their partisans on to the lists, and keep those of their opponents off;
and they are said to have done it with more zeal than fairness, often
with unjust results, for any claim or objection, though really
ill-founded, was likely to be allowed by the revising barrister if
unopposed.[468:1] From registration a natural step led to canvassing at
election time; that is, seeking the voters in their own homes;
persuading the doubtful; when possible, converting the unbelieving; and,
above all, making sure that the faithful came to the polls. This had
always been done by the candidates in popular constituencies; and now
the registration societies furnished a nucleus for the purpose, with a
mass of information about the persons to be canvassed, already acquired
in making up the voting lists. The nomination of candidates did not
necessarily form any part of their functions. The old theory prevailed,
of which traces may be found all through English life, that the
candidate offered himself for election, or was recommended by some
influential friend. The idea that he ought to be designated by the
voters of his party had not arisen; nor did the local societies, which
were merely self-constituted bodies, claim any right to speak for those
voters. No doubt they often selected and recommended candidates; but
they did so as a group of individuals whose opinions carried weight, not
as a council representing the party.
The time was coming, however, when another extension of the franchise,
and the growth of democratic ideas, would bring a demand for the
organisation of the societies on a representative basis. The change
began almost immediately after the passage of the Reform Act of 1867;
and the occasion--it cannot properly be called the cause--of the
movement is curious. When discussion in England was busy with Hare's
plan for proportional representation, which John Stuart Mill hailed as
the salvation of society, serious voices were heard to object to the
scheme on the ground that it would lead to the growth of party
organisations, and would place the voter in the grip of a political
machine.[469:1] It is, therefore, interesting to note that the first
outcry in England against actual party machinery was directed at an
organisation which sprang from the minute grain of minority
representation in the Act of 1867.
[Sidenote: The Birmingham Caucus.]
[Sidenote: Its Object.]
By the Reform Act of 1867 the great towns of Liverpool, Manchester,
Birmingham and Leeds were given three members of Parliament apiece; but
in order to provide some representation for the minority, the Lords
inserted, and the Commons accepted, a clause that no elector in those
towns should vote for more than two candidates.[469:2] Much foresight
was not required to perceive that if one of those towns elected two
Liberals and a Conservative, two of her members would neutralise each
other on a party division, and her weight would be only one vote; while
a much smaller town that chose two members of the same party in the
ordinary way would count for two in a division. Such a result seemed to
the Radicals of Birmingham a violation of the democratic principle, and
they were determined to prevent it if possible. They had on their side
more than three fifths of the voters, or more than half as many again as
their opponents, and this was enough to carry all three seats if their
votes were evenly distributed between three candidates. But to give to
three candidates the same number of votes when each elector could vote
for only two of them was not an easy thing to do, and failure might
mean the loss of two seats. Very careful planning was required for
success, very strict discipline among the voters, and hence a keen
interest in the result among the mass of the people and perfect
confidence in the party managers.
[Sidenote: Its Formation.]
To provide the machinery needed, Mr. William Harris, the Secretary of
the Birmingham Liberal Association, a self-constituted election
committee of the familiar type, proposed to transform that body into a
representative party organisation; which was forthwith done in October,
1867. The new rules provided that every Liberal subscribing a shilling
should be a member of the association, and that an annual meeting of the
members should choose the officers and twenty members to serve upon an
executive committee. This committee, which had charge of the general
business of the association, was to consist of the four officers and
twenty members already mentioned, of twenty more to be chosen by the
Midland branch of the National Reform League when formed, and of three
members chosen by a ward committee to be elected by the members of the
association in each ward. According to a common English custom the
committee had power to add to its members four more persons chosen, or,
as the expression goes, coopted, by itself. There was also a larger
body, consisting of the whole executive committee and of not more than
twenty-four members elected by each of the ward committees. It was
officially called the general committee, but was commonly known from the
approximate number of its members as "The Four Hundred." It was to have
control of the policy of the association, and to nominate the three
Liberal candidates for Parliament in the borough.[470:1]
The number of Liberal voters in each of the several wards was then
carefully ascertained; and those in one ward were directed to vote for A
and B; those of another for A and C; those of a third for B and C; and
so on, in such a way that the total votes cast for each of the three
candidates should be as nearly as possible the same. Protests were, of
course, made against voting by dictation. It offended the sense of
personal independence; but the great mass of Liberals voted as they were
told, and all three of the candidates were elected.
[Sidenote: Its Early Victories.]
The association had accomplished a great feat. Three Liberals had been
sent to Parliament from Birmingham in spite of the minority
representation clause. But a chance for another victory of the same kind
did not come again until the dissolution six years later; and at first
the managers were less fortunate in the elections to the school board.
The Education Act of 1870 provided for cumulative voting at the election
of these bodies; that is, the elector might cast all the votes to which
he was entitled for one candidate, or distribute them in any way he
pleased. The system made it possible for very small minorities to elect
one or more candidates, and the Liberal Association, in trying to elude
its effects, as they had done in the case of the parliamentary election,
attempted too much and carried only a minority of the board. For a time
the organisation languished; but it was soon recalled to a more vigorous
life than ever.
[Sidenote: Its Revival in 1873.]
In 1873 the association was revived for the purpose of getting control
of the municipal government of the town, and introducing a more
progressive policy in its administration. Two names are especially
associated with the new departure, that of Mr. Schnadhorst, the
secretary of the association, who had a genius for organising, and that
of Mr. Chamberlain, who was the leading spirit of the movement, and
became the mayor of the borough in the following autumn. These men
proceeded to reconstruct the association on a slightly different, and
apparently even more democratic, plan. Taking the wards as the sole
basis of the fabric, an annual meeting was held in each ward, at which
any Liberals residing there might take part. They were entitled to do
so whether voters or not, and without regard to any subscription,
provided they signified their adherence to the objects and organisation
of the association, a statement which was understood to imply a
willingness to accept the decisions of the majority. The meeting elected
a committee, a chairman and a secretary for the ward; three persons to
serve with those two officers upon the executive committee of the
central association; and a number of persons, fixed in 1877 at thirty,
to serve on the general committee. The central executive committee
contained, in addition to the five members so elected in each ward, the
four officers of the association, and thirty members coopted by itself.
It chose seven of its own members, who with the four officers formed a
management sub-committee of eleven. The general committee of the
association was composed, as before, of the whole executive committee,
together with the thirty representatives from each ward; and, as there
were sixteen wards, it numbered by 1877 five hundred and ninety-four
members; and was known as the "Six Hundred" of Birmingham. It had power
to determine the policy of the association, and to nominate the
candidates for Parliament and the school board. The members of the town
council, on the other hand, being elected by wards, were nominated by
the ward committees; but the whole association was bound to support
them.
[Sidenote: Its Efficiency.]
Such was the new organisation of the Liberal Association.[472:1] Its
efficiency as an engine for controlling elections is proved by the fact
that during the four years from 1873 to 1876, inclusive, it carried all
three seats in Parliament in spite of the provision for minority
representation, a majority of the school board at each election in spite
of the provision for cumulative voting, and all but two of the
sixty-eight members elected to the town council during that
period.[472:2] The association was, indeed, well constructed for the
purpose.
As in the case of every political organisation based upon primary
meetings, an attempt to wrest the control from those who held it was a
difficult undertaking. To be successful more than half the wards must be
captured at one time, and that in the face of vigilant men, who knew all
the ropes, who had the management sub-committee in their hands, and who
by means of cooptation could convert a narrow majority into a larger
one, and thus perpetuate their own power. On the other hand, a revolt
against the nominations actually made was well-nigh precluded by the
agreement virtually entered into on joining the association, to abide by
the decision of the majority. It has been said that for a dozen years
the men who conducted the organisation sent travelling companions to one
ward meeting after another to insure the election of their supporters to
the various committees.[473:1] Whether this be true or not, it is
certain that the power of the managers was never overturned. Their rule
has, indeed, been prolonged over such a period that it must be
attributed both to the excellence of the mechanism and to their own
popularity. Throughout the many vicissitudes of his long career, from
his early years of advanced radicalism, through his breach with Mr.
Gladstone over the Home Rule Bill, his subsequent junction with the
Conservatives, and finally his advocacy of a wholly new policy about
preferential tariffs, Mr. Chamberlain has never failed to carry every
one of the parliamentary seats in Birmingham for his own adherents. Such
a result shows a power which nothing but a strong personal hold upon the
people, and a hold coupled with a highly efficient organisation, could
have secured.
[Sidenote: Criticisms of the System.]
The system adopted by the Liberals in Birmingham was copied in other
places, and soon became the subject of vehement discussion, the
arguments for and against it being the same that are commonly used in
the case of every party organisation. Its adversaries declared that it
threw absolute power into the hands of men with time to devote to
working the machinery; that it set up a tyranny which crushed out
individuality, extinguished free discussion of opinions, destroyed
independence in public life, caused a loss of variety and fertility in
Liberalism, and brought party politics into municipal affairs where they
ought not to be.
[Sidenote: Its Defence.]
To these criticisms the advocates of the system replied that the
association was conducted by the men with the most public spirit,
because they were willing to devote time and thought to the work; that
it could not create a tyranny, because the ward meetings were open to
all Liberals, who could at any time overthrow the management if they
chose; that, in regard to independence, every Liberal had a right to
speak freely at the ward meetings, to persuade his fellows to adopt his
views if he could, and that this is the only right he ought to enjoy,
because "a minority has no right to thwart a majority in determining the
course of Liberal policy." They insisted that the association was simply
"a method by which those who believe in human progress . . . can take
counsel together; come to an agreement as to their nearest duty; and
give their decisions practical effect in the legislation of their town
and country." They claimed that such men "are bound to select
representatives who will support the definite measures they believe to
be immediately necessary for the peace and prosperity of the
land."[474:1] In short the Radicals of Birmingham looked upon themselves
as reformers with a mission to fulfil, and felt the impatience--perhaps
one may say intolerance--which men in that position always feel for the
hesitating, the wavering, and the independent members of their own
party. To the Radicals the association appeared as an effective
instrument for putting their ideals into practice, and seemed wholly
good; while others, who had not the same faith in the end to be
attained, felt keenly the evils which the organisation actually
involved, and still more the abuses to which it might give rise in the
future.
[Sidenote: The Caucus and Town Politics.]
In regard to the charge of bringing politics into municipal affairs the
Radicals boldly justified their course, insisting that they stood for a
definite progressive policy in local, as well as in national,
affairs.[475:1] Under the lead of Mr. Chamberlain, who was elected mayor
of Birmingham in the autumn of 1873--the same year in which the
association was revived--the town council entered upon a period of great
activity. It improved the ordinary public services, such as paving and
sanitation; reorganised the health department; and inaugurated an
efficient system of sewerage with a large filtration farm, which was, at
least, a great improvement on what had gone before. It undertook also a
number of public works of a class now called "municipal trading." The
first of these was the supply of gas, both for lighting the streets and
for private use. There were at the time two gas companies in Birmingham,
and Mr. Chamberlain persuaded the council that the town could make a
profit by buying their property, and conducting the business itself. A
bargain was struck with the companies, and the purchase was made. It was
no sooner done than a proposal was made to apply the same principle to
water, which was also in the hands of a private company. In this case,
however, the object was not profit, but an improvement of the supply
with a view to better health, for a large part of the population still
depended upon wells, many of them, of course, in a dangerous condition.
Again a bargain was made with the company, and the water passed in turn
under public control.
