Joseph Chamberlain

gigatos | June 23, 2022

Post Views: 10

Summary

Joseph Chamberlain (July 8, 1836 – July 2, 1914), sometimes known as Joe Chamberlain, was an influential British businessman and statesman of the second half of the 19th century, considered to be the greatest exponent of British Imperialism. Politically, Chamberlain was first a liberal radical. After opposing Home Rule for Ireland, in 1886 he founded the Liberal Unionist party, and subsequently became the leader of the imperialist faction in coalition with the Conservatives, a coalition he dominated as Colonial Secretary. Chamberlain was a controversial and highly charismatic figure. During his 30-year political career he caused the split of the two major British political parties. He was also the founder of the Chamberlain political dynasty, father of Austen Chamberlain (1863-1937) and Neville Chamberlain (1869-1940).

Chamberlain made his career in Birmingham, first as a screw manufacturer and then as a notable mayor of the city. Determined to improve the quality of life in a highly industrial city where hundreds of thousands of workers lived in unhealthy conditions, Chamberlain promoted a series of very radical urban and municipal reforms: he extended the supply of running water and gas throughout the city, demolished suburbs, urbanized many areas, and extended the network of educational and transportation infrastructures throughout the city. Birmingham became a worldwide benchmark for municipal reform. He would later become the founder of the University of Birmingham.

As a self-made businessman, he had never attended university and despised the aristocracy. He entered the House of Commons at the age of 39, relatively late in life compared to politicians from more privileged backgrounds. He came to power through his influence among the rank and file of the Liberal party, and was Minister of Trade in the Second Government of William Gladstone (1880-1885). During this period, Chamberlain was noted for his attacks on the Conservative leader, Lord Salisbury, and in the 1885 general election he proposed the “Unauthorized Program”, which was not enacted, promising land reform in favor of agricultural workers who had just received the right to vote. Chamberlain resigned from Gladstone”s third government in 1886 in opposition to the Irish Home Rule movement. With his resignation, he caused the split in the Liberal Party between Gladstone”s supporters, favorable to Irish self-government, and the British Unionists opposed to it. Chamberlain became the founder of the Liberal Unionist Party, a party that included a bloc of MPs based in and around Birmingham.

In the 1895 general election, the Liberal Unionists formed a coalition government with the Conservative Party, led by Chamberlain”s former opponent, Lord Salisbury. In that government, Chamberlain was the architect of the Workmen”s Compensation Act of 1897, which forced employers to insure their employees against industrial accidents. During this period, Chamberlain served as Secretary of State for the Colonies, promoting a variety of imperialist plans to develop the British Empire in Asia, Africa and the West Indies. Chamberlain was politically responsible for the Second Boer War (1899-1902) in South Africa. He became a dominant figure in the re-election of the Unionist government in the 1900 “Khaki” Elections. In 1903, he resigned from the government to campaign for tariff reform, which advocated the imposition of tariff rates on imports as opposed to the existing policy of free trade. He won the support of a majority of Unionist MPs for this position, but the Unionists suffered a crushing defeat in the 1906 general election. Shortly after his 70th birthday public celebrations in Birmingham, he was disabled by a stroke, ending his public career.

Although he never became prime minister, Chamberlain was one of the most important British politicians of his time, as well as a renowned orator and municipal reformer. Historian David Nicholls points out that his personality was unattractive: he was arrogant, ruthless and much hated. He never succeeded in his grand ambitions. However, he was a highly competent grassroots organizer, a skilled exploiter of democratic instincts, and played a central role in winning the Second Boer War. He is most famous for establishing British municipal, tariff, foreign and colonial policies, and for deeply dividing the two main political parties.

Chamberlain was born in Camberwell, the son of Joseph Chamberlain (1796-1874), a successful shoe manufacturer, and Caroline (1806-1875), daughter of the cheese (formerly beer) merchant.His younger brother was Richard Chamberlain, later also a Liberal politician. Raised in Highbury, a prosperous north London suburb, he was educated at a local school, excelling academically and winning prizes in French and mathematics.The Chamberlain family were Anglican Nonconformists of the Unitarian branch, rejecting the role of the Anglican Church hierarchy. This fact always influenced Joseph Chamberlain”s political leanings: his own later political base was largely made up of Nonconformists and Dissenters.

Since at that time a university education at Oxford or Cambridge was forbidden to non-conformists, and Chamberlain”s father saw the need to provide higher education for all his sons if they were later to join the family business, Joseph entered at the age of 16 as an apprentice in the family business (their warehouse had been in Milk Street, central London, for three generations) making quality leather shoes. At 18, he joined his uncle”s bolt-making business, Nettlefolds of Birmingham, in which his father had invested money. The company became known as Nettlefold and Chamberlain when Chamberlain became a partner with Joseph Nettlefold. During the most prosperous period of the business, the company produced two-thirds of all metal screws manufactured in England, and when Chamberlain retired from the business in 1874, it was exporting all over the world.

In July 1861, Chamberlain married Harriet Kenrick, the daughter of metal container manufacturer Archibald Kenrick of Berrow Court, Edgbaston, Birmingham; they had met the previous year. Their daughter Beatrice Chamberlain was born in May 1862. Harriet, who had had a premonition that she would die during childbirth, became ill two days after the birth of her son Austen Chamberlain in October 1863, and died three days later. Chamberlain went into business, while raising Beatrice and Austen with her in-laws the Kenricks.

In 1868, Chamberlain married Harriet”s cousin Florence Kenrick, daughter of Timothy Kenrick. Chamberlain and Florence had four children: the future prime minister Neville in 1869, Ida in 1870, Hilda in 1871, and Ethel in 1873. On February 13, 1875 Florence gave birth to their fifth child, but she and the child died a day later. The teaching of these four children was taken over by her older half-sister, Beatrice, who was destined to make her mark as an educator.

In 1888, Chamberlain married for the third time in Washington, D.C. His wife was Mary Crowninshield Endicott (1864-1957), daughter of U.S. Secretary of War William Crowninshield Endicott. They had no children, but she facilitated Chamberlain”s access into upper-class society during the second half of his career.

Also read, battles – Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)

Reformist

Chamberlain became involved in liberal politics, influenced by the strong radical and liberal traditions among Birmingham industrialists and the long tradition of social action in the Unitarian Church. During the period spanning the 1840s to 1860s, English cities experienced great development, while their political representation remained unchanged through a system of seat apportionment that favored the more numerous rural constituencies. Chamberlain became involved in movements pushing for the redistribution of parliamentary seats to the cities and the enfranchisement of a greater proportion of urban men. In 1866, the administration of Lord Russell of the Liberal Party introduced an electoral reform bill granting the vote to 400,000 new voters, but the bill was opposed by various factions of the Liberal Party itself, the more conservative ones accusing Russell of trying to alter the social order, and criticized by the radicals for not granting secret ballot or family suffrage. The bill was defeated and the government resigned. Chamberlain was one of the 250,000, including the mayor, who demonstrated in favor of reform in the Birmingham streets on August 27, 1866; he recalled that “men trooped into the hall, black as they were from the factories … people crowded in like herrings” to hear a speech by John Bright. Lord Derby”s minority Conservative administration passed a reform bill, nearly doubling the electorate from 1,430,000 to 2,470,000.

The Liberal Party won the 1868 election. Chamberlain was active in the election campaign, praising Bright and George Dixon, a Birmingham MP. Chamberlain was also influential in the local campaign in support of the 1869 bill for separation of church and state in Ireland. In the fall of 1869 a delegation led by William Harris invited him to run for City Council, and in November he was elected alderman to represent the St. Paul”s ward.

Chamberlain and Jesse Collings had been among the founders of the Birmingham Education League in 1867, which noted that of approximately 4.25 million school-age children, 2 million children, mostly in urban areas, were not attending school, with 1 million in uninspected schools. In addition, Chamberlain and other Anglican nonconformists were opposed to some of the meager resources devoted to education going to subsidize Church of England schools. Chamberlain favored free, secular, compulsory education, asserting that “it is as much the duty of the state to see that children are educated as to see that they are fed,” and he attributed the success of the United States and Prussia to public education. The Birmingham Education League became the National Education League, which held its first conference in Birmingham in 1869 and proposed a school system financed by local taxes and government grants, administered by local authorities subject to government inspection. By 1870, the League had more than one hundred branches, mostly in cities and consisting mainly of men from labor unions and workers” organizations.

William Edward Forster, vice-chairman of the Committee of the Board of Education, proposed a primary education bill in January 1870. Nonconformists opposed the proposal to fund Anglican Church schools as part of the national education system through taxation. The League was disappointed by the absence of school boards or free and compulsory education. Chamberlain organized a delegation of 400 League members and 46 parliamentarians to visit Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone in Downing Street on March 9, 1870, the first time the two men met. Chamberlain impressed the prime minister with his lucid speech, and during the second reading of the bill, Gladstone agreed to make amendments that removed church schools from taxpayer control and granted them funding. Liberal MPs, exasperated by Gladstone”s concessions, voted against the government, and the bill passed the House of Commons with Conservative support. Chamberlain campaigned against the Act, and especially Clause 25, which gave school boards in England and Wales the power to pay fees for poor children in voluntary schools, theoretically allowing them to fund Anglican Church schools. The Education League ran in several by-elections against Liberal candidates who refused to support the repeal of Article 25. In 1873 a Liberal majority was elected to the Birmingham School Board, with Chamberlain as chairman. Finally, a compromise was reached with the Church representative on the School Board who agreed to make payments from taxpayers” money only to schools associated with industrial education.

Also read, biographies – Demetrios Chalkokondyles

Mayor of Birmingham

In November 1873, the Liberal Party swept the municipal elections and Chamberlain was elected mayor of Birmingham. The Conservatives had denounced his radicalism and called him a “monopolizer and dictator,” while the Liberals had campaigned against his conservative opponents in the Anglican Church with the slogan “People over priests.” The city”s municipal administration had been remarkably lax with regard to public works, and many townspeople lived in conditions of great poverty. As mayor, Chamberlain promoted many civic improvements, promising that the town would be “parked, paved, fitted up, marketed, gas and watered, and ameliorated.””

Chamberlain”s municipal policy was very radical for the time, and was the example followed by many other cities in the following decades. It was based on two major themes: centralizing the control and guaranteeing the quality of basic municipal services (water, gas, cleaning, firemen, public works,…), then often in the hands of private companies; and improving the quality of housing and living conditions in the suburbs of the poor classes.

The two gas companies supplying Birmingham were engaged in an ongoing trade war, as a result of which the city”s streets were continually dug up so that each company could lay its own gas distribution network. This caused constant supply cuts and made it impossible to rationalize the service. Chamberlain forcibly purchased the two companies on behalf of the borough for £1,953,050, and even offered to buy the companies himself if the ratepayers refused. In its first year of operation, the new municipal gas scheme made a profit of £34,000.

