Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:14:46.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wesleyanism and Empire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Stephen Koss
Stephen Koss
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Much as late-Victorian Nonconformists were inclined to take a simplified view of national politics, which they saw as a perpetual conflict between the agents of darkness and the apostles of light, students of the period have tended to take a simplified view of political Nonconformity, which was as multifarious in its secular loyalties as in its theological variations. The self-appointed guardians of the Nonconformist Conscience spoke with many voices, rarely in unison. Indeed, the individual who gave currency to that catchphrase, the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, was - much by his Wesleyanism as by his idiosyncrasy - among the least typical of those whom he was alleged to represent.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 1975 , pp. 105 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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 The tendency among political historians to treat Nonconformity as a monolithic force is evident in such distinguished recent works as Neal Blewett, The Peers, the Parties and the People: the General Elections of 1910 (London, 1972)Google Scholar, Hamer, D. A., Liberal Politics in the Age of Gladstone and Rosebery (Oxford, 1972)Google Scholar, and Thompson, Paul, Socialists, Liberals and Labour: the Struggle for London, 1885–1914 (London, 1967).Google Scholar

2 Vincenr, John, The Formation of the Liberal Party (London, 1966), p. 70.Google Scholar

3 Kent, John, ‘Hugh Price Hughes and the Nonconformist Conscience’, in Bennett, G. V. and Walsh, J. D., eds., Essays in Modern English Church History in Memory of Norman Sykes (London, 1966), p. 200.Google Scholar

4 Inglis, K. S., Churches and the Wording Classes in Victorian England (London, 1963), pp. 70 ffGoogle Scholar; also Booth, Charles, Life and Labour of the People of London (London, 1902), 3rd series, II, 191–2.Google Scholar

5 Currie, , Methodism Divided (London, 1968), p. 178.Google Scholar

6 Kent, , p. 187.Google Scholar

7 Hughes, Dorothea Price, The Life of Hugh Price Hughes (London, 1904), p. 119.Google Scholar

8 Entry for 22 Sept. 1882, The Diary of Sir Edward Walter Hamilton (ed. Dudley, W. R.Bahlman; Oxford, 1972), 1, 343.Google Scholar

9 Cf. Rogers, J. Guinness (the Congregational divine and politician), ‘Nonconformist Forebodings’, Nineteenth Century, XXXVI (1894), 790–806Google Scholar; ‘Reminiscences’ in Dale, A. W. W., The Life of R. W. Dale of Birmingham (London, 1899), p. 736.Google Scholar

10 Robert Forman Horton (Congregational divine) to Rosebery, 16 Dec. 1897, Rosebery Papers, Box 75 (National Library of Scodand, Edinburgh); Rosebery to Horton, 26 Dec. 1897, Horton Papers (courtesy of Mrs I. V. Horton).

11 Perks to Rosebery, 1 Feb. 1898, Rosebery Papers, Vol. 10,050, fol. 19.

12 Rosebery to Hunter, A. G., canon of Christ Church, Epsom, 25 Feb. 1901 (copy), Rosebery Papers, Box 76.Google Scholar

13 Speech at the City Temple, 21 June 1906, quoted in the Daily News, 22 June 1906.

14 Perks to Rosebery, 8 Oct. 1896, Rosebery Papers, Vol. 10,050, fol. 6.

15 Perks to Rosebery, 5 Nov. 1896, Rosebery Papers, Vol. 10,050, fols. 8–9.

16 Perks to Rosebery, 27 Nov. 1896, Perks Papers (courtesv of Sir Malcolm Perks).

17 Diary entry for 19 Mar. 1901. quoted in Beatrice Webb, Our Partnership (eds. Drake, B. and Cole, M.; London, 1948), pp. 231–2.Google Scholar

18 Currie, , p. 179.Google Scholar

19 Methodist Times, 3 Feb. 1898; also Home, C. S., Popular History of the Free Churches (London, 1926), p. 425.Google Scholar

20 Hughes, D. P., pp. 112, 556–7, and 562.Google Scholar

21 Ibid., pp. 42, 113, 168 and 369; also Lidgett, J. Scott, Reminiscences (London, 1928), p. 51.Google Scholar

22 Lunn, H. S., Chapters from My Life (London, 1918), pp. 52-3.Google Scholar

23 Letter from Rome, Oct. 1894, quoted in Hughes, D. P., p. 473n.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., p. 547.