Finally an ambitious plan was adopted for improving the appearance of
the town. Parliament has enacted a long series of statutes intended to
secure better houses for the working classes. One of them, the Artisans
and Labourers Dwellings Improvement Act of 1875,[475:2] empowered any
town, if authorised by a provisional order of the Local Government
Board confirmed by Parliament, to expropriate at its fair market value
an unhealthy area, that is, a district where the crowding together or
bad condition of the houses, and the want of light and air, were such as
to be dangerous to health. The town was to prepare a scheme for laying
out new streets and otherwise improving the area, and was authorised to
sell or let any part of the land on condition that the purchasers should
carry the scheme into effect. Now Birmingham, like many of the English
manufacturing places, had grown up in a squalid way, a network of narrow
streets, devoid of space or dignity; and in the centre was a great slum
with a high death-rate. This last, a region of more than ninety acres in
extent, was taken under the Act; a broad thoroughfare, named, in
recognition of its public origin, "Corporation Street," was laid out,
and the land bordering upon it let on long ground leases for commercial
buildings. The original intention had been to erect new houses for the
people whose dwellings had been destroyed; but this part of the plan was
in the main abandoned, on the ground that houses enough were provided by
private enterprise.
The management by a town of its gas and water supply, the purchase and
lease of large tracts of land, are steps in the direction of what is
known to-day as municipal socialism; and they provoked a difference of
opinion that still exists, both upon the wisdom of the policy in
general, and upon the extent to which it can be profitably carried. The
problem will be discussed hereafter, but we must note here that the
Radicals of Birmingham believed it to be a political issue, which
justified the use of party organisation as much as the issues that arose
in Parliament. They felt in the same way about the administration of the
new school law. In their eyes all these things formed part of a great
Radical policy of which they were the protagonists.
[Sidenote: The Spread of Associations on the Birmingham Model.]
The Birmingham Radicals had faith, not only in their political aims, but
also in the means they had devised for carrying them out. They did no
little missionary work in other towns, urging the Liberals to introduce
local representative associations on a democratic basis after the
Birmingham pattern. In spite of opposition the idea was received with
such favour that by the end of 1878 about one hundred bodies of this
kind existed in different places.[477:1] The movement was reenforced by
the foundation, in 1877, of the National Liberal Federation, whose
history will form the subject of a later chapter. This body admitted to
membership only associations of a democratic character, and its
influence was strongly felt. The Birmingham leaders, who controlled the
Federation, naturally desired to increase its power by extending the
number of affiliated bodies as much as possible; while the local
associations found an advantage in joining it as soon as it became a
factor in Liberal politics. Moreover, after the split in the party over
the Home Rule Bill, in 1886, when the Federation took the side of Mr.
Gladstone's followers against Mr. Chamberlain, the former became
interested in making the organisation as widely representative and
popular as possible. These various motives gave successive impulses,
with the result that by 1886 the Federation comprised two hundred and
fifty-five local associations, and by 1888 seven hundred and
sixteen.[477:2] The rules of the Federation, under the title of the
"Objects" for which it exists, still open with the words "To assist in
the organisation throughout the country of Liberal Associations based on
popular representation," and the rules are preceded by a statement which
says, _All associations, thus constituted, are eligible for
affiliation_. Although the statement goes on to declare that "No
interference with the local independence of the Federated Associations
is involved. Each association arranges the details of its own
organisation, and administers its own affairs." Still it has always been
assumed that the local bodies were to be popular in character. In fact
the old self-appointed committees were hardly compatible with the
democratic spirit brought in by the Reform Act of 1867, and in the
boroughs they soon gave way to representative bodies with a popular
organisation.
The process was much less rapid in the country constituencies,[478:1]
for not until 1884 was the franchise in these enlarged as it had been in
the boroughs in 1867, and when that had been done the traditional
authority of the squire and the parson presented an obstacle that
yielded slowly. Even now Conservative candidates are returned unopposed
more frequently in the counties than in the boroughs, especially in the
rural counties of the south. Often it was found impossible to establish
a Liberal association in each parish, and a local correspondent was, and
in some cases still is, a necessary substitute. But the growth of
democratic ideas, the practice of popular election, the change in
economic conditions caused by the decay of agricultural prosperity and
the desire to live in cities, with the consequent scarcity of rural
labour, have, by reducing the patriarchal influence of the landlord over
his people, paved the way for representative political organisations. At
the present day associations democratic in form exist in almost every
parliamentary constituency, whether borough or county, where the number
of Liberal voters is not so small, or the chance of success at elections
is not so desperate, that the district is what is sometimes officially
called derelict.
[Sidenote: Existing Organisation of Local Liberal Associations.]
The constitutions of the local Liberal associations are not precisely
uniform, nor, apart from the general principle that they ought to be
based upon popular representation, is any pressure exerted to make them
alike. The Liberals in each place are at liberty to organise themselves
as they please; and in this connection it may be observed that all
political societies are treated as purely voluntary, that is, the state
makes no attempt to regulate them by law. The provisions in regard to
primaries and the nomination of candidates by party conventions, which
have become universal in the United States, are entirely foreign to
English ideas, and would be regarded with astonishment and aversion.
[Sidenote: The Draft Rules.]
[Sidenote: Rural Districts.]
But while the Federation does not strive to enforce uniform regulations,
it issues a pamphlet of "Notes and Hints for the Guidance of Liberals,"
covering organisations both in rural villages and in towns, and
containing drafts of rules, which may be taken as typical. The pamphlet
suggests that in rural districts there should be normally, in each
parish or polling district, a self-appointed committee with power to add
to its own members. The term "committee" is used because the members,
being few, can do most of the work directly, instead of delegating it to
a smaller body. In reality the committee is the whole association for
the parish, and although the draft rules do not expressly so provide,
the intention is clear that it shall include all known Liberals there,
whether voters or not. It must meet at least six times in the year; and
elects a chairman, treasurer, honorary secretary, and any sub-committees
that may be needed. It appoints, also, in proportion to population,
delegates to the Liberal association for the parliamentary division,
which selects the candidate of the party for the House of Commons.
[Sidenote: Small Towns.]
For small towns without wards the model organisation is similar, except
that the primary body is called an association, and meets only once a
year, unless convened at other times on the request of twelve members;
current business being transacted by an executive committee composed of
the officers, and of a certain number of other members chosen at the
annual meeting. Above the associations for the parish or polling
district, and the small town, comes an association for the parliamentary
division of the county in which they are situated. This is often, though
not always, purely a representative body, without any mass meeting of
members. It has a council, composed mainly of delegates chosen from the
parishes, towns, or other primary districts, roughly in proportion to
population; and an executive committee, sometimes elected entirely by
the council, sometimes containing delegates from the districts. Finally
it has its officers who are members of both these bodies.
[Sidenote: Large Towns.]
For large towns, that are divided into wards, the draft rules follow
more closely the Birmingham plan. They provide in each ward for a
committee or association designed to include every man who is disposed
to help the Liberal cause. This body elects its officers, the other
members of its executive committee, and delegates to the general
committee for the town according to population. The association for the
whole town meets annually to choose its officers, some members of the
general committee, and, in case the town is not a parliamentary borough,
delegates to the association for the division of the county. The
association for the town is managed, as is usually the case in all
organisations of this kind, by three distinct authorities. First, the
officers, who attend to current administration. Second, the executive
committee, which consists of these officers, of the three officers of
each ward, and of members chosen by the general committee. Third, the
general committee itself, which determines the policy to be pursued, and
is composed of members elected in part by the ward committees and in
part by the annual meeting of the whole association for the town. In
parliamentary boroughs the general committee--often known as the
Council, and sometimes as the Liberal Two Hundred, or whatever the
nearest hundred may be--nominates the party candidate for the House of
Commons, on the recommendation of the executive committee, and subject
to final adoption at a meeting of the association. But in fact the
executive committee, in all Liberal associations for parliamentary
constituencies, either selects the candidate, and asks for a formal
approval by the council, or lays before that body two or three names to
choose from. In any case the meeting of the whole association is merely
a grand ratification gathering held for applause, not for consultation.
The effect is like that of the ancient proclamation, "this is your king
an' it please you."
[Sidenote: Variations in Different Places.]
The draft rules prepared by the Federation are merely typical, and
although in their general outlines they give a very fair idea of the
organisation of local associations throughout the country, there are
endless variations in detail and in nomenclature. If, indeed, the
constitutions of a number of these bodies are examined at random, no two
of them will probably be found exactly alike. It may be observed that
the draft rules make no provision for cooptation, an arrangement that
appears nevertheless in the rules of many local associations. Nor do
they require the payment of any subscription as a condition for
membership; but this again is not infrequently done, the sum required
running from a nominal amount up as high as five shillings. Sometimes
the payment is a condition for any participation in the organisation;
sometimes it is not needed for voting in the ward or district meetings,
but confers a right to vote in the general meetings of the association,
or to be elected to the committees by cooptation. Occasionally Liberal
members of the town council and school board have _ex officio_ seats on
the council of the association; or local Liberal clubs, although not
strictly democratic, are given a representation upon it. But owing to
the fact, which will be explained hereafter, that the competition for
nomination to Parliament is not very keen, and hence there is rarely a
close canvass of the members of the committees, all these differences in
detail are of little practical importance. The essential point is that
in almost every English parliamentary constituency, whether county or
borough, where the chance of carrying the election is fair, there is
to-day an association of a representative and nominally, at least, of a
democratic character. It contains habitually the three organs, of
officers, executive committee, and council; while in the great towns
that have several seats there is a still larger organisation comprising
all the parliamentary divisions.
[Sidenote: The Paid Agents.]
It is an old custom for parliamentary candidates to employ paid agents,
usually solicitors by profession, to take charge of the election, and
with the growth of popular organisations the business has assumed in
most places a more systematic form. The association for each
parliamentary division, and sometimes for a smaller district, has a paid
as well as an honorary secretary. His duties are many, for he is the
maid-of-all-work of the organisation, and is known by the comprehensive
title of Liberal Agent for that division. He acts as clerk for the
association, organises committees for wards or polling districts,
supervises subordinate agents, arranges public meetings, gives advice
and assistance wherever needed, canvasses the voters, attends to their
registration, and conducts the hearings before the Revising Barrister.
He is also usually appointed by the candidate his statutory election
agent; and, if so, he takes general charge of the whole campaign, having
under him a band of clerks, sub-agents, and messengers, and a small army
of volunteer canvassers. He is an important factor in politics; for upon
his skill as an organiser, and his tact and good sense in conducting the
fight, the result of the election may often depend.
These agents have been said to be the only professional politicians in
England; and in one sense that is true, for they are the only class of
men who make a living out of party politics; but the expression is
inappropriate, because they are not politicians at all in the sense in
which the term is used in other countries. They have nothing to do with
the direction of politics; they merely help to elect a candidate in
whose selection they have no voice; and although their advice may have
weight, their duty is solely to carry out the instructions of others.
Like all other permanent officials in England, their actual influence
depends upon circumstances. If a chairman is capable and active, the
power of the agent will not be so great as in the more common case where
the chairman leans very much upon him. The agents, in short, are more
nearly akin to the permanent official than to the politician. In fact
they have no political aspirations for themselves, for they are not of
the class from which members of Parliament are taken.
Their salaries, which vary much, run all the way from forty pounds to
four hundred pounds, with about one hundred and fifty pounds as the
average, the scale of pay having risen somewhat of late years. They must
be thoroughly familiar with the law of registration and election, and
are commonly recruited from solicitors with a small practice, or from
accountants; although many of them--perhaps nearly one half--finding
that their work as agents fills their whole time, have given up all
other business. The occupation tends, indeed, to become a profession by
itself; one to which a man devotes his life after he has once entered
it. The Liberal agents have a national association of their own,
containing some two hundred and fifty members, and a few years ago, in
order to maintain a higher standard, a smaller society was formed, which
issues certificates of qualification. The association meets every year
at the time of the meeting of the National Liberal Federation, and such
of the agents attend as can afford to go, or can get their employers to
pay their expenses. They meet usually about one hundred and fifty
strong, and are given a breakfast at which they are addressed by the
chief whip, and by the leader of the party in Parliament or some other
prominent member; for their importance is now thoroughly appreciated.
Thus there has arisen in English political life a class of men whose
counterpart exists in no other country. They occupy in the party a
position not unlike that of the non-commissioned officers in the army.
Their work is essential to success, but they have no hope of promotion
beyond their own grade. Their position is perfectly well understood, and
they tend to surround it with professional safeguards and supports.
