George Lansbury and the Middlesbrough Election of 1906

A. W. Purdue

doi:10.1017/S0020859000004363

George Lansbury and the Middlesbrough Election of 1906

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2008

A. W. Purdue

Article contents

Extract
References

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The different elements which came together to form the Labour Representation Committee in February 1900 were, when it came to party organisation, at once its strength and its weakness. Labour was not in the position of a totally new political party having to build up a political machine from scratch, rather the LRC was able to utilise and build upon existing organisations: these were the Independent Labour Party, the Fabian Society, those trade unions which supported the LRC, and trades councils throughout the country (the Social Democratic Federation disaffiliated from the LRC after little more than a year's membership). At both a local and a national level, however, these organisations were often hostile to each other, jealous of their independence and suspicious of attempts by the LRC Executive to control them.

Type: Research Article
Information: International Review of Social History , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , December 1973 , pp. 333 - 352

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020859000004363 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis 1973

References

^{page 333 note 1} Organisations such as the Labour Representation Committee, the Independent Labour Party and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers are, after their first mention, referred to by abbreviations LRC, ILP and ASE.

^{page 333 note 2} Hereafter referred to as the NEC (National Executive Committee).

^{page 334 note 1} In the event, of course, Henderson had to face a Liberal candidate but he was very reluctant to do so. He was elected MP for Barnard Castle at a by-election in July 1903.

^{page 334 note 2} James Sexton of the Liverpool Dockers was adopted for Tynemouth but withdrew in 1904.

^{page 334 note 3} In 1905 the ILP felt it worthwhile to send an area organiser to the North East. By April 1905 there were sixteen branches of the ILP in Durham.

^{page 334 note 4} In Gateshead there was strong pressure from the ILP for a candidate to oppose John Johnson, the candidate of the Durham Miners' Association and a “Lib-Lab”.

^{page 334 note 5} J. W. Taylor, who was to be elected MP for Chester-le-Street in 1906, was also a DMA candidate but, unlike Johnson, he was a militant ILPer.

^{page 335 note 1} The potential Labour voter was not, of course, always a Liberal (indeed in Lancashire he was more often likely to have been a working man with Unionist sympathies) but nationally and especially in the North East it is clear that the LRC expected votes to come from ex-Liberals rather than ex-Unionists. The exception to this in the North East was perhaps Teesside, where working class Unionism appears to have been strong. See below.

^{page 335 note 2} Pelling, H., Social Geography of British Elections (1967), p. 329.Google Scholar

^{page 335 note 3} Liberal Unionism. The Liberal Unionist Party had its origins in the split within the Liberal Party over Gladstone's first Irish Home Rule bill. The Liberals who opposed Home Rule formed the Liberal Unionist Party under the leadership of Chamberlain and Hartington. Since 1886 the Conservative Party has also been called the Unionist Party. The term Unionist is used throughout this article to describe both Liberal Unionists and Conservatives.

^{page 336 note 1} 4 Liberal Unionists and 7 Conservatives (2 from both Newcastle and Sunderland).

^{page 336 note 2} Darlington returned a Unionist in 1895, 1900, 1906, December 1910; Stockton in 1892, 1900, 1906. The county division of South East Durham returned a Unionist in 1886, 1895, 1900, 1906.

^{page 336 note 3} There was a national swing to the Unionists in terms of percentage of total votes cast although the Liberals, in fact, gained a handful of seats.

^{page 336 note 4} 1900 Election: Electorate 17, 307; Col. Samuel A. Saddler (Unionist) 6760; Joseph H. Wilson (Liberal-Labour) 6705; Unionist Majority 55. Saddler, who had first stood for the constituency in 1878, was the owner of a large chemical works and an ex-mayor of Middlesbrough.

^{page 336 note 5} In Wilson's own opinion his support for John Morley at the latter's by-election victory at Newcastle in 1892 had done him great harm with the ILP. “[…] by supporting Mr. Morley at Newcastle I made many enemies among the I.L. Party”. Wilson, J. Havelock, My Stormy Voyage through Life, Vol. 1 (1925), p. 265.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 1} Bealey, F. and Pelling, H., Labour and Politics 1900–06 (1958), p. 152.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 2} Hansen, Mrs M. C. to MacDonald, J. R., July 4th 1903, Labour Party Letter Files, Transport House, London.Google Scholar

^{page 337 note 3} LRC Executive Minutes, June 18th 1903, Pease Collection, London School of Economics. Also Wilson's letters to John Hodge, Chairman LRC, LPLF. The letters complain of MacDonald suggesting an alternative candidate and making disparaging remarks about Wilson.

^{page 337 note 4} Sub-Committee Report, May 31st 1900, LPLF.

^{page 337 note 5} Herbert Gladstone Papers, British Museum, Ms 46106.

^{page 337 note 6} C. Coates to J. R. MacDonald, April 23rd 1903, LPLF.

^{page 338 note 1} F. J. Iveson to J. R. MacDonald, May 9th 1903, LPLF.

^{page 338 note 2} F. J. Iveson to J. R. MacDonald, June 6th 1903, LPLF.

^{page 338 note 3} B. Turner to J. R. MacDonald, June 30th 1903. It would appear at first sight from the evidence of Turner's letter that the differences between Wilson and the LRC were minor and almost technical. Wilson agreed to be a faithful member of the LRC in almost every way except that he would not give up the right to support his Liberal and Liberal-Labour friends in other constituencies which was, of course, contrary to the “Newcastle Resolution” of 20th February 1903, by which members of the executive, officials of affiliated organisations, members of parliament and candidates should not identify themselves with, or promote the interest of, “any section of the Liberal or Conservative parties”. The differences between Wilson and the LRC were greater than this and it is likely that he deliberately went far further to meet the LRC requirements than he was really prepared to go, knowing that the Newcastle Resolution would prevent his acceptance by the LRC and that this could make the LRC look unreasonable and doctrinaire.