25 Methodist Times, 6 Jan. 1898.

26 Quoted in Hughes, D. P., p. 550.Google Scholar

27 Speech at Market Rasen, Lines., quoted in the Methodist Times, 18 Jan. 1900.

28 Speech of 4 Feb. 1885, quoted in Edith Fowler, Henrietta, The Life of Henry Hartley Fowler, First Viscount Wolverhampton, G.C.S.I. (London, 1912), p. 183.Google Scholar

29 Methodist Times, 20 Jan. 1898.

30 Methodist Times, 27 Apr. 1899; for a report of the Queen's Hall meeting in connexion with the unveiling of the Cromwell statue, and Rosebery's speech, see the Standard, 15 Nov. 1899.

31 Methodist Times, 28 Apr. 1898, 17 Nov. 1898.

32 Methodist Times, 25 Aug. 1898; Lloyd George to Mrs. Lloyd George, 18 and 23 Aug. 1898, in Lloyd George: Family Letters, 1885–1936 (ed. Morgan, K. O.; Oxford and Cardiff, 1973), pp. 114-5.Google Scholar

33 Perks to Rosebery, 20 May 1899, Rosebery Papers, Vol. 10,050, fols. 33–6.

34 Methodist Times, 21 and 28 Sept., 12 Oct. 1899, 4 and 25 Jan. and 15 Feb. 1900; Hughes, D. P., p. 553Google Scholar; Hocking, S. K., My Bool of Memory (London, 1923), p. 177.Google Scholar

35 Methodist Times, 12 Oct. 1899.

36 Quoted in Fowler, E. H., p. 467.Google Scholar

37 Methodist Times, 7 Dec. 1899.

38 Methodist Times, 22 Feb. and 8 Mar. 1900; Hughes to Lunn, 12 Feb. 1900, quoted in Hughes, D. P., pp. 573–4; minutes of the general committee, National Council of Evangelical Free Churches, 12 Mar. 1900 (Federal Free Church Council archive, London).Google Scholar

39 Methodist Times, 20 Sept. 1900.

40 Perks to Rosebery, 22 Sept. 1900, Rosebery Papers, Vol. 10,050, fol. 86.

41 Rosebery's speech at Chesterfield in December 1901 made Morley realise that when ‘R… says that his services are at the disposal of the country, he does not mean by the request of the party, but of the country at large’. Morley to Watson, R. Spence, 25 Dec. 1901Google Scholar, quoted in Hamer, , p. 251n.Google Scholar

42 Methodist Times, 20 Sept. 1900.

43 Methodist Recorder, 20 and 27 Sept. 1900.

44 Jeremiah Jordan at South Fermanagh.

45 Henry Broadhurst, Benjamin Pickard, John Wilson, and Charles Fenwick. All were spokesmen for the ‘old’ unionism, to the extent that they opposed Eight Hours legislation for the mines. Fenwick, who was not a Wesleyan, had occasionally voted with the pro-Boers, but was extremely defensive about the fact. Price, Richard, An Imperial War and the British Wording Class (London, 1972), p. 107.Google Scholar

46 Sir Fowler, Henry, McArthur, W. A., Moulton, J. Fletcher, Perks, R. W., Robson, W. S., Walton, f. Lawson, Wallace, R., Helme, N. W., Holland, W. H., Walton, J., SirFurness, Christopher, and Markham, A. B.. The Times, 17 Oct. 1900.Google Scholar

47 Lough, Thomas, member for West Islington, who was ‘more or less closely connected with Wesleyan Methodism’. Pall Mall Gazette, The New House of Commons (London, 1900), p. 79.Google Scholar

48 Yoxall, J. H., member for Nottingham West.Google Scholar

49 Barratt, F. L., Mansfield, H. R., and Whittaker, T. P.. Of the three, only Barratt was a Wesleyan, but The Times noted that Whittaker had been ‘careful not to identify’ during his campaign at Spen Valley ‘with the pro-Boer faction’. 12 Oct. 1900.Google Scholar

50 With few exceptions, Wesleyan candidates of both parties stood in areas where the Methodist tradition was strong: Cornwall, the eastern counties, the West Riding, and Lancashire. Wolverhampton, which was Fowler's fief, had been a stronghold since the early nineteenth century. For a detailed analysis, see Pelling, Henry, Social Geography of British Elections, 1885–1910 (London, 1967), pp. 161, p, 206, 289–90, 303, 311, 322–3; Currie, p. 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Crane, Denis, The Life-Story of Sir Robert W. Perks, Baronet, M.P. (London, 1909), p. 172.Google Scholar

52 Birrell to Herbert Gladstone, 2 Oct. 1901, Viscount Gladstone Papers, British Museum Add. MSS. 46,059, fol. 70.

53 Robertson Nicoll to Perks, 2 Jan. 1903, enclosed in Perks to Rosebery, 5 Jan. 1903, Rosebery Papers, Vol. 10,051, fols. 54–5.

54 Martin, David, A Sociology of English Religion (London, 1967), pp. 39–40.Google Scholar