[Sidenote: Liberal Agents in Scotland.]
In Scotland political associations with paid agents have developed more
slowly than in England; partly because a great deal of the work
connected with registration, which falls upon the party agents in
England, is done by the public authorities north of the Tweed; and
partly because it was the old Scotch habit to have election business,
like everything else, conducted for the candidate by his regular
attorney. The result is that although there are many Liberal
associations in Scotland, and the agents have tended to become a class
so far as to form a society among themselves, they have as a rule much
less work to do than in England, and are still usually paid almost
entirely out of the candidate's own pocket. Hence, when he is defeated,
and gives up the fight, the constituency is apt to lose its agent
altogether, and become derelict.
[Sidenote: Conservative Local Organisations.]
Contrary to the prevailing opinion, the Conservatives have, in the
matter of party organisation, been more than once the first in the
field; and although their machinery has neither been so democratic nor
attracted so much attention as that of the Liberals, it has been on the
whole more effective. The Reform Act of 1832 was no sooner passed than
they began energetically to form registration societies; and the
extension of the borough franchise in 1867 brought a renewed activity.
They tried at once to enlist the interest, and win the support, of the
workingmen who had been made voters in large numbers. At the general
election of the following year they worked in vain, but in a short time
they succeeded so well, that at the next election, in 1874, they
obtained a majority in the House of Commons for the first time since
1841. Their victory was, indeed, commonly attributed to their superior
organisation, a fact which gave a powerful incentive to the adoption by
their rivals of Mr. Chamberlain's plan for a National Liberal
Federation.
[Sidenote: Their Growth after 1867.]
Conservative associations of a modern type had, indeed, been formed in
some places long before 1867,[484:1] but the Act of that year gave a new
and vigorous impulse. It had hardly been enacted when local
associations, largely composed of workingmen, sprang up, especially in
the manufacturing districts of the north. Some of them were very large,
the one at Bradford, for example, had, by 1872, twenty-five hundred
members, and was believed to have caused the change in the politics of
the place.[485:1] The associations increased rapidly in number. In 1871
there were two hundred and eighty-nine of them; in 1872, three hundred
and forty-eight; in 1873, four hundred and seven; in 1874, four hundred
and forty-seven; in 1875, four hundred and seventy-two, besides two
hundred and twenty-eight branch associations; and in 1876 the number of
Conservative associations of every kind in England and Wales was nearly
eight hundred.[485:2] A considerable part of them were composed almost
entirely of the artisan class. Many societies had, indeed, been
organised under the name of Conservative Working Men's Associations, and
these had set up a separate national union among themselves.
[Sidenote: They Become Representative.]
The associations formed at this time seem to have been voluntary bodies
without a representative character, and in fact some of them were turned
into clubs, in order to make them more attractive, or, according to the
expression then used, to enable the members to obtain recreation as well
as knowledge. But if the new Conservative associations were unlike the
Birmingham Caucus, the size of their membership made them also very
unlike the old registration societies. The object was not now merely to
see that the faithful were properly registered, but to recruit
supporters, stimulate enthusiasm, and discipline a fighting force among
the masses of the people. The Conservatives are more easily led by
authority than the Liberals, but the time was at hand when even among
them more democratic forms were needed. After Mr. Gladstone's victory at
the elections of 1880 a cry was again heard that the result was due to
better organisation; in this case to the Birmingham Caucus, and
curiously enough to the paid agents which it employed.[486:1] The
movement among the Conservatives towards more popular forms of party
machinery began with the associations in the large towns, which felt
keenly the competition of the Liberal hundreds with their closely knit
fabric of representative committees based on open meetings in the wards.
In these places the Conservatives copied the organisation of their
rivals, and thence the fashion spread gradually over the country,
receiving an additional impetus in 1887, when the National Union of
Conservative Associations was itself remodelled upon a wider basis, with
a series of representative councils.
[Sidenote: Existing Conservative Local Organisations.]
Like the National Liberal Federation, the Conservative central office
has issued draft rules to serve as models for local associations, and
they may be regarded as typical. In the case of a borough the ward
polling district, or such other subdivision as shall be found
convenient, is suggested as the primary unit. In each of these there is
to be a branch association, composed of all the Conservatives in the
district who subscribe not less than one shilling to its funds. The
branch association, at a mass meeting of its members, is to elect a
president, a chairman, an honorary secretary and a treasurer, a
committee to manage its affairs, and representatives to the central
committee for the borough, in the proportion of one for every two
hundred voters upon the parliamentary register. The central association
for the whole borough is to consist of the members of the various
branches. It is to hold general meetings for the choice of its
officers; but it is to be managed by a central committee composed of the
officers and representatives of the branch associations, together with
the officers of any Conservative clubs in the borough, and
representatives of the local Habitations of the Primrose League. This
committee, being large, is authorised to delegate any of its powers to
an executive committee, and other sub-committees, subject to
ratification of their acts. In order to stimulate the necessary
subscriptions, the rules provide, in accordance with a common
Conservative practice, that all members who contribute not less than one
guinea a year shall be styled Vice-President; but in this case they are
given no power, and the title is their sole reward. The model rules for
the parliamentary division of a county are framed upon the same lines,
except that, when possible, associations are to be organised in each
parish. This involves an additional wheel in the machinery, the
parochial meetings electing the committee for the polling district; and
the district meeting, which consists of all the members of the parish
associations, electing the central committee for the parliamentary
division.
[Sidenote: A Complex Type--Bradford.]
As in the case of the Liberal party, the model rules issued by the
central office are merely typical, and although the general principles
of organisation in the different local bodies are the same, there are
great variations in detail. The Conservative Association of Bradford may
be taken as a good example of the more complex forms. Here the
geographical elements are the polling district, the ward, the three
parliamentary divisions, and the borough as a whole; the committees in
each of these being constructed by a combination of direct election, and
of representation both of the smaller units and of clubs. Thus the
polling district has a committee, composed of all the members of the
party therein, which elects, besides its own officers, ten
representatives to the ward association--of whom three are designated to
serve on the ward executive--five representatives to the council for the
parliamentary division, and two to the general council for the borough.
The ward association consists of the officers and representatives of the
polling districts; of representatives of any constitutional associations
within the ward; and of subscribers to the amount of five shillings a
year. It has an executive committee composed of the officers for the
ward, and of the officers and representatives of the polling districts.
The chief business of the ward association is registration, and the
nomination and election of candidates for the city council, the
municipal contests in Bradford being conducted on party lines. The
divisional association consists of all persons who subscribe a shilling,
or are enrolled as members of a polling district committee. Its business
is conducted by a council containing the officers and five other members
chosen at the annual mass meeting, the officers of ward and polling
district associations, and representatives both from those associations,
and from Conservative clubs. It acts, however, largely by means of
sub-committees.
Finally the general association for the borough, with a similar
qualification for membership, has, besides the ordinary officers, a long
list of vice-chairmen, which includes all persons subscribing two pounds
a year to its funds. The general council is composed of all these
officers, of representatives from the divisions, polling districts and
clubs, and in addition, of all men who pay one guinea a year--another
instance of giving special privileges to the larger subscribers. The
executive for the borough, styled the Finance and General Purposes
Committee, consists of thirty members elected by the council; of
representatives of the two leading clubs; of officers of the divisional
associations; and of all the officers of the central association,
including the vice-chairmen. Now, in 1900, the vice-chairmen formed a
majority of the committee, and many of them must have acquired the
position by reason of subscriptions to the funds. This is important not
only because the management of the association as a whole is really in
the hands of the General Purposes Committee, but especially because the
rules require the divisional councils to invite that committee to be
present for consultation at the meetings held for the selection of
parliamentary candidates. The privilege so conferred is, however, merely
potential, for it is almost universally the case in Conservative
associations that the nomination of candidates for the House of Commons
is arranged by the executive body or by a sub-committee thereof, and is
simply accepted by the council.
[Sidenote: Extent of Conservative Associations.]
[Sidenote: The Paid Agents.]
Conservative associations of a popular character, with subordinate
branches more or less fully developed, now exist in almost every
parliamentary constituency in England and Wales, and in all but a few of
those in Scotland, the central office of the party being engaged in a
ceaseless effort to perfect the organisation wherever it remains
incomplete. Unless in a very feeble state, the associations have their
professional secretaries or agents, who are paid, on the average, a
little higher salaries than their Liberal rivals, and are, therefore, it
is claimed, on the whole, a better grade of men. The Conservative, like
the Liberal, agents have societies of their own; a mutual benevolent
society, and a national association with subordinate branches which
admits members only on examination.
[Sidenote: Similarity of Liberal and Conservative Associations.]
At the present day local party organisation has been brought to a high
state of efficiency in England, each party having covered almost the
whole of Great Britain with a tessellated pavement of associations.
These are especially complete in the boroughs, for on both sides the
machinery in the rural parts of counties is less fully developed. The
Conservatives have done their work a little more thoroughly than the
Liberals, because with more rich men in their ranks they have larger
resources in money, and can maintain paid agents in more constituencies
where the chance of success is small. In general character the local
associations of the two parties do not differ greatly, the most obvious
contrasts being the common use of cooptation by the Liberals, and the
special privileges accorded to the larger subscribers among the
Conservatives. But neither of these things is universal, and in their
essential features the local organisations of both parties are framed
upon the same general principles. Both of them are democratic in form,
admitting all adherents of the party, or all who pay a small
subscription. Both are in form representative, the affairs of the
associations being managed by a series of councils and committees,
composed mainly of delegates whose authority is based ultimately upon
mass meetings of all the members.
FOOTNOTES:
[466:1] Bulwer, "Life of Palmerston," I., 23-24.
[466:2] _Cf._ Wallas, "Life of Francis Place," Chs. ii., v.
[467:1] By 1837 Conservative registration societies had become common
throughout the country. (Publications of the National Union of
Conservative Associations, 1868, No. 4.)
By far the best, and in fact the only comprehensive, work on the party
organisations in Great Britain is Ostrogorski's "Democracy and the
Organisation of Political Parties," Vol. I. His description is very
complete, but, while accurate, is likely to mislead a superficial
reader, who might easily get an impression that the extreme cases were
typical, although the writer takes pains not to say so. Mr. Bryce's
caution in the preface should, therefore, be borne in mind. Mr.
Ostrogorski appears to look on democracy, and on party machinery in
particular, from the outside, as something artificial and weird, rather
than the natural result of human conduct under the existing conditions.
He does not seem to put himself quite in the shoes of Mr. Chamberlain,
Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Schnadhorst, Lord Randolph Churchill, Lord Salisbury,
Captain Middleton, or other men who have come into contact with the
party organisations, and ask what he himself would, or might, have done
in the same position. Hence his analysis has a slight air of unreality,
and does not wholly approve itself as a study of ordinary political
motives. But apart from this criticism, the work is admirably done, and
is an invaluable contribution to political science.
[468:1] Ostrogorski, I., 156-58.
[469:1] Trevelyan, "A Few Remarks on Mr. Hare's Scheme of
Representation." _Macmillan_, April, 1862; Bagehot, "English
Constitution," 1 Ed., 188-94; and see Hans. 3 Ser. CLXXXIX., 458. See
also Leslie Stephen, "The Value of Political Machinery," _Fortnightly_,
December, 1875.
[469:2] The provision was applied also to the county constituencies
returning three members, which some of them did under the Reform Act of
1832. In the city of London, which had four seats, an elector was to
vote for only three candidates. 30-31 Vic., c. 102, Secs. 9, 10, 18.
[470:1] Ostrogorski, "The Introduction of the Caucus into England,"
_Political Science Quarterly_, June, 1893, p. 287. Langford, "Modern
Birmingham," II., 362-63.
[472:1] H. W. Crosskey, "The Liberal Association--the 600--of
Birmingham." _Macmillan_, February, 1877.
[472:2] H. W. Crosskey, _ut supra_.
[473:1] Ostrogorski, I., 166-67.
