THE TARIFF REFORM MOVEMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN

THE TARIFF REFORM
MOVEMENT
IN G R E A T B R I T A I N
1 8 8 1 - 1 8 9 5
By B en ja m in H. Brown
NEW
YORK
C O L U M B I A
: M O R N IN G S ID E
H E IG H T S
U N I V E R S I T Y
1 9 4 3
P RE S S
THE TARIFF REFORM
MOVEMENT
IN
GREAT
BRITAIN
C O P Y R I C ;H T
1945
C O L U M B IA U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS. N E W Y O R K
F oreign A g en t:
O xforp
U m vfr sitv
P ress,
A m en H ouse, L o n d o n , E .C. 4, E n g la n d ,
H u m p h re y M ilfo rd ,
and
B . I. B u ild in g ,
N icol R o a d , B o m b a y , In d ia
MANUFACTURED
I.N T H E
U N IT E D
ST A T E S O F
AM ERICA
To
My Mother and Father
PREFACE
in 1936, when, as an undergraduate in C olu m b ia C o l­
lege, I first had the good fortun e to talk history w ith Professors
H arry Carm an, Shepard C lou gh, and D w ight M iner, the plan for
this book em erged. Since that time a good deal of w ater has passed
under the bridge. Countless details have been altered, and here
and there an entire chapter has been added or dropped. B u t the
essentia] idea rem ains unchanged.
W h a t we had in m ind can be briefly stated. Several studies had
appeared or w'ere soon to appear, dealing in purely econom ic or
statistical terms w ith the so-called “ G reat D epression” w hich over­
took British industry and com m erce in the last quarter of tlie n in e­
teenth century. O ther histories told the same story on the political
plane, describing the steps taken in B ritain to control new forces
and to heal old wounds. Between these two approaches appeared a
gap which we determ ined ought to be filled. H ow did ordinary
Englishm en— entrepreneurs and laborers, in the cities and on the
farms— react to the econom ic changes? H ow d id they form ulate
their views? H ow did they organize themselves for political action?
W h at steps did they take to pu t their rem edies before the public?
W h at happened to these proposed remedies when, cast adrift in the
w elter o f debate, they reinforced or collided w ith or glanced off
other opinions more or less forcibly expressed, more or less the
true expression of w hat m en's judgm ent or interest or prejudice
led them to believe were the necessities of the time? W hat means
w ere used to elect friendly m em bers of Parliam ent, to persuade
m em bers already elected, to translate opinion into policy? T h e
gap was a large one, and only here and there had attempts been
m ade to fill it. M y own subsequent work is m erely exploralory. A t
best, it w ill throw a little ligh t on methods and sources w hich abler
hands w ill turn to good account.
T o my way of thinking, it matters very little that 1 have chosen
as the them e of this w ork the attempts to install protective tariffs in
S
O M E T IM E
viii
PREFACE
Britain in the fifteen years follow in g 1881. T h e same type of study
m ight be made of agitations for old age pensions in Italy, for new
canals in France, or, I daresay, for state protection o f the donkey
caravans in old M esopotam ia, W h at matters, 1 think, is the know l­
edge gained of that tvviltght region between econom ic circum ­
stances and the form ation of political and social policies. T h e econ­
om ist notes fa llin g profit margins, shrinking investm ent opportu­
nities, faltering exports, “ depression," "lack of confidence"— call it
w hat you w ill. T h e historian notes tariffs, subsidies, im perialist ex­
pansion. curtailm ent of civil liberties, racial discrim ination, per­
haps revoluton. W hat lies between? D id faltering exports cause the
tariff? D id "depression" cause im perialist expansion? If not, what
other factors helped shape the result? It is w orthw hile, I think, to
ask these questions, because in the lon g run the success or failure
of the dem ocratic idea m ight depend on ou r know ledge of the in ­
nermost w orkings of tlie dem ocratic process and on o u r ability to
use that know ledge to m eet hum an needs.
T h ese m ight seem unduly grave reflections to attach to a disserta­
tion on the tariff reform m ovem ent in England. I make tliem, at
the risk of arousing loo great exjrcctations, because, in all lionesty,
I have had them in m ind throughout the w riting of this book, and
because I b eliere that even modest histories honestly m itte n can
yield great lessons.
I say that tite theme tariff reform is of secondary im portance, but
that is only because I tliink that some things are more im portant
than others. A fter all, it is on ly a hop, a skip, and a ju m p from these
early tariff reform ers to the Ottarva Conference o f ir|;j2. u'hcrc
their ideas form ed tlie basi.s of an im perial policy rvliich w ill shape
our grandcliildren ’s lives as w ell as ours. I have chosen 1881 as the
starting point, because the form ation of the N ational Fair T rad e
League in tliat year made tariffs a live issue in E ngland for the first
tim e in almost a generation. I have stopped, soinetvliat abruptly,
at iSgf,, because w ith the accession of Joseph C ham berlain to the
C olon ial Office in that year, it seemed to me that the prelim inary
work of tariff reform ers had been aecom plished and that their suc­
cess o r failure depended thereafter on the ability of one man to
carry the country w ith him . A t one tim e, it was my intention to
w rite a postscript on C ham berlain, but when the rough draft began
PREFACE
ix
to rival the rem ainder of the book in length, the plan was aban­
doned. Readers interested in C ham berlain w ill have no difficulty
in finding their way to books w liich describe his role far more
adequately tlian could any single chapter of mine.
T h e m aterial is arranged so that the reader must traverse the
ground betw een 1881 and 1895 some five or six times by parallel
routes. O n e chapter deals w ith tariff reform and labor, another
w ith tariff reform and im perialism , another w ith tariff reform and
the Conservative Party, and so on— all for the entire fifteen year
period. Each chapter tells its own story and in a way stands on its
ow n legs. T h is arrangem ent seemed inevitable to m e once I had
scratched the surface of the subject. L ooking back, I am satisfied
w ith it save in two respects. For one thing, the sense of the sim ul­
taneity of certain events has undoubtedly been lost. For another
thing. C hap ter V , or the parts of it w lik h analyze the popular
strength of the tariff reform m ovem ent, m ight have been m ore su it­
ably placed earlier in the book, I chose to leave it w here it is, be­
cause it wa.s not my m ain purpose to count heads, and w hether ]
liked it or not, no satisfactory record o f the count existed. Here
again, however, som ething has undoubtedly been lost. It m ay w ell
Ire that .some readers w ill prefer to glance at C hapter V im m ediately
after C hapter I.
T h e pleasure of seeing one's first book safe betw een the covers
at last is not to be denied. It is exceeded, however, by tJie pleasure
of pu b licly thanking the good friends w ho have helped at every
stage in the preparation. I liave already m entioned Professors C ar­
man, C lou gh, and M iner. A n d there are others. Most of the research
had to be done abroad. T h e late D ean H erbert E. H aw kcs of
C olu m bia C ollege made it possible for m e to spend six terms at
C lare C ollege, Cam bridge; and yet my obligation to him is so large
that even that dream come true seems but a trifling part o f the
w hole. In England I ran up other debts. T hose w ho know Professor
J. H. C lapham , M r. C. R . Fay, Mr. H rothgar H abakkuk, and P ro­
fessor M . M . Postan w ill understand me w hen I say that they can
never be repaid. M r. J. E. T y le r o f the U niversity of Sheffield made
suggestions for the im provem ent of the chapter on im perialism and
had the kindness to take down and send me the notes from the
M undella oaners w hich aonear here and there throughout the
viii
PREFACE
Britain in the fifteen years follow ing 1881. T h e same type of study
might be made of agitations for old age pensions in Italy, for new
canals in France, or, I daresay, for state protection of the donkey
caravans in old Mesopotamia, W hat matters, I think, is the know l­
edge gained of that tw ilight region between economic circum ­
stances and the formation of political and social policies. T h e econ­
omist notes falling profit margins, shrinking investment opportunitie.s, faltering exports, “ depre.ssion,'' “ lack of confidence”— call it
what you will. T h e historian notes tariffs, subsidies, imperialist ex­
pansion, curtailm ent of civil liberties, racial discrimination, per­
haps revoluton. W hat lies between? D id faltering exports cause the
tariff? D id “ depression” cause im perialist expansion? If not, what
other factors helped shape the result? It is worthwhile, 1 think, to
ask these questions, because in the long run the success or failure
of the democratic idea m ight depend on our knowledge of the in­
nermost workings of the democratic process and on our ability to
use that knowledge to meet hum an needs.
These m ight seem unduly grave reflections to attach to a disserta­
tion on the tariff reform movement in England. I make them, at
the risk of arousing too great expectations, because, in ail Jionesty,
I have had them in m ind throughout the w riting of this book, and
because I believe that even modest histories honestly written can
yield great lessons.
I say that the theme tariff reform is of secondary importance, but
that i.s only because I think that some things are more important
than others. A fter .all, it is only a hop, a skip, and a jum p from these
early tariff reformers to the Ottawa Conference of 1932, wliere
their ideas formed the basis of an imperial policy which w ill shape
our grandchildren’s lives as w ell as ours. I have chosen 1881 as the
starting point, because the formation of the National Fair Trade
League in that year made tariffs a live issue in England for the first
time in almost a generation. I have stopped, somewhat abruptly,
at 1895, because with the accession of Joseph Cham berlain to the
Colonial Oflice in that year, it seemed to me that the prelim inary
work of tariff reformers had been accomplished and that their suc­
cess or failure depended thereafter on the ability of one man to
carry the country with him. A t one time, it was my intention to
write a postscript on Cham berlain, but when the rough draft began
PREFACE
ix
to rival the rem ainder of the book in length, the plan -was aban ­
doned. Readers interested in C ham berlain w ill have no difficulty
in finding their way to books w hich describe his role far more
adequately than could any single chapter of m ine.
T h e m aterial is arranged so that the reader must traverse the
ground betw een iS 8 i and 1895 some five or six times by parallel
routes. O ne chapter deals ivith tariff reform and labor, another
w ith tariff reform and im perialism , another w ith tariff reform and
the Conservative Party, and so on— all for the entire fifteen year
period. F.ach chapter tells its own story and in a way stands on its
ow n legs. T h is arrangem ent seemed inevitable to me once 1 had
scratched the surface of the subject, L ooking back, I am satisfied
w ith it save in two respects. For one thing, the sense of the sim ul­
taneity of certain events has undoubtedly been lost. For another
thing. C hapter V , or the parts of it w hich analyze the popular
strength of the tariff reform movem ent, m ight have been more suit­
ably placed earlier in the book. I chose to leave it w here it is, be­
cause it was not m y m ain purpose to count heads, and w hether I
liked it or not, no satisfactory record o f the count existed. H ere
again, how'cvcr, som ething has u ndoubtedly been lost. It may w ell
be that some readers w ill prefer to glance at C hapter V im m ediately
after C h ap ter I.
T h e pleasure of seeing o n e’s first book safe between the covers
at last is not to be denied. It is exceeded, however, by the pleasure
o f p u b licly thanking the good friends w ho have helped at every
stage in the preparation. I have already m entioned Professors C ar­
man, C lough, and M iner. A n d there are others. M ost of the researcli
had to be done abroad. T h e late D ean H erbert E. H awkes of
C olu m bia C ollege made it possible for me to spend six terms at
C lare College, Cam bridge; and yet m y obligation to him is so large
that even that dream come true seems b u t a trifling part of the
w hole. In E ngland I ran up oth er debts. T h o se w h o know Professor
J. H . C lapham , M r. C . R . Fay, Mr, H rothgar H abakkuk, and P ro­
fessor M. M . Postan w ill understand me when I say that they can
never be repaid. M r. J. E. T y le r of the U niversity of Sheffield made
suggestions for the im provem ent of the chapter on im perialism and
had the kindness to take dow n and send m e the notes from the
M un della naners w hich apoear here and there throughout the
X
PREFACE
book. I am indebted to Lieutenant N athan Pelcovits for the use
of his notes on the Manciiester Cliam ber of Commerce MSS; to
Miss Friedl Gartner for iniportant reconnaissance in London
libraries; and to botit for encouragement when it was needed most.
T h e w-riting was done in moments spared or borrowed or stolen
from my teaching at Colum bia University. W ithout the civilizing
influence of Professors J. B. Brebner and R . L, Schuyler, it might
never have been fit to print.
B.H.B.
Naval Air Technical Training Center
Millington. Tennessee
June, 1943
CO N TEN TS
I.
O rig in s
Early Protests against Free T rad e
Spread of Protectionism after 1877
G row th of Protectionist Societies
Form ation of the N ational Fair T rad e League
II.
II I.
IV .
i
2
9
15
17
T a r iff R e fo rm , L ab o r, an d the A n ti-B o u n ty M o vem en t,
18 8 1-18 9 5
29
Fair T rad e and the Workers
T h e Anti-Bounty A gitation: Planters and Refiners
Organized Labor and the Anti-Bounty A gitation
T h e Workers' Anti-Bounty Movement and Fair T rad e
29
39
46
52
T a r if f R e fo rm an d the C o n serva tive P arty, 18 8 1-18 9 5
58
T h e Conservative D rift toward T a riff Reform , 1881-188G
T h e Front Bench Imposes a Censorship, 1886-1890
58
65
T h e L iftin g of the Censorship, 1890-1892
T h e Decline of T ariff Reform , 1892-1895
74
81
T a r if f R e fo rm and Im p erialism , 18 8 1-18 9 5
®5
Protection, Fair T rad e, and Empire, 1881-1886
Pressure from the Colonies, 1887-1891
T h e U nited Empire T rad e League
Pressure from the Colonies, 1892-1895
V . T a r if f R e fo rm , In d u stry, and A g ric u ltu re , 18 8 1-18 9 5
T h e Spread of Fair T ra d e
T h e Decline of Fair T rad e
T ariff Reform and Industry
T ariff R eform and Agriculture
88
95
108
ii8
129
129
137
139
143
B ib lio g ra p h y
<53
In d ex
‘ 63
1
O R IG IN S
rpTHE OBJECT of this cssay is to show that between 1881, when the
N ational Fair T ra d e L eague was formed, and 1895, when J o ­
seph C ham berlain became C o lo n ia l Secretary, tlie essential points
o f C ham berlain ’s later tariff reform m ovem ent gained wude cu r­
rency in G reat Britain; that this was largely the w ork of m anufac­
turers w ho suffered from foreign com petition and foreign tariffs
and w ho desired various forms of protection, retaliation, and reci­
procity; that considerable support cam e from farmers and from
groups agitating for countervailin g duties against foreign bounties;
that the Conservative P arty gave serious attention to all these de­
mands and w ou ld indeed have given m ore had not the alliance
w ith L ib eral U nionists imposed strict lim its on Conservative pol­
icy; that the rising im perialism of the eighties and nineties and
the overtures of colonial statesmen converted w hat was at first a
m ovem ent for protection pure and sim ple into a m ovem ent for
im perial preferential tariffs; and that in the end Joseph C ham ber­
lain had m erely to put him self at the head of a sizable follow ing
w hich had long been seeking a leader o f his stature and had in
fact already singled him out as the likely candidate. A tten tion w ill
be fixed prim arily upon the leaders of the Fair T ra d e m ovem ent,
as it was called, upon their m otives in taking up the question, and
upon the methods w hich they adopted to p u t their views before
the people and Parliam ent. N o attem pt w ill be made to measure
the results in terms of “ pu blic op in ion ” ; nor is it the inten tion
o f this essay to seek any close relationship betiveen price curves,
business cycles, discount rates on the one hand, and protection,
reciprocity, retaliation, im perial preference on the other. It w ill
be clear as we proceed that the circumstances w hich gave these
years the nam e Great Depression are also closely related to de­
mands for tariff reform . B u t this is only part, though an im portant
X
2
ORIGIN’S
pari, of the picture. Men became protectionists usually because
they wanted to secure their bread and butter; bu t often because
they svere Conservatives and wanted am m unition to snipe at L ib ­
erals; often because they believed in the empire; and sometimes,
indeed, because they revered their grandfathers or were members
of the Church of England.
EARLY
PRO TESTS
A G A IN S T
FREE
TRADE
W hatever their motives, protectionists had a formidable task be­
fore them. Free trade had taken a remarkable hold in Britain,
and with it had come unparalleled prosperity. T h e work of Huskisson. Peel, Gladstone, "again Gladstone and shadows of Gladstone
like N orthcote,’’ ' had put Britain in a position wliich no kingdom
(tad occupied “since kings hrst took presents from visiting merchants
or blackm ailed tiie caravans." - T h e essence of the position was
this: no protective duties, that is to say, no duties on imported goods
which competed with goods made at home; bu t only pure revenue
duties, that is, duties on goods not made at home.® A fter the signing
of the Cobden treaty w ith France in i860, although a few items
remained on the lists, the work of dism antling B ritain ’s old protec­
tive system had been largely completed. Food and raw materials
had been freed earlier; i860 saw the end, for all practical purposes,
‘‘o f all duties on manufactures— including silks which had con­
tinued to enjoy the exceptional rate of 1 5 % .’’ ‘ T h e prosperity
w hich accompanied these measures was almost beyond tlie imagina­
tion, "In the twenty-three years between 1850 and 1873 Great
Britain was the forge of the world, the w orld’s carrier, the world's
ship-builder, the w orld’s banker, the w orld’s workshop, the world’s
clearing house, the w orld’s entrepbt. T h e trade of the world dur­
ing this period pivoted on Great Britain." '
It need hardly be said that the basic cause of this prosperity was
not free trade. Britain had attained industrial preem inence w hile
continental nations were settling their differences with Napoleon
1 J . H . C la p h a m , E c o n o m ic H is to iy o f M o d ern B r ita in , II, 242.
2 I b id ,, p . 244,
5 So th a t even a t th e h e ig h t o f free trad e, B r ita in ra ised a h u g e re v e n u e by larifTs—
s o in e ih iu g lik e a tju a rte r oE h e r to ta l rev e n u e , in fact— C . J. lu c h s . T h e T r a d e P olicy
o f G rea t B r ita in and H e r C o lo n ie s, p . 15.
* C- R . F a y , G reat B r ila iu fro jn A d a m S m ith to th e P r e se n t Day^ p. 72.
5 L* C . A . K n o w les, C o m m e rcia l a n d In d u s tr ia l R e v o lu tio n s in G rea t B r ita in , p . 139-
ORIGINS
3
and w h ile A m e ric a was se ttlin g h e r co n tin en t; vast accu m u latio n s
o f cap ital, su p p lies o f raw m aterials, and a m erch an t m arin e second
to n o n e had carried h e r w 'd l in to th e n in eteen th cen tu ry w ith an
u n ch a llen g ea b le lead o v er a ll com petitors; the ad op tio n o f free
trade h a d m erely released her fu ll energies. B u t the coin cid en ce
o f this b reath -tak in g prosp erity w ith the grad u al aban d o n m en t o f
the p ro tective system placed a heavy b u rd en o f p ro o f upon those
w h o d esired to restore the p ro te ctiv e system. T h e r e was a w id e ­
spread b e lie f that, w liacevei th e circu m stances in w hich a n ation
fo u n d itself, w h a tev er po licies w ere ad op ted in oth er cou n tries,
w h atever th e p o litic a l o u tlo o k m igh t be, free trad e was alw ays
r ig h t an d p rotection , in the words o f Joh n B rig h t, “ a stu p id and
im possible p ro p o sitio n .” “ W h en , a fter the collap se o f tlie c o m ­
m ercial treaty system o f the sixties, it daw n ed upon B rita in that
oth er nations w ere by no m eans prep ared to a b a n d o n p rotection ,
the b e lie f persisted. S aid the T im e jo n M arcii 24, 1881, for exam p le:
It w ill, no doubt be one of the great puzzles for future historians to
explain the strange tenacity w ith which intelligent and civilized na­
tions have clung to this doctrine. It has been refuted in the United
States, for exam ple, as completely as here. , . . A n d yet protection was
never much stronger in Am erica than it is now. It is a terrible rebuke
to the labours of economists, to the Cobden C lub, and similar agencies
of enlightenm ent, that they have not visibly weakened that great eco­
nom ical heresy.
W h e n reta lia tio n was d em an d ed against p ro te ctio n ist France, the
T im e s was u n m oved . "P ro te ctio n , as w e w e ll k n o w , b rin gs its o w n
p u n ish m en t,” said a le a d in g article, ‘ W e are safe, therefore, in
lea vin g its adherents to the stern teach in g o f facts. N a tu re w ill re­
taliate u p on F ran ce w h eth er we do so or n o t." ’ E ven as late as
1890, it was said that to c riticize free im ports was “ a very hazardous
en terp rise.”
T h e man who launches ou t upon it is instantly attacked by all the "stat­
isticians” and political economists with the biggest bludgeons they can
find, and it w ill be a lucky thing for him if it is not soon proved that
he is not only destitute of reason and common sense, but that his moral
character has some ugly flaws in it, and that it is exceedingly doubtful
whether he ought to be at large.“
6 B ir m in g h a m
D a ity P o s t , S e p t, i . , , , 83 r .
^NmeteeWk Century’, q u o t e d
G e r m a n T r a d e Rivalry, p . 45 .
in R . } .
s,
T T i m e s , S e p t . a, 18 8 1. I t a lic s m in e .
H o f fm a n ,
Great Britain and
th e
Anrlo-
4
ORIGINS
A ll this, of course, came when questions were being asked and
Cobdenites had to justify themselves. But in i8C6, when the Cobden C lub was formed, it was thought that the new society would be
purely commemorative, not, as it later turned out, a fighting instru­
ment. “ In Mr. Gladstone's speech in the chair at the first of the
clu b ’s dinners . . . there was not one word to indicate . . . that
any controversy existed . . . in this country on the question of
Free T rad e.” “ If there was any controversy, it was between those
who stood by Britain’s existing tariff position and those w'ho wanted
to advance farther in the direction o f free trade, to the point even of
repealing revenue duties. A few extremists argued that B ritain ’s
prosperity could never reach its fullest flower “ until the ports and
harbours of the U nited Kingdom are thrown open as freely and
w idely as the entrances of traders’ shops and warehouses.”
■Yet a com bing of the record yields up isolated bits of evidence
that doubts were being raised even during the heydey of free
trade. As early as 1856 a pamphlet was turned out from the pen
of one Richard Burn, and published in Manchester, of all places,
forcsfiadowing w ith astonishing accuracy some of the arguments
which were to occur ever more frequently as the years wore on.^^
T h e growing adverse balance of trade, the growing percentage of
raw materials and machinery in B ritain ’s total exports, the in­
creasing dependence on foreign food supplies, the im portation of
every cheap product from boys' marbles to four-post bedsteads,
w hile British artisans were out of employment, and the principle
of taxing only those imports which did not compete w ith British
products— these were the objects of B urn ’s criticism. It does not
appear that he had any special axe to grind; that sort of protest did
not come until the sixties. In 1865 it was said that Mr. Treherne,
M.P. for Coventry, won great popularity among the ribbon weavers
of his com m unity for his protests against the Cobden treaty and
demands for protection against French ribbons; at a by-election
in tlie same year the T o ry candidate, H . W. Eaton, took a similar
stand."“ A fter ribbons it was silk, gloves, and watches; especially
silk, an industry which declined rapidly after the removal of the
®R ic h a r d C o w in g , R ic h a r d Cobden^ p ,
10 Jo h n N obJc, T h e P o s sib ility o f E n tire ly R e p e a lin g A l l D u tie s , p , 5: see also J oh n
N o b le , N a tio n a l F in a n c e ,
R ic h a r d B u r n , T h e D a r k e n in g C lo u d ,
12 T im e s, J u n e 16, 1865.
ORIGINS
5
last d u ty in i860,’* A n article in the B u llion ist o£ D ecem ber a i,
1866, asked lor justice to all three. T h e M anchester school, it was
said, had thought on ly o f the consum er, not at all of the producer;
neglectin g the fact that w ith the exception o f the disabled and the
very rich, v irtu ally all consumers were producers and could not con­
sum e if they had no jobs; neglecting, too. that the foreigner, after
rou tin g British com petitors w ith cheap im ports, cou ld k n ife the
consum er by raising prices at w ill. T h e w orkin g class, added the
w riter significantly, w ould surely put m atters right if it got the
vote.
A fter 1867, the year of the second R eform B ill, it was found
that there was a grain of truth in w hat the B u llion ist w riter had said
about the w orking class. T h ere was some fear am ong Liberals that
T o r y protectionists w ould try to turn the new voters against free
trade; and when the n ew ly form ed Conservative W ork in g M en ’s
Associations held a great ban qu et at the Crystal Palace, it appeared
that such m ight very w ell be the case. T h e culprits were L ord John
M anners, C h ief Com m issioner of P u blic W orks, and a Mr. Pitt­
m an o f G reenw ich, w ho called for the im m ediate undoing of Sir
R o bert P eel’s tariffs,’ *
In i86g, w hen trade was slack and em igration of British workers
to the new w orld perceptibly increased, the Association of the “ R e ­
vivers" of British Industry was form ed. “ T h e r e is room for us all in
G reat B ritain, if w e w ou ld look upon ourselves as one fam ily,” said
one of their leaflets; "let us forget prejudices; let us be just before
we are generous; let us be patriotic first. Cosm opolitan w hen w e are
a b le." ” T h e aim of the Revivers was to enlist 100,000 workm en to
petition Parliam ent for “ a re-m odelling of the Custom s’ T a riff con­
cerning Foreign Vessels and F oreign M anufactured Goods that c a n
be m ade in this country, also proposals concerning the British Colo
nies carefully avoiding interference w ith food or Raw M aterials.” ’ *
E ngland had been generous long enough, said the Manifesto; for­
eign nations had proved to be “ so greedy that they w ill not treat us
in a sim ilarly liberal spirit, so the “ r e v i v e r s ” propose to stop their
little gam e"; as a result, it was fondly hoped, “ t h e i r p e o p l e w ould
S ee R . C . R a w ile y , S ilk I n d u s tr y .
t* F in a n c ia l R e fo r m e r , H ec. i, 1867.
o f th e " R e v iv e r s " o f B r it is h I n d u s tr y , T o t h e P e o p le o f E n g la n d .
o f th e " R e v iv e r s ’’ o£ B r it is h I n d u s tr y , M a n ife s to , H e r e a ft e r c ite d
m e re ly as M a n ife s to .
