Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:12:30.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

VI. The End of Laissez Faire and the Politics of Cotton

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

P. F. Clarke
P. F. Clarke
Affiliation:
University College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are grounds for arguing that the dynamic thrust of English Liberalism in the early twentieth century was in the direction of social democracy; and that this was a necessary condition of the survival of the Liberal party as a party of government. By 1910, according to this view, the party represented workingclass interests rather than those of any other class. But what about business Liberalism? We are likely to discover an upper limit of its strength among businessmen involved in the cotton trade (cotton bosses). As the party of Free Trade, the Liberals were well placed here. There was no sectional reason why the Conservative programme of Tariff Reform should attract these industrialists. Having no need of protection in home or Empire markets, the cotton industry had almost nothing to gain from an artificial restriction of competition, whereas it had much to lose if a system of tariffs increased production costs.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , September 1972 , pp. 493 - 512
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

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

References

1 See my book, Lancashire and the New Liberalism (Cambridge, 1971) for a fuller treatment of all the broader political questions touched on here.Google Scholar

2 ‘What could Lancashire hope to gain by tariffs? ', Lancashire Daily Post, 31 Dec. 1909.

3 Cf. Runciman's, W. G. comment: ‘There is nothing, in a sense, that needs to be explained about a South Wales miner voting Labour or an executive of General Motors voting Republican ”, Social Science and Political Theory (2nd ed., Cambridge, 1969), p. 94.Google Scholar

4 Leader, Manchester Guardian, 26 Nov. 1910. Since this appeared a week before polling it was, of course, imbued with pre-electoral optimism.

5 R. R. Brown to Bonar Law, 5 Jan. 1913, Law Papers, 28/2/23 (Beaverbrook Library).

6 Open letter from Clyne, H. Ross, 01 1910,Manchester broadsheet collection (Manchester Central Library).Google Scholar

7 Hewins, W. A. S., The Apologia of an Imperialist. Forty Years of Empire Policy, 2 vols. (1929), I, 284.Google Scholar

8 Ibid. I, 237.

9 See Peter, Fraser, Joseph Chamberlain. Radicalism and Empire, 1868-1914 (1966), pp. 151–2, 253, 261, 286;Google ScholarAmery, Julian, Joseph Chamberlain and the Tariff Reform Campaign (1969), pp. 995–6.Google Scholar Thus for them the 1906 election does not revolve around Tariff Reform at all. ‘There does not appear to be any reason for attributing any part of it to the unpopularity of tariff reform ‘(Fraser, p. 273). “ Yet nothing is more striking than the general admission of all sides that this was not the decisive factor ” (Amery, p. 794).

10 Apologia of an Imperialist, 1, 237.

11 Bowker, B., Lancashire under the Hammer (1928), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

12 ‘The Manchester Chamber of Commerce and the increasing foreign competition to Lancashire cotton textiles, 1873–1896 ”, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, XXXVIII (1955—1956), 534.Google Scholar

13 Redford, Arthur, Manchester Merchants and Foreign Trade, II, 1850–1939 (Manchester, 1956), p. 108. Following Redford's disparagement of the importance of theory (p. 97), his conclusion is tied closely to the prosperity of the cotton industry.Google Scholar

14 See Semmel, Bernard, Imperialism and Social Reform. English social-imperial thought, 1895–1914 (1960), pp. 146–7, 150.Google Scholar

15 ‘The Coupon Election of 1918 and Unionist Members of Parliament ”, Journal of Modern History, xxxiv (1962), 304.Google Scholar It is true that John Wood of Stalybridge was the only Conservative mill owner in the 1910 parliament; but others had fought as Conservative candidates at Rossendale, Oldham (two), and Bolton. The contrast with the post-war situation is that in 1918 the Conservatives were elected.

16 Pelling, Henry, Social Geography of British Elections, 1885–1910 (1967), pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

17 Ibid. pp. 285–6. One difficulty here is that the swing to the Conservatives was not, as would be expected in that case, greatest in the middle-class constituencies. In the four working-class divisions of Manchester the swing was 0.2 per cent, 3.0 per cent, 5.7 per cent and 7.2 per cent. Yet in the commercial division of Manchester north west it was only 1.4 per cent.

18 Dangerfield, George, The Strange Death of Liberal England (1935, Capricorn edn., 1961), pp. 15, 72.Google Scholar

19 Hynes, Samuel, The Edwardian Turn of Mind (1968), p. 56.Google Scholar

20 ‘Lloyd George: rise and fall” (Leslie Stephen lecture, 1961) in A. J. P. Taylor, Politics in Wartime (1964), p. 133.