^{page 339 note 1} J. Arnott to J. R. MacDonald, February 11th 1905, LPLF.

^{page 340 note 1} See below, p. 345.

^{page 340 note 2} Mrs M. C. Hansen to J. R. MacDonald, July 4th 1905, LPLF. Throughout Mrs Hansen's correspondence one can detect an air of boundless optimism and a tendency to overestimate support, often the hallmark of the activist in extremist politics.

^{page 340 note 3} G. Lansbury to J. R. MacDonald, July 6th 1905, LPLF.

^{page 340 note 4} G. Lansbury had previously been a member of the SDF.

^{page 341 note 1} J. R. MacDonald to G. Lansbury, July 7th 1905, LPLF.

^{page 341 note 2} North Eastern Daily Gazette, October 2nd 1905.

^{page 341 note 3} R. Postgate, George Lansbury (1951), p. 76.

^{page 342 note 1} LRC Executive Minutes, October 2nd 1905, Pease Collection.

^{page 342 note 2} LRC Executive Minutes, December 14th 1905, Pease Collection. The subcommittee referred to is the sub-committee left in London by the NEC to look after party affairs during the election, when many prominent members would be fighting in provincial constituencies.

^{page 343 note 1} MacDonald, J. R. to Lansbury, G., December 23rd 1905, Lansbury Papers, Vol. 2, London School of Economics.Google Scholar

^{page 343 note 2} Mrs M. C. Hansen to J. R. MacDonald, December 22nd 1905, LPLF.

^{page 344 note 1} LRC Executive Minutes, December 19th 1906, Pease Collection.

^{page 344 note 2} LRC Executive Minutes, July 24th 1907, Pease Collection.

^{page 344 note 3} Mrs M. C. Hansen to G. Lansbury, December 24th 1905, Lansbury Papers.

^{page 344 note 4} Id., December 7th 1905.

^{page 344 note 5} Id., December 8th 1905. It is doubtful whether, in a heavy industrial constituency like Middlesbrough, Lansbury's support for “Women's Rights” was an advantage.

^{page 345 note 1} Id., December 7th 1905.

^{page 345 note 2} Id., December 1905.

^{page 345 note 3} Laindon Farm Colony and Hollesby Bay were both institutions designed to make work for the unemployed.

^{page 345 note 4} The sequel to this episode is that Fels got his money back after the Bolshevik Revolution, an outcome he can scarcely have anticipated.

^{page 345 note 5} Postgate, R., George Lansbury, p. 68.Google Scholar

^{page 346 note 1} The maximum legal expenditure in a constituency with 20,000 registered voters (Middlesbrough had 20,332) should have been, in accordance with the Corrupt and illegal Practices Prevention Act (1883), £920.

^{page 346 note 2} Mrs M. C. Hansen to G. Lansbury, December 8th 1905, Lansbury Papers, Vol. 2.

^{page 346 note 3} Walter Coates to Mrs M. C. Hansen, December 8th 1905, ibid.

^{page 347 note 1} North Star, December 14th 1905.

^{page 347 note 2} North Eastern Daily Gazette, December 22nd 1905.

^{page 347 note 3} Northern Echo, January 12th 1906. Contains an attack on Lansbury's electoral record.

^{page 348 note 1} Shields Daily News, January 12th 1906.

^{page 348 note 2} Maccoby, S., in English Radicalism, the End? (1961)Google Scholar, stated that Hardie believed that Wilson “had not been above selling the seamen on occasion for a private consideration from their employers”. Certainly allegations about Wilson's financial affairs were common, though emphatically denied by him.

^{page 348 note 3} Northern Echo, January 12th 1906.

^{page 348 note 4} North Eastern Daily Gazette, December 22nd 1905.

^{page 348 note 5} Shields Daily News, January 17th 1906.

^{page 348 note 6} Shields Daily News, January 17th 1906.

^{page 348 note 7} Times, January 10th 1906.

^{page 349 note 1} Middlesbrough Election News, January 6th 1906, Lansbury Papers, Vol. 2.

^{page 350 note 1} Mrs M. C. Hansen to G. Lansbury, December 1905, Lansbury papers, Vol. 2. This letter is undated but was probably written about the third week in December.

^{page 350 note 2} In Jarrow the Irish were similarly advised by their leaders to vote for the Liberal, even though Pete Curran, the LRC candidate, was Irish.

^{page 350 note 3} Middlesbrough Election News, January 2nd 1906.

^{page 350 note 4} North Star, December 14th 1905.

^{page 350 note 5} Mrs M. C. Hansen to G. Lansbury, December 24th 1905, Lansbury Papers, Vol. 2.

^{page 351 note 1} Electorate 20,332. Total Poll 17,501.

^{page 351 note 2} Postgate, R., George Lansbury, p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 351 note 3} The Medical Officer of Health report 1900 had found no toilets or even sinks in many houses, with all refuse tossed into the front street, while 168 persons were found to be living in 18 houses.

^{page 351 note 4} Asa Briggs, in Victorian Cities (1963), comments on the variety of religions in Middlesbrough but also says, p. 261: “the attempt to keep rates down or to defend Nonconformity and temperance remained the main elements at municipal elections”.

^{page 352 note 1} J. W. Taylor (Chester-le-Street) and J. Johnson (Gateshead) were also Miners' Union candidates but Taylor was a member of the ILP and Johnson to the left of the “Lib-Labs”.

^{page 352 note 2} Curran had a straight fight with a Liberal while Rose and Taylor, who was not a LRC candidate, fought three cornered contests.

Article contents

George Lansbury and the Middlesbrough Election of 1906

Extract

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests