Finally, members of Parliament were declared ineligible to the Executive

Committee. To a question why they were excluded, the chairman of the

General Committee "replied that it had always been considered desirable

that when a man became a Member of Parliament he should retire from the

Executive, and that they should be free from all thought of outside

influence."[527:2] The answer does not make it perfectly clear whether

the object of the provision was to free the members of Parliament from

the influence of the Committee, or the Committee from the influence of

the members. Both results were in fact attained. The members of the

House were left to the sole tutelage of the whips, so far as the

Federation was concerned, for since 1886 it had ceased altogether from

the practice of stirring up local associations to bring pressure to

bear upon their representatives;[528:1] and, on the other hand, the new

rule removed any opportunity for a member of Parliament to use, or

appear to use, the Committee for his own political advancement.[528:2]

Lord Randolph Churchill's doings in the National Union of Conservative

Associations--to be related in the next chapter--was still fresh in

men's minds. It is, indeed, a striking fact that from the time when the

Liberals came to power in 1892 the leaders ceased for some years to

attend even the sittings of the Council, which were left wholly to the

lesser lights.[528:3] One of the chiefs spoke at a public evening

meeting; but they all stayed away from the Council itself where business

was transacted, thus depriving it of the weight that came from having

its words sanctioned by the presence of the real leaders of the party.

[Sidenote: Opposition to the Changes.]

During the debate on the new rules in the Council,[528:4] a number of

amendments were moved, which aimed at preventing the concentration of

power in the hands of the General and Executive Committees. Of this

nature were motions that the Executive Committee should be chosen by the

Council; that amendments to the agenda and further resolutions might be

proposed at Council meetings; that the agenda should be prepared by the

General, instead of the Executive, Committee; and that the Executive

Committee should not have power to nominate its own members. As these

amendments struck at the very root of the revision, none of them were

carried, and in fact the new rules were adopted without substantial

alteration.

[Sidenote: Renewed Discussion in 1897 and 1898.]

At the meeting in the following year, 1897, the same questions were

raised again. Changes in the rules were proposed, similar in character

to the amendments rejected in 1896, and brought forward with the same

object. They were urged on the ground that the control ought to be taken

from the hands of the few and placed in the hands of the many, that at

present "the whole thing was wire-pulled from the top," that the Liberal

party had got out of touch with the Labour party, and that the

associations had not so much opportunity as they ought to have to bring

matters before the Council. In the end the proposals were shelved by

being referred to the Executive Committee.[529:1] The next report of the

General Committee treated the matter with great frankness: "The Annual

Council Meeting," we read, "must either be (_a_) an open conference for

the debate of multitudinous questions about which the party has come to

no agreement, or (_b_) an Assembly of a declaratory character to

emphasise matters upon which the party are agreed. The former function

is impossible, if merely because the Council may consist of more than a

thousand persons sitting for less than a dozen hours. . . . It is

inevitable (and there is no reason why it should not be frankly

recognised) that the business of the Council Meeting should be more or

less 'cut and dried' beforehand. . . . These resolutions are intended to

inform the party leaders of the subjects in dealing with which they may

rely upon the support of the party as a whole. The Federation does not

interfere with the time or order in which questions should be taken up.

That is the province of the leaders of the party."[529:2]

The report went on to discuss the occult question: Who was responsible

for the Newcastle Programme? "The Federation," it said, "had steadily

refused to formulate a political programme. . . . How then did the

Newcastle Programme come into existence? No Newcastle Programme was ever

framed by the Federation or by any one connected with it." The Council

merely passed a number of resolutions urging reforms, all of which had

been demanded at previous meetings. "But the resolutions of this

particular meeting received a special significance from the fact that

. . . to the surprise of every one, our great leader, Mr. Gladstone

. . . took up _seriatim_ the resolutions which had been passed at the

Council Meetings and gave them the weight of his direct approval. The

newspapers at once spoke of the Newcastle Programme."[530:1] Poor Mr.

Gladstone! It seems that by taking the action of the Federation too

seriously, he became quite unconsciously[530:2] the unfortunate author

of the Newcastle Programme.

A few members protested vehemently in favour of the changes they had

proposed in the rules, but the report of the General Committee was

adopted with only two dissentients; and thus the opposition to the

concentration of power in the hands of a small executive body was laid

to rest. But it must be observed that if the direction of the Federation

is in the hands of a few men, their power is exerted, not to incite, but

to restrain the Council, not to use it to carry through a policy of

their own, but to prevent it from doing something indiscreet.

[Sidenote: Discussion in the Press.]

The ill-starred Newcastle Programme, and the concentration of authority

within the Liberal organisation to which it gave rise, provoked

discussion in the press as well as in the Federation itself, with the

contending views painted in higher colours. One can find articles

written to prove that the political machine had taken the place of

public opinion;[530:3] or that the Federation acted at the instigation

of the whips, was as much subject to the Liberal Government as the Board

of Trade, and was used by the leaders to register opinions upon

questions on which the party itself was divided;[531:1] or finally that

the Federation had become an anti-democratic juggernaut, which elevated

the aristocratic elements in the party and killed enthusiasm.[531:2]

Opinions of this kind are exaggerated, springing from dread of the

organisation, or disappointment at the results achieved.

Another writer tells us more calmly that the evolution of Liberal policy

goes through three stages: first, a free discussion in the General

Committee, which shows the trend if not the balance of opinion, but

which does not add articles to the party programme, because the

Federation does not act by majorities, and all the associations may not

have sent delegates to the committee; second, the adoption by the

Council, without amendment or real debate, of resolutions which have

been found to command the assent of practically the whole party; and

third, the unfettered selection by the Liberal cabinet from among those

resolutions, of the measures they think it best to bring before

Parliament.[531:3] The writer states correctly the theory of the matter;

and sees clearly that although the General Committee is allowed to

discuss very freely and to act by majority, its decisions are not

considered authoritative, while the Council which speaks in the name of

the party is not permitted to deal at all with questions that might

arouse a serious difference of opinion.

[Sidenote: The General Committee and Council at Work.]

[Sidenote: Example in the Boer War.]

The actual working of the National Liberal Federation is well

illustrated by its action in regard to the Boer War, a matter on which

the Liberals were divided. At a meeting of the General Committee in

December, 1899, a resolution was proposed, saying that there was much to

deplore in the conduct of negotiations with President Kruger, and that

in making peace due regard must be paid to the wishes of all sections of

the South African population; but avoiding carefully any statement

whether the war was inevitable or not. A second clause simply praised

the soldiers and expressed sympathy with the sufferers. A motion was

made to add somewhat incongruously in the clause a recital that "a wise

statesmanship could and should have avoided" the war, and it was carried

by 114 votes to 94.[532:1] But this was treated merely as the opinion of

the persons present, not as binding the party; and when the agenda was

prepared for the meeting of the Council in the following March, the

Executive Committee, wishing to avoid points of difference, omitted the

words that had been inserted. The principal resolution relating to the

war was introduced in the Council by a speech in which the mover

virtually threw the blame for the war upon the Boers. This raised a

storm of dissent, and speakers took the other side with no mild

language. But an amendment could not be moved, and after the most

contradictory opinions had been uttered the resolution was adopted

unanimously.[532:2] The members of the General Committee, therefore,

expressed their views individually and collectively, but ineffectually,

while in the larger assembly the members could personally declare their

opinions, but the Council as a whole could not. It could only pass a

resolution carefully drawn so as to conceal the differences of opinion

that existed.

[Sidenote: Selection of the Party Leader.]

At one time the Federation was tempted to lay its hand on a matter even

more delicate than the formulation of party policy, and that is the

selection of the party leader. On Dec. 13, 1898, Sir William Harcourt's

resignation of the Liberal leadership in the House of Commons was made

public, and it so happened that the General Committee met three days

later. There a motion was made requesting him to reconsider his

position, and another "That, in the opinion of this meeting, the

question of the leadership of the Liberal party should be taken into

immediate consideration, and calls upon the leaders to close up their

ranks." In deference, however, to a strong feeling that the motions did

not come within the functions of the Federation they were

withdrawn;[533:1] and before the Council met the Liberals in the House

of Commons had chosen Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman as their leader. The

decision in the Committee was wise, for the success of parliamentary

government depends upon the fact that the leaders in the Commons possess

the influence required to command the support of their followers, and

this can be secured only by having them selected, formally or

informally, by the members of the party in Parliament. A man chosen by a

popular body outside might well be quite unable to lead the House.

[Sidenote: The Federation is Muzzled.]

The National Liberal Federation has now had a history of thirty years,

and it has proved very different from what it was originally intended to

be. As an organisation it is highly useful to the party in many ways. It

does valuable work in promoting local organisation, in distributing

party literature, in collecting information, and in keeping the Liberal

workers throughout the country alert. Even the Council does good service

in arousing enthusiasm, and preserving an appearance of participation by

the rank and file in the management of party affairs. But as a Liberal

parliament outside of the imperial legislature, which directs the policy

of the party, the Federation is a sham. The General Committee can debate

and act freely, but the lack of a sufficiently representative character,

and the almost invariable absence of all the leading Liberals,[533:2]

deprives its deliberations of any real might; while the Council is

effectively muzzled. Its resolutions are carefully prepared so as to

express no opinions on which every one does not agree, and hence they

declare nothing that every one did not know already. Nevertheless it

involves some dangers. Popular excitement on some question might force

the Executive Committee to bring in unwise resolutions; the Council

itself might become roused, and by a change in the rules tear off the

muzzle; and it is not inconceivable that a man with popular talents and

a demagogic temperament might capture the organisation, and use it to

combat the leaders and thrust himself into power.

To a person unfamiliar with the hopes and fears inspired by the Caucus a

generation ago, a discussion of this length about a body that wields

very little real power may seem like a long chapter on the snakes in

Iceland; but there are a couple of good reasons for treating the subject

thoroughly. The very fact that the Caucus was regarded as the coming

form of democracy, destined to undermine the older political

institutions of the nation, makes its subsequent history important, for

it shows that among a highly practical people democratic theories about

direct expression of the popular will yield to the exigencies of actual

public life. The story of the Caucus illustrates also the central

conception of this book, that in the English parliamentary system

leadership must be in the hands of the parliamentary leaders. We have

seen this principle at work in the House of Commons, and a popular

organisation, in attempting to direct party policy, strove against it in

vain. That the result is not an accident may be seen from the experience

of the Conservative party, where a similar movement, not less dramatic

at times, has travelled through different paths to the same end.

FOOTNOTES:

[501:1] These and the following statements are taken from the official

"Proceedings attending the formation of the National Federation of

Liberal Associations with Report of Conference held in Birmingham on

Thursday, May 31, 1877." Since this chapter was written, "The National

Liberal Federation, from its Commencement to the General Election of

1906," has been published by Dr. Robert Spence Watson, for many years

its president. But although a valuable history of the organisation, and

a vigorous statement of the opinions held by its leaders, the book adds

little to the information that may be gathered from other sources, for

the author does not take us behind the scenes.

[503:1] M. Ostrogorski points out very clearly how important it was for

the standing of the Federation to have the real Liberal leader for its

sponsor, and how this was possible, because he was not the nominal

leader. I., 181.

[506:1] Then the Liberal leader in the House of Commons. The statements

of what took place at these meetings are taken from the annual reports

published by the Federation.

[507:1] Morley, "Life of Gladstone," II., 630. Jeyes, "Mr. Chamberlain,"

85-86.

[507:2] Mr. Collings remained president only one year, and his

successors were from other towns.

[508:1] Rep. of 1881, _cf._ Ostrogorski, I., 209-11.

[508:2] Political education had always been one of the functions of the

Federation, and it was in the habit of distributing party literature. In

1881 it sent out copies of two speeches by Mr. Chamberlain. These were,

in fact, the only speeches it circulated that year.

[508:3] Rep. of meeting of General Committee, March 6, 1882; Ann. Rep.

to Council, December, 1882, _cf._ Ostrogorski, I., 213-15.

[509:1] Ann. Rep. to Council, December, 1882.

[509:2] _Cf._ Ostrogorski, I., 218-25.

[510:1] The resolutions adopted by the Council in October, 1885, related

to primogeniture and entail, tenure and compensation of tenants,

registration of land titles, enfranchisement of leaseholders, compulsory

purchase of land for labourers, public elementary schools, election of

rural governing bodies, and disestablishment of the Church.

[511:1] Hans. 3 Ser. CCXCIII., 573 (Oct. 30, 1884).

[511:2] Mr. Harris came back a few years later and served on the

executive body.

[512:1] Rep. of the Gen. Com. in 1886.

[512:2] _Cf._ Ostrogorski, I., 293, 307-9.

[513:1] Rep. of 1887, pp. 28, 29, 40.

[514:1] Rep. of 1888, p. 14.

[514:2] _Ibid._, p. 12.

[514:3] _Ibid._, 1887, p. 39.

[515:1] Rep. of 1888, pp. 13, 14.

[516:1] Rep. of 1888, pp. 109, 112.

[516:2] _Ibid._, 1889, pp. 128-29.

[516:3] _Ibid._, 1891, pp. 87, 96.

[516:4] _Ibid._, p. 42. On other occasions he repeated the statement,

adding that the practice saved the Council the risk from which the Union

of Conservative Associations had suffered, of having alterations made

suddenly under the magic strains of eloquence. Rep. of 1895, p. 58;

1896, p. 57.

[517:1] As late as 1894 the General Committee declared that the

Registration Bill of the Liberal government was not satisfactory and

urged its amendment. Rep. of 1894.

[517:2] Rep. of 1889, p. 129.

[517:3] _Ibid._, 1896, pp. 73-78; Rep. of 1897, pp. 77-80.

[518:1] Rep. of 1890, p. 29.

[518:2] _Ibid._, pp. 6-8, 58.

[519:1] These were special conferences of delegates from the

associations of the whole, or of some part, of the country. They were

not infrequently held.

[520:1] Rep. for 1891, pp. 42-44.

[520:2] "Now whilst the Council of the Federation declares what the

party as a whole desires, the General Committee attempts by preliminary

discussion to arrive at what the desires are. As the General Committee

examines but does not declare, the freest and fullest discussion takes

place at its meetings." Rep. of 1898, p. 42.

[521:1] Rep. of 1891, pp. 6-8.

[521:2] _Ibid._, p. 101.

[522:1] Rep. of 1892, p. 6.

[523:1] Rep. of 1895, pp. 111-13.

[524:1] The other occasion was when it held a conference on the subject

of the House of Lords.

[524:2] Rep. of 1896, pp. 109, 119

[525:1] Rep. of 1896, pp. 58-60.

[525:2] _Ibid._, p. 58.

[526:1] The agenda was to be sent to the associations in advance of the

meeting.

[526:2] In 1902 the Committee itself proposed at the Council meeting,

and carried a substitute for its own resolution. Rep. of 1902, p. 70.

[526:3] It was so ruled. Rep. of 1898, p. 60.

[527:1] The text of this provision was: "One month, at least, prior to

the meeting of the General Committee at which the Executive Committee is

to be elected, a list of those Members of the existing Executive

Committee who offer themselves for reelection, together with the names

of any others nominated by the Executive Committee, shall be sent to

each of the Federated Associations. Federated Associations desiring to

nominate other Candidates for the Executive Committee shall send in

formal nominations to the Secretary of the Federation at least fourteen

days before the meeting. In the event of nominations exceeding the

number to be elected, a ballot will be taken at the meeting of the

General Committee."

[527:2] Rep. of 1896, p. 77.

[528:1] This appears from the annual reports of the General Committee,

which did, however, continue for some years to send circulars to local

associations urging them to pass resolutions of a general character.

[528:2] At the same time all the Liberal members of Parliament were made

_ex officio_ members of the Council, where their presence was expected

to exert a restraining influence upon the extreme and impracticable

elements in the party.

[528:3] After the party had been out of power many years this rule was

not rigidly observed. In 1903, for example, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman

spoke in support of one of the resolutions. Rep. of 1903, p. 75.

[528:4] Rep. of 1896, pp. 71-78.

[529:1] Rep. of 1897, pp. 75-80. One of the arguments in favour of the

election of the Executive Committee by the General Committee was that

the latter was more fairly representative than the Council, because the

delegates to the Council from the part of the country where the meeting

was held attended in greater numbers than from more distant places.

[529:2] _Ibid._, 1898, pp. 39, 41.

[530:1] Rep. of 1898, pp. 40-41.

[530:2] _Ibid._, pp. 54-55.

[530:3] "The Ministry of the Masses," _Edinburgh Review_, July, 1894.

[531:1] "The Reorganisation of Liberalism," James Annand, _New Review_,

November, 1895.

[531:2] "The Future of Liberalism," _Fortnightly Review_, January, 1898.

[531:3] "The National Liberal Federation," _Contemporary Review_,

February, 1898.

[532:1] Rep. of 1900, p. 15.

[532:2] _Ibid._, pp. 63-70.

[533:1] Rep. of 1899, pp. 21, 24.

[533:2] The exceptions are rare. In 1903, however, Mr. Bryce moved a

resolution on education. Rep. of 1903, p. 20.

CHAPTER XXX

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE CAUCUS

_The Conservatives_

[Sidenote: Formation of the National Union of Conservative

Associations.]

Ten years before the National Liberal Federation was founded, a Tory

organisation, called the National Union of Conservative and

Constitutional Associations, had been started upon similar lines. After

some preliminary meetings it was definitely formed at a conference in

November, 1867, where delegates from fifty-four towns and the University

of London were present.[535:1] Here a constitution was adopted, which,

with the amendments made in the first few years, contained the following

provisions. Any Conservative or Constitutional association might be

admitted to the Union on payment of one guinea a year, and would then be

entitled to send two delegates to the Conference. This last body was the

great representative assembly of the Union. Like the Council of the

National Liberal Federation it was to meet in a different place each

year,[535:2] and was composed of the two delegates from each subscribing

association, of the officers of the Union, and of such honorary members

as were also members of the Council. The Council was the executive body

of the Union, and consisted of the president, treasurer, and trustees;

of twenty-four members elected by the Conference; of not more than

twenty nominated by the principal provincial associations; and of such

members of the Consultative Committee as were willing to act, the last

being a body formed out of vice-presidents and honorary members to which

difficult questions could be referred.

In order to attract money, it was provided that any one subscribing a

guinea a year should be an honorary member of the Union, that the

subscribers of five guineas a year should be vice-presidents with seats

_ex officio_ in the Conference, and that any one subscribing twenty

guineas should be a vice-president for life. In order to attract titles

provision was made for the election of a patron and ten vice-patrons of

the Union. These methods of procuring the countenance of rank and wealth

were not tried in vain. In 1869 Lord Derby became the patron of the

Union, and on his death he was succeeded by the Duke of Richmond. In the

report of the Council in 1872 we read, "the total number of

vice-presidents is now 365, among whom are 66 noblemen, and 143 past and

present members of the House of Commons." The honorary members at the

same time numbered 219.

[Sidenote: Objects of the Union.]

[Sidenote: It did not Try to Guide Party Policy.]

Although the National Union was much older than the National Liberal

Federation, it attracted far less notice. During its earlier years,

indeed, the Conferences were very small affairs. At the second

Conference, for example, in 1868, there were present only three officers

and four delegates, and in the two following years respectively only

thirty-six and thirty-five persons all told. The chief reason, however,

why the Union made so much less stir than the Federation, lies in the

nature of the work it undertook to do. The Federation was a weapon of

militant radicalism, designed to carry into effect an aggressive public

policy, and was considered a serious menace to old institutions; but the

Union was intended merely as an instrument for helping the Conservative

party to win victories at the elections. Its object was to strengthen

the hands of local associations; while its work consisted chiefly in

helping to form such associations, and in giving information.[537:1]

For this purpose, it kept a register of all Conservative associations,

so that it could act as their London agency; it offered suggestions, was

ready to give advice, printed and distributed pamphlets, and arranged

for speeches and lectures.[537:2] The Union made no claim to direct the

policy of the party. At the meeting in 1867, when the Constitution was

adopted, one speaker said that "unless the Union was managed by the

leaders of the Conservative party it would have no force and no effect

whatever," and this was given as a reason for making the honorary

members eligible to the Council.[537:3] The matter was put in a nutshell

some years later by Mr. Cecil Raikes, one of the founders, when he said

that "the Union had been organised rather as what he might call a

handmaid to the party, than to usurp the functions of party

leadership."[537:4] In fact, for the first nine years the Conference

passed no resolutions of a political character at all, and those which

it adopted during the decade that followed expressed little more than

confidence in the leaders of the party.

[Sidenote: Its Relation to the Party Leaders.]

Mr. (afterwards Sir John) Gorst, who had presided at the first

Conference in 1867, was appointed in 1870 principal agent of the

party--that is, the head, under the whips, of the Conservative Central

Office--and in order to connect the new representative organisation with

the old centralised one he was made the next year honorary secretary of

the Union.[537:5] The policy was soon carried farther. In their report

for 1872 the Council said: "Since the last conference, an arrangement

has been made by which the work of the Union has been more closely

incorporated with that of the party generally, and its offices have been

removed to the headquarters of the party in Parliament Street. This

arrangement has been productive of the most satisfactory results, not

only by having brought the Union into more direct contact with the

leaders of the party, and thereby enhancing the value of its operations,

but also by greatly reducing its working expenses." At an early stage of

its existence, therefore, the Union took for its honorary secretary an

officer responsible through the whips to the leaders of the party in

Parliament, and this was openly proclaimed an advantage. No secret was

made of the fact that the Union was expected to follow, not to lead; for

at the banquet held in connection with the Conference that same year the

Earl of Shrewsbury, in proposing a toast to the Army, said, "The duty of

a soldier is obedience, and discipline is the great characteristic of

the army and navy, and I may also say that in a like manner it is

characteristic of the Conservative Union."

[Sidenote: The Conference of 1872.]

The Conference held in 1872 seems to have been the first that attracted

much public attention, and it was notable for two things. Mr. Disraeli

had insisted that the working classes were by nature conservative, and

that the extension of the franchise would bring an accession of strength

to his party. His opponents, assuming that Liberalism was a corollary of

democracy, had laughed at the idea; and although his followers had

expended much energy in organising Conservative workingmen's

associations, the results of the election of 1868 appeared to have

disproved his theory. But the meeting in 1872 showed that among the

artisans Tories were by no means rare. In connection with the

Conference, which was held in London, a great banquet was given at the

Crystal Palace, and this caused Mr. Cecil Raikes, the chairman of the

Council, to remark: "a few years ago" everybody said "that if a

Conservative workingman could be found he ought to be put in a glass

case. We have found for him the largest glass case in England to-night."

The banquet was also notable for a speech by Mr. Disraeli, which was

ridiculed at the time on account of the characteristically grandiloquent

phrase, "You have nothing to trust to but your own energy and the

sublime instinct of an ancient people."[539:1] Nevertheless it was a

remarkable speech, for it laid down the main principles of Tory policy

for the next thirty years and more, a feat that is probably without

parallel in modern history.[539:2]

[Sidenote: Complaints that the Union was not Representative.]

Although the Conservative party carried the country at the general

election of 1874, and Mr. Disraeli, for the first time, came into power

with a majority at his back, popular interest in the Union grew slowly.

As late as 1878 not more than two hundred and sixty-six out of the nine

hundred and fifty Conservative associations were affiliated to the

Union, and delegates from only forty-seven of them attended the

Conference.[539:3] Yet complaints were already heard that foreshadowed

the strife to come in the future. In 1876 Mr. Gorst, the honorary

secretary, but no longer the principal agent of the party, proposed to

reorganise the Council by making it more representative in

character.[539:4] His suggestion was opposed by Mr. Raikes, and was

voted down. The next year, however, he returned to the subject, moving

first to abolish the Consultative Committee altogether, and then that

its members should not sit on the Council. He withdrew these motions on

the understanding that the Council would consider the matter; and

although other persons also urged that the Council should be

strengthened by becoming a more representative body, the only action

taken at this meeting was to provide that the Council itself should not

propose for reelection more than two thirds of its retiring members.

[Sidenote: Changes in its Rules.]

Mr. Gorst resigned his position as honorary secretary in November, and

in spite of continued criticism of the Council on the ground that it was

to a great extent self-elected,[540:1] nothing was done to change its

composition until after the Liberals had won the general election of

1880. Under the pressure of the defeat the Conference of that year

adopted a new set of rules drawn up by the Council itself. They provided

that the associations should be represented at the Conference in

proportion to their size; that the members of the Consultative Committee

should no longer sit on the Council; and that instead of the twenty

members of the Council nominated by the principal associations, who were

said to attend little, the Council itself should add twelve persons to

its number. This plan of cooptation was destined to open the door for a

most audacious attempt to capture the organisation.

[Sidenote: The Fourth Party.]

The chance for a new man to distinguish himself in Parliament comes in

Opposition. As Mr. Winston Churchill remarks in the life of his father:

"There is small scope for a supporter of a Government. The Whips do not

want speeches, but votes. The Ministers regard an oration in their

praise or defence as only one degree less tiresome than an

attack."[540:2] But in the Opposition free lances are applauded if they

assault the Treasury Bench from any quarter. Moreover, although the game

of politics in England is played under a conventional code of rules

which are scrupulously observed, a skilful player can achieve a rapid

prominence by violating the rules boldly, if he has great ability, high

social rank, or wins the ear of the people. These truths were turned to

advantage in the Parliament which sat from 1880 to 1885 by Lord Randolph

Churchill and his small band of friends, who, in contradistinction to

the Liberals, Conservatives, and Irish Home Rulers, came to be known as

the Fourth Party. The general election of 1880 had brought Mr. Gladstone

back to power, and in the course of this administration he was obliged

to face unexpectedly many delicate and difficult questions. The

Conservative Opposition was led by Sir Stafford Northcote, a man of

decorous rather than combative temperament, who had been Mr. Gladstone's

private secretary in early life, and was not inclined to carry

parliamentary contests to extremes. The conditions were favourable to a

small body of members, something between knights errant and banditti,

who fought as guerillas under the Conservative banner, but attacked on

occasion their own leaders with magnanimous impartiality.

[Sidenote: Its Origin and Policy.]

The Fourth Party began in one of those accidents that happen in

irregular warfare.[541:1] The Bradlaugh case, involving the thorny

question whether a professed atheist could qualify in the House of

Commons by affirmation or oath, vexed the whole life of the Parliament,

and brought together in the opening days Sir Henry Wolff, Mr. John

Gorst, Lord Randolph Churchill, and Mr. Arthur Balfour. This case, in

which they played successfully upon the feelings of the House, made them

at once conspicuous, and taught them the value of concerted action. With

a short interruption, caused by a difference of opinion about the Irish

Coercion Bill of 1881, the friends acted in harmony for four years. They

had no formal programme, and no one of them was recognised as the chief,

but it was understood that they should defend one another when attacked,

and they were in the habit of dining together to arrange a common plan

of action. They took a vigorous part in all debates, criticised the

government unsparingly, and under the pretence of assisting to perfect

its measures, spun out the discussions and obstructed progress. They

showed great skill in baiting Mr. Gladstone, and when delay was their

object, in drawing him by turns into long explanations in response to

plausible questions about the clauses of his bills. Their

aggressiveness, and their profession of popular principles under the

name of Tory democracy, spread their reputation in the country, and gave

them an importance out of proportion to their number or their direct

influence in the House of Commons.

[Sidenote: Its Attacks on the Tory Leaders.]

Throughout its career the Fourth Party assumed to be independent of the

regular Conservative leaders in the House. At times it went much

farther, accusing them of indecision and an inability to lead, which

disorganised the party. Lord Beaconsfield's death in 1881 left the

Conservatives with no single recognised leader; for Lord Salisbury was

chosen by the Tory peers leader of the House of Lords; and Sir Stafford

Northcote remained, as he had been in Lord Beaconsfield's last years,

the leader in the House of Commons, neither of them being regarded as

superior in authority to the other. The members of the Fourth Party

asserted that this dual leadership, by causing uncertainty in the

counsels of the party, was disastrous; and they soon settled upon Sir

Stafford Northcote as the object of their censure. The attack upon him

culminated in April, 1883, when his selection to unveil the statue of

Lord Beaconsfield seemed to indicate that he was to be the future

premier whenever the Conservatives might come to power. On that occasion

Lord Randolph Churchill published a couple of letters in _The Times_ in

which he spoke of Sir Stafford in strong terms, and declared that Lord

Salisbury was the only man capable of taking the lead. These he followed

up by an article in the _Fortnightly Review_ for May, entitled "Elijah's

Mantle," describing the decay of the Conservative party, setting forth

his ideas of Tory democracy as a means of regeneration, designating Lord

Salisbury as the proper heir to Lord Beaconsfield's mantle, but

revealing at the same time his confidence in his own fitness for

command. His quarrel with his chief in the House of Commons did not

impair his popularity in the country; while his speeches, with their

invective against prominent Liberals, and their appeals for the support

of the masses, caught the fancy of the Tory crowds. Hitherto he had

decried Sir Stafford Northcote and praised Lord Salisbury, but he now

embarked upon an adventure that brought him into sharp conflict with the

latter. Mr. Balfour, being Lord Salisbury's nephew, could not follow in

the new path, and before long opposed his former comrade, while the

other two members of the Fourth Party continued to support him.

[Sidenote: Lord Randolph Churchill's Plan to Capture the Union.]

In the summer of 1883 Lord Randolph Churchill conceived the bold plan of

getting control of the National Union of Conservative Associations, and

making it, under his guidance, a great political force in the party.

Complaints had already been made, as we have seen, that the Council,

instead of being truly representative, was in the hands of a small

self-elected group of men. In fact the Council had been managed in

concert with the leaders of the party in Parliament; while the real

direction of electoral matters was vested in the "Central Committee," a

body quite distinct from the Union, created at the instance of Lord

Beaconsfield after the defeat of 1880 to devise means of improving the

party organisation. The Committee had become permanent, and, working

under the whips, had exclusive charge of the ample sums subscribed for

campaign expenses. In order to achieve any large measure of independent

power the National Union must have pecuniary resources, and hence, as a

part of his plan, Lord Randolph Churchill determined to obtain for it a

share of the funds in the possession of the Central Committee.

[Sidenote: The Conference at Birmingham in 1883.]

The three friends were already members of the Council. Sir Henry Wolff

had been there from the beginning. Mr. Gorst, who had taken an active

part in its work in the past, had recently been given a seat again as

vice-chairman; and Lord Randolph Churchill had been elected a coopted

member in 1882 by the casting vote of the chairman, Lord Percy. The

first scene in the drama was arranged for the Conference held at

Birmingham on Oct. 2, 1883. There, when the usual motion was made to

adopt the annual report, a Mr. Hudson moved a rider directing "the

Council for the ensuing year to take such steps as may be requisite for

securing to the National Union its legitimate influence in the party

organisation." He said that the Conservative workingmen should not be

led by the nose, and that the Union ought to have the management of its

own policy.

[Sidenote: Lord Randolph Churchill's Speech.]

Lord Randolph Churchill supported the rider in a characteristic speech,

in which he described how the Central Committee had drawn into their own

hands all the powers and available resources of the party. "From that

day to this," he went on, "in spite of constant efforts on the part of

many members of your Council, in spite of a friction which has been

going on ever since, your Council has been kept in a state of tutelage,

you have been called upon year by year to elect a Council, which does

not advise, and an Executive which does not administer. . . . I should

like to see the control of the party organisation taken out of the hands

of a self-elected body, and placed in the hands of an elected

body."[544:1] He intimated that the Central Committee had used money at

the last election for corrupt purposes, and declared that such practices

would not cease until the party funds were managed openly. Finally, he

said that the Conservative party would never gain power until it gained

the confidence of the working classes, who must, therefore, be invited

to take a share, and a real share, in the party government. Several men

spoke on the other side, among them Lord Percy, who repudiated the

charge that the Central Committee had spent money corruptly. He said

that he and others had been members both of that Committee and of the

Council, and that there was a constant interchange of ideas between the

two bodies. He was willing, however, to accept the rider upon the

understanding that the Conference was not committed to any of the modes

of carrying it out that had been suggested. The rider was then adopted

unanimously.[545:1]

[Sidenote: He becomes Chairman of the Council.]

Lord Randolph Churchill was elected to the Council, and so were many of

his opponents. The parties were, in fact, nearly evenly balanced, but he

and his friends had the great advantage of a definite, well-arranged

plan. Twelve coopted members were to be chosen, and by presenting the

names of prominent men from the large towns, to whom his opponents found

it hard to object, Lord Randolph secured a small but decisive majority

on the Council. At the first meeting in December he procured the

appointment of a committee to consider the best means of carrying into

effect the rider passed at the Conference. The committee was composed

mainly of his friends, and at once elected him its chairman, although

according to the custom that had been followed hitherto the chairman of

the Council, Lord Percy, should have presided in all the committees.