The city”s water supply was a public health risk: approximately half of the city”s population relied on well water, much of which was contaminated by sewage. Tap water was only supplied three days a week, forcing the use of well water and water carts during the rest of the week. Deploring the rising death rate from contagious diseases such as cholera in the poorer parts of the city, in January 1876 Chamberlain expropriated the Birmingham waterworks for a combined sum of £1,350,000, creating the Birmingham Water Consortium, one of the first of its kind. Chamberlain had to explain the move before a House of Commons committee, saying “We have not the slightest intention of profiting … We shall derive our profit indirectly through the comfort of the people and in the health of the inhabitants.” Chamberlain was famously distrustful of all central authority and bureaucracy, preferring to give local communities the power to act on their own initiative: he saw in his radical municipal actions an expression of the right of local communities to exercise their powers to promote the public good.

In July 1875, Chamberlain presented a plan for the improvement of Birmingham that included slum clearance in Birmingham”s city center. Chamberlain had been consulted by the Home Secretary, Richard Assheton Cross during the preparation of the Artisans” and Labourers” Dwellings Improvement Act of 1875, part of the social reform program promoted by the then Prime Minister, the Conservative Benjamin Disraeli. Chamberlain purchased 50 acres (200,000 square meters) of property to build a new street (Corporation Street) through the overcrowded suburbs of Birmingham. After overcoming protests from local landowners and the Local Government Board commissioner”s investigation of the plan, Chamberlain obtained the endorsement of the board”s chairman, George Sclater-Booth. Chamberlain raised the funds for the scheme, contributing £10,000 himself. However, the Amelioration Committee concluded that it would be too costly to move the slum dwellers into borough-built accommodation, so the land was leased for commercial services on a 75-year lease. The slum dwellers were eventually rehoused on the outskirts of Birmingham, and the scheme cost the local government £300,000. The death rate in Corporation Street fell dramatically, from approximately 53 per 1000 population between 1873 and 1875 to 21 per 1000 population between 1879 and 1881.

Chamberlain was also concerned with improving other municipal services: he promoted with public and private money the building of libraries, municipal swimming pools and schools. The Birmingham Museum was expanded and several new parks were opened. Construction began on a new neoclassical City Hall, and the Corporation Street Courthouse was built.

The Birmingham mayoralty helped make Chamberlain both a national and local figure. His contemporaries were particularly attracted to his public persona: tall, young, and strikingly dressed, including “a black velvet frock coat, monocle, red tie, an orchid in his buttonhole.” His contribution to the improvement of the city earned Chamberlain the loyalty of the so-called Birmingham Committee for the remainder of his public career. The city and its environs became his main breadbasket and electoral support.

His biographer Peter Marsh stated:

Also read, important-events – Yalta Conference

Liberal parliamentarian (1876-1880)

The Sheffield Reform Association, a branch of the Liberal Party in that city, invited Chamberlain to stand for election as an MP shortly after the beginning of his term as mayor of Birmingham, during the 1874 United Kingdom general election. This his first parliamentary campaign was fierce; opponents accused him of republicanism and atheism, and even threw dead cats at him on the platform from where he was giving a speech. Chamberlain came third, a poor result for a radical urban leader.

Chamberlain eventually declined to stand in Sheffield again, and when George Dixon retired from his Birmingham seat in May 1876, Chamberlain was elected unopposed (June 17, 1876) for the Birmingham constituency, after a period of anxiety following his nomination in which he denounced the prime minister, Benjamin Disraeli, accusing him of being “a man who never tells the truth except by accident.” After Chamberlain came under heavy fire for the insult, he publicly apologized.

When he was elected in 1876, Chamberlain resigned as mayor of Birmingham and was presented to the House of Commons by John Bright and by Joseph Cowen, the Member of Parliament for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Almost immediately, Chamberlain began to organize the radical MPs around him, with the intention of displacing the more conservative and aristocratic Whig faction from the dominance of the Liberal Party. On August 4, 1876, Chamberlain delivered his maiden speech in the House of Commons during a debate on primary schools. He spoke for twenty minutes on the maintenance of Section 25 of the Education Act with Disraeli present in the House, and used his experience on the Birmingham School Board to deliver a speech that impressed many parliamentarians. Many of Chamberlain”s other speeches dealt with his advocacy of free public education, liquor licensing, and military discipline. Chamberlain also hoped to benefit from public agitation against Turkey”s “atrocities” in Bulgaria to promote a radical agenda, to which Disraeli did not intend to respond.

The initial difficulties in creating a coherent radical group convinced Chamberlain of the need to establish a more effective organization to control the Liberal Party as a whole and to articulate its political action in the provinces and municipalities. That year, Chamberlain closed ranks with Gladstone to benefit from the growing popularity of the recently returned Liberal leader. With the Liberal Party actively opposing Disraeli”s foreign policy during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877, Gladstone addressed approximately 30,000 people at Bingley Hall (Birmingham) on May 31, 1877, to found the National Liberal Federation (NLF), a federation of the country”s liberal associations. The body was dominated by Birmingham politicians, with Chamberlain himself as president. The Federation was designed to strengthen party discipline and election campaigns, and to attract new party members, organize political meetings, and publish posters and leaflets. Contemporary commentators drew comparisons (often disparaging) between the Federation”s techniques and those employed in American politics. The Federation increased Chamberlain”s influence in the Liberal Party and gave him a national platform to promote radicalism.

Chamberlain was highly critical of Disraeli”s foreign policy, whom he accused of wanting to divert public attention from the country”s internal problems. However, unlike many Liberals, Chamberlain was not an anti-imperialist, for although he rebuked the government for its Eastern policy in the Second Anglo-Afghan War of 1878 and the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879, it was also true that Chamberlain had supported Disraeli”s purchase of the shares of the Suez Canal Company in November 1875. At this stage of his career, Chamberlain was anxious to protect British interests abroad, but he placed greater emphasis on satisfying what for him was social justice than on pursuing such interests. Chamberlain joined liberal denunciations of the Conservative Party”s foreign policy in the 1880 general election, in which the modern techniques of propaganda and political rallies promoted by Chamberlain through the National Liberal Federation (NLF) facilitated the Liberal victory, and brought William Gladstone back to power.

Chairman of the Board of Trade

Despite having been an MP for only four years, Chamberlain hoped for a seat in Gladstone”s government, and he let Sir William Harcourt know that he was prepared to lead a parliamentary revolt and field radical candidates in municipal elections if his ambitions were not met. Although Gladstone did not hold Chamberlain”s FNL in high regard, he recognized the role it had played in winning the 1880 election and was anxious to reconcile Chamberlain and other radicals to the government, mainly the aristocratic Whigs. Having taken Bright”s advice, Gladstone invited Chamberlain on April 27, 1880, to become Chairman of the Board of Trade, a sort of Minister of Commerce.

Chamberlain”s political room for maneuver to promote far-reaching reforms was rather restricted between 1880 and 1883 by the government”s preoccupation with Ireland, the Transvaal (engulfed in the First Boer War) and Egypt (where the United Kingdom was facing a colonial revolt), but was able to introduce a Grain Transport Bill, for the safer transport of grain, a Public Lighting Bill, allowing municipal corporations to establish electricity supplies, and a Seamen”s Wages Bill, ensuring a fairer pay system for merchant seamen.

After 1883, Chamberlain was more productive. A bankruptcy bill established a Bankruptcy Department in the Board of Trade, dedicated to investigating failed businesses. A patent bill brought patents under the supervision of the Board of Trade. Chamberlain also sought to end the practice of shipowners over-insuring their vessels – creating ”coffin ships”, a fraud whereby shipowners decided not to crew their vessels because insurance ensured a profit whether the ship arrived safely or sank. Despite the backing of the Conservative Democrats under Lord Randolph Churchill and John Eldon Gorst, the Liberal government was unwilling to give Chamberlain its full support, and the bill was withdrawn in July 1884.

Chamberlain took a special interest in Ireland. The Conradh na Talún (Irish Land League) advocated fair rents, stability for Irish tenants, and the free sale of land to Irish Catholic peasants. This was opposed by the often absentee Anglo-Irish landowners, who tended to leave their affairs in the hands of administrators who were prone to abuse and land dispossession. Chamberlain agreed with suggestions that a Land Act would counteract the unrest in Ireland and the abuses of the Fenians in the British Isles, and would quell the demands of the Irish Home Rule movement.

Despite advocating self-government for most of Britain”s colonies (indeed, it would be Chamberlain himself who, as Colonial Secretary, would grant self-government to Australia in 1901), Chamberlain was firmly opposed to granting any autonomy to Ireland, reasoning that the Irish would eventually become independent and this would lead to the eventual breakup of the British Empire. He was, however, opposed to the coercive policies of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, William E. Forster, believing that British coercive tactics did nothing to solve what in his view was the great Irish problem: the unfair agrarian distribution, which marginalized the country”s Catholic majority.

In order to quell the protests in Ireland, in April 1881 the Gladstone government introduced the Irish Land Act, which was intended to facilitate access for the Irish but not to redistribute land. In response, Charles Stewart Parnell, leader of the Irish Nationalists, encouraged tenant farmers to withhold rent payments. In response, Parnell and other leaders, including John Dillon and William O”Brien, were imprisoned by Forster in Kilmainham Gaol prison on October 13, 1881.

Chamberlain supported their imprisonment rather than make further concessions, and used their imprisonment to negotiate with them in 1882 what would become known as the Treaty of Kilmainham. Under it, the government agreed to release Parnell in exchange for his cooperation in making the Land Act work. Likewise, Forster was forced to resign. The treaty failed: the new Chief Secretary for Ireland, Lord Frederick Cavendish, was assassinated by Irish terrorists at Phoenix Park on May 6, 1882, leaving the Treaty of Kilmainham invalid. Many, including Parnell, believed that Chamberlain, having negotiated the agreement, would be offered the post of Chief Secretary, but Gladstone appointed Sir George Trevelyan (ironically, the son of Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was politically responsible for causing the great Irish famine in 1845-49) instead. However, Chamberlain retained an interest in Irish affairs and proposed to the Gladstone government the creation of an Irish Central Board that would have legislative powers for agricultural affairs, education, and communications. This was rejected by the Whig faction of the government on May 9, 1885.

Also read, biographies – Édouard Piette

Jack Cade

After his success in Birmingham municipal politics, Chamberlain was frustrated by the difficulties in introducing legislation more in line with his radical agenda as President of the Board of Trade. At the beginning of Gladstone”s government, Chamberlain unsuccessfully suggested that voting rights should be extended, and the prime minister argued that the matter should be deferred until the end of Parliament”s useful life. In 1884, the Liberals proposed a Third Reform Act, which would give the vote to hundreds of thousands of rural workers.

Chamberlain gained a reputation for his provocative speeches during this period, especially during the debate over the Voting Rights Bill in 1884, which was opposed by the Whig Liberals Lord Hartington and Lord Goschen, as well as the Conservative leader Lord Salisbury, who argued that the bill gave the Liberals an unfair electoral advantage and was prepared to block the bill in the House of Lords unless it was accompanied by a redistribution of seats in the outer boroughs. At Denbigh on October 20, 1884, Chamberlain declared in a speech that Salisbury was “himself the spokesman of a class, a class to which he himself belongs, that neither works nor spins.” In response, Salisbury called Chamberlain a “Sicilian bandit” and Stafford Northcote called him “Jack Cade” (a famous peasant rebel in medieval England). When Chamberlain suggested that he would march on London with thousands of Birmingham voters to protest against the powers of the House of Lords, Salisbury commented that “Mr. Chamberlain will come back from that adventure with a broken head, at best.”

July 1885 Radical Program

The Third Reform Act of 1884 was followed by a Redistricting Act in 1885, negotiated between Gladstone and Lord Salisbury, which redistricted constituencies to the advantage of the Conservatives. Chamberlain campaigned to appeal to newly enfranchised voters with public meetings, speeches, and, in particular, articles written in the “Fortnightly Review” by Chamberlain”s associates, including Jesse Collings and John Morley.

Chamberlain wrote the preface to the “Radical Program” of July 1885, the first campaign manual in British political history. This program advocated land reform, more direct taxation, free public education, separation between the state and the Church of England, universal male suffrage, and more protection for trade unions. He was greatly inspired by his friend Frederick Maxse”s 1873 pamphlet “The Causes of Social Revolt.” The idealistic vision with which Chamberlain had come to parliament in 1876 had been affected by political practice, for on the question of education Chamberlain proposed to separate the goal of free education for all children from the religious question. His policy was opposed by groups across the political spectrum, who used education as a political weapon, including the political National Federation, Nonconformists, Catholics, and generally all taxpayers.

The “Radical Program” earned the scorn of Whigs and Tories alike. Chamberlain had written to Morley that with radical solidarity “we shall utterly destroy the Whigs and have a radical government before many years have passed.” Seeking a confrontation with the Whigs, Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke tendered their resignations to Gladstone on May 20, 1885, when the government rejected Chamberlain”s plan for the creation of National Councils in England, Scotland, and Wales and when a land purchase bill made no provision for Irish local government reform. The resignations were rejected, and the opportunity for Chamberlain to unveil his Radical Program to the country only presented itself when the Irish Parliamentary Party passed a Conservative amendment to the budget on June 9, which passed by 12 votes, defeating the government. Gladstone”s government resigned in full in the face of the budget defeat, and Salisbury formed a minority administration.

Liberal schism

In August 1885, the Salisbury government, unable to muster sufficient support to pass its own budget, called for the dissolution of Parliament. Chamberlain began his election campaign on August 5 in Hull, addressing an enthusiastic crowd in front of large posters declaring him “Your Next Prime Minister.” Until the end of the campaign in October, Chamberlain denounced opponents of the “Radical Program” and supported the cause of rural workers. He offered to make available to farm workers smallholdings financed by funds from local municipal authorities, using the slogan “Three acres and a cow.” Chamberlain”s campaign drew large crowds and captivated the young Ramsay MacDonald and David Lloyd George, but baffled leading Liberals such as Goschen, who referred to the radical program as the “Unauthorized Program.” Conservatives denounced Chamberlain as an anarchist, and some even compared him to Dick Turpin.

In October 1885, Chamberlain and Gladstone met at Hawarden Castle (Gladstone”s country residence in North Wales) to reconcile their respective electoral programs. The meeting, though good-natured, was largely unproductive, and Gladstone neglected to tell Chamberlain of his negotiations with Parnell aimed at granting Home Rule to Ireland. Chamberlain discovered the existence of such negotiations thanks to Henry Labouchere, but unsure of the precise nature of the offer Gladstone had made to Parnell, he did not press the issue, although he had already declared his opposition to Home Rule, stating that “I cannot admit that five million Irishmen have any more right to govern themselves without regard to the rest of the United Kingdom than the five million inhabitants of the metropolis.” The Liberals won the general election in November 1885, but fell short of an absolute majority against the Conservatives and the Irish Nationalists, with the latter holding the balance between the two parties. Faced with this situation, Lord Salisbury and his Conservatives remained in power.

On December 17, Herbert Gladstone (son of William Gladstone) revealed to Chamberlain and other Liberal politicians that his father was prepared to grant home rule to Ireland, an action that the press of the time, to which the news was leaked, dubbed “flying Hawarden”s kite.” At first, Chamberlain was reluctant to anger his radical supporters by joining forces with Whigs and Conservatives opposed to Irish Home Rule. He waited to hear how events would unfold while saying little about the issue publicly. Nevertheless, Chamberlain privately cursed Gladstone and the notion of Home Rule, and argued to those close to him that keeping the Conservatives in power for another year would make it easier to resolve the Irish question. The Liberals returned to power in January 1886, after a Radical-inspired Collings amendment passed by 79 votes in the House of Commons, although Hartington, Goschen and 18 Liberals had voted with the Conservatives.

Chamberlain declined Gladstone”s offer of the position of First Lord of the Admiralty. Gladstone declined Chamberlain”s request to head the Colonial Office and eventually appointed him Chairman of the Local Government Board (minister in charge of overseeing municipal activities). A dispute over the amount to be paid to Collings, Chamberlain”s parliamentary secretary, worsened relations between Gladstone and Chamberlain, although the latter still hoped to be able to alter or block Gladstone”s proposal for Home Rule in the cabinet, so that his program of radicalism might receive more attention. However, Chamberlain”s plan to establish National Councils was not discussed in government, and only on March 13 were Gladstone”s proposals for Ireland revealed. Chamberlain argued that the details of the attached Land Purchase Bill should be made known so that a fair verdict on Home Rule could be rendered. When Gladstone declared his intention to grant Ireland an independent Parliament with full powers to deal with Irish affairs, Chamberlain decided to resign and wrote to inform Gladstone of his decision two days later. Meanwhile, Chamberlain consulted with Arthur Balfour, Salisbury”s nephew, about the possibility of concerted action with the Conservatives, and contemplated similar cooperation with the Whigs. His resignation was made public on March 27, 1886.

Liberal Unionist Association

After his resignation in March 1886, Chamberlain began a fierce campaign against Gladstone”s Irish proposal. His motivations combined imperialist, domestic and personal issues. Imperialist, because they threatened to weaken Parliament”s control over a territory for him integral to the United Kingdom; domestic, because they detracted from his own radical program; and personal, because they weakened his own position in the party.

Chamberlain”s immediate chances of attaining the leadership of the Liberal Party had diminished drastically and, in early May, the National Liberal Federation declared its allegiance to Gladstone. On April 9, Chamberlain spoke out against the Irish Government Bill 1886 on its first reading before attending a meeting of Liberal Unionists, called by Hartington, hitherto Chamberlain”s staunch Whig enemy on May 14. Out of this meeting emerged the Liberal Unionist Association, originally an ad hoc alliance formed as a front opposed to Irish self-government, which led to the final breakup of the Liberal Party into its Gladstonian and Chamberlainist streams.

Meanwhile, to distinguish himself from the Whigs, Chamberlain founded the National Radical Union to compete against his old NLF; this new association was dissolved in 1888. During the second reading of the bill on June 8, 1886, the Home Rule Bill was defeated by 30 votes, by the combined opposition of Conservatives, Chamberlainite Radicals, and Whigs. In all, 93 Liberals, including Chamberlain and Hartington, voted against Gladstone.

Also read, history – Anglo-Spanish War (1727–1729)

Liberal Unionist

Rejection of the Irish Home Rule Bill led to Gladstone”s resignation, and Parliament was dissolved. In the United Kingdom general election of 1886, the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists agreed on an electoral alliance. Chamberlain”s position was more awkward than Hartington”s, as the Conservatives intensely distrusted the former and Chamberlain could not influence them, while the Gladstonians despised him for voting against Home Rule. Gladstone himself observed that “There is one difference between Hartington and Chamberlain: that the former behaves like a thorough gentleman. Of the other it is better not to speak.” With the general election dominated by the question of Irish self-government, Chamberlain”s campaign was both radical and intensely patriotic. The Conservatives and Liberal Unionists won 393 seats in the House of Commons and a comfortable majority.

Chamberlain took no part in the Unionist government, aware that hostility to him in the Conservative ranks meant that an agreement with them would only extend to the Irish question, with no possibility of implementing his radical reformist agenda. Chamberlain also had no desire to alienate his radical support base, unconvinced by the split in the Liberal party that Chamberlain had forced. The Liberal mainstream chose Chamberlain as their favorite villain, shouting “Judas!” and “Traitor!” at him as he entered the House of Commons. Unable to identify decisively with either party, Chamberlain sought a strategic alliance with a kindred spirit of the Conservative Party, Lord Randolph Churchill (father of Winston Churchill).

In November 1886, Churchill announced his own “Unauthorized Program” at Dartford, the content of which had much in common with Chamberlain”s own “Radical Program,” and included the granting of small estates for rural workers and greater powers to local governments. The following month, Churchill resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer in protest at the increase in military spending, a maneuver designed to strengthen Churchill”s political position. However, when most Conservative MPs rallied behind Salisbury and supported his budget, Churchill ran out of domestic supporters, effectively ending Churchill”s political career. Churchill”s fall ended Chamberlain”s hope of creating a powerful radical faction that would span both parties. The appointment of Goschen as Churchill”s replacement further isolated Chamberlain, and symbolized the good relationship between the non-radical Liberal Unionists and the Conservatives.

In January 1887, Chamberlain, Trevelyan, Harcourt, Morley and Lord Herschell participated in a series of round tables to try to reconduct a consensus on Irish policy within the Liberal Party ranks. Chamberlain was hopeful that an agreement would allow him to claim leadership of the party in the future, and that he would gain influence over the Conservatives simply because these negotiations put the government majority in parliament in jeopardy. Although a preliminary agreement was reached on land purchases, Gladstone was unwilling to compromise further, and the negotiations ended in March without concrete results.

In order to minimize the risk of the Liberal party schism coming to an end, in August 1887 Lord Salisbury invited Chamberlain to lead the British delegation to settle a fishing dispute between the United States and Newfoundland, which brought Chamberlain to the United States. The visit to the United States renewed his enthusiasm for politics and enhanced his position vis-à-vis Gladstone. In November, Chamberlain met 23-year-old Mary Endicott, daughter of President Grover Cleveland”s Secretary of War, William C. Endicott. Before leaving the United States in March 1888, Chamberlain proposed marriage to Mary, describing her as “one of the most brilliant and intelligent women I have yet met.” In November 1888, Chamberlain married Mary in Washington. Mary became a staunch supporter of his political ambitions.

In order to maintain Chamberlain”s support for the government, Salisbury decided to implement a series of radical reforms that would please Chamberlain. Between 1888 and 1889, local administrations were established in the counties of England. In 1891, measures were adopted for the provision of smallholdings and the extension of free and compulsory education throughout the country. Chamberlain wrote that “in the last five years I have seen more progress in the practical application of my political program than in all my previous life. This result I owe entirely to my former opponents, and all opposition has come from my former friends.”