[474:1] H. W. Crosskey, "The Birmingham Liberal Association and its
Assailants." _Macmillan_, December, 1878.
[475:1] _Cf._ Chamberlain, "The Caucus." _Fortnightly_, November, 1878;
and the two articles by H. W. Crosskey already cited.
[475:2] 38-39 Vic., c. 36.
[477:1] H. W. Crosskey. _Macmillan_, December, 1878.
[477:2] Proc. Ann. Meeting, 1888, p. 14.
[478:1] _Cf._ Ostrogorski, "Democracy," I., Part III., Ch. i., Ser.
viii.
[484:1] In Liverpool, for example, a Conservative association originally
formed in 1832, was replaced in 1848 by a new Constitutional Association
upon a broader foundation. Among the objects the latter aimed "To
promote by all legal means the Election of Members of Parliament for the
Borough who subscribe to, and uphold the principles of the Association.
. . . To promote by all legal means the Election of such Candidates for
the Town Council as are Members of this Association." It contained at
the outset a couple of hundred members; and it had in part a
representative character with the wards as a basis, for its affairs were
managed by a general committee, composed of thirty members chosen by the
association, together with the chairman and secretary of each ward
committee _ex officio_. (Fiftieth Rep. Liverpool Const. Assoc., 1898.)
[485:1] Speech of Mr. Taylor, in the Report of the Conference of the
National Union in 1872.
[485:2] Reports of Council at Conferences of the National Union in 1875
and 1876.
[486:1] In his remarks at the Conference in 1880, the Chairman of the
Council of the National Union of Conservative Associations said: "It was
not at all satisfactory to find that in a number of constituencies
gentlemen who practically knew nothing of election matters undertook the
management merely as a professional duty in their capacity as lawyers. .
. . The Birmingham Radicals had made a point for many years of training
a number of men to election work, and of giving them experience by
employing them in municipal contests, and he recommended their example
to the attention of the meeting." Report of the Conference of 1880.
CHAPTER XXVIII
ACTION OF LOCAL ORGANISATIONS
[Sidenote: All Popular Party Organisations are Largely Shams.]
Although the local associations purport to be democratic and
representative, it would be an error to take their rules too seriously.
Every voluntary political organisation contains an element of sham. Part
of its stock in trade is the pretence that it is more powerful, and more
widely representative, than it really is. Much of its success depends
upon the old Chinese military policy of scaring the enemy by an imposing
appearance before the fight begins. In ordinary times of public
inattention the _vox populi_ may be manufactured by a small number of
persons, for the mass of the people are rarely interested until an issue
has been presented to them, and the framing of that issue, which may be
by far the most important step in the whole process, is often done at a
meeting of half a dozen men. All the members of the party may have a
right to attend that meeting, but they will not do so, or if they do the
private conference will take place earlier, and the meeting will simply
decide upon the acceptance of plans prepared beforehand. This is a law
of human nature resulting from the fact that a large assembly can only
say Yes or No. It does not mean that the desires of the public are
perverted, for as a rule it has none that are strong or definite. It
means that the number of people who care enough to take an active part
in the formative stage is small, and in the long run they get control of
the wires whether as an elected or a self-constituted committee. The
sham consists in making it appear that the plan proposed expresses the
preconceived wish of a large body of people.
[Sidenote: Local Associations Controlled by a Few Men.]
In England the element of sham in the party organisations is as great as
it is elsewhere. Although the council of a local association is a
numerous body, and gives the appearance of a highly popular institution,
the association, as a whole, usually contains among its enrolled members
not more than one tenth, or at most one fifth of the voters belonging to
the party; and the meetings for the election of delegates to the various
councils and committees are thinly attended.[492:1] The organisation is,
in fact, managed, as a rule, by a few men influenced to a greater or
less extent by the paid agent. They are often, especially among the
Liberals, tradesmen or even workingmen, who take an active interest in
politics, without cherishing any parliamentary aspirations for
themselves, or any political ambition unless it be for municipal office;
but they like, especially if Conservatives, to take for their chairman a
man of higher social position. Moreover, there seems to be little
rivalry for the positions that give a control of the body. On the
contrary, one is much more impressed in ordinary times by the efforts of
an organising secretary, spurred on from above, to interest people in
forming associations in unpromising districts, than by struggles for
power in the most active associations. In England the stage at which
public interest awakes is the election, the process of selecting the
candidates arousing little attention. While, therefore, the franchise is
wide, and the number of people who vote is very great, the nomination is
really made by a body of men no larger than the voters in an ordinary
borough before 1832.
[Sidenote: Possibility of their Capture.]
[Sidenote: For Personal Motives.]
One might suppose that under such conditions it would be easy for a
small knot of adroit and persistent men, or even for a single
resourceful manipulator, to capture a local association; but in normal
times there is little incentive to do so. To explain fully why this is
the case would anticipate much that remains to be said about the social
and political traditions of England. Yet some of the reasons can readily
be suggested. The expense of maintaining the organisation and a seat in
Parliament is large, and the funds must be provided by somebody. If they
are subscribed from public spirit by local men who do not want the seat
themselves, those persons will naturally control the association. If
they are defrayed by the candidate, or member of Parliament, then under
ordinary circumstances he will control so far as his own seat is
concerned; and by nursing and courting the constituency, or by his
political reputation, he will probably have built up a popularity among
the voters which the association cannot defy. The expense limits,
therefore, the class of persons who might want to capture the
association in order to control the nomination to the House of Commons;
nor among those who could afford the cost is there much object in so
doing. If, as in some other countries, nominations were confined by law
or by custom to residents of the constituency, the rivalry between two
or three aspirants for the honour might become intense; but in England
the local man has little advantage over a stranger, and if the party
association in his own place is unwilling to accept him, the expenditure
of labour, time and money required to capture it would probably be much
greater than would procure him a nomination elsewhere. Apart from the
personal privilege of sitting in the House there are no strong selfish
motives for getting control of a local organisation. The member of
Parliament has no patronage to distribute among the men to whom he owes
his seat; and although the association may lead to the town council, or
even the honourable post of a justice of the peace, these are not in
themselves objects of keen emulation, nor are they stepping-stones to
higher things beyond.
[Sidenote: For Political Objects.]
Moreover, there is no object under ordinary circumstances in capturing a
local association with a view to promoting a political policy; for the
policy of the party is directed by the parliamentary leaders, in the
cabinet or on the front Opposition Bench, and the local party voter has,
as a rule, little sympathy for the member who weakens the party by
thwarting them. There are, however, cases of deep political cleavage in
the party ranks before the leaders have agreed upon a policy, when there
may be the strongest incentive to capture the local organisations in
order to turn the scale. The breach among the Liberals over the first
Home Rule Bill was an example of that kind, and had Mr. Gladstone given
a longer premonition of his plans there would, no doubt, have been a
struggle for the control of the local Liberal associations all over the
country. The recent agitation for fiscal reform furnished another
instance of the same kind, and a very striking one; because the
Conservative leader not only took no positive stand on the question, but
intimated that the party could adopt no definite policy on the subject
until the next election. Under these conditions the attitude of the
local Conservative organisations became of the utmost importance, and it
is said that a systematic effort was made by the members of the Tariff
Reform League to capture them in the interest of the reform. Certainly
many of them showed that they held very definite opinions on the point,
sometimes absolutely opposed to those of their sitting member.
[Sidenote: Relation of an M.P. to his Association.]
Connected with this question is another: that of the relation of a
member of Parliament to the association of his constituency. In the
early days of the Birmingham Caucus, shortly after it had begun to
spread over England, a case of friction between a sitting member and the
local association occurred, which caused much controversy and no little
alarm. The caucus was the bugbear of the day, and men feared that it was
about to turn the representative into a mere instrument to register the
decisions of a party machine--an anxiety heightened by the fact that the
new associations were in the hands of the Radical wing of the party.
[Sidenote: The Case of Mr. Forster.]
Mr. W. E. Forster, in carrying through Parliament the Education Act of
1870, had offended the more extreme Radicals, because the act did not
provide that education supported by public rates should be compulsory
and free, and because, in their eyes, it treated the Church schools with
too much favour. Although opposed by the Radicals, he was reelected for
Bradford in 1874 by the help of Conservative votes; but in 1878 he came
into collision with the Liberal association which had just been formed
there. One of its rules provided that any one proposed for nomination to
Parliament must give an assurance to the general committee that he would
abide by their decision in regard to the selection of the candidate. To
that condition Mr. Forster refused to submit, denying the right of any
association to come between him and his constituents. The association
insisted upon its rule, and the controversy in Bradford provoked a
discussion in the public press of the country. In the end the matter was
compromised by changing the rule so as to read that such an assurance
"may be required" instead of "shall be required," and Mr. Forster
allowed his name to be submitted to the general committee. He had won
his point, for he had been nominated without giving the assurance; but
his troubles with the association were not at an end. In 1882 he
resigned from Mr. Gladstone's ministry because he disapproved of the
so-called Kilmainham treaty, and before long the quarrel broke out
again, continuing until his death in 1886.[495:1] The particular
provision which gave occasion to the dispute in 1878 has not proved a
permanent source of difficulty, for the local associations have not been
in the habit of demanding a pledge of that kind, and on the other hand
the ordinary rules of fair play require that a man who allows his name
to be proposed for nomination shall abide by the decision of the body to
which he submits it, unless he feels that he has been unjustly treated,
or unless some important question of policy is involved.
[Sidenote: Local Pressure on Members Neither New nor Systematic.]
A much more important matter is the control exerted by the local party
association over its representative in the House of Commons, whether by
urging him to take a particular line of action, by refusing a
renomination, or even by the more drastic measure of requesting his
resignation in case he fails to comply with its opinion. Mr. Ostrogorski
lays great stress upon the quarrel in 1885 between the Liberal
association in Newcastle and Mr. Joseph Cowen, who had taken a highly
independent attitude in Parliament, and had not given a consistent
support to the Liberal cabinet.[496:1] No one would assert that an
association, any more than an individual voter, is bound to support a
candidate of whose views and conduct in public affairs it seriously
disapproves, because he is an estimable person. Yet this was very nearly
the relation of Mr. Cowen to the local association. Voters and
organisations must consider the opinions as well as the personality of
the candidate, and this they may well do without reducing him to a mere
mouthpiece of their wishes.
But in order to determine the real import of an attempt to fetter the
independence of a member of Parliament, one must consider how far it
introduced a new practice into English politics, and for what purposes
the claim of the association to call the member to account has been
used. The question whether a member of Parliament is the agent of his
constituents, morally bound to carry out their wishes, or whether he is
to act solely according to his own opinion of the interest of the whole
kingdom, is as old as Burke's famous discussion with the electors of
Bristol. The latter view always has been, and still is, the prevailing
one in theory; but the charge that the representatives have become mere
delegates has been constantly cropping up. In 1849, for example, very
nearly at the high-water mark of independence in Parliament, and long
before the party machine had been thought of, there were complaints
about the thraldom of members to their constituents.[496:2] A member
must always have been more or less in bondage in the proprietary
boroughs, and this continued in some places after the first Reform Act.
As late as 1857 Sir Stafford Northcote gave up his seat for Dudley
because he found that he practically represented Lord Ward.[496:3] The
exercise of control over their member by influential constituents is,
therefore, not a new thing, and the advent of the modern party
associations has not, as men feared, developed it into a system. No
doubt the Liberal caucus in the days of its youth tried to bring an
organised pressure to bear upon the members,[497:1] but this has
diminished rather than increased of late years.
[Sidenote: The Question When a Member Ought to Resign.]
The question under what circumstances a member ought to resign his seat
is one which always has been, and always will be, perplexing. The
doctrine that he must resign simply because the local party association
asks him to do so can be confidently asserted to have made little or no
headway in either of the two great parties. But that a member who has
pledged himself expressly or tacitly to the support of a certain policy,
and then changes his mind, may, in some cases, be bound in honour to go
back to his constituents, would hardly be denied. Whether such an
obligation has arisen or not must depend upon the circumstances, and
upon the definiteness and importance of the pledge or understanding.