21 Ibid. pp. 132 ff. Coming from a historian relying ‘more on feel than on figures ” (ibid. p. 32), Taylor's assertions as to the composition of the different wings of the Liberal party were always open to the sort of refutation which they appear to have met in Edward, David, ‘The Liberal party divided 1916–1918”, Historical Journal, XIII (1970), 527–31.Google Scholar

22 Leader, , Cotton Factory Times, 24 July 1903.Google Scholar

23 Letter from Albert Simpson, The Times, 4 Jan. 1910; his statements should be compared with the accounts in Textile Mercury, 25 July 1903 and Manchester Guardian, 22 July 1903.

24 Letter to The Times, 12 Jan. 1910.

25 Speech at Oldham, Manchester Courier, 29 Nov. 1910.

26 Letter from Arthur Smith, Lancashire Daily Post, 13 Jan. 1910.

27 Manchester Courier, 29 Dec. 1909, 5, 14 Jan. 1910.

28 See list of signatories, Manchester Guardian, 14, 15 Jan. 1910.

29 For the Tariff Reform manifesto, see The Times, 14 Jan. 1910; Manchester Courier, 15 Jan. 1910; Lancashire Daily Post, 20 Jan. 1910; cf. Standard, 18 Jan. 1910. For the Free Trade manifesto and a letter from David Tattersall, its begetter, see Lancashire Daily Post, 15, 17 Jan. 1910.

30 Printed in Manchester Guardian, 2, 3 Dec. 1910.

31 Manchester Courier, 30 Nov. 1910.

32 Lancashire Daily Post, 5 Dec. 1910.

33 The figures have been derived from a comparison of the number of looms operated by each signatory (Manchester Guardian, 5 Dec. 1910) with Chapman, S. J. and Ashton, T. S., ‘The sizes of businesses, mainly in the textile industries ”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, LXXV (1912),Google Scholar table viii, p. 529. Below 450 looms only two firms out of 29 signed.

34 In claiming that the evidence he adduces from the Proceedings is representative, Smith writes confidently of the Chamber as ‘a cross-section of the Lancashire cotton business community” (loc. cit. p. 508) and of ‘the Manchester Chamber directors, representing the rank and file businessmen ” (p. 510). Both of these unexamined assumptions should be treated with scepticism.

35 Oliver, E. L. to St Loe Strachey, 10 June 1908, Strachey Papers (Beaverbrook Library).Google Scholar

36 Stuttard, Thomas, Feb. 1909. Manchester Chamber of Commerce, Monthly Record, xx (1909), p. 54.Google Scholar

37 Not four as stated in Redford, Manchester Merchants, p. 108. The procedural debate of 1910 raised other issues which are touched on below.

38 Monthly Record, xiv (1903), 164, 188–92.Google Scholar

39 Ibid, xv (1904), 122–4. Unlike the previous year's crowded meeting in the Memorial Hall, this debate took place in the Chamber's own board room which was not used when large numbers (over two hundred) were expected.

40 For reports shedding light on the conduct of this meeting, see Monthly Record, xx (1909), 50–6, 80–2, xxi (1910), 48–9.

41 Ibid, xx (1909), 81.

42 Ibid, xxi (1910), 46–9. Both sides were at pains to stress that the vote was on a procedural not a fiscal matter.

43 Not four-to-one, as one would gather from the misleading account of this vote in Smith, , loc. cit., p. 533.Google Scholar

44 Quoted in Redford, Manchester Merchants, pp. 106–7, which is my source for this incident.

45 Monthly Record, XXVII (1916), 3, 15–17, 50–2, 66; cf. Redford, pp. 203–5.Google Scholar

46 ‘The Manchester Martyrs”, 1916. Verbatim report of proceedings at complimentary luncheon …, edited by F. W. Hirst (1916), p. 8. The impression that Bell knew what he was talking about is strengthened by his omission of brokers from this list.

47 Scott to the Master of Elibank (Liberal Chief Whip), 20 July 1910 (copy), Scott Papers (in the possession of the Manchester University Library).

48 This was caused by Churchill's elevation to the cabinet as President of the Board of Trade, an office at that time requiring re-election to parliament.

49 Speech by Maxse, Leo, Manchester Guardian, 12 Jan. 1910.Google Scholar

50 Speech by Joynson-Hicks, , Manchester Guardian, 3 Jan. 1906.Google Scholar

51 Oliver to Strachey, 9 Jan. 1908, Strachey Papers.

52 Gardiner, A. G., The Pillars of Society (Popular edn., 1916), p. 149.Google Scholar

53 Stephen, q.v.Koss, E., Sir John Brunner, Radical plutocrat (Cambridge, 1970), esp. pp. 154–5, 196, 205, 222–3.Google Scholar

54 Strachey to Hugh Cecil, 10 Apr 1907 (copy), Strachey Papers.

55 Strachey to Arthur Elliot, 20 Jan. 1908 (copy), Strachey Papers.

56 Strachey to Elliot, 18 Jan. 1908 (copy), Strachey Papers.

57 Strachey to Cromer, 28 Jan. 1908 (copy), Cecil Papers, B.M. Add. MS 51072.

58 Broadhurst to Strachey, 3 Feb. 1908 (copy) and second letter, same date, enclosing Lindsell to Broadhurst, 3 Feb. 1908 (copy), Strachey Papers.

59 Broadhurst to Strachey, 4 Mar. 1908 (copy), B.M. Add. MS 51158.

60 Cromer to Cecil, 26 Mar. 1988, B.M. Add. MS 51072.

61 Letters from ‘Centralist ” (Hugh Cecil) and ‘Mancunian ”, Spectator, 7 Mar., 4 Apr. 1908.

62 Churchill to Broadhurst, 8 Apr. 1908, Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill (1966–), II, Companion pt. n, pp. 767–8.

63 Broadhurst to Cecil, 10 Apr. 1908, B.M. Add. MS 51158.

64 Editorial note to letter from ‘Conservative Free-Trader”, Spectator, 11 Apr. 1908.

65 Speech by Hicks, Manchester Courier, 23 Apr. 1908; cf the comments in Morley, John, Recollections (1917), II, 255.Google Scholar

66 Quoted in Churchill, , op. cit. II, 450.Google Scholar

67 Letter, Manchester Courier, 23 Apr. 1908; and other letters and reports to the same effect. 66 Broadhurst to Cecil, 25 Feb. 1909, B.M. Add. MS 51159.

69 Letter from Hughes, Charles, Manchester Courier, 21 Apr. 1908.Google Scholar

70 Strachey to Elliot, 22 Apr. 1909, Strachey Papers.

71 Cecil to Cromer, ‘sent, in substance, on 5 Jan. 1909’, B.M. Add. MS 51072.

72 Broadhurst to Cecil, 22 Mar. 1909. B.M. Add. MS 51159.

73 E. G. Brunker to Cecil, 17 Mar. 1909, B.M. Add. MS 51072; Balfour's speech to a Tariff Reform lunch, Manchester Guardian, 13 Mar. 1909.

74 Broadhurst to Cecil, 8 May 1909, B.M. Add. MS 51159.

75 ‘An Alternative Budget’, Spectator, 31 July 1909.

76 Speech at Abernethy, 7 Oct. 1909, Liberalism and the Social Problem (1909), p. 389.Google Scholar

77 31 July 1909.

78 Ibid.

79 Speech in the House of Commons, 4 May 1909, Liberalism and the Social Problem, p. 287.Google Scholar

80 ‘The Old and the New Liberalism’, Spectator, 23 Oct. 1909.

81 Strachey to Hugh Cecil, 30 Oct. 1909 (copy), Strachey Papers.

82 L. T. Hobhouse describing Scott's, C. P. aims, C. P. Scott, 1846–1932. The Maying of the ‘Manchester Guardian’ (1946), p. 86.Google Scholar

83 Quoted in Smith, , loc. cit. p. 520.Google Scholar

84 Cf. Vincent, J. R., The Formation of the Liberal Party 1857–1868 (1966), pp. 115–18 (Rochdale).Google Scholar The voting figures for other towns (Oldham, Stockport, Preston) printed in the same author's Pollbooks: how Victorians voted (Cambridge, 1967) are very difficult to interpret. But Rochdale and Stockport plainly justify the caveat.Google Scholar

85 Elliot to Strachey, 19 Jan. 1908, Strachey Papers.

86 Letter from William Tattersall, Spectator, 4 Apr. 1908.

87 Speech by SirBell, Hugh, ‘The Manchester Martyrs’, p. 8.Google Scholar

88 Lancashire under the Hammer, p. 20.Google Scholar