85, 3 May 1899.

93 Hobson, J. A., ‘Of Labour’, in Hands, J. E. (ed.), Good citizenship (London, 1899), p. 105Google Scholar.

94 Hobson, J. A., The crisis of Liberalism (London, 1909), p. 150Google Scholar . Hobhouse expressed similar, concerns in his book, Democracy and reaction (London, 1904)Google Scholar.

95 Quoted in Matthew, , Liberal imperialists, p. 129Google Scholar.

96 Manchester Guardian (7 November 1904), quoted in Wrigley, , Lloyd George and the Labour movement, p. 26Google Scholar.

97 Carnarvon Herald (21 October 1904), quoted ibid, p. 25.

98 Rainbow Circle Minutes, 1, 85, 3 May 1899.

99 Beatrice Webb noted after a visit to the 1902 T.U.C. that the ‘dominant note’ of the congress ‘is the determination to run Labour candidates on a large scale, and faith in the efficacy of this device for gaining all they require’. Webb, Beatrice, Our partnership (London, 1948), p. 245Google Scholar.

100 Memorandum by Jesse Herbert, Viscount Gladstone papers, B.L. Add MSS 46025,, fo. 131.

101 Wilson, John, CB. A life of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman (London, 1973), pp. 504–6Google Scholar.

102 The extent of the ‘psychological retreat’ made by the Liberals in this respect remains to be fully explored and is something with which I hope to deal on a future occasion.

103 The phrase is Hobhouse's. Quoted in Freeden, , Mew Liberalism, p. 126Google Scholar.