When Peel decided to bring in the bill for Catholic Emancipation, to
which he had previously been openly opposed, he felt constrained to
resign his seat for Oxford, and was defeated for reelection to his great
grief;[497:2] but he did not feel under a similar duty when converted to
the repeal of the Corn Laws, and was reproached on that account by
Disraeli.[497:3]
A candidate who seeks election as a member of a party, or as a supporter
of a cabinet, may well be considered to have given a general pledge to
remain in the party or to support that cabinet, so that if he ceases
entirely to do so he may be bound to resign. This is the form in which
the question has arisen of late between members and local associations,
but both obligation and actual practice are as unsettled to-day as
similar questions have been in the past. When the South African War
broke out a few members on the government side of the House felt unable
to support the cabinet on that question. One of them, Sir Edward Clarke,
who sat for Plymouth, was requested by the Conservative association of
the borough to resign, and did so,[498:1] provoking comment favourable
and otherwise. The same action was proposed in the case of Mr. (now
Lord) Courtney; but he took the ground that as a Liberal Unionist he had
professed to support the cabinet only on the issue of Home Rule, and had
caused his independence upon other matters to be clearly understood. The
motion to request his resignation was defeated in the Liberal Unionist
association of his constituency,[498:2] but he was not renominated at
the next general election. In the same Parliament Mr. (now Sir) George
Doughty, who, for other reasons, crossed the floor from the Liberal to
the government side, resigned his seat at Great Grimsby, and was
reelected by an increased majority. While in the following Parliament
Sir Michael Foster and Mr. Winston Churchill crossed in the opposite
direction, without feeling bound to resign. The former, representing a
university, had, indeed, stated at the election that he was by no means
a strict party man, and retained his seat after a good deal of
reflection.[498:3] Other cases of a radical change of policy could be
cited, but these are enough to show that local party organisations have
not fastened on their members chains that can be used with certainty to
withdraw them from their seats even in so strong a case as an open
breach with their party.
[Sidenote: Refusal to Renominate.]
The refusal of support for reelection, by men of decisive influence in a
constituency, on the ground that they cannot approve the course pursued
by their representative, is a thing that must always happen; although it
did not take the form of withholding a nomination by a party association
until bodies of that kind came into being. A refusal made by powerful
individuals was not less effective because they were not styled a
representative committee. But such refusals, by whomsoever made, have
always been rare. Nothing, indeed, impresses a foreign observer of
British politics more than the universal recognition of the claim of a
sitting member to renomination. So far as his own party is concerned his
tenure of office is good behaviour, and at the present day the local
association very seldom fails to renominate him, save in two cases; one
where his course of action has been nearly tantamount to a change of
party, a going over to the enemy; the other where the party itself is
deeply cleft over a vital question on which the leaders have given an
uncertain sound. This last was true in the general election of 1906,
when several of the local party organisations were sharply divided upon
the issue of fiscal policy.
[Sidenote: Influence of Local Associations Used for Party Cohesion.]
The fear that the local associations, by dictating to their member a
given course of action, by requesting his resignation, or by refusing
him renomination, would degrade him to the position of the delegate of a
local party machine has certainly not been realised; and it is not less
instructive to observe the purposes for which such influence as they
possess has actually been used. A stranger might have expected that it
would be employed to promote local interests. But that has not been the
case. No doubt members of Parliament, like all other popular
representatives, are affected by the special interests of their
constituents. On matters that touch these they must consider the welfare
of their own locality. A measure like the Agricultural Rates Act of
1896, for example, which by relieving agricultural land from a part of
its burden of rates, and making up the loss to the local authority from
the National Treasury, changed the incidence of taxation between town
and country, is sure, for local reasons, to detach some members from
their regular party allegiance. But with the absence of national grants
for local improvements, and with the judicial procedure for private bill
legislation, the occasions, outside of the dockyard towns, where
distinctly local interests come into play are not numerous. Moreover, in
those cases the member is affected by the impression his action is
likely to have upon the bulk of his constituents, or by the solicitation
of a body that represents special interests, rather than by pressure
from his local party association. Nor does the latter, at the present
day, commonly try to enforce upon him the particular views held by its
managers upon matters of public policy. On the contrary such action as
it takes is, and has been from the beginning, almost wholly confined to
urging him to support the leaders of the party.[500:1]
[Sidenote: Reasons for This.]
That the local associations act, not on behalf of local interests or
opinions, but for the cohesion of the party as a whole, is the result of
many causes, and not least among them of the fact that the member is
commonly not a resident of the place for which he stands. This makes it
easy for him to look upon himself as a representative of the nation at
large, rather than a delegate of a borough. It saves him also from
parochial sympathies and prejudices; and above all it relieves him from
the necessity, he would otherwise be under, of serving an apprenticeship
in the local association, and coming into Parliament a product of the
machine. Another cause is the strength of national party ties, and the
greater strictness of party discipline, of which more will be said
hereafter. The local associations have fallen in with this tendency, and
any substantial control they have acquired over their members has been
exerted to make them follow, not local wishes, but the party leaders.
Bagehot has remarked somewhere that the House of Commons has been saved
from becoming a collection of delegates from local constituencies by the
spirit of deference; but at the present day it is due in even larger
measure to the spirit of party. That spirit has prevented the
predominance of local interests which is the curse of many legislative
bodies.
FOOTNOTES:
[492:1] Ostrogorski, I., 332-33.
[495:1] Ostrogorski, I., 194-203, 228-30. T. W. Reid, "Life of William
Edward Forster," I., 517-20; II., 44-55, 206-14, 219-20, 501, 511,
535-36.
[496:1] I., 230-40.
[496:2] _Cf._ Jephson, "The Platform," II., 324-27.
[496:3] Lang, "Life of Sir Stafford Northcote," I., 141-50.
[497:1] _Cf._ Ostrogorski, I., 208-16, and see Ch. xxix., _infra._
[497:2] Parker, "Life of Sir Robert Peel," II., 88, 101-2.
[497:3] "To the opinions which I have expressed in this House in favour
of protection, I adhere. They sent me to this House, and if I had
relinquished them, I should have relinquished my seat also." Hans. 3
Ser. LXXXIII., 112.
[498:1] _The Times_, Feb. 10, 1900.
[498:2] _Ibid._, Feb. 23 and 26, March 9 and 15, 1900.
[498:3] _Ibid._, Nov. 29, 1902, Jan. 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 1903.
[500:1] Occasionally some local interest is touched by an administrative
act or order, and the member for the place exerts himself to get the
grievance redressed; but except, perhaps, for asking a question in the
House this hardly affects his attitude in Parliament, and the fact that
he belongs to one party or the other has little or no weight with the
administrative departments.
CHAPTER XXIX
THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CAUCUS
_The Liberals_
[Sidenote: The Conference at Birmingham in May, 1877.]
Not content with creating local associations of Liberals on a democratic
basis, the Radicals at Birmingham conceived the idea of uniting them
together in a great national federation which should represent the whole
party throughout the kingdom. The Tories had formed, some years earlier,
the National Union of Conservative Associations, and their great victory
of 1874, attributed largely to better organisation, had made the time
ripe for a more vigorous combination on the Liberal side. Moreover, the
new associations framed on the Birmingham pattern had already shown the
possibility of concerted action on national questions; for they had held
simultaneously a large number of indignation meetings to denounce the
Bulgarian atrocities. In May, 1877, therefore, they were invited to send
delegates to a conference at Birmingham to form a national party
organisation. The call for the meeting contained a clear statement of
its purpose. "The essential feature of the proposed Federation," it
declared, "is the principle which must henceforth govern the action of
Liberals as a political party--namely, the direct participation of all
members of the party in the direction, and in the selection of those
particular measures of reform and of progress to which priority shall be
given. This object can be secured only by the organisation of the party
upon a representative basis."[501:1]
[Sidenote: Proceedings Thereat.]
The conference was attended by delegates from ninety-five local
associations, and Mr. Chamberlain, who had entered Parliament the year
before, was called to the chair. In his opening speech he propounded
with even greater distinctness the object of the plan. "We hope," he
said, "that the time is not distant when we may see a meeting of what
will be a really Liberal Parliament, outside the Imperial Legislature,
and, unlike it, elected by universal suffrage, and with some regard for
a fair distribution of political power." After speaking of the need of
trusting to the popular initiative in framing the immediate policy of
the party, he continued: "Our association will be founded on the belief
that the Liberals in the country are more united than their leaders, and
that they have attained a pretty clear conception of what are the
changes in our Constitution which they believe will be beneficial to the
country; that we may obtain their adoption by a little gentle pressure
which concerted action may enable us to bring to bear, and that in this
way we may exert a great influence on the future policy of the Liberal
party." In the ensuing debates the same point of view was emphasised by
Mr. William Harris, the founder of the Liberal "Four Hundred" in
Birmingham, who declared that "The enfranchisement of the great mass of
the people in towns had given the power of controlling representation
into the hands of the people, but the direction of the policy of the
party, the inauguration of measures to be submitted to Parliament, and
the determination of questions on which the people should be asked to
agitate, had been confined to the people who had managed the Liberal
party; and it was, no doubt, the dissatisfaction of the Liberals with
this state of things which led to the inaction of the Liberal party at
the last election. . . . To find a remedy for this state of things was
the object they invited the representatives present to consider that
morning. . . . Why should they not at once and for all form a federation
which, by collecting together the opinions of the majority of the people
in all the great centres of political activity, should be able to speak
on whatever questions arose with the full authority of the national
voice."
The chief business of the conference was the adoption--without
amendment--of the constitution which had been prepared beforehand. Mr.
Chamberlain was then elected president of the Federation with great
enthusiasm. A number of vice-presidents were taken from other towns; but
the treasurer and honorary secretary were also citizens of Birmingham,
while Mr. Schnadhorst, the great organiser, whose hand had been at work
throughout the movement, became at once the active secretary. In short,
all the offices of any real importance were retained in the town that
had given birth to the Federation and was to control its movements for
some years to come.
[Sidenote: Mr. Gladstone's Benediction.]
[Sidenote: Aim of the Federation.]
The makers of the Federation had taken pains to secure for their plan
the sanction of Mr. Gladstone, whose name, in spite of his resignation
of the Liberal leadership, carried more weight than that of any one else
in the party. He was present in Birmingham on the day of the conference,
and in the evening addressed a public meeting. After stating that, in
point of organisation, the Conservatives had for years been ahead, and
would remain ahead so long as the Liberals adhered like them to a method
of arbitrary selection of the representatives of party, founded mainly
upon the power of the purse, he declared that it was, in his opinion, to
the honour of Birmingham that she had "held up the banner of a wider and
of a holier principle"; and he rejoiced that the large attendance of
representatives of constituencies showed a disposition to adopt this
admirable principle. Thus he gave the new organisation his blessing and
bade it God-speed.[503:1] The public meeting ended with a resolution
moved by Mr. Chamberlain, and adopted unanimously, which put into formal
terms the aim of the movement, already so clearly set forth in debate.
It said that, as the opinion of the people should have a full and direct
expression in framing and supporting the policy of the Liberal party,
this meeting heartily approves of the proposal of a Federation of
Liberal Associations. In short, it was made perfectly evident at every
step in the genesis of the Federation, in the call for a conference, in
the speeches made thereat, and in the final resolution which closed the
proceedings, that the new organisation was intended to take an
important, and perhaps the leading, hand in directing the policy of the
party. It was expected to be, as Mr. Chamberlain expressed it, a Liberal
parliament outside the imperial legislature; not, indeed, doing the work
of that body, but arranging what work it should do, or rather what work
the Liberal members should bring before it, and what attitude they
should assume. By this process the initiative on all the greater issues,
so far as the Liberal party was concerned, would be largely transferred
from the Treasury Bench to the Federation. This was, indeed, expressly
stated by some of the speakers as their principal desire, and with such
an avowed object it is not surprising that the new machine for the
manufacture of Liberal policy should have been popularly called the
Caucus.