15 A s w c ia t io n
16 A s s o c ia tio n
6
ORIGINS
be OUL of em ploym ent." T h e president, a certain James Roberts,
urged workmen to support T o ry candidates prepared to protect
British labor; as against Liberals like A. J. M undella, who had
moved his factory to Saxony, where labor was cheap, and who was
therefore marked as “ one of the most . . . im portant enemies that
has arisen against the interests of the British workm an.” ” Richard
B urn reappeared, rem inding workers that while Liberals had freed
every article tliat the m anufacturing class desired, they had not
touched the duties on tea, coffee, and sugar, which constituted an
im portant part of the people’s food.’ "* A t about the same time, two
T o ry M-P-’s, C. N. Newdegatc, a hard-shelled old protectionist of
the Bentinck school, and A, Staveley H ill, who later assisted Fair
Traders, became active in the movement.”
Several matters stand out in the Revivers’ agitation, T h e indus­
tries most frequently singled out as needing protection were clocks
and watches, straw hats and bonnets, boots and shoes, gloves, silks
and ribbons, woolens and worsteds, shipping, and iron. T h e towns
they singled out were Macclesfield, Coventry, Spitalfields, Preston,
Manchester, Derby, and Nottingham — all of which continued for
many years to be centers of protectionist agitation. T h e ir greatest
indignation was reserved for the French and the French treaty;
the expiration of which, due in 1870 (unless renewed), was re­
garded as the great opportunity to get on with their policy.""" T h e
“ adverse balance of trade” tvas frequently mentioned, of course;
as was the need for a parliamentary inquiry into the depression—
which rem ained a favorite theme of "redprocitarians” and Fair
Traders until the great inquiry of 1886.” It is notable, too, that in
all the literature of the Revivers there was a studied effort to avoid
that old bugbear of British politics, the “ dear loaf.” It was admitted,
indeed, that duties “on corn and breadstuffs. and in fact on provi.sions of any kind, would be attended with the most disastrous re­
sults.”
Later protectionists welcomed the support of fanners and
Jam es R o b e rts , f r e e T ra de a G ig a n tic M ista k e , p p . 30-39.
I S A M a n c h e ste r M ati (R . liiirn ? ), T h e . . . S tag n a tion o f T r a d e . R . B u rn was
re s p o n sib le fu r th e in tro d u c tio n a t least; h e sig n ed it.
J o h n N o b le , O u r Im ports a n d E x p o rts, p p . 59-43.
s ^ B u r n , T h e . . , Stug n a lion
T r a d e ; a n d G . W ra y , D ep ression o f T r a d e an d th e
F r e n c h T rea ty.
-1 Sec b elo w , p p . 62-6.1.
22 J o h n N o b le , F ree T ra d e, p . 17; also R o b erts, op. cit., p . b8.
ORIGINS
7
skirted the p ro b lem o f the “ dear lo a f” as best they could. T h e fact
was that in the sixties the farm ers w ere n ot yet ready to step u p to
the firin g line."'* Lastly, it sh ou ld be m entioned that m ost o f the
R evivers, setting w h at was to p rove a p op ular fashion am ong tariff
reform ers, w ere fon d o f q u o tin g A d am W i t h an d u su ally insisted
that th eir aim was to secure real free trade, as against one-sided free
trade. T h e M anifesto, how ever, m ade a revealin g slip in this co n ­
nection. B y a d o p tin g a p olicy o f reciprocity, it was said, “ we should
so paralyze foreign m anufacturers, that we should exact Free T ra d e
in six m onths” ; bu t after that "w e must take o u r chances, unless our
rulers of those days see fit to continue the ‘ Revivers’ policy.” =*
It is n o t lik e ly that the R evivers ever reached a large audience.
A m eetin g was h eld at the C orn E xch ange in Preston in A u gu st,
i86g, w ith the L o rd M ayor in the chair; betw een 600 and 800
p eople attended, in clu d in g some o f the p rin cip a l m anufacturers o f
the town.=® T w o weeks later there was an oth er m eetin g at the
C larence H o te l in M anchester; one o f the speakers was a M r. C h a p ­
m an, a cotton broker o f Liverpool.-^ In D ecem ber there was still
another, at the Free T ra d e H a ll in M anchester, at w hich N eirdegate and H ill w ere present.-" T h e n , seem ingly, the m ovem ent died.
T o rie s d en ied that they had encouraged the R evivers; b u t that is as
it m ay be.^®
T h e fo llo w in g year a circu lar appeared an n o u n cin g the fortnatio n o f a Fiscal R eform L eag u e to obtain “ a m odification o f the
Incom e T a x on precarious incom es, a reduction o f taxes on articles
o f first necessity, such as T e a , Sugar, Coffee, M alt, etc.; and . . .
the adop tion o f m oderate duties o n foreign m anufactures fo r the
purpose o f reven u e." A ll “ noblem en, gentlem en, and w o rk in g m en
o f all p o litical parties w illin g to co-operate”
w ere in vited to com ­
m u nicate w ith the Secretary; b u t w hether they d id or no, and in
w hat num bers, w e ha\'e n o t the evidence to decide.
23 “ T h e landed interest . . . is now by far the most prosperous in the country;
and 1 doubt whether in any part of the three kingdoms any considerable number of
landlords or tenants could now be rallied to the cry of Protection to Corn.” Sir
Edward Sullivan, Protection to Native Industry, p. 33.
Italics mine; see also Noble, Free Trade, p. 36; Roberts, Free Trade a Gigantic
Mistake, pp. 29-30: Burn, The . . . Stagnation of Trade, pp. 3(1-37,
Times, Aug. 38, rSGg.
Ibid., Sept. 15, iSdg.
2t John Noble, Our Imports and Exports, pp. 39-43,
28 Sullivan, Protection to Native Industry, p. 136,
2'J Financial Reformer, May 1, 1870.
8
ORIGINS
T h e great forward movement of protectionism did not start
until the seventies, and that after the m iddle of the decade. Its
course can be traced in the columns of the Foreign Tim es, a journal
for commercial travelers and traders appearing w eekly during the
ten years foUotving Novem ber, 1871.®“ T h e Foreign Tim es it would
seem, was the first periodical to launch a sustained attack on
B ritain’s policy of “ one-sided Free T rad e.” One suspects that it
was the organ of the so-called Reciprocity Free T rad e Association,
which began to hold meetings in London at about the same time
that the first numbers appeared. One of the editors, John Sangster,
was a leader in the Association; closely connected with both enter­
prises were J. M. Hyde, who later turned up among Fair Traders,
and Captain Bedford Pirn, an irrepressible quixotic whose eccen­
tricity and zeal later brought the protectionist movement into ill
repute.” Pirn, form erly of H er Majesty’s Navy, then a barrister and
M.P., was during the seventies involved in railroad promotion
schemes in British Honduras.
T h e Foreign Tim es did not underestimate the task of persuad­
ing Britain to change her hscal ways in 1871; “ English trade and
commerce must suffer bitterly for years,” it was said, “ before the
liard lesson w ill be taught to our rulers.” N o hard and fast program
was formulated. For the present it was enough to inveigh perfunc­
torily against Cobdenism and all it stood for and to rem ind C on ­
servatives that they had a glorious protectionist tradition behind
them. T h en in 1874 a note of urgency creeps in. O n August 22, a
serious trade decline is noted. T h e Foreign Tim es hazards the pre­
diction that after the false prosperity follow ing the Franco-German
W ar, British industry w ill be depressed as long as the Governm ent
refuses to retaliate against nations which shut their markets to
British goods. On September 5 Tories are urged to take up the
question at oncc. T w o years pass; there is scarcely any mention of
tariffs. T h en in October, 1876, appears another plea for help from
the Tories, and after that appeals for protection, protection, pro­
tection, every week, week in and week out, until the small voice of
the Foreign Tim es is lost in a greater tum ult.
T h e F o reig n T im e s c o n ta in e d a rtic le s in t h r e e la n g u a g es— E n g lish , F ren ch , an d
S p an ish ,
31 See b e lo w , p . 35,
ORIGINS
g
M ark the turnin g point— 1876. T h e G reat Depression was two
years old. "Apprehensions of foreign com petition . . . haunt us,"
said the London T im es on D ecem ber 11. T h e wholesale price
curve had started its gloom y trend downward, heading for 1896,
twenty years awayl =- E xport values, fallin g steadily, were to reach
181 m illions sterling in 1879 as against 256 m illions for 1872. E x­
ports o f railw ay iron and steel were at the bottom of the trough.®®
C ou ld it have been that C aptain B edford Pirn's H onduran venture
was faring poorly? If so, he was no less fortunate than others. R e ­
m arked a w riter in Fraser’s Magazine:
For the first time almost since the new order of physical progress came
to the fore there has been a stoppage of foreign demand. , . . Progress
appears to have reached for the lime its limit. . . , W e may get out of
this depression with undiminished prestige; but we can hardly get out
of it soon, and, before we do, the trade position of this country loivard
other countries may be decidedly altered.®*
spread
of
p r o t e c t io n is m
A F T F.R
1877
A fter 1877, protection was part of E ngland's table talk. “ W hat a
n um ber of old ladies around the abode of the O ld Lady of T h rea d
needle Streecl" exclaim ed P unch. “ T h e protectionist panic of these
old ladies, however, too clearly shows that, w hatever progress they
m ay have been m aking in the com m ercial w orld, they have any­
thin g but advanced in their know ledge of business.’’
A n d the
E cho of L ondon m urm ured; “ It is strange, after thirty years of
silence, to hear— issuing as it were from the tom b— the assertions
and the fallacies . . . w hich most people supposed w^ere buried b e­
yond hope of resurrecting.”
A t Cam bridge, Professor Fawcett
devoted a series of lectures to exposing these fallacies in their true
light.®’ It was an opportunity which any good Liberal w ould have
w elcom ed, “ I ivish it could be arranged lor the C ham ber of C om ­
m erce to invite an address on ‘R ecip rocity,’ " M undella w rote a
friend. “ I think I could explode that nonsense.”
T h e nonsense was, indeed, everyw'here. Lord Batem an had spread
C la p h a m , E c o n o m ic H u io r y o f M o d e r n S r i la in , I I , gyS.
33 I b id ., p. ss y .
3‘ f r o j e r ' j M a g a zin e , S ep t., 18 76, q u o t e d in H o fim a n , G rea t B r ita in a n d t h e A n g lo G e rm a n T r a d e R iv a lr y , p . ig ,
35 Quoted in M o n e ta r y G a ze lie , Jan. ig , iSy g .
35 Q u o t e d in f i n a n c ia l R e fo r m e r , D e c . 1, 187S.
s 'A fo n e ia r y C a z e tle , O ct. 27. 1877.
ss M u n d ella MSS, N ov. 26, 1878.
lo
ORIGINS
it generously in a letter to the Tim es in Novem ber, 1877, asking
for "lim ited reciprocity."
A fter thirty years of trial, he com­
plained, all England had was one-sided free trade.
Our overtures to other countries are disregarded: our commercial trea­
ties are not renewed; our own trade is in a sinking and unprofitable
condition; our exports show a lamentable, alarming, and increasing
deficit; our Exchequer is affected; and, worse than all, not a single
country in Europe . , . can be cajoled by the most specious temptation
into following our example of free imports. . . . I ask whether that
grave moment of reflection and self-examination has not now arrived
when it behooves all classes who feel themselves sensibly affected, to
pause and seriously revieiv the present position; and if a false step has
been made, as many think, to have the courage and tlte energy to re­
trace it without delay.
L ord Bateman's letter let the floodgates down: the Bradford Chron­
icle and M ail, Bradford Observer, Yorkshire Post, Burnley Adver­
tiser, Stamford Mercury, Sheffield Daily Telegraph, Manchester
Courier, O ldham Standard, M orning Post, G lobe, St. James’s
Gazette, and Daily Telegraph were only a few of the papers which
opened their columns to protectionist correspondence, and some
made Bateman’s proposals part and parcel of their editorial policy.
T h e same was true of the fashionable reviews: the Quarterly, Fort­
nightly, N ineteenth Century, Fraser's Magazine. And on top of this
a deluge of protectionist pamphlets appeared.
Clearly, free tr.ade was losing some of its charm. Chambers of
Com m erce in Sheffield, Bradford, Bristol, Dewsbury, and Hudders­
field— to name only a fetv— tvere questioning it. A typical debate
in Bristol resulted in the defeat, by 14 votes to 11, of a resolution
to the effect that "as no foreign nation w ill at present receive our
goods duty free, we should impose a duty on their manufactures.” “
T h e Huddersfield Cham ber, on the other hand, protested against
foreign tariffs and asked that relations between the m other coun­
try and the Colonies be exam ined “ with the view of steps being
taken to place these relations upon a more satisfactory basis.” "
T h e Associated Chambers of Commerce sent a deputation to the
Foreign Office asking the Governm ent to take up the question of
s fB a t e m n n , L ord BaU m an's Plea fo r Lim ited Reciprocity, R e p rin te d fro m th e
T h fteso t N o v. 12, 1877.
■*0 B ra d fo rd
C hrorticU a n d M a il, D ee. ao . 1878; F in a n c ia l R e fo r m e r , J a n , i , 1879.
■
*1 F in a n cia l R e fo r m e r, M ay 1, 1879.
ORIGINS
11
prohibitory duties in supposedly friendly countries; b u t later de­
cisively defeated a resolution dem anding retaliatory duties.** In
W olverham pton, Birm ingham , and C oventry, influential m anu­
facturers formed com m ittees to agitate for recip ro city." T h e Lord
M ayor o f London received a petition w ith over aoo signatures ask­
in g for a m eeting at the G u ild h all to discuss the trade question
“ w ith a view , if necessary, o f m odifying our present so-called Free
T ra d e system.” **
T h e storm center was Bradford. H ere tlie worsted trade was
greatly depressed: tariffs in tlie U n ited States and G erm any had
had a disastrou.s effect, and in English fem inine fashions there was
an unhappy "turn of the beam " in favor o f soft French woolens.
“ I can get a veiy d eligh tfu l dress of French m ake," w rote one lady,
"fo r about half w hat 1 should have to pay for the most dreadful
look in g thin g from B radford." ** Facing the crisis heroically, the
Countess of Bective form ed a "B u y British le a g u e ” and wrote a
pam phlet urging F.nglish ladies to join; a B radford com m ittee
prom ptly took Q,ooo copies.** W hen the L ad y and her Earl visited
the town, “ the p u b lic buildings and principal warehouses . . .
had been decorated w ith such profusion as almost to im part the
sem blance of a R oyal visit to the occasion.” *’’
T h e fall in exports was the chief source of alarm.
O ur trade with America has fallen from four millions to i,aoo,ooo a
year and with Germany the fall is, if anything, greater. These countries
nsetl to be our best customers, but now, by the aid of high protective
duties, they inanufacture nearly all they require. . . . Unless the na­
tions of Europe and the United States can be induced to t r e a t with us
on fair terms . . . our foreign trade, as regards Bradford, is doomed
to decay.**
S. C unliffe Lister and J. H, M itch ell, both wealthy m anufacturers,
broached the subject of protection at tbe C ham ber of Com m erce,
and, finding themselves in a m inority, appealed to p u b lic opinion
« B r a d fo r d C h r o n i c h a n d M a il, F e b . a8, 1878. F o r e ig n T im e s , M a rc h a, 1878, B r itis h
E m p ir e , S ep t. 6. 1879.
‘ s f i n a t t c i f li R e fo r m e r , S e p t. 1, 1878.
t* M o n e ta r y G o ie t le , J a n , ig , 1879. F in a n c ia l R e fo r m e r , F e b . 1, 1879.
*5 L e t t e r s ig n e d “ A T h o u g h t f u l D a u g h t e r ," D a ily T e le g r a p h , A u g , 20. 1881.
*6 A lic e M a r ia T a y lo r . C o u n te s s o f B e c t iv e , T h e B r it is h W o o le n T r a d e . See also
T im e s , A u g . i r , 18S1; W o o l a n d T e x t i le F a b r ic s , .Sept. 17 a n d 24, i8 8 t,
B r a d fo r d O b se rv er , S ep t. 20, 1S81.
B r a d fo r d C h r o n ic le a n d M a il, A u g . 9 , 1877,
12
ORIGINS
at a mass m eeting in St. George's H all. Lister, whose workm en
were quarrelsome, argued that England could not afford better
working conditions than France as long as French products entered
the British market duty free. Some were convinced; some were not.
B ut the suggestion was provocative, and raised a storm of meetings
and letters to the editors of local papers, Bradford, as the Econo­
mist said, was indeed “ the cradle of Fair T rad e,”
Meanwhile, what of the farmers? " It is evident,” said the Finan­
cial Reform er in 1879, "that in the agricultural districts there is
great need for enlightenm ent w ith respect to the principles of
political economy. T h e generation that was educated by the A n ti­
Corn Law League has passed away, and it seems as if the w ork of
that organization w ill have to be done over again before the ghost
o f protection is finally laid," “ A t a stock show in Louth the chair­
man declared that “ som ething ought to be done at once to protect
our native industry"; and at a Spalding agricultural m eeting a
speaker urged farmers to unite on the question: “ If all advocated
protection with a determ ination to have it, they w ould get it.”
T h e Duke of R utland, calling for 5s, on Am erican wheat, asked
his listeners to settle the matter "at the next general election,"*®
And a lesser farm er echoed his recommendation in a letter to the
Stamford Mercury: "I say to my brother farmers . . . make this a
hustings question; extract a pledge from your candidate; sink all
m inor differences, and vote only for the man who w ill support the
repeal of this iniquitous free trade.” *’ T h e Lincolnshire Cham ber
of A griculture passed a resolution dem anding protective duties on
corn and wheat.** Farmers’ meetings at Essex, Bethnal Green, and
Birkenhead took sim ilar action."
So far the question was one m ainly of protection: protection for
silk or woolens or hardware or wheat; or against Germ any, France,
or the U nited States, depending on where you lived and in what
trade you were engaged. V ery early, however, the discussion o f
protective tariffs broadened into a discussion of im perial tariff
E c o n o m ist, N ov- 39, i8 8 i.
F in a n cia l R e fo r m e r , J an . 1, 1S79. F o r t h e m ost co g e n t a rg u m en ts fa v o r in g a g r i­
c u ltu r a l p r o te c tio n a t th is lim e , see H e n ry C h a y to r , A g ricu h w re a n d th e T r a d e D e ­
pression . O n th e o th e r sid e. I . S. L e a d a m . Farm er's G rievan ces.
s iF in a n e ia ! R e fo r m e r, J an . I , 1S79.
‘ t I b id ., O c t. 1 , 1879.
Q u o te d in ibid., J an . 1, 1879.
« I b id ., A p r il 1, 1879,
5s f o r e i g n T im e s, A u g , 16, S ep t. S7. a n d N o v. 8, 1879.
ORIGINS
13
preference. As everyone must have known, it was the sheerest makebelieve to argue that Britain, in this new day and age, could plan
seriously to becom e independent of overseas sources of supply; and,
as more than one protectionist candidate learned, it was to many
w ell-fed voters a dreary kind o f m ake-believe at that. A self-suffi­
cient E m pire was som ething else again, at once more practicable
and m ore appealing. Many Englishm en, w atching the shadow of
Bism arck grow large over Europe, w ere rediscovering the merits
o f the old im perial system, w hich had rested, in large measure, on
differential tariffs. T h e identification of the two questions took
place as easily as the coupling of cars. As one tariff reform er put it,
the patriotic and the econom ic questions were sim ply one and in d i­
visible.
Skeptics were en titled to wonder, however, if events had not
m oved too far downstream to justify talk of restoring the old prefer­
ential system. Canada notv had autonom y in tariff matters, and by
the adoption o f M acdonald’s N ational P olicy in 1879 had reared a
forbid d ing wall against Brirish as w ell as foreign goods. H er m ar­
kets were, on the w hole, no more accessible to the British trader
than the G erm an or Am erican markets. It took two parties to make
a tariff bargain; was Canada w illing?
T hese doubts w ere settled somewhat, chough not entirely, by
various Canadian spokesmen taking active part in the tariff reform
m ovem ent in B ritain. One o f the earliest was Sir A lexand er G alt,
the first C anadian H igh Com m issioner in London. Speaking at a
m eeting of the Associated Cham bers of Com m erce in 1879, G alt
explained that although Canada had been forced by the p roh ib i­
tory policy of the U nited States to erect tariffs in self-defense, "there
is not a colonist in the British Em pire w ho w ould not rejoice to see
its entire trade arranged on such terms as w ould produce practical
free trade w itliiu itself. Com m ercial U n ion is practicable, and can
be achieved by British statesmen w henever they are convinced o f
its w isdom .” =“ In 1880, before leaving Canada to take up the duties
o f H igh Com m issioner, G alt said p u b licly that
the Free Trade policy of England has . . . proved a failure, and that
the people of England arc now awakening to the fact that they have
within their own dominions a market larger than that which the foreign
SS Ib id . O c t . S5, 1879.
14
ORIGINS
countries can ever give them; that it only requires a wise policy on their
part, and combined action on ours, to make the Empire independent
of foreign countries for everytiiing it requires.
T h e unem ploym ent, or, as some preferred, the overpopulation
o f England, could also be relieved.
A t the same time that we are on the eve of opening up that vast coun­
try, which w ill give England a full supply of wheat, the necessities of
England . . . render it of the utmost importance that she should find
a new home for the suffering thousands who are anxious to leave and
must emigrate unless she desires to have a social revolution in her
midst,”
A t about the same time, the D om inion Board o f T ra d e o f Canada
d ep u ted one of its members, R. R . D obell, to start a m ovem ent
fo r a conference of Im perial Cham bers of C om m erce ‘ ‘fo r the p u r­
pose of drau'ing closer the trade relations betw een G reat B ritain
and her colonics.” “ W e had the greatest difficulty in gettin g a m eet­
in g ,” said D obell: "there was nobody w hom w e could ask to ap­
point delegate.s to m eet us.” B u t o u t of his efforts was born the
Lond on C ham ber of Com m erce, host to the later congresses of im ­
p erial chambers.*®
T h e im portance of Canada’s part in the tariff reform m ovem ent
can hardly be overem phasized. In the negotiations leading to the
establishm ent of the post of H igh Com m issioner in L ondon , the
C anadian delegates, M acdonald, T u p p e r, and T ille y , confidentially
told the C olon ial M inister that althougli Canada was forced to re­
sort to protection for revenue and for retaliation against the U n ited
States, she nevertiiclcss wanted "to restore the greatly dim inished
trade w ith G reat B ritain and the W est Indian Islands. . . . T h e
G overnm ent of Canada are prepared . . . to give distinct trade
advantages to G reat B ritain, as against foreign countries, and they
sought to do so in their arrangem ent of tlie present tariff.”
The
Canadians had high hopes for their "p roject o f revivin g the old sys­
tem of im perial tariff preferences,” for the depression in E ngland
gave no prom ise o f liftin g, and they thought that some C onserva­
tives, like Salisbury, showed “ strong Fair T ra d e leanings.”
” F o r e ig n T im e s , M a y i , 1880. O . D . S k e lt o n , S ir A le x a n d e r G a lt, p p . 528-30.
J o u r n a l o f th e R o y a l C o lo n ia l I n s titu te , V o l. X X V , N o . 7 , M a y 8, 1894: F o r e ig n
r i i j i e j , J a n . 1, 1881.
'
=6 E . M , S a u n d e rs (ed.), S ir C h a r le s T a p p e r , I , 2 7 3 -7 5 .
62 S k e lto n , o p . c it., p p . 52 5-3 8 .
ORIGINS
15
B u t these signs o f the tim e were m isleading, as G a lt was to dis­
cover when he arrived in London. IE Conservatives leaned toward
reciprocity, the mass of Englishm en did not; and they said so at
the polls in 1880. “ W ith all the people I m eet," G a lt wrote M ac­
donald, “ the Libera! victory is regarded as a reindorsem ent o f the
existin g form of Free T ra d e .”
A n d again, to T ille y : “ W e can
scarcely hope to have as friendly a G overnm ent to deal w ith as that
w hich is about to pass aw ay."
W hen t/ie Liberal G overnm ent as­
sum ed office, he found that D ilke, negotiating for renew al of the
French treaty, was alone sym pathetic. "Strange as it may seem, I
found he leaned to the R eciprocity heresy. . . , H e qu ite laughed,
however, at the prospect of G ladstone consenting to anything o f the
k in d .”
B u t G alt did not surrender easily. “ O f course I shall not
suggest a Zollverein to them , for the present!" he w rote in May,
“ If I can get them com m itted to aid Em igration, it tvill be the thin
end o f the w edge,”
GROSVTH
OF
P R O T E C T IO N IS T
S O C IE T IE S
In this fertile ground, protectionist d u b s and leagues sprouted
freely. T h e oldest, the R e d jiro city Free T ra d e .Association, has al­
ready been m entioned. It is tvorth noting, hoivever, that in 1879
the Association q uicken ed the pace of its activity; held w eekly
m eetings at the Q u een ’s Head H otel; and developed, for the first
tim e, a keen interest in the Empire."* A n address was sent to ilie
G overnor-G eneral and to botli houses of the Canadian P.arliament
u rgin g a scheme of preference as regards the m otlier country.'’®A
branch form ed in the East End o f London brought protectionist
argum erns to the laboring classes, and in the election of 1880
speakers were sent up and down the country to support “ friends o f
native industry" standing for Parliam ent. A fter the election, a p e ti­
tion sent to the House o f Com m ons showed how “ one-sided Free
T r a d e ” had wrecked large sections of British in d u stry.'’
A n other organization with sim ilar aims, though perhaps w ith
a more obvious political bias, ivas form ed by L ord Batem an shortly
after his celebrated letter appeared in the Tim es. It was called at
S I / A id ., p .
F o r e ig n
00F o r e ig n
<sr F o r e ig n
533.
»=/iiiVi-, p . 529.
P P - 5 3 3 -3 1 .
T im e s , M a rc h 15, 1879: B r itis h F .m p ire, S e p t. s o . 1879.
T im e s , J a n . 17 , 1880; B r itis h E m p ir e , S ep t. 20, 1879.
Tirttes, J u n e 5 , jS S o ,
5t / p ir f.,
p . 5 3 1,
i6
ORIGINS
first the Conservative Protectionist Association, but later became
the N ational Society for the Defense of British Industries. T h e
secretary, a certain George Rose, appealed through advertisements
in the press to "all Conservatives interested in the im portant ques­
tion of Free T rad e or lim ited protection recently raised by Lord
Batem an"; but apparently the result was unsatisfactory, for after
strutting a brief hour, the Society w ould seem to have left the
stage.““
Lord Batem an’s creation was succeeded by the National and
Patriotic League for the Protection of British Interests, formed to
com bat “ the disastrous fiscal legislation of the generation now pass­
ing away.” T h e League apparently intended to carry the question
to the workers, for its first act was to convene a m eeting at Hyde
Park. T h ere the secretary, R . H. Arm it, though perhaps he spoke
what was in the hearts of many protectionists, spoke a little too
plain and bold; his mission, he said, was to end “ the Bright-Gladstone Free T rad e bastard policy.” T h is was strong music for V ic­
torian ears, and A rm it’s hour on the stage was even briefer than
Lord Batem an’s.
T h e next year, at a m eeting of aoo “ bankers, merchants, and
others” at the Canon Street H otel in London, the N ational Indus­
trial Defense Association was form ed.” Its leader; C. W . Stokes. Its
aim, as announced in the Times: “ to avert national ruin by taxing
foreign agriculturists and manufacturers to the relief of those
British taxes on malt, etc., and income, which enhance the price of
British food and manufactures.”
Its history: fleeting.
T h is musiiroom growth of protectionist leagues spread to Bir­
mingham, Sheffield, W olverham pton, and other m anufacturing
centers.” O f these provincial attempts, the Birm ingham Reciproc­
ity League was characteristic. It was under the leadership of Fred­
erick Blood, a merchant of buttons, steel toys, jewelry, and watches,
w ho did not object to having it known that he had become a pro­
tectionist only after his business began to suffer.” Blood, like Lister
'‘ ^ M on eta ry G a z e lle , D ec. i a n d 29, 1877; Jan . s6 a n d F eb , 23. 1878.
S'! I b id ., F eb . 23, 1878.
lo ib id .
rz fin a n c ia l R e fo r m e r, M arch 1 a n d M a y i, 1879.
Q u o te d in ib id ., J u n e t , 1B79,
-s M on eta ry G a zette , M a rc h 1. 1879.
U F a i r T r a d e , A p r il 18, i8 go, fo r b io g ra p h ic a l sketch . See also B r itis h E m p ir e , J u ly
12 , 1879.
ORIGINS
17
in Bradford, was interested p rim arily in co n v en in g the w orking
classes and always claim ed that the m ovem ent had “ originated
m ainly am ong w o rk in g m e n .” ” H is League had two m ain objects.
T h e first was to induce the G overnm ent to arrange w ith the colo­
nies and dependencies “ fo r the interchange of all English and colo­
n ial goods and com m odities free o f duty, or subject o n ly to m oder­
ate duties for revenue purposes.” T h e second was to impose against
all foreign countries “ im port duties equal in am ount to those they
im pose on English and colonial goods and productions.”
The
League w orked hand-in-glove w ith D avid M aclver, w ho kept the
question alive in the Parliam ent □£ 1874-80 and later helped form
the F air T ra d e League. A n o th e r collaborator was P. A . M untz,
w ho also sat in Parliam ent. M any m eetings w ere held, and a “ rec­
iprocity" petition was once sent to Parliam ent, containing, it was
claim ed, 65,000 B irm ingham signatures."
F O R M A T IO N
OF
TH E
N A T IO N A L
F A IR
TRADE
LEAGUF-
T h e most conspicuous result o f this protectionist ferm ent was
the form ation of the N ational Fair T ra d e League.’ * T h e League,
m ore than any of the organizations w ith w hich w e have dealt, was
an expression of its times; times of depression, of im perialism , and
o f an xiety over the future of England, Because o f this, and because
it had the support of m en of influence and w ealth, it enjoyed a
rather lon g life as the lives of such “ agitating societies” go. Its roots
struck deep. A n d from its foundation in 1881 to its demise in 1891,
w hen its w ork was, in large measure, finished, it exercised no little
influence over the shifting currents o f op in ion that the new age
had released.
H ow did it start? W h o w ere its founders? C onsider first W , Farrer
Ecroyd, head of the great firm of \Vm. Rcroyd and Sons, worsted
m anufacturers of B urn ley and Bradford. D u rin g the forties, Ecroyd
had cam paigned against the C orn Laws. L ater, as other nations
erected barriers against British goods, he becam e convinced that
a free-trading E ngland could not h old ou t alone. In 1874, when
contesting Carlisle, and again in 1880, w hen standing against H anM o n e ta r y G a z e tte , M a r c h i , iB jg .
r e / b id ., M a r c h i , 1870.
” F a ir T r a d e , A p r i l 18, iB go; B r it is h E m p ir e , J u ly 12, 1879.
« S e c t h e e x c e lle n t s h o rt essa y b y S y d n e y H e n r y Z e b e l. F a ir T r a d e ; an E n g lis h R e ­
a c tio n to t h e B r e a k dozen o f th e C o b d e n T r e a ty S ystem .
i8
ORIGINS
ington in North East Lancaslhre, he frankly advocated tariffs. H e
was unsuccessful both times. Finally, at a by election in Preston in
1881, a thum ping m ajority put him before Parliam ent and the
country as the spokesman for the protectionist cause. T w o years
earlier Ecroyd had published T h e Policy of Self-Help, which ap­
peared in several editions and became the bible of Fair Traders.
T h e book outlined the failure of Cobden’s prophecy that tariffs
w ould disappear the world over, and argued that the only hope
lay in welding the m other country and dependencies into “one
great free trade Empire, capable . . . of supplying all its own
essentia! wants.” A n imperial tariff -would enclose resources and
power suflident to ensure that living standards w 'O i d d not fall: “A
free trade Empire of 300 m illions of people, em bracing every
variety of soil and clim ate, and strong to maintain the freedom of
the seas, would be no mean world in itself.”
Ecroyd's book supplied a program that ultim ately proved to be
the only one upon which those who w'cve dissatisfied tvith free
trade could unite. T h is ivas no small task. For between m anu­
facturers w'ho feared French woolens and farmers who feared Am er­
ican wheat, betw'ccn w'orkevs who feared foreign sweat-shops and
refiners who feared foreign subsidies, there were many and im­
portant differences. Some wanted reciprocity to force down foreign
tariffs; some w'anted protection; w hile none cared very much about
the other fellow. T h e y did not cooperate easily. T h ere was con­
siderable truth in the observation once made by an old free trader:
'T h e strength of our position is this, that every free trader is the
ally of every other free trader, whereas every protectionist looks
w ith jealousy on those w'ho wish to protect articles in regard to
which he is a consumer, and not a producer." ”
Another to whom Fair 1 rade owed much was S. Cunliffe Lister
(later l.ord Masham), inventor, silk manufacturer, and proprietor
of the famous Manningham M ills at Bradford. T h e silk industry
has been disastrously affected by imports from France follow ing
the Cobden treaty of i860, and while prices fell. Lister was
plagued by workmen whose wages and employment were in turn
f 9 I.o rd D c riji', q u o le d in T im e s, D e c. 2, 1887. C o n c e rn in g E c ro yd , see: F a ir T ra d e,
F eb . 28, 1890; B ra d fo r d Oii.se>-uer, M ay 23. 18S1; Preston H era ld , M ay 14, i« 8 i; Preston
G u a rd ia n , J u n e 4, t8 8t; E c ro yd , A S p e e ch ; E c ro yd , F a ir T ra de.
ORIGINS
ig
affected, “ N o strike com m ittee, no master, not Lister and Co., but
the foreigner at C refeld and Lyons, " he told them, "fixes the rate
of wages to be paid at M anninghaiii M ills. W h at he pays, Lister and
Co, m ust pay, as long as his goods come into E ngland free," Lister,
always concerned prim arily w ith these proxim ate questions o f
wages and prices, did not care overm uch for im perial preference
or protection to farmers: bu t for the sake of a com m on front against
free trade, he becam e an im perialist and w orked for agricultural
as well as industrial protection,®^
T o Lister and Ecroyd it is necessary to add Sampson Sam uel
L loyd , w ell-know n m anufactwrcr o f B irm ingham and chairm an of
the Board of D irectors of L loyd's B an kin g Com pany, Ltd. A typical
late-Victorian man of affairs, L lo yd had founded the C ham ber of
Com m erce of B iim ingham , and later the Associated C ham ber of
Com m erce, w hich he served as president from i86a to 1880. He
was a m em ber o f the Birm ingham School Board, m agistrate for the
county W arw ick, and a successful Parliam entary candidate ttvice
in five attempts.®^ A fter Ecroyd, he was tlie most cogent of Fair
T ra d e w riters, and in 1885 com pleted the first English translation
of Friedrich L ist’s great protectionist apology. T h e N ational Sys­
tem of P olitical Economy.
A fourth m em ber o f the Fair T ra d e group was D avid M aclver,
shipowner, form erly of the C unard line. H e was magi.strate and
alderm an of L iverpool, chairm an o f the L iverpool Steamship O w n ­
ers Association, director of the G reat W estern R ailw ay, and C o n ­
servative M.P.*= T lie others were Edward Charles H ealey, founder
and proprietor o f the Engineer;
T hom as W righ t Fenton of the
D ew sbury C ham ber o f Com m erce;
and James T rce v e Edgecome,
a journalist who edited various Fair T rad e publications a n d proba­
bly wrote m ore on the subject than any man of his time.*"
*0 S.
C , L is te r , F ree T r a d e in C o r n ,
S i / i i d . ; B r a d fo r d O b s c t w r , O c t. 5 a n d 6, 18S1; B i it ls h E m p ir e , F eb . 21. iS8o; fo r
m o r e a b o u t L is te r , see th e D ic tio n a r y o f M a tiv n a l B io g ra p h y .
82 F r e d e r ic
O c t,
It,
B o a s t . M o d e r n E n g lis h B io g ra p h y , V o l. V I ; M e n o f th e W est; F a ir T r a d e ,
1889; S, ,S. L lo y d , T h e F a ir T r a d e P o lic y .
'
‘ s F a i r T r a d e , O c t , 25, 1889.
s t Ib id ., N o v . i j , iS S g .
s s i h i d , N o v , s i , i8 go,
ss E d g e c o m e w a s e d ito r o f F a ir T r a d e , a lt h o u g h h e h id ih e fa c t as w e ll as h e
c o u ld . H e s ig n e d c e r ta in c o r re s p o n d e n c e as e d ito r , M a y 10, iS S g. A g a in , o n M a r c h 15,
18S9, it w a s a n n o u n c e d th a t t h e e d it o r ivcm ld s ta te th e F a i r T r a d e case a t th e
N a t io n a l L i b e r a l C lu b ; a n d tw o w eek s la te r , it w a s r e p o r t e d th a t t h e sp e a k e r h a d
so
ORIGINS
It is somewljat exasperating that the story of Fair T rad e must be­
gin with Edgecome, the journalist, about whom we know least o f
all. M uch of his history is hidden by the convention of editorial
anonymity. It appears, however, that in Novem ber, 1877, he was
editor of the Monetary Gazette, a staunch free-trade paper which
at that time underwent a memorable conversion to the protection­
ist cause. Since 1874 the Gazette had preached the C obdcnite gospel
w ithout fail; free trade was white, protection black; and rvhenever
“ Reciprocitarians” were suspected to lurk near by, the Gazette was
q uick to raise the hue and cry.®’ Even the Financial Reformer, that
oracle of free traders, commended its “ excellent contem porary” as
a “journal which is not afraid to proclaim the truth from the house­
tops.”
W hen Lord Batem an’s protectionist letter appeared in the Tim es
in Novem ber, 1877, the Gazette could scarcely master its wrath.
T h en suddenly, in almost a shorter time than it took to say "Q ueen
V ictoria,” free trade flew out and protection in: Lord Batem an’s
heretical statements had become a "plain and outspoken letter” ; **
an article oil the “ Results o f Free T rad e” showed how foreign
com petition liad paralyzed England’s industry;
and a leading
article demanded “ a total revision of our commercial policy.”
A t the same time, advertisements of Lord Bateman’s new Conserva­
tive Protectionist Association began to appear, and all those inter­
ested were invited to communicate with the editor.” W hat part
Edgecome played in these proceedings cannot be fu lly known. W e
do not know whether he was editor before the changes took place,
or whether he arrived just in time to supervise the alterations. W e
can be reasonably sure o f only one thing, in fact: he was editor in
Novem ber, 1877, when the paper set out on its new course, and he
continued in that capacity for some time thereafter,®*
b e e n E d g ecom e . L o rd D u n ra v e n o n c e c la im e d th a t h e h im se lt was e d ito r; b u t i t he
w as, it w a s fo r a s h o r t lim e only*
s 7 S ee alm o5i a n y n u m b e r b e fo re N o v ., i8yy.
F in a n c ia l R e fo r m e r, A p r il i a n d O c t. i , 1877.
M o n eta ry G a zette, D e c. i , 1877.
s"/W rf., N o v . 24, 1877.
»1 fb id ., p e c . I, 18 77 ,
S2 Ib id ., D e c. 1, 187 7.
» 5 l say "re a so n a b ly stire," b ecau se tb e e v id e n c e is ju st slio rt o f c o n clu sive. T h e
sta te m e n t rests o n th e fo llo w in g : i) T e n years la ter, E d g eco m e said h e "firs t p u t p en
to p a p e r ” o n tlie s u b je c t o f tarilts in N o v ., 1877— L a ir T r a d e , N o v . 1 1 , 1887. a) T h is
w as th e v e ry tim e th a t th e M on eta ry G a zette to o k u p p ro te c tio n , 3) E d g ecom e w as,
as w e s h a ll see, e d ito r o f th e B r itis h E m p ir e , a fte r th a t p a p e r was in c o rp o ra te d w ith
ORIGINS
21
T h e Gazeite., despite its new clothes and im portant friends, was
n ot prosperous. P u blication was suspended in M arch, 1878. re­
sum ed later in the year, ilien finally abandoned. Edgecom e records
that he had spent his savings and was greatly discouraged.”*
A t this tim e a letter reached him from S. C u n lilfe Lister of Brad­
ford. Lister expressed approval of Edgecom e's struggle in b elialf o f
B ritish industry; he said that he was an o ld man. b u t that he was
prepared to spend the rest of his life and £5,000 to fu rth er the
cau se." T h e result was a new w eekly called the British Em pire, “ A
N ational N ewspaper w ith w hich is incorporated tlie Monetary
Gazette."
A m ong the directors were Lister, Edgecom e, and J. M.
H yde, o f the old R eciprocity Free T rad e Society."’ T h e paper ap­
peared w eekly between M ay 3, 1879, and May 29, 1880, ivhen it
cam e to grief on charges of lib elin g Charles Bradlaugh, the atheist.
O ne of the first tasks to w hich the British Em pire turned was
that of organizing the "various scattered forces" opposed to free
trade. " T h e m om ent for unity and action on this question was
n ever m ore auspicious than at present," said a leading article on
J u ly 12, 1879. A t about this same tim e, in fact, the forces w ere ac­
tually organizing; in the sum m er of 1879 the first two meetings of
the Fair T ra d e grou p were held at the W estm inster Palace H otel in
L ond on , u nder the leadership o f Ecroyd.”®T h e d i s c u s s i o n s w ere
tentative, but two decisions were reached: first, that if protection
was to be restored in England, it w ould have to be protection “ all
aroun d," that is for industry and agricu ltu re alike; second, that the
grou p should act as a com m ittee “ to define, consolidate, and dis­
close the principles" upon w hich protectionists could most ad­
vantageously “ take their stand at the forthcom ing election .” T a c ­
t ile G a z e tte . 4) E d g e c o m e rec o rd s th a t h e h a d s p e n t h is sav in g s in th e s tr u g g le a g a in s t
a n d th a t th e f u t u r e lo o k e d b la c k ; th e d a te a t iv h k li h is fo r tu n e s w ere , o n
h is o w n s ta te m e n t, a t s u c h lo w e b b , c o rre sp o n d s p re c is e ly w ith ih e d a t e o n w h ic h th e
M o n e ta r y G a z e tte h a d 10 s u s p e n d p u b lic a t io n . M o s t o f tliis w ill e m e rg e as th e sto ry
p ro cee d s.
tree t r a d e ,
»* F a ir T r a d e , N o v . 1 1 . 18S7,
f t I b id ., N o v . 4 . 1887. A g a in , E d g e c o m e ; " i n 1879, w h e n th e m o v e m e n t s e e m e d to
b e d y in g , o u r C h a ir m a n [L iste r] c a m e fo r w a r d w it h jyjxta p o u n d s, a n d so p u t re n e w e d
li f e in t o o u r w o r k ." I b id ., N o v , 1 1 . 1887.
•
»* B r it is h E m p ir e , M a y 3, 1879.
er I b id ., S ep t. s y , 1879.
>8 f a i r T r a d e , S p e c ia l E x t r a N u m b e r , D e c . 3 1 , 1887. See a lso th e s p e e c h b y L lo y d ,
re p o r te d in M o r n in g D o st, D e c . 13, i8 8 t,
98 £ ritis/t E m p ir e , A u g , 23, 1S79.
22
ORIGINS
tical questions also were considered. T h ere tvas some debate, for
example, whether the call to arms sliould issue from London or the
provinces. In general, opinion inclined toward the latter. As the
British Empire pointed out on August j6, 1879, “ the agitation
must spring from those provincial districts where the producer's
interest is more apparent, rather than from the metropolis, where
consumers and distributors of the necessities of life rule para­
m ount.'’ T h is view was reiterated by the Bradford Chronicle and
M ail, whose editor, W . H. Hatten, was close to the Ecroyd group:
“ If there is one thing that seems more certain than another, it is
that any attempt to operate upon the country from any London
association must end in collapse. . . , T h e country must express
its opinion to London before the force and the influence of London
can react upon the provinces.”
T hese tactical considerations, perhaps, led Ecroyd to call the
third m eeting at Derby, N ovem ber 20, 1879. T hose attending were
Ecroyd, Lister, Lloyd, M aclver, Fenton, and Healey. Ecroyd was
chairman, Healey secretary. T here was unanimous agreement on
seven points: 1) T h a t industrial raw materials should be admitted
free from all quarters; 2) T h a t a moderate duty, not exceeding 10
percent, should be placed on all food entering from foreign coun­
tries, w hile food from the Empire should be admitted free; 3) T h a t
all articles at present taxed for revenue, such as wine, spirits, and
tobacco, should, when received from foreign countries, pay a d if­
ferential duty of 10 percent over and above that levied on the same
products shipped from the Empire; 4) T h a t any Colony whicli per­
sisted in m aintaining a protective {not a revenue) tariff after these
concessions had been made ought to be placed on the same footing
as foreign nations; 5) T h a t England should withdraw at once from
the system of most-favored-nation commercial treaties in order to
regain the power of bargaining for equal treatment; 6) T h at, in
order to obtain equal treatment, England should place a duty of at
least JO percent on all foreign m anufactured articles, giving notice
that nations agreeing to admit English goods duty free would re­
ceive the same cpncession in return; and 7) T h a t all articles in ­
T r a d e , O c t. lo , 1890.
lo i B r a d fo r d C h T o n icle a n d M a il, A u g . 20, 1879, q u o te d in B r itis h E m p ir e , A u g . ag,
1879.
ORIGINS
23
tended for reexport should be adm itted u nder bond, duty free.
Finally, the group agieed to solicit the aid o f others “ and so to se­
cure a ivider basis o f support before proceeding to organize a p u b lic
m ovem ent.”
Presented in this form in the election of 1880, the protectionist
appeal fared rather poorly. M aclver, Lister, and Ecroyd— with
Conservative backing— tried their luck in the constituencies, b u t
only M aclver was returned. In C oventry, Leeds, Sheffield, B irm ing­
ham, and Southw ark the question was discussed, b u t the British
E m pire com plained on M ay 1, 1880, that “ Candidates as a rule
have ignored the question.” Galt, on the oth er hand, w rote that
w ith a ll the people he m et the L ib eral victory was regarded as an
endorsem ent o f free trade; and it was his opinion that “ if things
com m ercially go bad ly,” the Conservatives w ould m ake reciprocity
part of their program the n ext tim e they w en t to the country,’ ®
*
A lth o u gh m ost protectionists agreed that the m om ent was inop­
portune, Lister refused to be downhearted. W ith a characteristic
gesture, he ch eerfu lly took dow n his check book and offered £500
toward a sum o f £5.000 “ to be raised to establish an association
that should fu lly ventilate and agitate the w hole q uestion .”
He
had to w ait almost a year. T h en , in February, 1881, w ith the French
treaty com ing up for renew al and Lancashire fu ll of foreboding for
the duties the French m ight put on, M aclver, sensing that the time
to strike was at hand, called his friends to their fou rth m eeting.
T h is tim e several newcomers were included. O n e was H enry M it­
chell, partner of the A . and S. H enry Com pany of Bradford, indus­
trial gian t and form er M ayor, popularly know n as “ K in g of Brad­
ford .”
A n oth er was Frederick Y o u n g o f the R oyal Colonial
Institute, son of the chairm an of the Society for the Defense o f
British Industry w hich had fou gh t the A n ti-C orn L aw L eague in
the forties, and a w ell-know n missionary of the new colonialism.***
T h e third was R. A . M acFie, Scot sugar refiner, w ho was interested
prim arily in “ cou ntervailin g duties” to offset the effects of foreign
bounties and w ho later left the League because he could not en ­
dorse a tax on food.’ "’
10!
S e e E cro yd 'S r e p o r t o f t h e p ro c e e d in g s , F o r e ig n T im e s , D e c . so , 1879.
S k e lto n , S ir A le x a n d e r C a ll, p p . 53 3 -3 4 .
zee B r ilis h E m p ir e , 5 ta y S. 1880.
z m p a tr T r a d e , Jan . j t , 1890.
zw i b id ., F e b . 14, tS uo. a n d N o v . i c , i88q
>“’ Z iiid .,j3 n , ag, 1886.
24
ORIGINS
Again the discussions were tentative. B ut it looked as if the
French Governm ent’s intention to raise its tariff before renewing
the treaty w ould soon bring the question of retaliation to a head.
Protests were heard in every corner of the kingdom. T h e Associ­
ated Chambers of Com m erce sent their president, C . J. Monk, to
Paris to represent their interests to the British Commissioners.” '®
T h e pow erful Yorkshire Cham ber appointed a special tariff com ­
m ittee to keep abreast of the negotiations, and sent a memorandum
to G ranville objecting to the proposed French increases.^”®Sim ilar
action was taken by some twenty-five other chambers, many trades’
councils, and the Central Cham ber of A griculture.'^
O ne must not infer from the strength of this protest against the
French treaty that the protectionist movement had gained propor­
tionately. Num erous interests which found offense in the French
increases by no means adopted a protectionist view: what they pro­
tested against was a “ retrograde treaty,’’ one which should be less
favorable to British products than the one already in operation.
Gladstone, certainly no protectionist, reflected this feeling rvhen
he wrote D ilke that the choice, in his mind, “ lay between no treaty,
or no tariff treaty, and a treaty which as a w hole should, in so far as
it varies from the treaty of i860, vary from it, as a whole, in the sense
of im provem ent, o f greater and not less favor to liberty of com ­
merce.” “ *
Yet glancing through the files of almost any English newspaper
in the summer of ]88i, one cannot escape the impression that the
negotiations w ith France tverc of capital importance in the slow
dissolution of mid-century Cobdenite commercial liberalism. T a k e
the Tim es, for example. O n March 17 a leading article cautioned
the French against acting upon a protectionist "delusion which
w ill be speedily shattered by painful experience. For ourselves,
we can well afford to wait. T h e abnegation of the commerciat treaty
o f i860 . . . would be far more injurious to France than to Eng­
land.” B ut two months later the Tim es itself was flirting with these
delusions: “ It w ould be a serious matter, from the French point
of view, to offend England and leave us at liberty, however un10* B r a d fo r d
O b serv er, A p r il 28, i 38 i.
lOO Ib id ., M a y 17 a n d 28, 1881.
P a rlia m en ta ry P a p ers, (c. 3014] a n d (c. 3051].
I l l G la d sto n e M S S, J u ly a8, 1881.
ORIGINS
25
likely we are to use that liberty, to prohib it the export of coal and
levy high duties on French wines, silks, and other articles."