However, Chamberlain”s actions and his support for the Conservative government came at a high cost among his former rank and file, the industrial bourgeois classes of Birmingham, who continued to overwhelmingly support Gladstone. No longer able to rely on the Birmingham Liberal Association, Chamberlain formed with his loyal supporters the Liberal Unionist Association in 1888, associated with the National Radical Union.

Also read, biographies – Takeda Shingen

Elections of 1892

In the 1892 general election, Chamberlain”s Liberal Unionists did well in Birmingham, and made gains in neighboring Black Country towns. By this time, Chamberlain”s son Austen had also entered the House of Commons unopposed as the representative for East Worcestershire. However, the national results showed the limits of Chamberlain”s Liberal Unionist Party strategy: in an era of increasingly well-organized mass politics, the Liberal Unionist Party won only 47 seats. This, added to the Conservative Party”s loss of seats, meant victory for Gladstone”s Liberals, who returned to power as Chamberlain”s political position weakened.

Gladstone formed a government in 1882, and he opposed any attempt at a pact or compromise with Chamberlain. The Liberal Unionists realized that they needed a closer relationship with the Conservatives. When Hartington took his seat in the House of Lords as Duke of Devonshire, Chamberlain assumed the leadership of the Liberal Unionists in the House of Commons, resulting in a productive relationship with Balfour, whip of the Conservatives in the Commons.

Forced to compromise with Irish nationalists, Gladstone introduced the Government of Ireland Bill 1893 in February 1893. Although the bill passed the House of Commons, the Lords rejected Irish self-government by a large margin. With his party divided, Gladstone prepared to dissolve Parliament on the issue of the House of Lords veto, but wary of facing a new election within a year, his colleagues forced Gladstone to resign in March 1894. He was replaced by Archibald Primrose, who preferred to let the Irish Home Rule issue lapse and keep the Liberals in government.

As a result, Chamberlain preferred to maintain his alliance with the Conservatives. Although the Independent Labour Party had only one MP, Keir Hardie, Chamberlain was concerned about the threat of socialism. Chamberlain warned of the dangers of socialism in his unpublished 1895 work The Game of Politics, characterizing its advocates as instigators of class conflict. In response to the socialist challenge, he sought to divert energy away from socialism toward unionism, and continued to propose reforms to the Conservatives. In his Memorandum of a Program for Social Reform sent to Salisbury in 1893, Chamberlain made a number of policy proposals, including old-age pensions, the granting of loans to the working class for the purchase of houses, an amendment to artisans” housing, encouraging street improvements, compensation for industrial accidents, cheaper railway fares for workers, stricter border controls, and shorter working hours. Salisbury was cautiously sympathetic to the proposals.

On June 21, 1895, Primrose”s Liberal government was defeated on a motion criticizing the Secretary of State for War, Henry Campbell-Bannerman, for the shortage of cordite, and Salisbury went on to form a new government.

Also read, biographies – Maximilian I of Mexico

Secretary of the Colonies

Having agreed on a set of policies, Salisbury”s Conservatives and Chamberlain”s Liberal Unionists formed a coalition government on June 24, 1895. Salisbury offered four cabinet posts to the Liberal Unionists. Devonshire became Lord President of the Council, and Salisbury and Balfour offered Chamberlain any Cabinet post except Foreign Secretary, which Salisbury wanted for himself, or Leader of the House of Commons. To his surprise, Chamberlain turned down the Treasury, unwilling to be constrained by Conservative spending plans, and also rejected the Home Office. Instead, Chamberlain asked to head the Colonial Office.

Chamberlain had been forced to adjust his political strategy after his party lost a seat in Leamington Spa: he only agreed to enter government to take a secondary ministerial role, and had to relegate his social reform program to the back burner.

To everyone”s surprise, he used the Colonial Office to become one of the dominant figures in British politics for the next two decades and to condition much of the action of the Salisbury government, of which he would become its most visible head.

Chamberlain used the Colonial Office to gain international recognition at a time when European imperialism was expanding rapidly. He wanted to expand the British Empire in Africa, America and Asia, reorganize imperial trade and resources, and foster closer relations between Britain and the colonies. Chamberlain intended to reform the Empire into a federation of Anglo-Saxon nations; in this he had the support of the Conservative imperialists.

Chamberlain”s renewed interest in the British Empire contrasted with his tepidly anti-imperialist past. Nevertheless, as early as 1887 he had declared that “we should think that our patriotism is warped and stunted if it does not embrace Britain beyond the seas.” The management of the British colonial Empire had already undergone several attempts at reform, all attempting to create an imperial federation, a more coherent system of imperial defense, and a system of duties and tariffs more rational and favorable to the interests of the United Kingdom. However, by 1895, when Chamberlain arrived at the Colonial Office, very few reforms had been made. However, his own proposals met with resistance from Canada and other colonies.

Chamberlain formally assumed the office of Colonial Secretary on July 1, 1895. He had under his control numerous colonies, with the exception of India, which was supervised by his own ministry, and Canada, which had full self-government (unlike, ironically, Ireland). He went on to make a strong case for imperial unity and to promote development projects. Convinced that government action could unite the peoples of the Empire, Chamberlain confidently declared that “I believe that the British race is the greatest of the governing races that the world has ever seen … It is not enough to occupy large spaces of the world”s surface unless you can make the most of them. It is the duty of the owner to develop his property.” Accordingly, Chamberlain advocated investing in infrastructure in the tropics of Africa, the West Indies and other underdeveloped possessions in the Pacific, a policy that earned him the nickname “Joseph Africanus” among the press.

He was instrumental in recognizing the need to manage the unknown tropical diseases that plagued Britain”s subject peoples. In 1899, with Chamberlain”s support, Patrick Manson founded the world”s second medical institution devoted to tropical medicine (the Liverpool School had been established the previous year): the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. This School was located in the Albert Dock Seamen”s Hospital, which was opened in 1890 and later became known as the Hospital for Tropical Diseases.

Chamberlain had not abandoned his dedication to social reforms designed to help the working man. He was instrumental in adapting Bismarck”s German model to establish a workers” compensation system. His Workmen”s Compensation Act of 1897 was a key national achievement for liberal unionists. It cost the Treasury nothing, as compensation was paid by insurance that employers had to take out. The system operated from 1897 to 1946. Chamberlain also tried to design an old-age pension program, but it was too costly and met with Conservative opposition. In order to finance the pensions, he proposed raising tariffs on imports. Old-age pensions were also opposed by the Quakers, who were already funding their own pension program for their members.

Also read, biographies – Elizabeth Taylor

South Africa and the Jameson Incursion scandal

Cecil Rhodes, Prime Minister of the Cape Colony and managing director of the British South Africa Company, was anxious to extend British rule throughout South Africa, especially following the discovery of new mineral deposits in the Witwatersrand, then under the sovereignty of the Boer republic of Transvaal. In 1895, he decided to force the annexation of the Transvaal by encouraging the Uitlanders (the name by which the non-Boers were known) of the Boer republics (Transvaal and Orange Free State) to resist Afrikaner domination by means of a mining rebellion. Rhodes hoped that in the event that the Boers suppressed the actions of the Uitlanders, the intervention of his South African Company”s private army, assembled in the Pitsani Strip, could start a Uitlander rebellion and force the overthrow of the Boer government of the Transvaal. The collusion between Chamberlain and Rhodes was great: in November 1895 the Pitsani Strip, nominally part of the Bechuanaland Protectorate and bordering the Transvaal, had been ceded by Chamberlain”s Colonial Office to the British South Africa Company, officially to protect the railroad line running through the territory. De facto, however, the cession was to facilitate the invasion of the Transvaal. Rhodes had convinced Chamberlain that the Transvaal republic would collapse the moment his mercenary troops crossed the strip, and that before any power could react he could occupy the entire Transvaal territory, very rich in gold and diamond mines. This strategy was risky: Germany was defending the Boeres of the Transvaal, and no one wanted a full-scale colonial conflict between the United Kingdom and Germany. Moreover, neither Rhodes nor Chamberlain had permission to initiate a colonial contest in the area.

Chamberlain informed Salisbury on 26 December 1895 that he expected a Uitlander rebellion in the Transvaal, but did not clarify whether a British South Africa Company raid would be launched to defend the rebels. On December 29, 1895, the so-called Jameson Raid began unannounced, whereby 600 irregular troops of the South African Rhodes Company, under the command of Leander Jameson, invaded the Transvaal with the intention of provoking an Uitlander uprising against the Boers.

At the news of the raid, on December 31, 1895, the German government, furious with the United Kingdom, deployed troops in Pretoria to defend German interests. However, the expected Uitlander uprising did not take place, and Jameson”s raid failed miserably; Jameson”s troops had to surrender to the Boers. On January 3, 1896 Kaiser Wilhelm II sent a public telegram to Paul Kruger, President of the Transvaal, congratulating him on his victory over the British.

The incident had reached a dangerous international dimension, and threatened to bring the United Kingdom into direct confrontation with the German Empire. Chamberlain, spending Christmas at Highbury (Birmingham), received a secret telegram from the Colonial Office on December 31 informing him of the start of the raid and the German actions. Chamberlain, although sympathetic to the aims of Rhodes and Jameson, was uncomfortable with the timing chosen by both to attack the Transvaal, and commented that “if this succeeds, it will ruin me. I am going to London to crush it.”

In order to prevent an escalation of the conflict, Chamberlain ordered Sir Hercules Robinson, governor general of the Cape Colony, to repudiate Leander Jameson”s actions and warned Rhodes that his Company”s charter would be in jeopardy if the Cape premier was found to be involved in the raid. After swift negotiations in early 1896, the prisoners of war were returned to London for trial and the Transvaal government received substantial compensation from the Company. During the Jameson trial, Rhodes” lawyer, Bourchier Hawksley, refused to hand over to the court the telegrams that Rhodes and his agents in London had exchanged between November and December 1895. According to Hawksley, these telegrams showed that the Colonial Office “influenced the actions of the South Africans who embarked on the raid, and even that Chamberlain had transferred control of the Pitsani Strip to facilitate that invasion.” In fact, nine days before the raid, Chamberlain had asked his deputy undersecretary to encourage Rhodes to “hurry up” because of the deteriorating situation in Venezuela, mired in the aftermath of the Legalist Revolution of 1892.

In the face of this scandal, a parliamentary committee was organized to investigate the actions of Chamberlain, Cecil Rhodes and the government during the Jameson Raid. The committee pursued the publication of the telegrams, but neither its chairman (Richard Webster) nor the leader of the opposition (William Harcourt) were able to pressure the government to make the telegrams public. While the investigation was going on, and with the risk that the telegrams might be leaked by Rhodes himself in order to absolve himself, in June 1896 Chamberlain offered his resignation to Salisbury, having shown the prime minister one or more of the telegrams implicating him in the planning of the raid. Salisbury refused to accept his resignation, possibly reluctant to lose the most popular figure in his government. In fact, he came out publicly in defense of Chamberlain, backing the Colonial Secretary”s threat to rescind the charter of the Rhodes Company if the telegrams were revealed. Consequently, Rhodes refused to make them public, and as no evidence was produced, the parliamentary committee appointed to investigate Jameson”s raid had no choice but to absolve Chamberlain of all responsibility in November 1896.

Also read, biographies – Gustave Moreau

West Africa

Chamberlain believed that West Africa had great economic potential and shared Salisbury”s distrust of the French, who were Britain”s main rival in the region. Chamberlain sanctioned the conquest of Ashanti in 1895, with Colonel Sir Francis Scott successfully occupying Kumasi and annexing the territory to the Gold Coast. Using emergency funds from the Lagos, Sierra Leone and Gold Coast colonies, he ordered the construction of a railroad to the newly conquered area. …

The strategy of the Colonial Office in West Africa brought it into conflict with the Royal Niger Company, chaired by Sir George Goldie, which held nominal rights of ownership over large tracts of the Niger River. Goldie had only an interest in the area as an economic asset, and had left the territory open to incursion by the French, who had been sending small garrisons to the area with the intention of controlling it. Although Salisbury wished to subordinate the needs of West Africa to the requirement of maintaining British supremacy on the Nile River, Chamberlain believed that each territory was worth competing for independently. In 1897, Chamberlain decided to intervene in the area upon learning that the French had expanded from Dahomey to Bussa, a town in the area claimed by Goldie. Further French growth in the region would have isolated Lagos from the hinterland, thus limiting its potential for economic growth. Chamberlain, therefore, argued that Britain should “even at the cost of war, maintain adequate territory for the Gold Coast, Lagos and Niger territories.”

Influenced by Chamberlain, Salisbury instructed Sir Edmund Monson, British ambassador in Paris, to be more assertive in negotiations with the French concerning the colonial partition of the Niger Basin. After a diplomatic tug-of-war with the French, Chamberlain decided to force the issue by organizing a military expedition commanded by Frederick Lugard to occupy the areas claimed by Britain, thus undermining French claims in the region. In a risky “checkerboard” strategy, Lugard”s forces occupied territories claimed by the French to counter the establishment of French garrisons in British territory. At times, French and British troops were stationed within yards of each other, increasing the risk of war. However, Chamberlain had assumed, correctly, that French officers in the region had been ordered to act without engaging the British. In March 1898, the French proposed to resolve the problem: Bussa was returned to Britain and in return the French merely occupied the town of Bona. Chamberlain had successfully imposed British control over the Niger and the inland territories of Sokoto, and then united them to create the territory of present-day Nigeria.

Also read, biographies – Giovanni Battista Ramusio

Sierra Leone

In 1896, Britain extended its rule inland from the coastal colony of Sierra Leone. It imposed a hut tax; the Mende and Temne tribes responded with the Hut Tax War of 1898. Chamberlain appointed Sir David Chalmers as special commissioner to investigate the situation. Chalmers blamed the tax, but Chamberlain disagreed and said that African slave traders had instigated the revolt. Chamberlain used the revolt to promote his aggressive “constructive imperialism” in West Africa.

Also read, biographies – Whitney Houston

Anglo-German alliance negotiations: first attempt

By 1898, Chamberlain had become convinced that France was the United Kingdom”s great rival, and that in order to defend its colonial interests the British Empire needed allies, concluding that the most feasible power was the German Empire. Over the next decade, Chamberlain presided over several attempts to build an alliance between the two countries.

The first attempt was made in 1898. On March 29, 1898, Hermann von Eckardstein, who had described Chamberlain as “undoubtedly the most energetic and enterprising personality in the Salisbury government,” arranged a meeting between the Colonial Secretary and the German ambassador in London, Paul von Hatzfeldt. The conversation was strictly off the record, devoted to colonial matters and to discussing Anglo-German interests in China. Chamberlain surprised Hatzfeldt by assuring him that Britain and Germany had many interests in common, that the breakdown in relations caused by Jameson”s Transvaal Raid and the subsequent Kruger Telegram were an abnormality, and that the two countries should explore the possibility of forming a defensive alliance, setting specific objectives with respect to China. Agreeing to this proposal was difficult for Hatzfeldt, because the Reichstag was about to approve Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz”s Flottengesetze, which labeled Britain as a threat to Germany. Moreover, German Foreign Minister Bernhard von Bülow did not believe that Britain was a reliable ally, because any future government could reverse the diplomatic policy of its predecessors, and because Parliament and public opinion often raised difficulties about British alliance commitments; Salisbury himself was notorious for breaking his diplomatic commitments the moment the situation changed in his favor. Especially with regard to China, then on the verge of plunging into the Boxer Rebellion, Von Bülow preferred to cooperate with Russia rather than with Britain.

Hatzfeldt was instructed to make an agreement appear likely without promising Chamberlain anything. There were no compromises, and on April 25 Hatzfeldt asked Chamberlain for colonial concessions as a precursor to improved relations between the two countries. Chamberlain rejected the proposal, thus ending the first talks for an Anglo-German alliance. Although Salisbury was not surprised by the German attitude, Chamberlain was disappointed and spoke publicly about Britain”s diplomatic situation in Birmingham on May 13, stating, “We have no allies. I am afraid we have no friends; … we are on our own.”

Samoa partition and the Anglo-German Alliance: second attempt

An 1888 treaty had established a tripartite Anglo-American-German protectorate in Samoa, and when King Malietoa Laupepa died in 1898, a succession contest ensued. The German candidate, Mataafa, was opposed by the Americans and the British, and a civil war began. Salisbury rejected a German suggestion to ask the United States to withdraw from Samoa. Meanwhile, Chamberlain, resenting the rejection of his proposed alliance with Germany, rejected a suggestion that Britain withdraw from Samoa in exchange for compensation in another Pacific territory, and remarked disdainfully to Eckardstein, “Last year we offered you everything. Now it is too late.” German public and official opinion was outraged at Britain”s attitude, and Chamberlain worked hard to improve Anglo-German relations by facilitating a visit to Britain by Kaiser Wilhelm II. Salisbury was nursing his ailing wife, which allowed Chamberlain to assume control of British policy in July 1899. In November, an agreement was reached with the Germans over Samoa whereby Britain agreed to withdraw in exchange for Tonga and the Solomon Islands and, above all, in exchange for the Germans ending their territorial claims in West Africa.

On November 21, 1899, at a banquet at St. George”s Hall, Windsor Castle, Chamberlain reiterated his desire for an agreement between Britain and Germany to William II. The Kaiser spoke positively about relations with Britain, but added that he did not want to aggravate relations with Russia, and indicated that Salisbury”s traditional strategy of reneging on peacetime commitments made any Anglo-German agreement problematic. Chamberlain, instead of Salisbury, whose wife had just died, visited von Bülow at Windsor Castle. Chamberlain argued that Britain, Germany, and the United States should ally to control France and Russia, but von Bülow thought that British aid would be of little use in the event of a war with Russia. Von Bülow suggested that Chamberlain should speak positively of Germany in public. Chamberlain inferred from von Bülow”s statement that he would do the same in the Reichstag.

The day after the departure of the Kaiser and von Bülow, on November 30, Chamberlain spoke grandiloquently at Leicester of “a new Triple Alliance between the Teutonic race and the two great transatlantic branches of the Anglo-Saxon race which would become a powerful influence on the future of the world.” Although the Kaiser praised Chamberlain”s speech, Friedrich von Holstein called it a “mistake” and the Times attacked Chamberlain for using the term “alliance” without inhibition.

Chamberlain”s attempts at rapprochement failed. On December 11, 1899, von Bülow delivered a speech in the Reichstag in support of the Second Navy Bill and made no reference to an agreement with Britain, which he described as a nation in decline jealous of Germany. Chamberlain was surprised, but Ambassador von Hatzfeldt assured him that von Bülow”s motivation was to defend himself against opposition in the Reichstag. Although Chamberlain was irritated by von Bülow”s behavior, he still harbored hopes of forming an alliance.

Also read, history – Women’s suffrage

South Africa

Chamberlain and the British government had long desired to annex all of South Africa under the control of the British crown, but it seemed that the growing wealth of the Boer Transvaal would prevent any future union of Southern Africa under the British Empire. He rumored himself that in the wake of the Jameson Raid, Germany had secretly guaranteed the independence of the Transvaal and Orange Free State. Despite this, Chamberlain openly pursued British domination of the Transvaal and Orange Free State, supporting the civil rights of the disenfranchised Uitlanders by the Boers. Britain also exerted constant military pressure in the area. In April 1897, Chamberlain asked the cabinet to increase the British garrison in South Africa from three to four thousand men; consequently, the number of British forces in the area grew over the next two years.

The government appointed Sir Alfred Milner as High Commissioner and Governor-General of the Cape in August 1897 to tackle the issue more decisively. Within a year, Milner concluded that war with the Transvaal was inevitable, and he and Chamberlain set about making known to the British people the “oppression” the Uitlanders were suffering under Boer rule. A meeting between President Kruger of the Transvaal Republic and Milner in Bloemfontein in May 1899 did not solve the Uitlander problem: Milner considered Kruger”s concessions inadequate, and the Boers left the conference convinced that the British were determined to settle South Africa”s future by force. By now, British public opinion was in favor of a war in support of the Uitlanders, which enabled Chamberlain to successfully request more reinforcement troops. By early October 1899, nearly 20,000 British troops were deployed in the Cape and Natal, with thousands more on the way. On October 12, 1899, following an ultimatum from the Transvaal (October 9) demanding that British troops withdraw from its borders and that any forces destined for South Africa be returned, the Transvaal and Orange Free State declared war on the United Kingdom.

Also read, biographies – Lorenzo Ghiberti

The Boer War: early defeat

Chamberlain was the political leader in charge of the Boer War, while the Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, merely approved his decisions. The war began in an uninspiring manner for the British: at the beginning of the war, the Boer army outnumbered the British army 3:1. Aware of the territory, the Boers quickly deployed and laid siege to the towns of Ladysmith, Mafeking and Kimberley. To make matters worse, some ten thousand Cape Afrikaners joined the Boers. In mid-December 1899, during ”Black Week”, the British army suffered heavy reverses at Stormberg, Magersfontein and Colenso.

Chamberlain was privately very critical of the military performance of the British Army and was annoyed with the attitude of the War Office. When the Boers bombarded the town of Ladysmith with siege guns, Chamberlain asked for comparable artillery to be sent to the front, but to Chamberlain”s frustration the Secretary of State for War, Lord Lansdowne refused the request on the grounds that such artillery pieces required platforms that needed a year to build, despite the fact that the Boers operated their “Long Tom” guns without elaborate mountings. In the face of so many setbacks and uncoordination, Chamberlain offered a series of speeches aimed at reassuring the public, and made serious efforts to strengthen the ties between Britain and the self-governing colonies of the Empire, emphasizing the ties of brotherhood that bound these colonies to the metropolis, and suggesting that it was in the interest of the entire British Empire that the Boers be defeated, for if the Cape fell, the rest of the world would understand that the British Empire could not defend itself. Thanks to his diplomatic efforts he managed to attract more than 30,000 troops from Canada, Australia and New Zealand under the slogan “One Flag, One Queen, One Language”. The colonial cavalry detachments that Chamberlain recruited helped to make up for the lack of cavalry troops in the British Army, which became vital in the fight against the fearsome mobile Boers, mounted units of riflemen who were wreaking havoc among the British infantry.

In order to emphasize the colonial cause, in 1900 Chamberlain promoted the passage in the House of Commons of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, creating the Australian Federation with extensive self-government. Chamberlain hoped that the newly established federation would adopt a positive attitude toward imperial trade and contribute to the fighting of the Boer War. Wishing to reconcile the British and Afrikaner populations of the Cape, Chamberlain resisted Milner”s desire to suspend the colony”s constitution, an act that would have given autocratic powers to Milner. Chamberlain, as the leading advocate of the war within the government, was denounced by many prominent personalities, including David Lloyd George, a former admirer of the Colonial Secretary.

When in January 1900 the government faced a motion of censure in the House of Commons over its handling of the war, Chamberlain led the government”s defense. On February 5, Chamberlain delivered a speech of over an hour in the Commons in which he defended the war, espoused the virtues of the future South African federation he intended to create with the conquest of the Transvaal and the Free State, and promoted the empire as a civilizing force. In the face of the House”s approval of Chamberlain”s speech, the motion of censure defeated by 213 votes.

The development of war events took a turn in January 1900 with the appointment of Lord Roberts as commander of the British forces in South Africa. Bloemfontein was occupied on March 13, Johannesburg on May 31 and Pretoria on June 5. When Roberts formally annexed the Transvaal on September 3, 1900, the Salisbury government, emboldened by the apparent victory in South Africa, called for the dissolution of Parliament, with an election set for October.

Also read, biographies – Francesco Borromini

The khaki elections of 1900

The 1900 general election was held in the wake of the recent victories over the Boers. With Salisbury ill, Chamberlain dominated the election campaign. Salisbury did not participate in the campaign, and Balfour made few public appearances, causing some to refer to this election as “Joe”s Election.” Fostering a certain cult of personality, Chamberlain began to refer to himself in the third person as ”the Colonial Secretary”, and ensured that the Boer War was the only issue in the campaign, arguing that a victory for the Liberal opposition would result in defeat in South Africa. The predominance of the war issue over any other led to the election being known as the “khaki” election, in reference to the color of British uniforms.

The election campaign was controversial. Chamberlain and his entourage promoted the phrase “Every seat lost to the government is a seat sold to the Boers,” and his Liberal Unionists developed a personalized campaign against Liberal critics of the war; some election posters even showed Liberal MPs praising President Kruger of the Transvaal Republic while helping him drag the Union Jack across the floor.

Chamberlain did not shy away from such tactics, going so far as to declare that “we have practically reached the end of the war … there is now nothing but guerrilla warfare, which is encouraged by these … I was going to say these ”traitors”, but I will say instead these ”misguided individuals”.” Some Liberals also resorted to aggressive campaigning practices, with Lloyd George in particular accusing the Chamberlain family of profiteering from the contest. References were made to Kynochs, a cordite manufacturing company run by Chamberlain”s brother Arthur, as well as Hoskins & Co. of which Austen Chamberlain was a shareholder. Many Liberals rejected Lloyd George”s claims, and Chamberlain dismissed them as unworthy of response, although the accusations troubled him more than he was willing to make evident in public.

Winston Churchill, 26, famous for his escape from a Boer prisoner-of-war camp and his journalism for the “Morning Post,” successfully ran as a Conservative candidate at Oldham, where Chamberlain made a speech in his favor. Churchill would later recall that:

I watched my guest of honor very carefully. He loved the roar of the crowd, and, like my father, he could always say “I have never feared Spanish democracy”. Blood covered his cheek, and his eyes, when they saw mine, shone with pure pleasure.

Churchill later wrote that ”Mr. Chamberlain was incomparably the most lively, sparkling, insurgent and compulsive figure in British affairs.”

Chamberlain used his popularity and the cause of imperialism in the election to devastating effect, and with the Liberals divided on the issue of war, the Unionists won a majority of 219 seats in the House of Commons. The majority was not as large as Chamberlain had hoped, but satisfactory enough to allow him to pursue his vision of empire and strengthen his position in the Unionist alliance.

Anglo-German alliance negotiations: third attempt

At the urging of Balfour and Queen Victoria herself, on the return of the 1900 election Salisbury, by then already ill, left the Foreign Office on October 23, 1900, although he remained as prime minister. Lansdowne was appointed his replacement in the ministry, and Chamberlain”s importance in the government grew further. Chamberlain took advantage of Lansdowne”s lack of experience to take the initiative in British foreign affairs and attempt, once again, to form an alliance with Germany.

On January 16, 1901, Chamberlain and Devonshire let Eckardstein know that they still planned to make Britain part of the Triple Alliance. In Berlin, this news was received with some satisfaction, although Bernhard von Bülow received the news cautiously, believing that Germany could afford to wait. The Kaiser, who had gone to the United Kingdom to visit his dying grandmother, Queen Victoria, sent a telegram from London to Berlin urging a positive response, but von Bülow wished to delay negotiations until Britain was more vulnerable, especially with the ongoing war in South Africa. On March 18, Eckardstein asked Chamberlain to resume alliance negotiations, and although the Colonial Secretary reaffirmed his support, he was unwilling to compromise, recalling von Bülow”s rebuke in 1899. On this occasion, Chamberlain played a minor role, and it was to Lansdowne that Eckardstein conveyed von Bülow”s proposal. Von Bülow was offering the United Kingdom a five-year Anglo-German defensive alliance, to be ratified by Parliament and the Reichstag. Lansdowne responded to the proposal evasively, whereupon von Hatzfeldt took firmer control of the negotiations and presented an invitation for Britain to join the Triple Alliance in which Britain would be committed to the defense of Austria-Hungary. Salisbury decided not to enter into an alliance as a junior partner.

On October 25, 1901, Chamberlain defended the British Army”s tactics in South Africa against criticism from the European press, arguing that the conduct of British soldiers was far more respectable than those of German troops in the Franco-Prussian War, a statement directed at Germany. The German press was outraged, and when von Bülow demanded an apology, Chamberlain refused to apologize. With this public dispute, Chamberlain put an end to hopes for an Anglo-German alliance. In the face of criticism from von Bülow and the German newspapers, Chamberlain”s popularity in Britain soared, with the Times commenting that ”Mr. Chamberlain … is at the moment the most popular and most trusted man in England”.

With Chamberlain still trying to end Britain”s international isolation and negotiations with Germany completed, an agreement with France was attractive. Chamberlain had begun negotiations to resolve colonial differences with the French ambassador, Paul Cambon, in March 1901, although neither Lansdowne nor Cambon had progressed as quickly as Chamberlain would have liked. In February 1902, at a banquet at Marlborough House hosted by King Edward VII, Chamberlain and Cambon resumed their negotiations, with Eckardstein reportedly listening to their conversation and only managing to understand the words “Morocco” and “Egypt.” Chamberlain thus helped make possible the Anglo-French Entente Cordiale that was to occur in 1904.

Also read, biographies – Gustave Doré

Concentration camps and victory in the Boer War

The occupation of the Transvaal and Orange Free State in 1900 did not subdue the Boers, who fought a guerrilla war throughout 1901 until the end of the war in May 1902. This guerrilla war wore down British enthusiasm for the war. Chamberlain was caught between the Unionists, who demanded a more effective military policy, and many Liberals who denounced the war. Publicly, Chamberlain insisted on the separation of civil and military authority, insisting that the war should be left to the generals.

During the Boer War, the British had pioneered the use of concentration camps to confine prisoners of war, both civilian and military. With Chamberlain”s approval, and in order to exert pressure on the Boer guerrillas, the British army used the camps indiscriminately to concentrate many of the civilians in the occupied territories. This situation was aggravated by the destructive tactics employed by the British army in the Boer territory, which led to the collapse of food production in the region. Indeed, the British army razed many of the Boer properties, and decided to deprive them of their means of subsistence as a mechanism of ethnic cleansing, adopting among other drastic measures the confiscation of cattle, the poisoning of wells and irrigation canals, and the burning of crops and farms. As a result of these occupation policies, the British caused a major humanitarian crisis in Boer South Africa.

When anti-war activists and the British press revealed the existence of these concentration camps in 1901, a public outcry erupted. The photograph of the visibly malnourished and typhoid-stricken Boer girl Lizzie van Zyl shocked public opinion and put Chamberlain in an awkward position. Chamberlain lied to the Times by claiming that it was a case of child abuse and that the mother had been prosecuted; by contrast, British activist Emily Hobhouse exposed him by revealing that the photograph had been taken two months after Lizzie had arrived at the concentration camp in early 1901.

Faced with the magnitude of the scandal, Chamberlain was forced to intervene to ensure the proper treatment of the prisoners. Although he refused to publicly criticize the military, he ordered Governor General Milner to do everything in his power to make the camps as habitable as possible, and required Milner to ensure medical supplies for the camps. Chamberlain also stipulated that unsanitary camps should be evacuated. By 1902, the death rate in the camps had been halved and would soon fall below the usual death rate in rural South Africa.

Despite Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir Michael Hicks Beach”s concern at the rising costs of war, Chamberlain maintained his insistence on forcing the Boers to surrender unconditionally. In this he was supported by Prime Minister Salisbury, who believed that an agreed peace would be unacceptable. While Horatio Kitchener, commanding British forces in South Africa, was eager to make peace with the Boers, Milner was content to wait until the Boers sought peace terms themselves. In April 1902, the Boers surrendered unconditionally, and at Chamberlain”s insistence, accepted the loss of the independence of the Transvaal and Orange Free State, which were annexed by the British Empire and subsequently became part of the South African federation. However, the Boers insisted that amnesty be granted to the Afrikaner rebels in the Cape, and that Britain pay the war debts of the two Boer republics.

Chamberlain overruled Milner”s objections to accepting the proposal, arguing that the financial costs of continuing the struggle justified the cost of relieving the debts of the Boer republics in exchange for peace.

The Treaty of Vereeniging (May 31, 1902) ended the Boer War. The conflict had not been as decisive as Chamberlain had hoped, as the British had deployed about 450,000 troops and had spent about 200 million pounds on the fighting. However, the end of the war and the annexation of Boer territory to the British Empire presented what Chamberlain saw as an opportunity to reshape the British imperial system.

Also read, biographies – Marilyn Monroe

Resignation of Salisbury

The end of the Boer War allowed Salisbury, in declining health, to finally retire. The Prime Minister wanted Arthur Balfour, his nephew and then Foreign Secretary, to succeed him. However, Chamberlain”s supporters believed that the Colonial Secretary, architect of the 1900 election victory, had more right to succeed him as prime minister. Chamberlain was the most popular figure in the government, and Leo Maxse, editing the “National Review,” argued forcefully that Chamberlain should be appointed prime minister when Salisbury retired. Chamberlain himself was less concerned and assured Balfour”s private secretary in February 1902 that “I have my own work to do and … I shall be very willing to serve under Balfour.” On July 7, 1902, Chamberlain suffered a head injury in a traffic accident. Chamberlain received three stitches and was told by doctors to stop work immediately and remain in bed for two weeks.