[Sidenote: Its Constitution.]
[Sidenote: The Council.]
The constitution adopted at the conference provided for a great
representative assembly of the Federation, called the Council, composed
entirely of delegates from the local associations, roughly in proportion
to the population of their towns or districts. If the population was
under fifty thousand the association was entitled to five
representatives; if between fifty and one hundred thousand to ten; and
if larger still to twenty representatives. The Council was to hold an
annual meeting at which the president, vice-president, treasurer, and
honorary secretary, were to be elected. Special meetings could also be
called by the officers. Each annual meeting was to decide upon the place
at which the next should be held, and in order to awake enthusiasm for
the party all over the country it has been the habit, from that day to
this, to hold the annual meeting at one after another of the chief
provincial towns.
[Sidenote: The General Committee.]
The constitution set up one other body, partly but not wholly
representative in character. It was called the General Committee, and
consisted of the officers of the Federation; of delegates from the
associations, two in number if the town or district had less than fifty
thousand people, three if it had between fifty and one hundred, five if
it had over one hundred thousand; and finally of not more than
twenty-five additional members chosen by the Committee itself. The
principal functions of the Committee were: to aid in the formation of
local associations based on popular representation (no others being
admitted to membership in the Federation); and to submit to the
associations political questions upon which united action might be
considered desirable. Unlike the Council, which was to visit different
places, the General Committee was to meet in Birmingham until it decided
otherwise. It was empowered to elect its own chairman, and it chose Mr.
William Harris of that town, the father of the first representative
association established there in 1868.
[Sidenote: The Federation Begins Actively.]
The Federation does not seem at first to have been universally
attractive, even to the local associations formed after the Birmingham
pattern, for it was joined at the outset by only about half as many of
them as had sent delegates to the conference. But by January, 1879, when
the first meeting of the Council was held at Leeds, the number had risen
to one hundred and one. In its report at that meeting the General
Committee showed that it had been very active. It had held no less than
five sessions, and on the subject of the Eastern question it had stirred
up many public meetings, and had organised a great deputation of local
delegates to the Liberal leaders in the two Houses of Parliament. The
Committee believed that its labours had not been fruitless, for the
report said: "In regulating the action of the Liberal party, both in
and out of Parliament, in bringing about closer union between leaders
and followers . . . the efforts of the Federation resulted in a great
and important measure of success. . . . But for the Liberal action,
largely stimulated and guided by the Federated Liberal Associations, we
should unquestionably have been at war with Russia." Mr. Chamberlain in
his presidential address at the meeting of the Council at Leeds,
speaking of any possible attempt to avoid a programme of domestic
policy, when the Liberals again came to power, remarked: "I think we
shall be justified in saying to Lord Hartington[506:1] that concession
is a virtue that gains by being reciprocal." At this time the Radicals
and the Whigs, or Liberals of the older type, still formed mutually
distrustful wings of the party, and the Federation was the organ of the
former.
In its regular session the Council passed no vote on public policy; but,
at the public meeting in the evening, resolutions were adopted against
the foreign policy of the Conservative government, and in favour of
peace, retrenchment, and reform. At the meeting at Darlington in the
following year a similar course was followed. Clearly the Federation was
taking very seriously its mission as a spur to the Liberal steed; but
equally clearly it was not as yet seeking to act as a parliament outside
of the imperial legislature, and the centre of gravity was at this time
not in the Council, but in the General Committee.
[Sidenote: Mr. Chamberlain Enters the Cabinet.]
Before the third meeting of the Council took place in January, 1881, an
event had occurred that changed essentially the attitude of the
Federation. The general election of 1880 had placed the Liberals in
office with Mr. Gladstone at their head, and Mr. Chamberlain had been
given a seat in the cabinet. It is commonly stated that his connection
with the Federation was not the cause of his selection, and this is no
doubt perfectly true in the sense that it was not the direct reason for
offering him the seat. It is, indeed, well known that the choice lay
between him and Sir Charles Dilke.[507:1] But as Mr. Chamberlain had sat
less than four years in Parliament, and had never been in the ministry,
it can hardly be denied that his position at the head of the new Liberal
organisation, which had attracted so much attention throughout the
country, was one of the factors in the political prominence that brought
him within reach of the cabinet. His new office necessarily brought a
change in his relation to the Federation. It was obviously unfitting for
him to remain the chief officer of a body that might be used to bring
pressure to bear upon Parliament and even upon his colleagues. He
therefore resigned the post of president, and was succeeded by his
friend and fellow-citizen Mr. Jesse Collings;[507:2] but he continued
until the Liberal split in 1886 to make the principal speech at the
evening public meeting held in connection with the annual session of the
Council.
[Sidenote: The Federation Begins to Act as an Outside Parliament.]
The Federation lost none of its momentum from the change of ministry. On
the contrary its activity increased, and in fact it began at this time
to try its hand at framing a programme for the party in a rudimentary
way. At its meeting in Birmingham in January, 1881, the Council passed,
among other resolutions, one that urged upon the government the need of
dealing at the earliest possible moment with various reforms, such as
the amendment of the land laws, the extension of the franchise in rural
districts, the redistribution of seats, and the creation of
representative institutions in the counties. Similar resolutions were
passed at the next annual meeting, which took place at Liverpool in
October of the same year.
[Sidenote: It Puts Pressure upon Members of Parliament.]
Meanwhile the activity of the General Committee about current political
questions continued; especially in the form of inciting local
associations to constrain their representatives to vote with the
cabinet. The annual report to the meeting of the Council at Liverpool
said that some Liberals had been disposed to propose or support
amendments which struck at the vital principle of the Irish Land Bill,
while others abstained from voting. The Committee had thereupon decided
that its "duty could be most properly and efficiently discharged by
inviting the Liberal constituencies to bring legitimate pressure to bear
upon those of their representatives, who, in a great national crisis,
had failed to support the government." A circular was, therefore, issued
to the federated associations which excited much complaint amongst the
members of Parliament, but produced the desired effect.[508:1] When the
bill was threatened with amendments of the House of Lords a meeting of
delegates was called to attack the peers. This, in the opinion of the
Committee, also had an effect, and helped to pass the bill.[508:2]
The systematic obstruction by Mr. Parnell and his followers in the
Commons, and Mr. Gladstone's plan in 1882 for a new procedure which
would enable the House to cut off debate, gave a fresh occasion for
bringing the pressure of the federated associations to bear. A circular
was sent out, and at once a large majority of them passed resolutions in
support of the government's plan.[508:3] The General Committee held
meetings also in connection with the Irish Coercion Act of that year,
and sustained the cabinet heartily, while at the same time suggesting
amendments. Some of these were adopted, and as the Committee
complacently remarked, "The Federation may thus claim the credit of
having on the one hand strengthened and guided public opinion in support
of measures deemed necessary for the maintenance of order; and on the
other of having sought to mitigate the severity of the proposed
enactments."[509:1]
[Sidenote: It calls a General Conference of the Party.]
In 1883 the Federation took up energetically the extension of the
franchise in the counties. It called a great conference of delegates at
Leeds; acting on this occasion in cooperation with the National Reform
Union of Manchester and the London and Counties Liberal Union, two rival
organisations, which were, however, more local and less aggressive, and
waned slowly before the greater vigour of the Federation.[509:2] The
delegates met two thousand strong, representing more than five hundred
associations, and adopted resolutions declaring that it was the duty of
the government at the next session of Parliament to introduce bills to
extend the county franchise and redistribute seats. Another conference
in Scotland passed similar votes. "Taken together," the General
Committee say in their annual report, "they represent the great bulk of
the Liberal party throughout Great Britain . . . and . . . it is not too
much to expect that such an expression of opinion will exercise decisive
weight with the Members of the Government in the arrangement of their
measures."
[Sidenote: Its Claims at This Time.]
These examples show the attitude and the activity of the Federation
during the first Liberal ministry that held office after its formation.
It claimed to represent, or perhaps one ought to say it claimed that it
would when fully developed represent and that it could immediately
evoke, the opinion of the whole Liberal party in the country. It was,
therefore, convinced that it ought to exert a great influence upon the
cabinet in the framing of measures; and it believed that it did so.
There is no need of reviewing further the history of the Federation
during this period, for its position remained unchanged until Mr.
Gladstone brought in his Home Rule Bill in 1886. But on two points the
action of the Council is noteworthy in connection with its subsequent
career. The resolutions passed at the annual meetings began to cover a
wider field. This was especially true after the downfall of the Liberal
government, in 1885, when they assumed the proportions of a full
programme of internal reforms.[510:1] Then again amendments to the
resolutions offered were moved from the floor. In 1883, for example, an
amendment in favour of woman suffrage was carried; and in 1885 another
demanding local option in regulating the sale of liquor.
[Sidenote: The Struggle over Home Rule.]
Mr. Gladstone's ministry having resigned in consequence of a defeat on
the budget, the Conservatives came to power in June, 1885, and the
general election at the end of the year, with the political upheavals to
which it gave rise, proved a turning-point in the history of the Caucus.
The election left both parties without a working majority; for the
Conservatives and Home Rulers together almost exactly balanced the
Liberals. In January the Conservatives were beaten on the address with
the help of Irish votes, and Mr. Gladstone, returning to office,
prepared a bill for a separate Parliament in Ireland. Some members of
the moderate wing of the party had already left him during the debate on
the address; and in March, while the Home Rule Bill and its complement,
the Irish Land Bill, were under discussion in the cabinet, several of
the ministers, including Mr. Chamberlain, resigned, one of their chief
stumbling blocks being the exclusion of Irish representatives from the
House of Commons. A struggle began at once for the control of the
National Liberal Federation. On one side stood Mr. Gladstone with his
cabinet, the official leaders of the party; on the other Mr.
Chamberlain, hitherto the hero and idol of the Caucus, which he had
nurtured and made great, which had treated him as its special
representative in the cabinet, and had passed each year a vote to
welcome him when he came to make his speech. He had declared in
Parliament not long before that he was not the Caucus,[511:1] but it
certainly expressed his views, and he fought its battles. During the
late election he had made the country ring with appeals for the reforms
advocated in its programme, especially the demand for labourers'
allotments, embodied in the cry for "three acres and a cow." The Caucus
was the weapon of the Radical wing of the party, while he was the
greatest Radical champion, and although Kitson, the president of the
Federation, was against him, the majority of the officers were on his
side, among them William Harris, the founder of popular party
organisation in Birmingham and still the chairman of the General
Committee.
[Sidenote: Mr. Chamberlain is Defeated in the Council;]
On April 6, two days before Mr. Gladstone brought in the Home Rule Bill,
the officers sent a circular to the federated associations asking them
to consider the proposals of the government, as soon as they were made
known, with a view to an expression of opinion by the Liberal party. A
special meeting of the Council was then summoned to meet in London on
May 15. There Mr. Harris moved a resolution drawn up by the officers,
and expressing Mr. Chamberlain's ideas. It approved of giving the people
of Ireland a large control over their own affairs by means of a
legislative assembly; but, while declaring the confidence of the Council
in Mr. Gladstone, requested him to amend his bill by retaining the Irish
representatives at Westminster. The resolution was met by an amendment
moved by the followers of the Prime Minister, commending the Home Rule
Bill, thanking him for it, and assuring him of support in the present
crisis. After a long and eager discussion the amendment was carried by
an overwhelming majority.
[Sidenote: and Withdraws from the Federation.]
The result, so far as the Federation was concerned, was decisive. Six
members of the General Committee, including Mr. Harris,[511:2] thereupon
resigned; and several influential public men, among them Mr.