Or
again, take the Pall M a ll Gazette, heretofore no less ardent than the
T im es in the defense of free-trade principles:
It would be the easiest thing possible for this country, were it in the
humour, to cripple French trade to an incalculable extent. , . . We
should be extremely sorry to see any such course pursued; for . . . the
population of France at least might suffer grievous miseries before it
became convinced of its folly. But the possibility has to be looked at,*”
Even the Econom ist adm itted that the new French duties w ou ld
cause hardships, bu t went on to m aintain that to break off n egoti­
ations as the others had suggested w ou ld be to forego a partial good
because a w hole good was unattainable.” * Nevertheless, the E cono­
m ist opened its correspondence colum ns 10 many protests against
a retrograde treaty: one of these advocated a com plete suspension
of trade to brin g France to her knees and ultim ately to her senses.” '
T h e clim ax came in M ay, 1881, w hen Ecroyd was returned in a
by-eleciion at Preston. T h e vote was a clear endorsement of the
protectionist views w hich he brought bold ly to the fore in his
speeches. O n election day, free traders distributed handbills show­
ing “ in a plain and hom ely w ay” w hat his proposals w ould mean;
these w ere the fam iliar signs of the forties; “ V ote for Thom pson
and C heap B read l” ; “ V ote for the Cheap L oaf."
B u t all in vain.
E croyd’s m ajority was m ore than 1,600 votes, five tim es greater
than his predecessor’s. D id this mean, as the Saturday Review sug­
gested, that the workm en of industrial towns were becom ing in ter­
ested in protection? C om ing at the same time as the protests against
the French treaty, it was som ething at least to consider. G a lt w rote
T tile y that many Conservative leaders w ere convinced on the basis
o f Ecroyd's show ing that their best hope lay in adopting protection:
“ and I think they w ill ultim ately, and indeed soon, take this
lin e ."
" S T im e s , M a y 30, i8 B i,
11s P a ll M a ll C a i e l l e , M a y 10, 1881.
z i s E c o n o m is t, A p r i l 23 a n d M a y 7, 1881.
u s 7b id „ J u ly 9. 18B1.
B r a d fo r d O b s e r v e r , M a y 17 , 1881.
t ^ z lb id ., M a y 17, 1S8 1; M o r n in g P o s t, M a y 2 1 , i S S i.
S k e lto n , S ir A le x a n d e r G a lt, p . 534. F o r E c r o y d ’s e le c tio n see P resto n G u a r d ia n ,
M a y 14. 18 81; P resto n H e r a ld , M a y 14 a n d M a y 18, 18 81; D a ily N ew s, M a y a o , 1881;
P a ll M a ll G a z e tte , M a y iB , 18B1. S atu rd a y R e v ie w , q u o t e d in P resto n G u a r d fo n , Tune
4. * 8 S i.
z6
ORIGINS
■
‘No one,” said a speaker at the annual Cobden C lub meeting
in July, 1881, “can watch the movements of public opinion with­
out seeing that at the present moment there is an attempt, under
the name of 'reciprocity,' to get back protective duties; and unless
we are careful we may find that the treaty negotiations w ith France
may have the effect of encouraging the cry for protective duties in
this country.” A n d the chairman warned: " If the battle of Free
T rad e is to be fought over again the Cobden C lub is perfectly well
prepared for the .struggle.”
If the champion was prepared, so was the challenger. Ecroyd
was returned on the 20th of May. On the 31st, his friends, joined by
W . J. Harris, representing the agricultural interest, and Sir A lex ­
ander Galt, the Canadian H igh Commissioner, m et at the W est­
minster Palace, T lie y resolved to found a society to educate the
country in the evils of free trade; to spread “ inform ation as to the
resources of a U nited Em pire"; and to petition the House of Com ­
mons against renewal of the French treaty,"” W hen these resolu­
tions had been carried, Lloyd, the chairman, asked w hat the name
of tfie society should be, adding, in an aside to Edgecome, “ It w ill
be worth £ too if any one w ill suggest a good name.” A fter several
suggestions had failed to enlist general support, Healey passed a
slip of paper to M aclver with the words “ Fair T rad e League”
written upon it. M aclver added the word "N ational,” and the title,
subm itted in that form, met general approval."’
W hen the discussion turned to the need for an expense fund,
“ the sum of about 800 pounds was subscribed at the table . , . and
placed in the hands of Mr. Charles Healey, the first treasurer of the
I.eague,”
M aclver made the first contribution, a check for
£100,’ ”
T h e new League made two im portant decisions. T h e task o f
drawing a program was assigned to a small committee; and it was
agreed that pending completion of their work, a campaign should
be launched, under the name of the “ Anglo-French T reaty Com ­
m ittee,”
against renewal of the French treaty. T h e Com m ittee
sat “ for some weeks at the Westminster Palace H otel” ; but about
its activity very little can be known.
M o r n in g P o st, J u ly ag , 1881.
121 F a ir T r a d e , N o v . ig , 1889.
too Ib id ., O c t. 25, 1889.
w o N a tio n a l F a ir T r a d e L e a g u e , M a n ifesto .
Ib id ., D e c. 3 1, 1887.
121 Ib id ., D ec. 3 1, iS g y.
ORIGINS
27
A short tim e later tlie L eagu e established a central office at 23,
C ockspur Street.’ -® By A u gu st 2, 1881, the program was com pleted
and issued in tlie form o f a Manifesto o f the N ation al F air T ra d e
L eague. T iie M anifesto set forth the co n viction o f the L eag u e’s
founders that “ the refusal o f foreign nations to receive B ritish
m anufactures in exch an ge for o u r purchases from them is w o rk in g
m ost in ju rio u sly to the w elfare and prosperity o f tlie nation, and
en d an gerin g the steady em ploym ent, fa ir wages, and fu tu re w e ll­
b e in g o f ou r w o rk in g classes.” It an n o u n ced the in ten tio n o f the
L eag u e ‘to prom ote, by every m eans at its com m and, an extension
o f trade w ith all countries, and especially w ith o u r colonies and
dependencies . . . and to agitate for such fiscal re-adjustm ents as
shall p reven t the products o f foreign states w h ich refuse to deal
w ith G reat B rita in in fair trade from u n d u ly co m p etin g w ith the
products o f hom e la b o r.”
T h e electorate ivas in vited to support four specific dem ands:
1) T h a t no com m ercial treaties be signed unless term in able on one
year s notice; 2) T h a t raw m aterials fo r m anufartures be adm itted
free from every quarter; 3) T h a t “ adequate d u ties” be placed on
the m anufactures o f foreign states, w ith the understanding that any
concessions w h ich these states gran ted w o u ld be reciprocated; 4)
T h a t a “ m oderate d u ty ” be placed o n all foreign food, bu t no du ty
on food from the E m pire. U n lik e the m a n u fa ctu rin g duties, these
duties on food w ere to b e m ore or less perm anent, and n ot to be
low ered in reciprocation to foreign states. F o r England m ust keep
faith w ith im p erial farm ers w h o invested in new lands “ in relian ce
u p on the stab ility o f o u r p o licy .”
In the d a ily press it was an n oun ced that a fun d o f ^Tso.ooo w o u ld
be raised at the rate o f £10,000 a year. A m o n g the larger sums a l­
ready subscribed w ere £2,000 from Lister; £1,000 from H ealey;
£500 from M a clver; an d £500 from L loyd .
525/bid., Dec. 31, 1887.
12a Times, Aug. 3, 1881.
i^^Manifesto. The Manifesto ivas signed by Lloyd, the first President o( the League,
and Harold Gore-Brown, Secretary. T h e Executive Committee included Lloyd; Henry
Hawkes of Birmingham; John Henderson, Director of the City Bank of Oxford; J. M.
Hyde of the old Reciprocity Free Trade Society; Lister; Mitchell; Edward Montague
Nelson of London and Warwick; Arthur Pryor, of Trum an, Hanbury, and Co..
Spitalfields; and Frederick Young.
123 Times, Aug. 3. 1881; Daily Telegraph, Aug. 4, 1881; Bradford Observer, Aug. a,
1881.
28
ORIGINS
T h e reception accorded by the m etropolitan press was sharply
divided. T h e most extravagant praise was found, naturally, in the
M orning Post. T h e St. James’s Gazette and the G lobe were not un­
favorable;
the Daily Telegraph, w hile disclaim ing protection,
at least welcomed the League as a sign of the times which improved
England’s bargaining position in tlie negotiations with F ran ce.'"
T h e Daily Chronicle, on the other hand, described the League as
an “ invidious influence which is underm ining the economic policy
of the country. . . . T h e y use spurious arguments, and we cannot
deny that they have made converts. B ut the evil caused by this
resuscitation of protection under an attractive and delusive alias
must be nipped in the bud,”
T h e Pall M all Gazette called the
League a sorry collection of “ T o ry lords, T o ry M .P .’s, and starvedou t traders” ; ” = the Tim es and the Conservative Standard took
m uch the same lin e .'" T h e League itself, recognizing the power of
the press, caused large advertisements to be inserted on the front
pages of the Tim es, M orning Post, and other papers from A u ­
gust 11 onwards.
T lie F.nglishman ivho read his daily paper thus knew a great deal
about the Fair T rad e l.eague; and when he read the list of sub­
scribers he must have felt that the League was to have a very long
innings. Someone in Bradford took one look at the list and obsen'ed cynically that the goal of £50,000 ought to be reached w ith­
out greatly inconveniencing anybody.'”
Q u a rterly R e v ie w , O c t., 1881, p . 553.
D a ily C h r o n ir le , A u g . 1 1 , t& 8 i.
13^ S ta n d a rd , S ep t. 6, 1881.
iso D a ily T e le g r a p h , A u g . 4. i8 8 i.
P a ll M a t! G a zette, A u g . 5 , »88i.
134 B ra d fo r d O b serv er, A u g . 2, 1881.
II
T A R IF F
REFORM ,
A N T I-B O U N T Y
LABOR, AND
THE
M OVEM ENT
1 8 8 1 - 1 8 9 5
funds and trum peted the new program in the
press, the Fair T ra d e League hastily set ou t to conquer the
kingdom . A fte r a m onth or so of spirited activity, however, most
protectionists were prepared to adm it that the kingdom cou ld be,
at times, uncom m only stubborn. Branches form ed at Sheffield, L iv ­
erpool, and C oventry were for a long w hile o f purely local signifi­
cance. A ttem pts to wrest support from the Farmers' A llian ce, the
T rad es’ U nion Congress, the Associated C liam bcrs of Com m erce,
the British Association, and Parliam ent itself failed miserably.
Some protectionists were not above adopting tlie most questionable
means of advancing their cause, even to the extent of purchasing
follow ers w ho could not be persuaded. As a result, in their relations
w ith organized labor. Fair Traders w ere not only defeated and dismi.ssed; they w ere dishonored as w ell. O f a ll the fates that could
b efall an “ agitation ’’ in V ictorian England, none was more likely
H
a v in g g a t h e r e d
to b e fatal.
F A IR
TRADE
AND
TH E
W ORKERS
T o men like Ecroyd and Lister, the ‘ labor prob lem ” was very
real. As prices fell, costs, as anyone could see, had to be reduced,
and labor costs were no exception. In the first edition of the Policy
of Self-H elp, Ecroyd w rote that foreign m anufacturers enjoyed not
only the advantage of protective tariffs, bu t also that o f cheaper
labor. T o restore equal com petition, England liad to face both sides
of the problem : retaliate w ith tariffs and extend the w orking week
to sixty hours. T h e latter proposal was conspicuously absent in later
editions, b u t Ecroyd did not put it altogether out of his m ind. Lister,
30
LABOR AND ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
who seldom compromised, refused to concede an inch of ground.
W hen criticized for his labor vieivs, he always replied that the for­
eigner alone was responsible. “ If you don’t believe it,” he told his
workmen, ” go to Crefeld and Lyons and ascertain the hours they
work and the wages they receive. It is the foreign blacklegs, and
not the home, you have to face; atid neither master nor men can
escape from this as long as we have free imports.” '
T h e workmen, hotvever, were suspicious. H enry Broadhurst and
the Liberal leaders of the Trades’ U nion Congress told them that
tariffs meant a rise in the price of bread. Socialists warned against
the arguments of men who could spend £50,000 for a Fair T rad e
agitation and w ho yet claim ed chat wages must be reduced. H . H.
Cham pion, the Socialist leader, once admitted that tvorkers could
not hope for an eight-hour day "w ithout conceding the principle
of Fair T rad e” ; bu t he wanted proof that Fair Traders were genu­
inely interested in im proving labor conditions. H e suggested that
they first
go to the root of the matter, and reduce the hours of labor all around.
. . . If you will do that, and can thus ftersiiadc the workman that your
real object is to improve h i s condition, and not 10 save the landlord's
rent, the minc-owmer’s royalty, and the capitalist's interest, you will
infallibly .sweep the constituencies.“
‘
T o the workers of Bradford this sounded like good sense. T h e next
time Lister refcircd them to foreign blacklegs, he found tliat "ow ­
ing to the organized opposition of a body of Manningliam M ill
Strike hands, very little was heard beyond the reporters’ gallery.” ®
Some Fair Traders w'ere inclined to let money do most of the
talking. In the w orld of labor, where a wdlderness of credulity and
corruption had still, in the eighties, to be reclaimed, there were
spellbinders who sometimes put honorariums before honor. In
Birmingham, for example, a certain J. W . M ahoney organized
workers’ protectionist meetings in return for financial assistance
from Frederick Blood aod W illiam Priest, of the Fair T rad e
League. Malioney, a former temperance worker and actor, claimed
to be the only living "artiste” who had performed Hamlet and
O thello in m onologue alone and unassisted. His description of his
I S . C . I.istc r, f r e e T r a d e in C orn .
z f a i r T ra d e, M a rc h 2, 1888.