Early in January, 1884, the committee had an interview with Lord

Salisbury, and brought to his notice the uneasiness that prevailed about

the party organisation, and the desire of the Union to obtain its

legitimate share of influence in the management. Lord Salisbury took the

matter under consideration. Meanwhile, on February 1, when the committee

reported progress to the Council, Lord Percy protested against his

exclusion from the chair, and motions were made to the effect that he

ought to preside at meetings of committees; but they were rejected by

close votes. Thereupon he resigned his position as chairman of the

Council, and as he refused to withdraw his resignation, Lord Randolph

Churchill was, on Feb. 15, chosen to succeed him by seventeen votes to

fifteen for Mr. Chaplin. Lord Salisbury, however, ignoring the change of

chairman, still communicated with the Council through Lord Percy, which

exasperated Lord Randolph's partisans.

[Sidenote: Lord Salisbury's Letter of Feb. 29, 1884.]

On Feb. 29, Lord Salisbury, in a letter to Lord Randolph Churchill,

replied, on behalf of himself and Sir Stafford Northcote, to the

suggestions that had been made to him in January. He began by observing

that no proposals had been put forward by the Union, beyond the

representation that the Council had not opportunity of concurring

largely enough in the practical organisation of the party. "It appears

to us," he continued, "that that organisation is, and must remain in all

its essential features, local. But there is still much work which a

central body, like the Council of the National Union, can perform with

great advantage to the party. It is the representative of many

Associations on whom, in their respective constituencies, the work of

the party greatly depends. It can superintend and stimulate their

exertions; furnish them with advice, and in some measure, with funds;

provide them with lecturers; aid them in the improvement and development

of the local press; and help them in perfecting the machinery by which

the registration is conducted, and the arrangements for providing

volunteer agency at Election times. It will have special opportunity of

pressing upon the local associations which it represents, the paramount

duty of selecting, in time, the candidates who are to come forward at

the dissolution. This field of work seems to us large--as large as the

nature of the case permits." But he added that any proposal which the

Council might desire to submit would receive their attentive

consideration.

[Sidenote: It is Misconstrued by Lord Randolph.]

The letter was, no doubt, intended to enumerate in substance the very

functions that the Council had hitherto performed; but the committee

affected to receive it with joy as a complete acceptance of their plan.

They prepared a report to the Council, stating that the duties which,

according to Lord Salisbury's letter, ought to devolve upon the Council,

were such as, with the exception of lecturers, they had not hitherto

been permitted to undertake. "The Council," they went on, "will, no

doubt, perceive that for the proper discharge of these duties, now

imposed upon them by the leaders of the party, the provision of

considerable funds becomes a matter of first-class necessity." They

ought, therefore, to claim a definite sum out of the funds in the hands

of the Central Committee, from which they had as yet received only

irregular and uncertain contributions. The report recommended that a

small executive committee be appointed with directions to carry out Lord

Salisbury's scheme, to incur liability for urgent expenditure, to enter

into communication with all the local associations in order to learn

about their candidates, elections, funds, and agents, and to invite from

those associations the "fullest and freest communication of all

information bearing upon political and parliamentary questions as viewed

in the localities." All questions involving large and general principles

of party policy were to be reserved for the determination of the

Council, but the chairman and vice-chairman were to be authorised to

perform all ordinary executive acts between meetings. It is needless to

point out the imitation of the National Liberal Federation as it worked

at that time, or the great power that these changes would throw into the

hands of Lord Randolph Churchill.

[Sidenote: Further Correspondence.]

Lord Salisbury was informed of the report, and hastened to remove any

misapprehension. In a letter to Lord Randolph, on March 6, he said he

had not contemplated that the Union should in any way take the place of

the Central Committee, and he hoped there was no chance of their paths

crossing. Lord Randolph replied that he feared that hope might be

disappointed. "In a struggle between a popular body and a close

corporation, the latter, I am happy to say, in these days goes to the

wall."[547:1] A correspondence took place also between Lord Salisbury

and Lord Percy, in the course of which the former wrote: "the Central

Committee represents the leaders, by whom it is appointed. So far as

those duties are concerned which attach, and always have attached, to

the leaders of the party, and depend on their sanction, these can only

be delegated to gentlemen whom we appoint." He said that in his opinion

no change in this respect would be desirable, and that he could not

think the adoption of the report would be expedient. Lord Percy laid the

letter before the Council, and moved that the report should not be

accepted, but his motion was rejected by a vote of nineteen to fourteen;

the report was then adopted, and the committee was instructed to confer

with the leaders of the party as to the best way of carrying out the

plans foreshadowed in their letters.

[Sidenote: Lord Salisbury's Letter of April 1, 1884.]

The temper of the leaders may be imagined, and may well excuse a step,

which was, nevertheless, a mistake, because it offended members of the

Council of local importance,[548:1] who had probably intended no

disrespect to Lord Salisbury. Three days after the adoption of the

report a curt letter came from Mr. Bartley, the principal agent of the

party, giving the National Union notice to quit the offices occupied

jointly with the Central Committee. Lord Randolph Churchill displayed no

open resentment at this; but treating the objections of the leaders as

if they applied only to the details of the report, he proposed to modify

it in part, especially by a change which showed that the general

questions of policy reserved for the Council were to relate not to

public affairs, but merely to party organisation. He held also a

conference with Lord Salisbury, which was again an occasion for

misunderstanding; for on April 1 that nobleman wrote that as he and Sir

Stafford Northcote had already expressed their disapproval of the

report, they could not consider it further in the absence of

explanation, but that some passages had been explained at the

conference, and it had been made clear that the National Union did not

intend to trench on the province of the Central Committee, or take any

course on political questions not acceptable to the leaders of the

party. It was very satisfactory, the letter said, to find the Council

agreeing that matters hitherto disposed of by the leaders and the whips

must remain in their hands, including the expenditure of the funds

standing in the name of the Central Committee. Lord Salisbury then went

on to describe the proper functions of the Council in language evidently

intended to cover the same ground as his letter of Feb. 29.[549:1] He

added that to insure complete unity of action it was desirable to have

the whips sit _ex officio_ on the Council, and be present at the

meetings of all committees; and he ended by saying that under the

circumstances a separation of establishments would not be necessary.

[Sidenote: Lord Randolph's Caustic Reply.]

Lord Randolph called at once a meeting of the committee on organisation,

and although only three members besides himself were present, he sent to

Lord Salisbury, in the name of the committee, a letter unique in English

political annals. The document is long, but the following extracts may

serve to show its meaning and portray its tone: "It is quite clear to

us," it said, "that . . . we have hopelessly failed to convey to your

mind anything like an appreciation, either of the significance of the

movement which the National Union commenced at Birmingham in October

last, or of the unfortunate effect which a neglect or a repression

of that movement by the leaders of the party would have upon the

Conservative cause. The resolution of the Conference at Birmingham . . .

signified that the old methods of party organisation, namely, the

control of parliamentary elections, by the leader, the whip, the paid

agent drawing their resources from secret funds, which were suitable to

the manipulation of the ten pound householder were utterly obsolete and

would not secure the confidence of the masses of the people who were

enfranchised by Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill. . . . The delegates at the

Conference were evidently of opinion that . . . the organisation of the

party would have to become an imitation . . . of the Birmingham Caucus.

The Caucus may be, perhaps, a name of evil sound and omen in the ears of

aristocratic and privileged classes, but it is undeniably the only form

of political organisation which can collect, guide, and control for

common objects, large masses of electors. . . . It appeared at first,

from a letter which we had the honour of receiving from you on the 29th

February, that your Lordship and Sir Stafford Northcote entered fully

and sympathetically into the wishes of the Council.[550:1] . . . The

Council, however, committed the serious error of imagining that your

Lordship and Sir Stafford Northcote were in earnest, in wishing them to

become a real source of usefulness to the party. . . . The Council have

been rudely undeceived . . . the precise language of your former letter

of the 29th February is totally abandoned, and refuge taken in vague,

foggy, and utterly intangible suggestions. Finally, in order that the

Council of the National Union may be completely and for ever reduced to

its ancient condition of dependence upon, and servility to certain

irresponsible persons who find favour in your eyes, you demand that the

whips of the party, . . . should sit _ex officio_ on the Council. . . .

It may be that the powerful and secret influences which have hitherto

been unsuccessfully at work on the Council with the knowledge and

consent of your Lordship and Sir Stafford Northcote, may at last be

effectual in reducing the National Union to its former make-believe and

impotent condition; in that case we shall know what steps to take to

clear ourselves of all responsibility for the failure of an attempt to

avert the misfortunes and reverses which will, we are certain, under the

present effete system of wire-pulling and secret organisation, overtake

and attend the Conservative party at a general election."

A copy of the letter was read to the Council the next day, when a motion

was made regretting its disrespectful and improper tone, and declining

to accept any responsibility for it. This was defeated by a vote of

nineteen to thirteen, and then an executive committee was appointed to

carry out the recommendations in the report.

[Sidenote: Negotiations Reopened,]

It might be supposed that after receiving a letter of that kind Lord

Salisbury would have had no more to do with Lord Randolph Churchill

forever, and would have refused to hold further communication with the

Council; but politics makes strange bedfellows, especially in a

parliamentary form of government. Lord Salisbury could not afford to

alienate a body which represented a considerable fraction of the

Conservatives in the country; while it would have been folly for Lord

Randolph to burn the bridges behind him. Negotiations were, therefore,

opened through a third person, very nearly on the lines of Lord

Salisbury's letter of April 1, except that three thousand pounds a year

were to be paid to the National Union; and an understanding was nearly

reached, when an event took place which broke it off for a time.

[Sidenote: and Interrupted.]

Mr. J. M. Maclean, one of Lord Randolph's supporters in the Council,

whose object had been simply to supplant Sir Stafford Northcote, became

alarmed lest the movement might result in supplanting Lord Salisbury

also, or might cause a real breach in the party. Not being aware of the

pending negotiations, he moved at a meeting of the Council on May 2 the

appointment of a committee to confer with the Central Committee in order

to secure harmony and united action.[552:1] Although letters were read

showing that steps already taken would probably lead to an

understanding, and although Lord Randolph told Mr. Maclean that he

should regard the motion as one of want of confidence, the latter

persisted, and, as several of Lord Randolph's friends were absent,

carried his proposal by a vote of seventeen to thirteen. Lord Randolph

then resigned as chairman of the Council; but his popularity in the

country was great, and there was a widespread feeling of regret at a

quarrel among influential members of the party. A conference of chairmen

of the Conservative associations in eight of the chief provincial towns

acted as peacemaker. It drew up a memorandum regretting the lack of

harmony, suggested an arrangement very similar to that almost reached in

the negotiations recently broken off, and submitted that if these

suggestions were accepted Lord Randolph should withdraw his resignation.

[Sidenote: A Truce Effected.]

The memorandum was laid before the Council at a meeting on May 16, and

Lord Randolph was unanimously reelected chairman. At the same meeting,

the committee, composed mainly of Lord Randolph's opponents, which had

been appointed to confer with the Central Committee, reported that they

had effected an agreement. Again the terms were almost precisely the

ones indicated by Lord Salisbury in his letter of April 1, save for the

payment of three thousand pounds a year to the Union.[552:2] Coming from

this source it is not surprising that they were unsatisfactory to Lord

Randolph's friends, and they were referred back for further

consideration to the committee reenforced by new members. A month

elapsed, and at a meeting on June 13 the committee reported that they

had suggested some changes, which the leaders would not accept.[553:1]

The matter was again recommitted, but finally on June 27, the committee

reported that they had made an agreement on the lines of the earlier

plan, and this was adopted as it stood.

Except for a moderate annual subsidy, Lord Randolph Churchill had really

obtained nothing for the National Union.[553:2] Personally he had become

the leading figure of what purported to be the great representative

organisation of the party, for the chairman of the Council was the most

important officer in the Union; but the position of the organisation

itself remained substantially unchanged. The agreement that had been

reached was, however, merely a truce, and both sides canvassed eagerly

the delegates to the approaching Conference, each hoping for a decisive

victory that would give undisputed control of the Council.

[Sidenote: The Conference at Sheffield.]

The Conference of the National Union for 1884 met at Sheffield on July

23. It was unusually well attended, with some four hundred and fifty

delegates in the hall, representing two hundred and thirty-four

associations. In his speech on presenting the report of the Council Lord

Randolph described the dissensions that had occurred, and begged the

delegates to elect members who would support one side or the other. His

object, he said, had been to establish a bona fide popular organisation,

bringing its influence to bear right up to the centre of affairs, so

that the Tory party might be a self-governing party; but as yet this had

been successfully thwarted by those who possessed influence. The speech

was followed by a fierce debate, ending, of course, in the adoption of

the report. The real interest of the meeting centred in the ballot for

the Council, and before that began a change was made in the method of

election. Instead of choosing twenty-four members, and allowing them to

add twelve more to their number, a resolution was adopted, whereby all

thirty-six were elected directly by the Conference, thus making the

ballot there conclusive upon the complexion of the Council. Judging from

the action of the Conference on certain minor questions of organisation,

and from the size of Lord Randolph's personal vote for the Council, he

had the sympathy of a majority of the delegates; but they did not, as he

had hoped, divide on a sharp line for one side or the other. Lord

Randolph himself received 346 votes, while the next highest on the list,

although his supporter, received only 298. When, however, the result was

announced, his friends formed only a small majority on the Council.

[Sidenote: Lord Randolph Makes his Peace and Abandons the Union.]

Lord Randolph Churchill had won a victory; but a victory that was little

better than a drawn battle. His own reelection as chairman was assured,

and for the moment he controlled the Council, but his control would be

neither undisputed nor certain to endure. He could use the Union in a

way that would be highly uncomfortable for Lord Salisbury, but he had

not captured it so completely that he could do with it as he pleased.

Again it was for the interest of both sides to make peace, and the

negotiations were completed in a few days. The Central Committee was in

form abolished; the Primrose League, recently founded by the Fourth

Party, was recognised by the leaders; Lord Randolph withdrew from the

chairmanship of the Council; and mutual confidence and harmony of action

were restored. These appear to have been the nominal conditions.[555:1]

Whether the real terms were ever definitely stated, or were merely left

in the shape of a tacit understanding, it is at present impossible to

say. The practical upshot was that the Fourth Party was broken up; Lord

Randolph abandoned the National Union to its fate, acted in concert with

the parliamentary leaders, and was given a seat in the cabinet when the

Conservatives next came to power. The reconciliation was sealed by a

dinner given by Lord Salisbury to the Council of the Union.

[Sidenote: His Later Career.]

The subsequent career of Lord Randolph Churchill may be told in a few

words. In the reorganisation of the Union he took no part, and, indeed,

he ceased before long to attend the meetings of the Council altogether.

But when Lord Salisbury formed a ministry in June, 1885, he was offered

the post of Secretary of State for India, with a seat in the cabinet. He

made it a condition of acceptance that Sir Stafford Northcote should

cease to lead in the House of Commons. Lord Salisbury, who had been

hitherto loyal to Sir Stafford, hesitated, but at last the old statesman

was transferred to the oblivion of the House of Lords, and Sir Michael

Hicks-Beach took his place as leader of the Commons. Lord Randolph's

success had been extraordinary, but he was destined to reach even

greater eminence in the near future. The Home Rule Bill, in the session

of 1886, gave him a chance to increase his reputation as a debater, and

when the general elections following the rejection of that bill brought

a new Conservative government into office, he was given the position of

Chancellor of the Exchequer with the leadership of the House of Commons.

His popularity in the country was greater than ever; his appearance on

the platform at a Conference of the National Union, on Oct. 26, 1886,

"was the signal for a tremendous outburst of long-sustained

cheering,"[555:2] and addresses were presented to him from several

hundred associations. But he overestimated his personal power, and is

commonly supposed to have thought that one more quarrel would leave him

master of the party. His battle-ground was unfortunately chosen, for he

took his stand in the cabinet for a reduction of the army and navy

estimates, at a time when the national desire for economy was on the

wane. His colleagues did not agree with him, and on Dec. 20 he tendered

his resignation to the Prime Minister. He was apparently confident of

coming out victorious; but Mr. Goshen, a Liberal Unionist, took his

place, and the government went on without him.[556:1] He failed to

realise that a conflict in 1884 with the leaders of the Conservative

party in the Houses of Parliament, two men neither of whom had yet

proved his capacity to be at the head of the cabinet or won the full

confidence of the country, was a very different thing from a quarrel in

1886 with the government of the nation, at a time when it stood in the

eyes of the majority of the people as the bulwark against disunion. His

miscalculation was fatal, and during the few years of his life that were

left he never regained a position of political importance.

[Sidenote: Reconstruction of the National Union.]

Meanwhile the National Union underwent a transformation. The leaders of

the party were determined that it should not be captured again, or used

to force their hand. But any changes must be made without losing the

semblance of a democratic organisation; and, in fact, it was believed

that if the Union were in reality broadly popular it would be more

inclined to follow the leaders of the party, and less easily captured,

than if it represented only a fraction of the local associations. In

this respect the position bore some resemblance to that of the National

Liberal Federation after the Home Rule struggle a year later. The time

was propitious for reconstructing the Union, because the redistribution

act of 1885 had marked off the constituencies on new lines, and thus

involved the formation of many of the local associations afresh. It is

interesting to note that the changes provoked no struggle between those

elements in the Union which had recently been in conflict; and, indeed,

the dissensions ceased with the withdrawal of Lord Randolph Churchill.

[Sidenote: The First Changes; 1885.]

The first alterations, made in 1885, were designed merely to give the

Union a broader basis, and the Council a more representative character.

The most important provision was that every Conservative association

should be affiliated without the need of any formal action. The Union

thus came to be a really national party organisation in a way that it

had never been before, the report for 1887 stating that the affiliated

associations numbered 1100. The changes of 1885 did not affect seriously

the structure of the Union, or its relation to the whip's office, but

these questions were taken up at once by three men. One of them was Sir

Albert Rollit, who drafted and carried through a new set of rules.

Another was Captain Middleton, who devised the scheme on which those

rules were based. He was appointed principal agent of the party in 1885,

and in 1886 was made honorary secretary of the Union. He continued to

hold both positions until 1903, and so far as the success of the

Conservatives at the polls during the period of their ascendency was the

result of political organisation, it was due to him more than to any one

else. The third was Mr. Southall, who became in 1886, and has ever since

remained, the secretary of the Union. His constant cooperation with

Captain Middleton removed the severe friction that had existed between

the Union and the whip's office, and enabled them to work in perfect

harmony.

[Sidenote: The New Organisation.]

The new rules were adopted at a special conference held in May, 1886, at

which more than six hundred delegates were present. Slightly modified so

far as the National Union itself is concerned in 1887, and as regards

the divisional unions in 1888, 1889, and 1890, they remained in force

until 1906; and hence they governed the organisation of the Conservative

party during the period of greatest and longest prosperity that it has

known since the Reform Act of 1832. They recite that the objects of the

Union are: to form a centre of united action, communication, and

cooperation, among associations; to promote the organisation of

associations; to spread Conservative principles; and to enable

associations to give expression to Conservative feeling by petitions and

resolutions. They provide that the chief association of each

constituency in England and Wales shall be a member of the Union without

payment, while any other association or club with fifty members may be

admitted on paying one guinea a year;[558:1] and that any person may be

admitted as an honorary member or vice-president on payment of a sum

appropriate to those dignities.[558:2] The Conference was made to

consist of the officers and honorary members, and of delegates from

subscribing associations, from the ten new divisional unions, and from

the chief organisations of Scotland and Ireland.[558:3] The Council was

composed of the president and trustees; of one of the whips, and the

principal agent of the party; of twenty-one members elected by the

Conference; and of the chairman and three representatives elected by

each of the divisional unions.

[Sidenote: The Ten Divisional Unions.]

Within the National Union, which included only England and Wales, there

were created ten new territorial divisions; and a provincial or

divisional union consisted of all the members of the National Union,

whether associations or individuals, within that division. It had its

annual meeting corresponding to the Conference, and its council.[559:1]

In fact, it was intended to be a miniature of the National Union itself,

with similar structure and functions.

The mechanism of the National Union, and its subordinate branches, looks

formidable; but it has not proved in practice so complex as it appears.

The principal change was the creation of the provincial or divisional

unions, which were interposed between the local associations and the

central Conference and Council. The object in creating them was said to

be the development of local effort as essential to the success of the

party. Representation, it was pointed out, thus passed by graduated

steps from the individual elector, through the branch or district

associations and clubs, and through the central associations in each

constituency to the provincial councils, to be summed up in the

Conference and Council of the whole Union.[559:2] Perhaps the words

"strained" or "filtered" would, better than "passed," have signified the

real intention, for the divisional unions were designed as a safeguard

against popular caprice and personal ambition. They were expected to act

like water-tight compartments, as it was believed that all ten divisions

would not go mad at once, and that any man would find it very hard to

capture enough of them, one at a time, to control the Union. They did

not, however, develop any vigorous life of their own, and have not had

corporate solidity enough to maintain separate deliberative bodies. The

annual meetings have been little more than an occasion for an address by

the president. In short, the divisions did not turn out to be of much

consequence as a basis for representative party gatherings.

[Sidenote: Concentration of Power.]

Although the divisions did not prove important from a deliberative point

of view, they have had a very distinct value for administrative

purposes, and have been distinctly convenient as districts for the

spread of Conservative doctrines. Moreover, they have furnished a means

for controlling the party from headquarters, and a channel through which

it could be kept in touch with the whip's office. This was darkly hinted

at when, on behalf of the committee that framed the new rules, a hope

was expressed that "In your local associations, in the provincial

unions, and in the National Union, and with the help also of the

principal whip and the principal agent of the party, you will have a

chain of assistance, experience and authority, which will bind together

our party." One of the whips and the principal agent of the party were,

indeed, given seats _ex officio_ not only upon the Council of the

National Union itself, but both upon the Council and the Executive

Committee of each of its divisions. This was, of course, part of the

"chain of assistance, experience and authority which will bind together

our party."

Another provision in the rules relating to the divisional unions has

also proved important in this respect. It is one that contemplated the

employment as divisional secretary of a sub-agent of the central office

without cost. By doing this the division saved both salary and rent;

while the principal agent, who represented the leaders and the whips,

had in the secretary an agent selected and paid by him. The relation was

the more useful because the habit of changing every year the president

of the divisional union, and the chairman of its council, prevented any

one from acquiring a large influence, except the secretary, who was

permanent. The arrangement was made in most of the divisions. Even where

it was not, the secretary acted as though he were a subordinate of

Captain Middleton, and being in constant communication with the local

agents, he could give information about political matters throughout his

division, thus keeping the principal agent in touch with the whole

organisation of the party. Personally popular and tactful, Captain

Middleton was enabled by his relation to the divisional agents, by

close cooperation with the National Union, with the Conservative clubs,

and with other ancillary bodies, to draw all the threads of the

Conservative organisation into his office without provoking jealousy, or

appearing to exert more power than naturally belonged to his office. The

result was that while he held the place of principal agent the

Conservative organisation was a highly efficient administrative machine,

working in perfect harmony with the leaders.

[Sidenote: Resolutions on Political Questions]

Any popular party organisation in England involves two dangers, one

personal and the other political; one that a man may use it for selfish

purposes; the other that it may force upon the leaders a policy which

they were not prepared to adopt. We have seen how this second peril

actually confronted the Liberal Ministry in the form of the Newcastle

Programme, and how it was met by muzzling the Council of the National

Liberal Federation. In the National Union the difficulty has been solved

in a very different way. Until 1885 the Conference passed no resolutions

on general policy, save in the form of expressing confidence in the

leaders, or congratulating them on their exploits; but in that year,

when an effort was made to give to the Union the appearance of a free

popular organisation, confessions of faith on current politics began.

Resolutions of this kind soon became numerous and included demands to

which the Conservative leaders could not assent, such as woman suffrage,

and fair trade, that is, protection in a modified form.[561:1]

[Sidenote: are Free;]

But, except for occasional cases where a delegate was persuaded to

withdraw his motion, or where it was shelved by the previous question on

the ground that a vote on the subject would be impolitic, no attempt has

been made by the managers to fetter the free expression of opinion. The

Conservative leaders, however, made it clear almost at once that they

did not take the action of the Conference very seriously. In 1887 it

adopted resolutions in favour of fair trade, woman suffrage, and

reforms in the tenure and sale of Church livings; but although Lord

Salisbury, then Prime Minister, in a public speech immediately afterward

said, "More and more in this day political leading and the making of

political opinion must be a matter of local effort," and although he

referred to agricultural distress, and the forthcoming budget, he made

no allusion to fair trade, or for that matter to woman suffrage or

Church livings.[562:1] There was, at first, no doubt, some dread of the

effect the resolutions might have on the public, and on several

occasions the chairman called attention to the fact that among the

delegates were men connected with the press, warning them not to report

the proceedings.[562:2] At one time, in fact, an unofficial proposal was

made to forbid the passing of resolutions altogether. In 1889 a delegate

moved that although general questions of policy might be discussed, no

vote should in future be taken upon them. The fair trade resolution of

1887, which had provoked criticism, was referred to, and several

gentlemen said they wished to prevent a repetition of that incident. The

matter was referred to the Council, which reported in the following year

that they had considered both this suggestion and another that no

resolution should be placed upon the agenda without the consent of the

Council; but that they had decided to recommend no change in the rules,

except an increase in the number of days prior to the Conference that

notice of a motion must be sent in. They went even further, and advised

that reporters for the press should be admitted to the meetings, which

was done forthwith.

[Sidenote: but are Ignored.]

The proceedings at the Conference of the National Union are thus quite

free. Any delegate or other member has a right, on giving the prescribed

notice, to prepare a resolution on any subject, and amendments can be

moved upon the spot. The result has been a large number of declarations

of opinion on public questions, not always consistent or unopposed. A

resolution in favour of woman suffrage was adopted in 1887, 1891, and

1894, and then defeated in 1897 by a substantial majority. The action of

the Conference is not fettered; it is ignored. Some great nobleman

presides, and one of the party leaders usually addresses a public

meeting in the evening; but statesmen of the first rank take no part in

the regular proceedings, which have, therefore, no political weight.

[Sidenote: The Fiscal Question.]

A proof of the small importance attached to the votes is furnished by

the history of the movement for fair trade or preferential tariffs.

Resolutions in favour of such a policy were passed over and over again,

but they did not bring the question even within the range of active

political issues until Mr. Chamberlain made his speech on the subject to

his constituents at Birmingham in the spring of 1903. The meeting of the

Conference at Sheffield in the following October then awoke a real

interest; and yet the proceedings at that very meeting show how the

National Union shrank from a decided stand at a critical moment. The

situation was extraordinary. Mr. Chamberlain had taken his stand for a

preferential tariff in favour of the colonies, including a duty on

grain, and had recently resigned from the cabinet to advocate his views

more freely before the country; while other ministers had resigned

because they could not abandon the principle of free trade. Mr. Balfour

had expressed no definite opinion, and was expected to make a statement

on the subject at a public meeting after the close of the first day's

session of the Union. Under these circumstances a resolution was placed

upon the agenda which stated the need for reconsidering the fiscal

system, thanked the Prime Minister for instituting an inquiry on the

subject, and welcomed the policy of retaliatory tariffs he had

foreshadowed. To this Mr. Chaplin moved a rider favouring explicitly Mr.

Chamberlain's views; while Sir John Gorst stood ready to move another

against any protective duty on food. During the afternoon the fiscal

question was hotly debated, and, judging by the way the free trade

speakers were interrupted, a large majority of those present must have

agreed with Mr. Chamberlain's opinions; but in order not to pass a vote

before hearing the Prime Minister, the debate was adjourned until the

following day.

In the evening Mr. Balfour declared himself in favour of a retaliatory

tariff as a means of commercial bargaining with other nations, but said

that a tax on food was not within the limits of practical politics. When

the debate was resumed the next morning, Mr. Chaplin withdrew his rider,

on the ground that it might look like a resolution hostile to the Prime

Minister; and Sir John Gorst said that Mr. Balfour's statement was so

far satisfactory that he should make no motion. Thus the sharp

differences of opinion that seethed in the Conference were calmed on the

surface, and the original resolution was adopted unanimously, only a

couple of staunch free traders abstaining from the vote. If ever an

English political organisation had a chance to determine the policy of

the party it was on this occasion, and a decisive majority was

undoubtedly on Mr. Chaplin's side. Yet this Conference which had often

voted for fair trade when the ministers would have none of it, shrank

from saying what it thought when the ministers were undecided. A

stronger proof could hardly be found that the National Union is

powerless to direct the policy of the party.

[Sidenote: The Organisation Breaks Down after 1903.]

Although the popular character of the National Union was unreal, as

regards both administrative machinery and the formulation of political

opinion, the system worked well so long as the Conservatives were in the

ascendent, and Captain Middleton remained in control. But he had

concentrated the whole management so completely in his own hands that

the machinery could not run smoothly of itself after he retired in 1903.

His successor, instead of consulting the officers of the Union,

proceeded as if the Central Office was all-powerful, and thus lost touch

with the Union and the local associations. Moreover, the sub-agents in

some of the divisions were not wisely chosen, and caused friction rather

than harmony in the party. Complaints became loud, and found expression

at the meeting of the Conference at Newcastle in November, 1905, where

a resolution was adopted "that in the opinion of this Conference the

management of the Central Conservative Association in London is

defective, and needs revising; and for this purpose a popularly elected

committee should be appointed to cooperate with the Conservative Whips."

The principal agent thereupon resigned; and the resolution of the

Conference, followed by the disastrous defeat at the general election in

the January following, led to another reorganisation of the party in

1906.

When a ministry that has been in power is beaten at the polls, much of

the blame is always laid at the door of the party organisation, and a

cry is raised for its reform upon a more democratic basis. The movement

on this occasion is interesting enough to merit a little study, because

it furnishes the latest illustration of the way a demand for popular

control within the party is constantly cropping up in England, and of

the obstacles that it meets. As in earlier cases, the party machinery

was not so largely responsible as some people asserted. Still it had

fallen out of repair. Besides the dislocation at headquarters, the local

associations had been neglected in many places; many Tory members of

Parliament having come to feel that the country was normally

Conservative, and that their own seats were safe, had done little or

nothing to keep the local organisations in working order; while for a

time some associations had not dared to meet, knowing that any

discussion would bring to light sharp differences of opinion on the

question of fiscal policy.

[Sidenote: Changes of 1906.]

The election of January, 1906, was no sooner over than the whips and the

officers of the National Union set to work to overhaul the party

machinery. In the first place they created an advisory committee of

seven persons, charged, indeed, with no executive powers, but with the

duty of advising the whip, and thus keeping the leaders in touch with

the currents of opinion in the party. The committee consisted of the

chief whip, three persons selected by him, and three chosen by the

National Union.[566:1] In the second place they transferred a number of

functions from the Central Office to the Union, together with a staff of

clerks to carry them out, and a grant of money from the funds to defray

the expense; the most important function so transferred being the entire

supervision of local organisations, the supply of speakers over the

country, and the publication of party literature, the last two of these

having been hitherto only to a very small extent in the hands of the

Union. They worked out also a plan for changes in the organisation of

the National Union itself, which were discussed and adopted at a special

conference in London.

[Sidenote: The Conference in July.]

The Conference met on July 27; and after a unanimous vote in favour of

the fiscal policy of the party leaders had been passed, an attack was

made upon the Central Office in the form of a motion that it ought to be

brought under more effective popular control. The supporters of the

motion pointed out that in the new advisory committee the

representatives of the National Union were in a minority; that the

committee had authority merely to tender advice; and that even this

function did not extend to party finance, to the recommendation of

candidates for Parliament, or to patronage of any kind. They repeated

the charge, familiar even before the days of Lord Randolph Churchill,

that the party was a democracy managed by aristocratic methods, that the

leaders ought to trust it more and suspect it less, and that the Central

Office had not its confidence. In short the demand was the old one for a

more popular control of the party machinery. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood,

the chief whip, met it by stating frankly that the finances were a

delicate and confidential matter, which must be in the hands of one man;

and--referring to the new advisory body of seven--he said that it would

be disastrous to have the party managed by a committee. The party could

stand many things, but in his judgment it could not stand a caucus.

Policy must, he said, be initiated by the leaders; no leader and no whip

would submit to anything else. Although the demand for greater popular

control had been greeted with applause, it was evident that the

prevailing sentiment of the meeting was with the chief whip, and the

motion was finally withdrawn; not, however, without an intimation that

it would be renewed in the near future.

[Sidenote: The New Rules of 1906.]

The special Conference then went on to debate and adopt the new set of

rules, the most important change involved being the enlargement of the

Central Council by the direct representation thereon of the counties and

boroughs, the former in the proportion of one member for every fifty

thousand voters, the latter in that of one for every twenty-five

thousand. This, it was thought, would make the body more truly

representative, by freeing it both from the control of a small group of

men, and from the tendency of every annual Conference to choose persons

whose names were known in the part of the country where the Conference

happened to meet.[567:1] The only other change of importance related to

the provincial divisions. These were made more elastic by a provision

that any one or more counties might be erected into a separate division.

Their internal organisation was also remodelled; and the arrangement for

furnishing sub-agents of the Central Office as their secretaries, free

of charge, was abolished, partly because it had ceased to work

smoothly, and partly because many members of the Union felt that it kept

them in leading strings.[568:1] The discussion of the divisional

councils brought up an interesting question. By the rules of the

National Union honorary members had already a right to attend the

Conference without votes;[568:2] and by the new rules they were given

full membership in the councils of the provincial divisions. When

strenuous objection was made to this as undemocratic, a delegate replied

that if money was the root of all evil, it was also the source of all

power; and that in order to get money it was necessary to do something

for the men who gave it. The clause was the subject of the only vote at

the Conference close enough to require a count, and the new provision

was adopted by 148 to 103. In other respects the existing rules, though

much changed in detail, were not altered in their essential

features.[568:3]

[Sidenote: Their Probable Effect.]

The new arrangements have increased the functions of the National Union,

while the enlargement of the Council will, no doubt, change its method

of work, and may possibly make it more useful as an organ for

interpreting the feelings of the party. But it is highly improbable that

these things will cause any substantial change in the relation of the

organisation to the leaders in Parliament. There are still several means

of controlling the Union, and preventing it from getting out of hand.

One of these is furnished by the party war chest, or campaign fund, over

which Lord Randolph Churchill tried in vain to get a large share of

control. It is disbursed by the Central Office, and its distribution

holds many constituencies in a state of more or less dependence.

Then again, even in the last reorganisation, the recommendation of

candidates for Parliament to places seeking for them has been retained

under the exclusive control of the Central Office, instead of being

allowed to pass into the hands of the National Union; and this is in

itself no small source of power. As a further security against capture

of the Union, the practice was established in 1889 of changing the

chairman of the Council every year, so that no one could acquire

influence enough to be dangerous. Moreover, fidelity upon the Council

has often brought its reward in the form of a seat in Parliament, or of

a baronetcy. So far these various precautions have been effective. Since

1884 no one has attempted to get control of the Union for his personal

advantage. Certainly the capture of the organisation has been made more

difficult than it was formerly, but it would be rash to predict that it

is altogether impossible. Nor would it be safe to say that the Union

will never embarrass the leaders by laying down a definite course of

policy and insisting that the leaders should adopt it; this, however,

never has happened, and there appears no more reason to expect it in the

future than in the past.

The National Unions both in England and Scotland[569:1] have very

important functions, which they perform with great efficiency; but they

are really electioneering bodies. Their work is to promote local

organisation, to arouse interest, to propagate Conservative doctrines,

and this they do exceedingly well by means of departments for the

publication of party literature and for providing lecturers. The English

Union has established also a political library in London, which collects

a large amount of information, including the speeches and records of all

the leading men in public life. But as organs for the popular control of

the party, for formulating opinion, and for ascertaining and giving

effect to the wishes of the rank and file, these bodies are mere

pretences. Both the National Liberal Federation and the National Union

of Conservative Associations have been sources of anxiety to the party

leaders, but for the time, at least, both have been made harmless. The

process in each case has not been the same, although the results are not

unlike. Both are shams, but with this difference that the Conservative

organisation is a transparent, and the Liberal an opaque, sham.

FOOTNOTES:

[535:1] The reports of the first three Conferences are found only in the

manuscript minutes of proceedings. Reports of the fourth to the ninth

Conference inclusive were printed. Since that time only the reports of

the Council and the programmes for the Conferences have been published.

[535:2] In the original constitution it was to meet every third year in

London, but this was changed in 1868. It will be observed that the

Conference corresponds to the Council of the National Liberal

Federation; and the Council, although a much smaller body, to the

General Committee of the Federation.

[537:1] _Cf._ Statement made at first Conference, 1868, and Rep. of the

Council at the Conference of 1875.

[537:2] _Cf._ Leaflet No. 1, 1876.

[537:3] Manuscript minutes, p. 57.

[537:4] Rep. of the Conference of 1873.

[537:5] Rep. of the Council for 1871. He held the post of principal

agent through the general election of 1874 which his efforts helped much

to win. In 1881 he took the position again, and at that time was made a

vice-chairman of the Council so as to bring the Union into cooperation

with the whips' office. (Rep. of the Council for 1881.)

[539:1] Punch made the expression the subject of a cartoon.

[539:2] Curiously enough he suggested one principle which has only

recently been taken up seriously by Conservative leaders. Among the

three great objects of the party he placed the upholding of the empire,

and in speaking of this he said that when self-government was given to

the colonies, it ought to have been with provisions for an imperial

tariff, common defence, and some representative council in London.

[539:3] Rep. of Conference of 1878. But many of the local associations

may have been branches with less than one hundred members, and therefore

not admissible under the rules.

[539:4] The need of a reorganisation of the party on a more popular

basis was afterward urged by Mr. Gorst and Sir Henry Drummond Wolff in

an article entitled "The State of the Opposition," _Fortnightly Review_,

November, 1882.

[540:1] _E.g._, by Dr. Evans. Rep. of Conference of 1878.

[540:2] "Lord Randolph Churchill," I., 69.

[541:1] The best accounts of the Fourth Party are to be found in Winston

Churchill's "Life of Lord Randolph Churchill," I., Ch. iii., and in

three articles by Harold E. Gorst entitled "The Story of the Fourth

Party" in the _Nineteenth Century_ for November, and December, 1902 and

January, 1903, afterward republished as a book. These accounts are

written by the sons of two of the members of the group, and may be taken

to express the views of those two members.

[544:1] These words are taken from the manuscript report of the

Conference in the records of the National Union. The language is more

brief, and differs in unimportant details from that quoted in Winston

Churchill's life of Lord Randolph.

[545:1] A motion was also carried unanimously requesting the Council to

consider a method of electing its members, such that the associations

might be represented upon it by delegates.

[547:1] These two letters do not appear in the report of the Council,

but are quoted by Mr. Winston Churchill.

[548:1] Winston Churchill, "Lord Randolph Churchill," I., 318.

[549:1] "It appears to us that these objects may be defined to be the

same as those for which the Associations themselves are working. The

chief object for which the Associations exist is to keep alive and

extend Conservative convictions, and so to increase the number of

Conservative voters. This is done by acting on opinion through various

channels; by the establishment of clubs, by holding meetings, by

securing the assistance of speakers and lecturers, and by the

circulation of printed matter in defence of Conservative opinions, by

collecting the facts required for the use of Conservative speakers and

writers, and by the invigoration of the local press.

"In all these efforts it is the function of the Council of the National

Union to aid, stimulate and guide the Associations it represents.

"Much valuable work may also be done through the Associations, by

watching the registration and, at election time, by providing volunteer

canvassers and volunteer conveyance."

This letter and the reply to it are printed in full in Winston

Churchill's "Lord Randolph Churchill," I., App. II.

[550:1] Here follows a rehearsal of the functions Lord Salisbury had

ascribed to the Council, which are pronounced to have been clear,

definite, and satisfactory. The assurance with which they are assumed to

mean something quite different from what his Lordship must have intended

is one of the marvellous things about the affair.

[552:1] Maclean's own account of the matter is given in his

"Recollections of Westminster and India," 68-79.

[552:2] The terms were briefly as follows:--

1. The two bodies to occupy the same offices.

2. The Union to attend to the formation and maintenance of local

associations. The agents of the Central Committee to assist in this and

report to the Union through the principal agent.

3. Parliamentary elections, the recommendation of candidates, and

questions of general policy, to be outside the province of the Union.

4. The Union to publish literature as it may desire, and to provide

speakers.

5. The Council to help the party leaders to organise public meetings,

and circulate pamphlets.

6. The Central Committee to allot a sum of money to be paid annually to

the Union.

7. The chief whip and the principal agent to have seats on the Council,

and the chief whip to sit on all committees.

8. If the chief whip thinks any action of the Union inconsistent with

the welfare of party, the matter to be referred to the leaders for

decision.

9. The leaders of the party to appoint one or two members of the Council

on the Central Committee.

It may be observed that this arrangement gave the leaders of the party

more formal power of control over the Union than ever.

[553:1] The changes were the omission of Nos. 1 and 9; and that the

chief whip should have merely a right to be present at all the

committees, instead of being a member of them.

[553:2] Mr. Winston Churchill (I., 324, 331) and Mr. Ostrogorski

attribute a larger measure of success to Lord Randolph, but that opinion

seems to me inconsistent with the correspondence, the reports of the

committees and the proceedings of the Council, which are set forth in

the printed report laid before the next Conference.

[555:1] Winston Churchill, "Lord Randolph Churchill," I., 356-59.

[555:2] _The Times_ of Oct. 27, 1886, p. 6, c. 3.

[556:1] Mr. Winston Churchill's account of the occurrence is extremely

interesting; but the motives he attributes to his father do not seem

wholly consistent with one another.

[558:1] For workingmen's clubs with less than one hundred members the

fee is only half as large.

[558:2] The sums required for these offices are the same as when the

Union was originally formed. The subscriptions from associations go one

half each to the National and divisional unions; those of individuals go

wholly to the divisional union except in the case of life payments,

which are made to the National Union, one half of the interest being

paid over to the division.

[558:3] To these the principal paid agent, or secretary, in each English

or Welsh constituency was added in 1892. This has not been a matter of

much importance, because few of them can afford to attend.

[559:1] All the Conservative members of Parliament for constituencies in

the division were given the right to attend the annual meeting, and were

made members of the Council.

[559:2] Rep. of the Council, October, 1886.

[561:1] These were both passed in 1887 and at intervals thereafter.

[562:1] _The Times_, Nov. 24, 1887.

[562:2] _E.g._ Rep. of the Conference in October, 1886.

[566:1] In the original plan these were to be chosen by the Council; but

at the special Conference in July it was agreed that they should be

elected at the annual Conference.

[567:1] Under the new rules the Central Council--previously called

simply the Council--consists of the president and trustees of the

National Union; the chief whip and the principal agent of the party; one

representative for every fifty thousand voters, or fraction thereof, in

each county, chosen at the meeting of the provincial division by the

delegates of the county thereat; one representative for every complete

twenty-five thousand voters in each parliamentary borough that contains

so many, chosen by the central council of the borough; twenty-one

members elected annually by the Conference; the chairman, honorary

secretary, and two representatives from the National Society of

Conservative Agents; one representative from each of the eight local

associations of Conservative agents; and two representatives apiece from

the Association of Conservative Clubs, the National Conservative League,

and the United Club. The Council as thus enlarged contains nearly two

hundred members.

[568:1] Opinion on this question was by no means unanimous. One or two

divisions wanted to retain the former system on the score of economy,

and the chief whip agreed to allow them to do so for a time.

[568:2] Rule V.