On July 11, 1902, Salisbury went to Buckingham Palace and, without notifying his cabinet colleagues, placed his position at the King”s disposal, advising the newly promoted Edward VII to invite Balfour to form a new government that same day. Before accepting, Balfour visited Chamberlain, who assured him of his willingness to remain Colonial Secretary. Despite his organizational skills and immense popularity, many Conservatives were still wary of Chamberlain”s radicalism, and Chamberlain was aware of the difficulties he would face if he were to lead the coalition government as head of the minority partner, the Liberal Unionists. Even more so, Balfour and Chamberlain were aware that the survival of the Unionist coalition government depended on their ability to work together and keep their political alliance alive.

Also read, biographies – Umberto Boccioni

Education Act of 1902

One of the first major legislative measures of the new Balfour government was the Education Bill of 1902. This bill was intended to promote national efficiency, a cause with which Chamberlain had always been identified. However, the bill proposed to abolish the 2,568 school boards established under William E. Forster in 1870. These school boards were popular bodies among nonconformists and radicals because they allowed educational affairs to be managed locally and without interference. The new bill proposed to replace them with more professionalized local education authorities, which would administer a system centered on elementary, secondary and technical schools. The bill sought to fund Church of England schools with public money from these local authorities. Chamberlain was aware that the proposals in the bill would alienate Nonconformists, Radicals and many Liberal Unionists from the government, but he could not oppose it, as he owed his position as Colonial Secretary to the support of the Conservatives. In response to Chamberlain”s warning that the bill would alienate Anglican Nonconformist voters, and to his suggestion that Anglican Church schools receive central government rather than local funds, Robert Laurie Morant objected that the Boer War had drained the Treasury.

Chamberlain tried to stem the feared exodus of nonconformist voters by securing an important concession: local authorities would have the power to choose how to allocate local grants for church schools. At the risk of losing the vote in Parliament, Chamberlain had to give up this concession during the passage of the bill through Parliament in December 1902. Chamberlain said, somewhat fatalistically, that “I regard the Unionist cause as lost at the next election, and we shall certainly lose most of the Liberal Unionists once and for all.”

In order to revive his political fortunes, Chamberlain began planning tariff reform as an issue that could revitalize support from his political base.

Also read, civilizations – House of Savoy

South Africa tour

Chamberlain visited South Africa between December 26, 1902 and February 25, 1903, in an attempt to promote Anglo-Afrikaner conciliation and emphasize the colonial contribution of the British Empire. He also wanted to meet first-hand the people of the newly unified South Africa, including those who had been enemies during the recent Boer War. In Natal, Chamberlain received an enthusiastic welcome. In the Transvaal he met with Boer leaders who were trying unsuccessfully to alter the peace terms reached at Vereeniging. The reception given to Chamberlain in the Orange River colony was surprisingly friendly, although he was involved in a two-hour argument with General Hertzog, who accused the British government of violating three articles of the Vereeniging Treaty.

During his visit, Chamberlain became convinced that the Boer territories required a period of direct rule by the British crown before they could be granted self-government within the Empire. At the Cape, Chamberlain was received much more amicably by the Afrikaner Bond (the Afrikaner party in the Cape Colony) than by many members of the Anglophone Progressive Party, now under the leadership of Jameson, who referred to Chamberlain as “the unfeeling devil of Birmingham.” Chamberlain successfully persuaded the prime minister, John Gordon Sprigg, to hold an election as soon as possible, a positive act considering the hostile nature of the Cape Parliament to British rule since 1899. During the tour, Chamberlain and his wife visited 29 cities, and made 64 speeches and received 84 delegations.

Zionism and the “Uganda program”.

On October 12, 1902, Chamberlain met Theodor Herzl, the father of Zionism, through the mediation of the writer Israel Zangwill. The Kishinev progrom had just taken place, and during the conversation Chamberlain expressed his sympathy for the Zionist cause and the desirability of providing a territory for the Jewish people. Chamberlain was willing to consider Herzl”s settlement plan near El Arish and in the Sinai Peninsula, but his support was conditional upon the plan being approved by the authorities in Cairo. When it became clear that these efforts were going to fail, on April 24, 1903 Chamberlain offered Herzl territory in East Africa. Although the territory offered by Chamberlain was in Kenya, the proposal became known as the Program for British Uganda. The Zionist Organization, after some deliberation, rejected the proposal, as did the British settlers in East Africa. However, Chamberlain”s proposal was a breakthrough for the Zionists: Britain had diplomatically committed itself to finding a suitable territory for Jewish autonomy under British sovereignty.

Also read, biographies – François Darlan

Tariff reform: schism within the conservative and liberal-unionist parties

Chamberlain had never been a staunch supporter of free trade, at least not as a goal in itself. In the past he had advocated it as a vehicle to facilitate closer ties between the various territories of the British Empire and, simultaneously, to solve Britain”s internal economic and political problems. Chamberlain had fused political and economic nationalism to arrive at a formula that favored internal imperial trade through preferential tariffs with the nations that made up the British Empire.

In order to advance his conception of Empire, Chamberlain wished to promote an imperial federation of nations formed on Otto von Bismarck”s model for Germany. This was to enable Britain to maintain its global role amid the growing economic challenge from the United States and Germany. He wanted to create a system of preferential trade between the various parts of the Empire, which would be defended with reciprocally low tariff rates, and high tariffs on foreign imports. Chamberlain believed that the external tariffs would serve to finance the old-age pension system and other social improvements.

These ideas had been articulated in a piecemeal fashion prior to 1903. But by 1903, Chamberlain embraced them with renewed enthusiasm in order to revive his political fortunes among the Nonconformists and Unionists in the West Midlands, which in turn he hoped would improve his position within the government. The great problem with Chamberlain”s program was that it was in direct opposition to the doctrine of free trade that had dominated the British economy since the repeal of the grain laws in 1846.

The idea of tariff reform predated 1903. For example, in April 1902, Chamberlain dined with the Hughligans, a small parliamentary clique that included Lord Hugh Cecil and Winston Churchill among its members. Churchill would recall that

As he rose to leave, he paused at the door and, turning, said with much deliberation, “You young gentlemen have entertained me magnificently, and in return I am going to trust you with a great secret: Tariffs! They are the policy of the future, and of the near future. Study them closely and become a master of them, and you will not regret your hospitality to me.”

In the same month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hicks Beach, imposed a small tariff on imported grain to raise revenue for the Boer War. Chamberlain wanted to use this as a start to reform Britain”s trade, and was encouraged by a report submitted in June by the president of the Board of Trade, Gerald Balfour, the prime minister”s younger brother, recommending reciprocal tariff arrangements with the colonies. In July 1902, the Colonial Conference convened in London rejected Chamberlain”s suggestion that an Imperial Council be established, but did pass a resolution endorsing the preferential tariff system advocated by Chamberlain. This system came to be known as the “Imperial Preference.” Chamberlain believed that his proposals were gaining popularity and took the matter to the Cabinet before embarking on his tour of South Africa in December 1902. The new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Thomson Ritchie, was strongly opposed to any “Imperial Preference” scheme, but although he made his views known, the Balfour government was generally in favor of Chamberlain”s proposal when it was considered on October 21.

In November 1902, the government agreed, at Chamberlain”s urging, to remit the grain tariff in favor of the self-governing colonies in the next budget. Thinking he had obtained the government”s support, Chamberlain left for South Africa, while Ritchie plotted to reverse the decision. In March 1903, before Chamberlain”s return, Ritchie asked Balfour to schedule a cabinet meeting to present the state budgets. Balfour refused and warned Chamberlain, using Austen as an intermediary, of Ritchie”s continued opposition. Chamberlain arrived in Southampton on March 14, ready to confront Ritchie, and decided to press for the grain tariff to remain in the budget.

Chamberlain was surprised to discover on March 17, 1902, that the majority of the government agreed with Ritchie and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had de facto reversed the decision made the previous November. Balfour decided not to take sides, but did not oppose Ritchie for fear of losing his Chancellor of the Exchequer on the eve of the presentation of the budget. Chamberlain accepted that there was insufficient time to debate the matter in cabinet before the budget and allowed Ritchie to have his way. To compensate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented a Free Trade Agreement on April 23, during which Chamberlain remained silent. Although Chamberlain had been surprised by the government”s change of heart, he prepared to counterattack. On May 15, in the midst of his power base in Birmingham, before beginning his speech Chamberlain remarked to the chief organizer of the event, “You can burn your leaflets. Let”s talk about something else.” He lamented the demise of the grain tariffs to his supporters and insisted that the greatness of the British Empire could only be preserved by introducing the Imperial Preference system, which he hoped would dominate the next general election. His impromptu speech surprised Balfour and the government, as the prime minister had just publicly insisted that it was not yet time to implement the Imperial Preference policy. Moreover, on May 28, Chamberlain reiterated his defiance of free trade orthodoxy in the House of Commons, amid cheers from many Unionists. Balfour hoped to defuse the situation by devoting the summer to the issue and publicly stated his support for neither policy, which earned him much criticism from the opposition Liberal Party.

Balfour managed to avoid serious debate on the issue while the Board of Trade compiled statistics on the subject. A cabinet meeting convened on August 13 failed to reach agreement and a final decision was postponed until September 14. Balfour hoped that Chamberlain would moderate his support for tariff reform to satisfy the majority of the government, and particularly the other prominent Liberal Unionist, the Duke of Devonshire. In fact, the prime minister was happy with the prospect of ousting staunch advocates of free trade from the government, and he prepared a memorandum containing a series of radical, reformist economic views.

In order to force the issue, on September 9, 1902 Chamberlain sent a letter of resignation to Balfour, explaining his desire to campaign publicly for the Imperial Preference system outside of government. An hour before the September 14 cabinet meeting, Chamberlain and Balfour agreed that Chamberlain would resign and attempt to rally public support for the Imperial Preference system if the cabinet could not be persuaded to adopt the new policy. Balfour agreed to appoint Austen Chamberlain to the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that he could speak for his father within the cabinet. If the campaign was successful, Balfour could endorse Imperial Preference at the next general election.

When the cabinet meeting failed to approve his tariff proposals, Chamberlain announced his resignation, but Balfour did not inform the meeting of Chamberlain”s resignation letter, instead telling many members of the government that he doubted Chamberlain was seriously threatening to resign. Seizing on Chamberlain”s resignation, the prime minister demanded the resignation of Ritchie and Alexander Hugh Bruce for submitting memoranda advocating free trade and accusing them of forcing the breakup of the government. The next day, Lord George Hamilton resigned, and the following day, September 16, Balfour announced the resignations of Ritchie, Hamilton and Chamberlain. The pro-free trade ministers were dismayed that Chamberlain”s letter of resignation had been kept secret, and the Duke of Devonshire, who had also resigned, rescinded his decision. But when Balfour explained his fiscal policy on October 1, Devonshire resubmitted his resignation. The resignations of Chamberlain, Ritchie, and Devonshire left the government severely weakened.