Chamberlain, withdrew from the organisation. But the mass of the people
think on broad lines, delight in strong contrasts easily understood, and
have little sympathy with a half-way group that stands between the two
opposing parties in the state. Hence like the Peelites in 1846, and the
Free Trade Conservatives in 1905, the Liberal Unionists in 1886 were a
body in which the members of Parliament were many and their following in
the country comparatively few. The personal secessions from the
Federation were not numerous, and not a single local association left
the fold.[512:1] But the break soon became incurable. The opponents of
the Home Rule Bill ceased to be regarded by their former companions in
arms as members of the party, and were constrained to leave the Liberal
associations;[512:2] while Mr. Chamberlain in conjunction not only with
his Radical friends, but with all the Liberals who could not follow Mr.
Gladstone's Irish policy, including even Lord Hartington and the Whigs,
founded a new organisation upon the old model, called the Liberal
Unionist Association.
[Sidenote: New Position of the Federation.]
The National Liberal Federation did not save Mr. Gladstone and his
adherents from defeat at the general election of 1886; but they had
obtained control of the organisation, and must find out what to do with
it. If a power, it had also been a source of anxiety, and under the
wrong management it might again be used to put pressure on the members
of Parliament, and even on the leaders themselves. It was useful and
must be cajoled; but it was also dangerous and must be kept in check.
Like a colt, it must be treated kindly, but must be broken to harness,
and above all the reins must not be allowed to get into strange hands
lest it learn bad tricks.
[Sidenote: Removal to London.]
Obviously the offices of the Federation could remain no longer at
Birmingham, because in spite of the loss of his organisation Mr.
Chamberlain still controlled the city so completely that his candidates
carried every seat there at the election of 1886. The offices were,
therefore, moved to London, where they were established in the same
building with the Liberal Central Association--the body that acts in
conjunction with the party whips--and what is more, M. Schnadhorst, the
paid secretary of the Federation, who had taken Mr. Gladstone's side at
the time of the split, was also appointed honorary secretary of the
Association. This arrangement, which lasted until he retired in 1894,
and has continued ever since under his successor Mr. Hudson, was not
mentioned at the time in the printed reports of the General Committee,
but its effects in bringing the leaders of the party into close touch
with the management of the Federation can readily be imagined. Another
link of the same kind was soon made. The General Committee had always
been in the habit of distributing political literature, and in 1887 a
publication department was created under the direction of a joint
committee consisting of two representatives of the Central Association,
and two of the Federation.[513:1] All these changes brought the
Federation nearer to the party chiefs, and gave it also a more national
stamp.
[Sidenote: The Federation Broadened.]
At the same time the constitution was slightly modified. The principal
changes adopted in 1887 were: making the representation on the Council
more nearly proportional to population; giving to each association for a
whole constituency three votes in the General Committee, and to all
others one vote apiece without regard to size; and lastly providing for
district federations, especially for Wales, the Home Counties and
London, which should be represented as separate organisations upon the
governing bodies. The object of these changes appears to have been to
make the Federation attractive to all Liberals throughout the country,
for it had hitherto been regarded as preeminently an instrument of the
Radical wing of the party, and many local associations had held aloof.
The managers now tried to induce them to join in order to make the
Federation as fully representative of the whole party as possible. In
this they were successful in a high degree, as may be seen from the fact
that the federated associations, which numbered in 1886, before the
split over Home Rule, only two hundred and fifty-five, rose in two years
to seven hundred and sixteen.[514:1] In carrying out this object there
was no need of opening the door to local associations not framed upon a
popular and representative basis, because societies of that kind had
already been entirely superseded.[514:2]
[Sidenote: Relation to the Party Leaders.]
When the Federation, breaking away from Mr. Chamberlain, chose the side
of Mr. Gladstone, the leaders of the party took it at once under their
patronage, and began to show a keen interest in its proceedings. Not
only did Mr. Gladstone address almost every year a great public meeting
held in the evening during the session of the Council, as Mr.
Chamberlain had been in the habit of doing before 1886; but other
leaders of the party attended the meetings of the Council itself, and
former cabinet ministers made speeches there in moving, seconding or
supporting the resolutions. This practice magnified the apparent
importance of the Federation, and lasted until the Liberals came into
office again in 1892.
[Sidenote: Resolution of the Council]
[Sidenote: The Nottingham Programme.]
Meanwhile the Council, meeting as before in one after another of the
great provincial towns, continued to adopt a series of resolutions
setting forth the policy of the Liberal party. The embarrassment that
might come from this in the future was not fully perceived at the time,
and there was at first no attempt to discourage it. In fact a statement
of the objects of the Federation published with the new rules in 1887
repeated the words originally written ten years earlier: "the essential
feature of the Federation is the participation of all members of the
party in the formation and direction of its policy, and in the selection
of those particular measures of reform and progress to which priority
shall be given."[514:3] The resolutions became, in fact, more and more
comprehensive, because the Council was naturally in the habit each year
of reaffirming its previous votes about internal reforms, and adding new
ones, the older expressions of opinion being after a while condensed
into what was known as the "omnibus resolution." At the meeting held at
Nottingham in 1887 a series of resolutions were adopted condemning
coercion, urging Home Rule, the principle of one man one vote,
registration reform, disestablishment of the Church in Wales, and the
need of reform in the land laws, in labourers' allotments, county
government, local option, London municipal government, and free
education. The resolutions were talked about as a programme for the
party, and the managers began to see that a danger was involved, but
apparently as yet only the danger of splitting the party. The General
Committee, therefore, in its next annual report, after speaking of the
influence exerted by the Federation, remarked: "A force so great and so
overwhelming requires to be directed with the utmost care and judgment,
and your Committee asks for the support of the Federated Associations in
applying it only to questions of a practical character, with regard to
which there is a general consensus of opinion in the party. . . . Much
has been said and written of the Nottingham programme. Neither the
resolutions submitted at Nottingham, nor the resolutions which are
submitted at the present meetings of the Council, are intended to
constitute a political programme. The resolutions which were submitted
last year, and those which will be submitted this year, refer to
subjects upon which there is a general consensus of opinion in the
Liberal ranks. Every question added which is not thus approved tends to
divide and to weaken the party."[515:1]
[Sidenote: Amendments Ruled Out of Order.]
The principle that resolutions on which there was not a general
consensus of opinion ought not to be adopted by the Council was given a
very definite application at that meeting. A motion stood upon the
agenda in favour of one man one vote, and the payment out of the public
rates of returning officers' expenses. The president, Sir James Kitson,
stated that a delegate wished to add the question of the payment of
members, but he must rule that it should be sent up by one of the
federated associations with a request for inclusion in next year's
programme. As the agenda was prepared by the General Committee, the
action of the president was in effect a ruling that a question not
placed by that committee upon the paper could not be proposed from the
floor. A little later in the meeting he took the same position when a
member wanted to bring forward the grievances of the Scotch
crofters.[516:1]
The ruling was a complete innovation, for amendments of a similar
character had not only been adopted by the Council in former years, in
1883 and 1885, for example; but in the great struggle for the control of
the Federation in 1886, the defeat of Mr. Chamberlain had been brought
about by an amendment in favour of the Home Rule Bill, which was carried
in the Council by a large majority. The conditions, however, had
changed. A freedom of making motions that was harmless when the
Federation contained only one extreme wing of the Liberals, became a
very different thing when it comprised all the elements in their ranks,
and the ruling was now essential if motions were not to be made that
might divide or weaken the party. It was repeated the next year when a
delegate sought to add to the omnibus resolution a rider on the question
of the eight-hour day;[516:2] and it was confirmed by the new president,
Dr. Spence Watson, in 1891.[516:3] In fact, Dr. Watson in his opening
address at the meeting explained that in his opinion the exclusion of
any alteration or amendment of the resolutions submitted to the Council
arose from the very nature of the case;[516:4] and thereafter the rule
was firmly established in the proceedings of the body.
Three matters, however, deserve a brief notice in this connection.
First, the rule has never been applied to the General Committee. At its
meetings amendments may be freely moved and carried; but then the
General Committee has power merely to discuss public questions, not to
express definitely the opinion of the party.[517:1] Second, the rule in
the Council would seem to apply only to amendments that may provoke a
difference of opinion. At the meeting of 1889, for example, immediately
after the eight-hour day amendment had been ruled out of order, another
declaring "that Welsh disestablishment and disendowment should be dealt
with as soon as Irish Home Rule is attained," was adopted, without
objection from the president, with the unanimous approval of the
meeting.[517:2] Third, the rule in the Council applies only to
resolutions affecting the Liberal programme. It has not been applied to
such a matter as a revision of the rules of the Federation, and in 1896
and 1897 several motions to amend proposals relating to the rules were
made, and one of them, which occasioned a count of votes, was carried by
a narrow majority.[517:3]
[Sidenote: Resolutions and Speakers Cut and Dried.]
With no questions submitted, save those on which there was believed to
be a general consensus of opinion in the Liberal ranks, and no
amendments allowed, serious dissent about the adoption of the
resolutions never occurred. Nor was there much real discussion. In
accordance with a common English custom an agenda paper was distributed
before the meeting, which contained not only a list of the resolutions
to be brought forward, but also the names of the proposer, the seconder,
and sometimes a third or fourth man who would support each of them. Now
these persons were expected to make speeches long enough to fill
together nearly the whole of the sitting; and hence the other delegates,
although at liberty to take part, did not often feel inclined to make,
upon an unopposed resolution, remarks that in the presence of one or two
thousand people must be in the nature of an harangue. As a rule,
therefore, the proceedings followed closely the agenda; a resolution was
proposed, seconded, and supported as had been arranged, and was then
carried unanimously.
Under such conditions the duty of preparing the resolutions for the
Council, by drawing up the agenda, was of prime importance. If the
Federation was no longer used, as in the days when it was guided from
Birmingham, to press forward a policy upon which all Liberals were not
agreed, it might now be supposed to speak with a more authoritative
voice on behalf of the whole party; and while its votes were passed by
common consent, the right to select the questions which should be
presented for general acceptance conferred no small power. Nominally
this function was intrusted to the General Committee, but that body,
which was far too large for such a task, had been in the habit of
delegating the preliminary work to a few of its own members under the
title of the General Purposes Committee,[518:1] and in 1890 amendments
to the rules of the Federation were proposed chiefly in order to confer
the power definitely upon the smaller body. They provided that the
General Purposes Committee should consist of the officers of the
Federation, and of not more than twenty other members elected by the
General Committee; that it should prepare the business for meetings of
the Council, and generally carry on the affairs of the Federation.
Although the change involved a concentration of power it was adopted at
the time without opposition,[518:2] but was the cause of heart-burning
at a later date.
[Sidenote: The Process of Preparing Resolutions.]
In his opening speech the next year the President explained the
functions of the Council. "From the earliest time," he said, "it has
been the practice and the rule of these meetings to make certain
declarations. Some of us think those declarations are a little too
numerous already. Some of us are afraid that the declarations partake
somewhat of the character of a programme. Some of us look back to the
good old time when we took up one burning question and fought it, and
fought it until we carried it into law. In the first place this is a
business meeting for the purpose of receiving the report. In the second
place it has come to be a meeting for making certain declarations. It is
not--and I wish to be particularly clear upon this point--for the
discussion of subjects. But you will say 'The National Liberal
Federation not to discuss subjects!' Certainly it can, and certainly it
does. It does not discuss them at the annual meeting. It does discuss
them at the General Committee meetings, and at the conferences held from
time to time.[519:1] Great dissatisfaction is found with the fact that
there are rules affecting the Federation. No federation, no society of
any kind, could ever exist without rules. There must be absolute rules
of procedure, and one of the rules of the proceedings of these meetings
has been that beforehand the General Purposes Committee sends out to
every association which is federated--between 800 and 900--to ascertain
what the wishes of that association may be. From the replies it
receives, from prior resolutions, from the business which has been
transacted at the General Committee meetings of the Federation and at
the conferences, the General Purposes Committee prepares the resolutions
which are submitted, and those resolutions are either accepted or
rejected. They are not altered or amended. That arises from the very
nature of the case. . . . It is absolutely impossible to discuss
questions in which great numbers of men take a great interest and hold
different views in a gathering of this character. The first discussion
must take place in the individual associations. The individual
associations must send up their delegates to our General Committee
meetings and conferences, and the matter must be threshed out there, and
there must be clear evidence as to the question having received general
acceptance before it comes to a meeting of this kind." Then, after
referring to the question of an eight-hour day, about which the
associations showed a wide difference of opinion, he added: "Do you
think we wish to stifle discussion? Why, discussion is the very
life-blood of Liberalism. We long for discussion of all questions. We
wish to have further discussion of this question, a discussion searching
out to the very bottom of the matter. We don't want a hap-hazard
discussion in a great meeting where it is absolutely impossible that men
can give their real opinions, can argue the question out, and go down to
the roots of the matter."[520:1]
[Sidenote: Contrast with the Original Plan.]