[568:3] By the new rules the Conference consists of the officers of the

Union, and the members of the Central Council; of the honorary members

of the Union, who have, however, no vote; of the Conservative members of

both Houses of Parliament; of the officers of each provincial division;

of the chairman, the paid agent, and three representatives of the

central association in each constituency; of one representative for each

subscribing association or club; and of twenty representatives apiece

from Scotland and Ireland.

[569:1]

[Sidenote: The Caucus is Largely a Sham.]

[Sidenote: The Scotch National Union.]

The Union hitherto described covers England and Wales alone, although

the Scotch and Irish organisations are entitled to send to the

Conference twenty delegates apiece. North of the Tweed there is a

separate National Union of Conservative Associations for Scotland. It is

a copy of the English body, but except for the twenty delegates is

entirely independent. It has a conference which adopts resolutions as

ineffective as those passed farther south. It has six territorial

divisions; but, owing to the fact that Scotland is in the main Liberal,

several of these are not very vigorous, and do not raise money enough to

have councils of their own. All the divisions are very much under the

control of the Central Council of the Scotch Union, to which they send

their reports for approval. They are, indeed, largely ornamental.

But if the National Union for Scotland is independent of the English

Union it is by no means free from the influence of the whip's office.

The party agent for Scotland, who has a right to attend--although

without a vote--all meetings of the central and divisional councils and

their committees, is appointed by the principal agent in London, and,

like the secretaries of the divisions in England, is practically his

subordinate. In this way the whip and the principal agent, acting

through the agent for Scotland and the local agents, and fortified by

subsidies at election times, maintain a real control over the whole

party organisation throughout the kingdom.

By the Right Hon. JAMES BRYCE, D.C.L.

The American Commonwealth

_Third Edition, revised throughout, after many reprintings._

_In two crown 8vo volumes, the set, $4.00 net_

"His work rises at once to an eminent place among studies of

great nations and their institutions. It is, so far as America

goes, a work unique in scope, spirit, and knowledge. There is

nothing like it anywhere extant, nothing that approaches

it. . . . Without exaggeration it may be called the most

considerable and gratifying tribute that has yet been bestowed

upon us by an Englishman, and perhaps by even England

herself. . . . One despairs in an attempt to give, in a single

newspaper article, an adequate account of a work so infused

with knowledge and sparkling with suggestion. . . . Every

thoughtful American will read it and will long hold in

grateful remembrance its author's name."--_New York Times._

"Written with full knowledge by a distinguished Englishman to

dispel vulgar prejudices and to help kindred people to

understand each other better, Professor Bryce's work is in a

sense an embassy of peace, a message of good-will from one

nation to another."--_The Times_, London.

"This work will be invaluable . . . to the American citizen

who wishes something more than superficial knowledge of the

political system under which he lives and of the differences

between it and those of other countries. . . . The fact is

that no writer has ever attempted to present so comprehensive

an account of our political system, founded upon such length

of observation, enriched with so great a mass of detail, and

so thoroughly practical in its character. . . . We have here a

storehouse of political information regarding America such as

no other writer, American or other, has ever provided in one

work. . . . It will remain a standard even for the American

reader."--_New York Tribune._

"It is not too much to call 'The American Commonwealth' one of

the most distinguished additions to political and social

science which this generation has seen. It has done, and will

continue to do, a great work in informing the world concerning

the principles of this government."--_Philadelphia Evening

Telegraph._

Abridged Edition of James Bryce's

The American Commonwealth

Being an introduction to the study of the Government and Institutions of

the United States for the use of colleges and high schools.

_In one crown 8vo volume, $1.75 net_

"The greatest historical work of the age."--_Times._

The Cambridge

Modern History

Planned by the late LORD ACTON, LL.D., Regius Professor of Modern

History in the University of Cambridge. Edited by A. W. WARD, Litt. D.,

G. W. PROTHERO, Litt. D., and STANLEY LEATHES, M.A. To be complete in

twelve royal 8vo volumes, each $4.00 net (carriage extra), issued at the

rate of two volumes a year.

=I. THE RENAISSANCE. _Ready._=

=II. THE REFORMATION. _Ready._=

=III. THE WARS OF RELIGION. _Ready._=

=IV. THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR. _Ready._=

=V. THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV. _Ready._=

=VI. THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.=

=VII. THE UNITED STATES. _Ready._=

=VIII. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. _Ready._=

=IX. NAPOLEON. _Ready._=

=X. RESTORATION. _Ready._=

=XI. THE GROWTH OF NATIONALITIES.=

=XII. THE LATEST AGE.=

_PRESS COMMENT ON THE WORK AS ISSUED_:--

"The most full, comprehensive, and scientific history of

modern times in the English language, or in any

language."--_The Evening Post_, New York.

"There can be no question about the great value of the

work--in fact, it is invaluable to every historical

student."--_Public Ledger_, Philadelphia.

"A work of great value. It may justly claim to have no rival

in English."--_The Atlantic Monthly_, Boston.

The Cambridge Mediaeval History

Planned by Professor J. B. BURY, edited by H. M. GWATKIN, Miss M.

BATESON, and Mr. G. T. LAPSLEY. To be complete in eight royal octavo

volumes similar to those of "The Cambridge Modern History."

_Publication will begin on the completion of "The Cambridge Modern

History."_

MOST IMPORTANT OF MODERN HISTORIES

Lord Cromer's

Modern Egypt

_In two 8vo volumes, with portraits and map, $6.00 net_

It is unnecessary to dwell upon the importance of this announcement, for

it will without doubt excite the liveliest interest in both the British

Empire and the foreign countries which have watched keenly the

development of Egypt from a state of anarchy to its present prosperous

condition under Lord Cromer.

The author states that his object in writing the book is twofold. In the

first place, he wishes to place on record an accurate narrative of some

of the principal events which have occurred in Egypt and in the Soudan

since 1876; he has had access to all the documents in the Foreign

Offices of both Cairo and London; and has been in close communication

with every one who has taken a leading part in Egyptian affairs during

the period of which he writes.

In the second place, he wishes to explain the results which have accrued

to Egypt from the British occupation of the country in 1882. Such a

showing of tangible results of twenty-five years' experience renders the

work of tremendous value to any nation facing similar problems in her

own dependencies.

The work is divided into the following seven parts: Part I, Ismail

Pasha, 1863-1879; Part II, The Arabi Revolt, August 1879 to August 1883;

Part III, The Soudan, 1882-1907 (including the story of Gordon's journey

to Khartoum, the Relief Expedition, and the Evacuation of the Soudan);

Part IV, The Egyptian Puzzle; Part V, British Policy in Egypt; Part VI,

The Reforms; and Part VII, The Future of Egypt.

"A record of practical and humane statesmanship for which it

would be hard to find an exact parallel. The charm of these

volumes is that the work is recounted by one who was a large

part of that which he describes. . . . For rich content, as

well as pleasing form, this work of a seasoned statesman

is one to be not only read but pondered. In addition to a

style notable for simplicity and point, we have sagacious

reflections, remarks which light up whole principles of

government, characterizations of individuals and of races

which reveal a philosophical mind with a disciplined

imagination. . . .

"In these volumes we get much more than historical records and

political discussions; we get the overflow of a full and

powerful mind. The book is so noteworthy because the intellect

and the character which have gone to its making are so

exceptional. Lord Cromer is not only a great administrator; he

stands before us as a great thinker."--_New York Evening

Post._

Works by B. L. PUTNAM WEALE

Manchu and Muscovite

_Cloth, 8vo, 552 pp., $3.00 net_ (_postage 18c._)

The book was written just before the Russo-Japanese war. It is the

detailed account of a journey through Manchuria with the avowed object

of showing the character of the Russian occupation. It attracted

attention at the time for its interest, and later for its accurate

forecasts of events.

"So far superior to all other books on the subject of the

Russian rule in Manchuria that it may be considered really the

only one."--_Daily News_, London.

The Re-Shaping of the Far East

_In Two Volumes, with Many Illustrations from Photographs_

_Vol. I. 548 pp. Vol. II. 524 pp. The set, cloth, 8vo, $6.00 net_

_The Atlantic Monthly's_ reviewer, Mr. John W. Foster, found this "one

of the most readable and valuable books which have appeared in recent

years. . . . An official of the Chinese foreign customs service gives

the result of his manifestly careful study of Chinese history, and his

observations during residence and extensive travels through Central and

Northern China, Japan, and Korea. The greater part of the work is in the

narrative style, with the charm and piquancy which made his 'Manchu and

Muscovite' so popular."

"A remarkably searching, analytical, clear, and comprehensive

presentation of a complicated and perplexing situation."--_New

York Tribune._

The Truce in the East and its

Aftermath

_Cloth, 8vo, $3.00 net; by mail $3.71_

A sequel to and uniform with "The Re-Shaping of the Far East." With

illustrations and map.

"The most significant and interesting volume on the political

and commercial situation in Eastern Asia since the recent

war."--_Record-Herald_, Chicago.

The Coming Struggle in Eastern Asia

_Cloth, 8vo, uniform with the above, $3.50 net_

"It is given to few authors to know so much about the subjects they

discuss as does Mr. Weale about his," said the _Boston Transcript_ of

his earlier work.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Sixty-four and Sixty-six Fifth Avenue, New York

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES:

The following corrections have been made to the text:

Page 122: adds, also, his own comments wherever[original has

where-ever hyphenated across a line break]

Page 141: true that the problem[original has probem] has been

one

Page 146: but be capable of reelection[original has

re-election hyphenated across a line break]

Page 235: [Sidenote: Merits of the Election Courts.[period

missing in original]]

Page 240: loses his seat, but can be reelected[original has

re-elected hyphenated across a line break]

Page 251: desires to emphasise its freedom[original has

freeedom]

Page 295: without further amendment or debate.[original has

comma]

Page 327: evening sittings reserved for private[original has

privae] members' motions

Page 376: [Sidenote: The Committee[original has Committes] and

Public Policy.]

Page 470: the expression goes, coopted[original has co-opted

hyphenated across a line break], by itself

Page 495: [Sidenote: Local Pressure on Members Neither New nor

Systematic.[period missing in original]]

Page 543: [Sidenote: The Conference at Birmingham in

1883.[period missing in original]]

Page 552: Lord Randolph was unanimously reelected[original has

re-elected hyphenated across a line break]

[28:1] arrest any man for suspicion[original has suspition] of

Treason

[39:2] Hans., 3 Ser. CXCI.[period missing in original], 1705,

1724

[128:1] in Gneist, _Das Englische Verwaltungsrecht_,[original

has extraneous quotation mark]

[161:2] Com. Papers, 1860, IX., 1[original has extraneous

period], pp. vii-viii

[228:2] Vic., c. 51, Sched. I.[period missing in original],

Part IV.

[161:4] Com. Papers, 1888, XXVII.,[comma missing in original]

1

[320:5] Hans. 3 Ser. CCLXXV., 306-7.[period missing in

original]

[323:4] If[original has It] we take only the party in power

[555:2] _The Times_ of Oct. 27, 1886, p. 6, c.[original has

comma] 3.