Also read, biographies – Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor

Tariff reform: Chamberlain”s last crusade

Chamberlain asserted his authority over the Liberal Unionists soon after Devonshire”s departure. The National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations also declared majority support for tariff reform, signifying the end of their support for free trade. With the strong support of provincial unionism and most of the press, Chamberlain addressed large crowds and extolled the virtues of Empire and Imperial Preference, campaigning on the slogan “Tariffs: Reform Means Work for All.” On October 6, 1903, Chamberlain kicked off the campaign with a speech in Glasgow. The newly formed Tariff Reform League received a large amount of funding, enabling it to print and distribute a large number of leaflets and even play Chamberlain”s recorded messages at public meetings by gramophone. Chamberlain himself spoke in Greenock, Newcastle, Liverpool and Leeds during the first month of the campaign. Chamberlain explained in Greenock how free trade threatened British industry, declaring that “sugar is gone, silk is gone, iron is threatened, wool is threatened, cotton will disappear. How long are they going to stand it? Right now these industries. . are like sheep in a field.”

In Liverpool on October 27, Chamberlain was escorted to the headquarters of the Conservative Labour Association by mounted police amid loud cheers. In an attempt to gain the support of the working class, Chamberlain assured his audience that tariff reform ensured low unemployment. When the Liberal-supporting Daily News used official import prices to show that a loaf of bread under tariff reform would be smaller than a loaf of free trade bread, Chamberlain had two loaves of bread baked based on the price of grain with free trade and the tariffs he advocated. On November 4, 1903 Chamberlain spoke at Bingley Hall, Birmingham, displayed the loaves and held them aloft: “It is not a matter of any doubt, but which is the larger?” he asked the enthusiastic audience.

While the Liberal Party had overcome its divisions and united in defense of Free Trade, the division within the Unionist ranks became increasingly apparent. Balfour had supported cautious protectionism soon after Chamberlain”s resignation, but was unwilling to go further or to announce an early general election, as the results of the by-election were wholly unfavorable to the Unionists. As Chamberlain toured the country, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Liberal H. H. Asquith, stalked him preaching the virtues of free trade in the very places where Chamberlain had appeared a few nights before.

The intense campaign for tariff reform got a brief respite when Chamberlain”s health began to fail. Suffering from gout and neuralgia, Chamberlain took a two-month vacation in February 1904. Chamberlain decided that the Unionists were likely to lose the general election and criticized Balfour for delaying the inevitable. In fact, Chamberlain now hoped that Balfour would fail to promote his cautious fiscal doctrine, probably with the intention of eventually leading the Unionists to form a purely protectionist party after the expected general election defeat. He wrote to his son Neville that “the Free-Cambrists are our mutual enemies. We must expel them from the party and make them disappear.”

In late 1904, the numerous branches of the Tariff Reform League challenged the National Conservative Union. Chamberlain also attempted to secure Tariff Reform League representation within the Conservative Party. Balfour maintained his tariff program in retaliation, and attempted to minimize the obvious differences between Chamberlain and himself. Publicly, Chamberlain claimed that Balfour”s position was the precursor to a more comprehensive policy of Imperial Preference.

Chamberlain continued to campaign for tariff reform with zeal and energy despite his increasingly visible aging. Reconciliation between Conservatives and Unionists seemed imminent when Balfour agreed to a general election after the 1906 Colonial Conference, at which tariff reform would be discussed. However, threatened by the opposition, Balfour rescinded the agreement and demanded party unity. Chamberlain ignored this and intensified his campaign in November 1905, which directly resulted in Balfour”s resignation on December 4.

Also read, biographies – Emily Dickinson

1906 General Elections

With the Unionists divided and out of favor with many of their former supporters, the Liberal Party won the 1906 U.K. general election in a landslide victory, with the Conservatives reduced to only 157 seats in the House of Commons. Balfour himself lost his seat in Manchester, but Chamberlain and his supporters increased their majorities in Birmingham. Chamberlain even became leader of the opposition in Balfour”s absence. With approximately 102 of the remaining Unionist MPs supporting Chamberlain, it looked as if he might become leader of the Conservatives, or at least win a major concession in favor of tariff reform. Chamberlain called for a Party meeting, and Balfour, now re-elected to the Commons by a by-election, agreed on February 14, 1906 in the ”Valentine letters” to admit that.

Tax reform is, and must remain, the constructive work of the Conservative and Unionist Party. That the object of such reforms is to secure more equitable conditions of competition for British trade and a closer commercial union within the colonies.

Although in opposition, it appeared that Chamberlain had successfully associated the Unionists with the cause of tariff reform, and that Balfour would be forced to accede to Chamberlain”s future demands. In any case, the pro-free trade currents within the Conservative Party continued to oppose Chamberlain and his tariff proposal” Chamberlain had succeeded in splitting the Conservative Party in two, just as he had once split the Liberal Party.

On July 8, 1906, Chamberlain celebrated his seventieth birthday in Birmingham, and the entire city hosted numerous public festivities over several days including official luncheons, speeches, parades, bands. Tens of thousands of people thronged the city when Chamberlain delivered an impassioned speech on July 10, promoting the virtues of radicalism and imperialism.

Chamberlain collapsed on July 13 while dressing for dinner in the bathroom of his Prince”s Gardens home. His wife Mary found the door locked and shouted, receiving the feeble reply “I can”t get out.” Returning with help, she found him exhausted on the floor, having turned the handle from the inside: he had suffered a stroke that paralyzed his right side.

After a month of being totally incapacitated, Chamberlain was able to begin taking a small number of steps and decided to try to overcome his disabilities. Although not mentally impaired, his eyesight had deteriorated, forcing him to wear glasses instead of his trademark monocle. His ability to read had diminished, forcing Mary to read newspapers and letters to him. He lost the ability to write with his right hand and his speech was noticeably altered, with Chamberlain”s colleague William Hewins noting that “His voice has lost all its former tone. …. He speaks very slowly and articulates with evident difficulty.”

Although he had given up all hope of regaining his health and returning to active politics, Chamberlain followed with interest the career of his son Austen and encouraged the tariff reform movement. He opposed Liberal proposals to remove the House of Lords veto and gave his blessing to Unionists to fight to oppose Irish Home Rule. In the two general elections of 1910 he was allowed to be elected unopposed in his constituency of West Birmingham. In January 1914, Chamberlain decided not to stand again. On July 2, six days before his 78th birthday, he suffered a heart attack and, surrounded by his family, died in his wife”s arms.

At the news of his death, telegrams of condolence poured in from around the world, with Prime Minister H. H. Asquith, Chamberlain”s adversary a decade earlier, leading the tributes in the House of Commons, declaring that:

in that striking, vivid, masterful, resolute, tenacious personality, there were no blurred or hazy outlines, no relaxed fibers, no moods of doubt and hesitation, no pauses of lethargy or fear.

The family declined an offer of an official burial at Westminster Abbey and a unitary ceremony was held in Birmingham. He was buried in Key Hill Cemetery, Hockley, in the same grave as his first two wives, and near that of his parents. On March 31, 1916, the Chamberlain Memorial, a bust created by sculptor Mark Tweed, was unveiled at Westminster Abbey. Among the dignitaries present were former Prime Minister Arthur Balfour, Bonar Law, Chamberlain”s sons Austen and Neville, and other members of the Chamberlain, Hutton and Martineau families.

Chamberlain”s legacy is complex. Politically, he failed in almost everything he set out to do. Ireland eventually became independent: Chamberlain”s unionist opposition, instead of guaranteeing the unity of the British Isles, caused an escalation of the conflict between the United Kingdom and the Irish independence fighters that would lead to the Irish Civil War of 1916-1921; by then Gladstone”s proposals for Canadian-style self-government were insufficient. He was never able to pass educational reform along the secular and decentralized lines he had ambitions. His policy of creating a tariff-protected federalist Empire (and a sterling currency zone) was never implemented. His ambition to reach an alliance with Germany never came to fruition, the UK ended up embracing an alliance with France (a power Chamberlain detested), and a few months after his own death Germany and the UK would clash in the First World War. In fact, the aggressive policy of colonial expansion with which Chamberlain dominated the 1890s and 1900s was one of the main catalysts of that conflict. Finally, with his electoral charisma, his ability to unite political apollos and, at the same time, his radicalism and inability to reach compromises with those he perceived as his political enemies, Chamberlain provoked the rupture of the two great political parties, causing great political instability within the British Empire. The influence of his imperial vision as a rapacious but unifying, pacifying and progressive force was felt for many decades after his death; Enoch Powell and Winston Churchill himself, both admirers of Joseph Chamberlain, were great advocates of it. Equally influential was his municipal policy in Birmingham, based on the ornamentation and regeneration of marginal neighborhoods, guaranteeing quality public services, and access to housing for the most disadvantaged.

Winston Churchill called Chamberlain “a splendid reefer: first black, then white or, in political terms, first fiery red, then true blue.” That is the conventional view of Chamberlain”s politics: that he gradually became more conservative, starting on the left of the Liberal Party and ending up on the right of the Conservatives. An alternative view is that he was always a radical in domestic affairs and an imperialist in foreign affairs, and that these positions were not in conflict with each other, for with both he rejected “laissez-faire capitalism.” For example, after breaking with the liberals he remained an advocate of workers” compensation and old-age pensions.

J. A. R. Marriott was of the opinion that in the period 1870-1905 Chamberlain was

Historian Dennis Judd stated:

Historian R. J. A. Adams described him as, “A great patriot who burned to secure his country”s future, Chamberlain”s brilliance and impatience ensured that he would be judged a political messiah to some, but an unstable destroyer to many more.”

J. P. Taylor stated:

Also read, biographies – Constantius Chlorus

University of Birmingham

The University of Birmingham may be considered Chamberlain”s most enduring legacy. He proposed the founding of a university to complete his vision for the city of Birmingham, seeking to provide “a great school of universal instruction,” so that “the most important work of original research might be continually carried on under the most favorable circumstances.” He is considered the principal founder of the University and was its first chancellor. He was largely responsible for obtaining its royal charter in 1900, and for the development of the Edgbaston campus of the University of Birmingham. The 100-meter tall Joseph Chamberlain Memorial Clock Tower (“Old Joe”) is named in his honor and is the tallest free-standing clock tower in the world. The personal papers of Joseph Chamberlain, Austen Chamberlain, Neville Chamberlain and Mary Chamberlain are held in the Special Collections at the University of Birmingham Library.

The founding model of the University of Birmingham as a secular, progressive institution, with some emphasis on technical careers, and above all, at the service of citizenship, would quickly spread throughout the United Kingdom: the universities of Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Imperial College,… would quickly be founded in the image and likeness of the University of Birmingham. The civic university model would later spread throughout the territories of the British Empire: the University of British Columbia, the University of Dar es Salaam, the University of the Witwatersrand, among many others, followed the model set by Chamberlain in Birmingham.

Some publications

Sources