It would be difficult to express more forcibly the change that had come
over the Federation, in the functions, and still more in the aims, of
the Council meetings. According to the original plan the Federation was
to be a true Liberal parliament outside the imperial legislature; and it
was a far cry from that conception to a body voting, without amendment
or real debate, ratifications of measures prearranged by a small
committee, and found by previous inquiry to express the universal
sentiment of the party. If the Federation, with its General Purposes
Committee, its General Committee and its Council, still remained a
shadow of a Liberal parliament, it was one somewhat after the model of
Napoleon's legislature with its Council of State, its Tribunate, and its
Legislative Assembly, where one body prepared the laws, another debated,
and a third voted them.[520:2]
[Sidenote: The Newcastle Programme.]
As the General Purposes Committee placed upon the agenda for the Council
only resolutions on which the party was believed to be united, it is not
strange that they were invariably carried, and almost always with
substantial unanimity. The surprising thing is the number of questions
on which the whole body of Liberals appeared to agree; but it must be
remembered that the party was in Opposition, so that neither the
leaders, nor any one else, could make any effort at present to put into
effect the resolutions that had been voted. They expressed merely
aspirations, and the impulse of every one was to assent to any proposal
for a reform to which he had no fixed objection. This was the more true
because all assemblies of that kind are attended most largely by the
ardent or advanced members of the organisation, the more moderate
elements caring far less to be present. The resolutions, therefore,
increased until they reached high-water mark at the very meeting of
1891,[521:1] where Dr. Spence Watson in his opening address said he
thought them too numerous already. From the town where the Council met
that year the resolutions became known as the "Newcastle Programme." At
the evening meeting Mr. Gladstone took up, one after another, most of
the subjects included therein, and dwelt upon the importance of each of
them; but before doing so he remarked that when the Liberals came to
power they would want the additional virtue of patience, because with
the surfeit of work to be done it would be difficult to choose proper
subjects of immediate attention.[521:2]
The virtue of patience was needed very soon. The Council had met at
Newcastle in October, 1891. Owing to a change in the date of meeting, it
was not called together again until January, 1893; and in the meanwhile
a Liberal ministry had come into office. The Council took up no new
questions, and passed a single modest resolution relating to the party
policy, saying "That this Council confirms the series of Resolutions
known as 'the Newcastle Programme,' and confidently expects that Mr.
Gladstone's government will promptly introduce into the House of Commons
Bills embodying Reforms which have been declared again and again by
this Council to be essential to the welfare of the people of the United
Kingdom."[522:1] As the reforms contained in the Newcastle Programme
could hardly have been embodied in statutes in less than ten years by a
cabinet with a large and homogeneous majority, the demand that bills
upon all those subjects should be promptly introduced by a ministry with
a very narrow majority, and depending for its life upon the support of
Irish votes, showed the need of patience rather than its presence. In
fact most of the speakers at the meeting emphasised the reforms in which
they were especially interested, and the rest urged the importance of
the whole array.
[Sidenote: Its Effects.]
The wealth of the programme speedily caused embarrassment to the leaders
of the party. Home Rule, as every one admitted, was entitled to the
first place; but after that had been put on the shelf by the House of
Lords difficulties arose, for the Liberals in the House of Commons were
not all of one mind. Some of them were more interested in one reform,
some in another, and each had an equal right to feel that his subject
had been accepted as an essential part of the Liberal policy deserving
immediate attention. People said that the traditional division into
parties was passing away, that the parties were falling apart into
groups, like those in continental legislatures. The assertion was
frequently repeated, although it was disproved by the constancy with
which the ministers were supported by their followers in a House of
Commons where the defection of a dozen members at any moment would have
turned the scale. Month after month the whips came regularly to the
table with their slight margin of Liberal votes. In fact the government
defeats on minor matters were less frequent than in Mr. Gladstone's
previous administration; and no defeat on a question of political
importance occurred until June, 1895, when it was accomplished by the
trick of bringing Conservatives secretly into the House through the
terrace. After that defeat the ministers resigned, not because their
followers had ceased to vote with them, but because they were weary of
a hopeless struggle. Nevertheless the Newcastle Programme with its
magnificent promises had been a source of weakness to them. It
restrained their freedom of action, and forced their hands. In short, it
hampered their initiative in party policy, and it caused disappointment
among their followers.
[Sidenote: Lord Rosebery's Criticism.]
Lord Rosebery, who had succeeded Mr. Gladstone as Prime Minister in
1894, felt the bad effects of the Newcastle Programme. At the public
meeting, held when the Council met in January, 1895, he spoke of the
function of the Federation in threshing out the issues lying before the
party, and that of the cabinet in winnowing them, selecting from a vast
field the bills to be brought forward in the session. "Now, this
programme," he went on, "as it stands now, without any addition, would
require many energetic years in which a strong Government, supported by
a united and powerful Liberal Party, would have to do their best to
carry into effect (_sic_). But what is sometimes forgotten is this--that
we cannot pass all the measures of this programme simultaneously. . . .
Whilst this process of winnowing is going on, all Cabinet Ministers are
subject to a bombardment of correspondence . . . by appeals, some of
them menacing, some of them coaxing and cajoling, but all of them
extremely earnest, and praying that the particular hobby of the writer
shall be made the first Government Bill. . . . Any delay in pushing
forward each measure that has been recorded in what is called the
Newcastle programme implies, we are told, the alienation of all the
earnest and thoughtful members of the Liberal Party--in fact, the
backbone of the Liberal Party. And I have come to the conclusion that
the Liberal Party is extremely rich in backbones."[523:1]
At the public meeting in the following year, after the fall of his
government, he spoke even more plainly. He said there had been complaint
that officialdom had crept into the National Liberal Federation. His own
experience was that it played a very subordinate part there, and if he
had a secret hope on the subject, it was that officialdom might have a
little more to do with the organisation. "I remember two occasions on
which the National Liberal Federation took the bit between its teeth
and, certainly uninspired by officialdom, took very remarkable action.
The first occasion was when it made at Newcastle a programme, a very
celebrated expression of faith which, I confess, was in my opinion too
long for practical purposes."[524:1] Later in alluding to the fall of
his ministry he asked: "Why did it fall? It fell because, with a
chivalrous sense of honour too rare in politics, and with inadequate
means, it determined to fulfil all the pledges that it had given in
Opposition. It had, I think, given too many pledges--partly owing to
you, Dr. Spence Watson. It had, I think, assumed too many
responsibilities, it had taken a burden too heavy for its back, or the
back of any Government or any Parliament, to bear."[524:2]
[Sidenote: The Programme Cut Down after 1894.]
The lesson of the Newcastle Programme had not been in vain. Already in
1895 the "omnibus resolution," which, by way of comprehensive reform,
threatened the interests of the landlord, the manufacturer, the mine
owner, the Church, and the House of Lords, had been omitted, although
most of the matters covered by it were made the subject of special
votes. The next year the programme was left out altogether. Apart from
resolutions criticising the Conservative government for its foreign
policy in Armenia and Egypt, and stating on what terms an education bill
ought to be based, the only vote dealing with the policy of the Liberal
party declared simply, "That this Council reaffirms its adherence to the
principles for which the Federation has always contended," a confession
of faith not likely to cause acute discomfort to a future cabinet. As
the years went by the pressure for specific reforms was too strong to be
resisted, and resolutions dealing with them were adopted; but they have
never again reached anything resembling the range, the well-nigh
revolutionary proportions, or the suicidal capacity, of the Newcastle
Programme.
[Sidenote: Complaints that the Whips Control the Federation.]
A political, like a military, defeat is apt to cause mutual
recriminations. If Lord Rosebery lamented that the leaders in Parliament
had been overburdened by the programme of the Federation, there were
Radicals aggrieved by the control which, in their opinion, the leaders,
acting through the whips and the Liberal Central Association, had
acquired over the Federation. The complaints were so loud, and so much
discussed in the press, that Dr. Spence Watson felt constrained to deal
with them in his presidential address. The charge was that by having the
same quarters, and the same secretary (Mr. Hudson) the Federation had
been fused with and merged into the Central Association. This, he
insisted, was absolutely incorrect, the two organisations having duties
which lay quite apart one from the other; and he defended the existing
connection between them as a good business arrangement, which had
resulted in much better work.[525:1] The charge in another form was that
the General Purposes Committee, in preparing the resolutions for the
Council, was swayed by the whips by means of Mr. Hudson. Of this he
said: "We are told that the resolutions are not genuine; that they are
forced upon us by the Whips through the secretary, Mr. Hudson. No man
admires the work of Mr. Hudson more than I do, because no man sees more
of his work. I think Mr. Hudson, if he were so disposed, which I imagine
is very far from his disposition, would find it very difficult to impose
the will of the Whips upon us. We are not exactly the men to be dealt
with in that way. Now, gentlemen, I wish to put this quite plainly.
There is not a grain of truth in it. I have written down these words
because I wish to be precise. I assert that not a single resolution has
ever, at all events since 1886, been suggested, hinted at, drawn,
altered, or manipulated by any Whip or leader whatsoever."[525:2]
[Sidenote: Power Concentrated in an Executive Committee in 1896.]
Although the statement was no doubt true, and would perhaps continue to
be true, the efficiency of the party might well depend upon having the
resolutions of the Council prepared by a small body of men of proved
discretion, who would insert nothing embarrassing to the leaders. In
view of the experience with the Newcastle Programme it might be wise to
take even greater care in the selection of men who could understand the
situation of the front bench, and to increase their powers. At a meeting
of the General Committee, at Leeds, in December, 1895, a vote was passed
instructing the General Purposes Committee "to consider whether the
machinery of the Federation can be made more representative and
democratic." Democracy is a principle in whose name strange things are
done; and in accordance with this vote a plan was reported for a
revision of the rules, in which the principal changes proposed would
strengthen the hands of the General Purposes Committee, renamed the
Executive Committee. That body was directed to invite expressions of
opinion from the federated associations about the subjects to be brought
before the Council; was confirmed in its power to frame the resolutions
to be submitted;[526:1] and was given authority to decide any questions
of procedure that might arise during the sessions of the Council.[526:2]
In order, as the General Committee said in their report, to "afford an
opportunity for the ventilation of views upon subjects not dealt with in
the resolutions," it was provided that upon the motion to adopt the
annual report "the Council shall be open for the free discussion of any
matter affecting the policy and principles of the Liberal party." A mere
chance to talk supplies a useful safety valve, without doing harm; and
in this case the talk could not be followed by an expression of opinion
on the part of the Council, for no vote would be in order save to
accept, or reject, or refer back, the annual report.[526:3] The
discussion would be like that in the House of Commons on the motion to
adjourn over Easter.
Hitherto the action of the General Committee had been entirely free, but
the revised rules intrusted the Executive Committee with the duty of
preparing the business for that body as well as for the Council; not,
indeed, in the same absolute way, for any federated association could
propose an amendment or further resolution, provided they gave notice
thereof to the secretary five days, at least, before the meeting.
Moreover the Executive Committee was given power to nominate its own
members. Every association had also a right to make nominations, but
these were not, like those of the Executive Committee, circulated among
the local associations before the meeting.[527:1]
[Sidenote: Members of Parliament Excluded Therefrom.]