3 S. C . L ister, F a ir T r a d e versus F r e e T ra d e . L o n d o n , 1893,
LABOR AND
ANTI-BOUNTY MOVEMENT
31
relations with his Fair T rad e friends was characteristic; “ Mr. Blood
was extremely generous in the opening of the campaign, and Mr.
Priest has in accordance with his highly philosophical principles
assisted in the most permanently judicious manner.” *
But Mahoney was a lamb alongside the principal agents o£ the
Fair Trade League among the workers.
T h e first of tliese, one 'I'hoinas Kelly, had been expelled from
the Bristol T rades’ Council because it had been “ clearly proved
by documentary evidence, that he was a defaulter by not account­
ing for monies received by him, hut misappropriating the same to
purposes other than the legitimate purposes of the Society,” ' When
Kelley formed a so-called National Conciliation League, the Bristol
Council resolved "that this League is a fraud” and warned “ all
Trades Movements to have nothing to do with it.” "
K elly’s chief collaborator was Samuel Peters, an erratic fellow
who in 1879 submitted the following resolution to the Bristol
Council: "T h a t no institution has done more to alienate the affec­
tion that ought to exist between employers and their employees
than T rad e Unions.” When he declined to proceed and “ alleged
that as he had made the statement it was now for the council to
disprove it,” the subject was dropped and a vote of censure passed.’
T w o years later, Peters and Kelly were condemned for falsely repre­
senting themselves as “ delegates from the Bristol Trades' Council
for the purpose of attacking and damaging the character of Mr. G.
Howell, the Labour candidate for Stafford.” ®In 1885, when in the
name of London Trade Unionists they campaigned against Henry
Broadhurst, the London Council, disclaiming all responsibility
for their “ contem ptible subterfuges of calum ny,” resolved that
the attempt to foist upon the people of Birmingham the impres­
sion that such slanders are the sentiments of the London T rad e
Unionists is a vile mendacity." “
So much for Peters and Kelly. T h ey were assisted by Patrick
Kenny, who had been expelled from the London Trades' Council
for "vindictive and unfounded statements” against the secretary
and for conduct which was “ a disgrace to the principles of trade
* F a ir T ra d e , Jan. g, 1891.
e /bid ., A - I I I - b - s s S .
e / b id ., A - I I l- j- a li B .
s W e b b M SS, A - i n - g - s g S .
r Ib id ., A -III-5-264.
O L o iiJ o n T r a d e s ’ C o u n c il M SS, N o v.
16, 1885.
32
LABOR AND ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
unionism .” Later, when he wrote a "lyin g and scurrilous" attack
against the secretary, the C ouncil resolved to consult a solicitor
"w ith a view to a criminal prosecution of him for malicious and
unjust lib el.” ” W hen he published a "defam atory lib e l” against
George Hotvcll, w ho was standing for Parliam ent in 1885, the
C ouncil protested unanim ously against “ the systematic and nefari­
ous efforts of certain London demagogues to disparage every prom i­
nent workman in public estimation at the moment when it was
likely such persons could be in any way useful to the cause of
labor.” ”
W hen and how relations between these men and Fair Traders
began, it is impossible to say. D uring 1879 Edgecome’s Monetary
Gazette singled them out for frequent and favorable comment and
published a scries of letters in which Peters urged protective
duties.” In April, 1879, Sampson Lloyd addressed one of their
meetings; ” in May, 1881, H enry Hawkes addressed another; ” in
August, 1881, Ecroyd attended a third.” By this time relations were
close, and large plans were afoot.
W hat emerged was a daring scheme calculated to give the im ­
pression that British labor was in a Fair T rad e mood. T h e plan
was to be accomplished in two steps. First, a conference of protec­
tionist workmen was to be summoned to meet in London on Sep­
tember 8 and 9 to pass resolutions endorsing the Fair Trade pro­
gram. Secondly, the delegates were to remain in London long
enough to attend the official T rades’ Union Congress, scheduled
to convene on Septem ber 10; here they w ould introduce Fair
T rad e resolutions, and, if they could not command a majority, at
least create the impression tliat a strong m inority was in revolt.
Fair Traders chose not to associate the Fair T rad e League w ith
the scheme, bu t formed, instead, another organization, the N a­
tional League “ for the preservation of our home industries and
the protection of our national labor against unfair com petition.”
T h e League represented an alliance— one is tempted to say un­
holy alliance— between workmen and various “ gentlemen of qual­
ity.” O n the workers’ side, in addition to Peters and K elly (their
I" L o n d o n T r a d e s ' C o u n o il M SS, N o v. 7, 1878.
11 Ib id ., M a rc li 9, 1880.
” Ib id ., D e c. 3, 1885.
is M o n e i a jy G a zette, F e b . 8, A p r il l a a n d 19, 1B79, lo r ex a m p le .
Z ‘ lb id ., A p r il 12, 1879.
i ’ B irra in g h a m D a ily P o st, M a y 1 1 , 18S1.
to D a ily T e le g r a p h , A u g . lo . 1881.
LABOR AND AN TI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
33
frien d K e n n y did n ot app ear u n til later), the m ost im p ortant w ere
R . H u n t, S. W . M addocks, W illia m L in d , and F. W ig n ito n , Som e
w ere from p ro vin cia l trades’ councils; m ost appear to have been
recru ited am ong the shipw rights, sugar operatives, and dock hands
o f the East E nd, w h ere distress was ad m itted ly w idespread. T h e
" q u a lity ” in clu d ed S. S. L loyd , W . J. H arris, Sir A lg ern o n Borthw ick , ed ito r o f the M orn in g Post, Sir John E ardley-W ilm ot, the
D u k e o f R u tla n d , Sir H en ry H oare, C ap ta in R . H . A rm it, and Sir
N e v ile L u b b o c k d ' L u b b o ck is a nam e to w atch; he was chairm an
o f the p o w erfu l W est In d ia C o m m ittee w h ich w anted “ co u n ter­
v a ilin g d u ties” against foreign sugar bounties, and he had dealings
w ith w o rk in gm en w h ich w e shall have occasion to note later.
T h e affinity betw een the N a tio n a l L eag u e and the Fair T r a d e
L eag u e is ob viou s at first glance. In the first place, the tw o pro­
gram s w ere, in every respect, identical.^® In the second place, at
least five m en w ere at one and the same tim e p ro m in en tly associ­
ated w ith both organizations, and Ecroyd, though ap p aren tly not
a m em ber, attended N a tio n a l L eagu e meetings.^® In the third
place, the w orkm en w h o attended the N a tio n a l L eague C on feren ce
w ere entertain ed at lu n ch eon by the F air T ra d e C o u n cil. F in ally,
the N a tio n a l L eague, in its propaganda, freq u en tly em ployed the
term “ F air T ra d e p o licy ” to describe its aim . T o contem poraries,
the liaison seem ed so ob viou s that in m any press accounts, notably
those o f the M orn in g Post, whose ed ito r was on the C o u n cil o f
the N atio n a l L eagu e, the names o f the two organizations w ere used
interch angeably. Y et some pains w ere taken to deny the connec­
tion, and m any nam es associated w ith the F a ir T ra d e m ovem ent
in alm ost a ll its phases w ere, in accounts o f this ill-fated ven ture,
conspicuously absent: F red erick Y o u n g and Edw ard H ealey, for
exam ple. A m algam ation o f the two leagues was discussed; BorthMorning Post, July 19 and Sept. is, 1881, and Aug. 4, i88i; Daily Telegraph,
Aug. 10, 1881; Times, Sept. 19, i88i. W. J. Harris was Director of the London Docks;
as such, he perhaps had something to do with the interest ivhich the dock hands took
in Fair Trade.
13 T h e National League soon announced that "the program includes confederation
between the mother country and the colonies and dependencies, with representatives
in Parliament of the latter, the whole having Free Trade for themselves, but uniting
to fight other nations with their own weapons." Morning Post, Aug. ao, i88t. T he
League sometimes advertised itself as the "National League for the Unification and
Consolidation of the Empire." Ibid., Sept. 9, i88t.
IS Daily Telegraph, Aug. 10, t88i; Manchester Guardian, Aug. 10, i88i.
34
LABO R AND A N TI-BO U N TY
MOVEMENT
wick's M orning Post urged iL; and one of the workingmen said
they were "qu ite w illing to amalgamate, . . . but must insist on
having workingm en delegates sitting on the council.”
Here,
seemingly, was the stum bling block: the more conservative Eair
Traders refused to adm it workingm en to the League council, and
the "shadow” league had to be formed as a consequence.
M eanwhile, plans were m aturing for the "monster m eeting” of
protectionist workmen to be held on September 8 and g. How
much money was spent w ill probably never be known, but un­
doubtedly money was spent. I'h e Parliam entary Com m ittee of the
T rades’ Union Congress claimed to know that at least one protec­
tionist workman "had been traveling the country offering to pay
the expenses of leading trade unionists to the Fair T rad e C on ­
ference.”
In Leeds a member of the Trades’ C ouncil “read a
considerable correspondence he had had w ith the organizers of the
Fair T rad e Conference, whose offers he had constantly refused, as
he was entirely opposed to the movement."
A n d in the end, as
we shall see, a few guilty ones made a clean breast of the whole
affair.
Fair Traders Cook pains, of course, not to expose themselves
recklessly. T h e ir invitations, signed by R . H unt, “ workingmen's
secretary,” merely announced that the purpose of the conference
was “ to Cake into consideration the present condition of British
Industry,” and after urging the recipient to attend, asked him to
state "what amount you will require in addition to railway ex ­
penses. Most oj the delegates are charging lys. per day, but you
need not be guided by them.’' Altogether, about fifty men were
found w illin g to accept this proposition. Raising funds to send
delegates to annual congresses was, in many trades’ councils, no
small problem . T h is year some of the men who had accepted Fair
T rad e money volunteered in their local organizations to make the
journey to London at what they claim ed was their own expense.
T h e unions, desiring to conserve their resources, chose these men
as delegates, and thus unw ittingly prepared the way for protection­
ist representation at the Trades’ U nion Congress.
20 M o r n in g P o st, S ep t. la , i 83 i.
22 B ra d fo r d O bserver, O c t. 15, 1881.
2< Ita lic s m in e. B r a d fo r d O b server, S ep t.
21
S ep t. 10, 1881.
23 L a b o u r S tan dard, O c t. 22, 1881.
28, i 83 i ; T im e s , S ep t. 29, 18S1.
LABOR
AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
35
T h e Fair T rad e meetings on Septem ber 8 and g were w ithou t in ­
cident. T h e stock resolutions were faith fu lly adopted, and in the
speeches there w'as a studied attem pt to convey the impression of
solidarity between capital and labor in a crusade against a system
o f free im ports w orking obvious hardship on both.“
T h e fun began at the I'ra d es’ U nion Congress, w hich convened
the follow ing day.-‘ N ews had somehotv leaked ou t that Fair T r a d ­
ers intended to pack the meetings. T o forestall them, it was m oved
that “ no one shall be eligib le as a delegate to the Congress whose
expenses are paid by private individuals, o r any other institution
n ot a bona-fide trade union or trades cou ncil"; and tlie m over
added darkly that “ T h ere rvere persons present . . , wJio w ould
not be entitled to sit . , , if this resolution was adopted.” O n e
speaker charged that many delegates “ professedly representing
trade societies were n ot the delegates of those societies. T h e ir
railw ay fares were paid, they were paid 15s. per day, and had lunch­
eon at the W estm inster Palace H otel, out of the funds of the Fair
T ra d e Association," W hen the m atter was referred to com m ittee,
several of those under suspicion m ade fu ll confessions, and Peters,
M oore, Maddocks, H arlow e, L in d , and T in d a ll were expelled.
T h e purge did not settle the affair, how ever. O n the follow in g
day Peters and L in d forced an entry into the hall; w hen a m em ber
was dispatched to sum m on the police, w ord cam e back that “ Capi.
B edford Pim is outside, and he says that he is a magistrate and w ill
not allow a constable to be sent for. O n receiving instructions to
do so I w ill p u t m y hand on Capt. B edford P im and ask liim to
leave die b u ild in g. . . . H e has advised these m en to disturb this
m eeting." A n other m em ber reported that the constable and ser­
geant at the nearest corn er refused to help unless the Congress
intended to brin g charges against someone: “ W hether there has
been any pressure brought to bear upon the police before, I can
not say." A t len gdi, the m eeting adjourned, w hile a deputation
called upon a friendly magistrate, w ho said they had every right
B r a d t o r d O b s e r v e r , S e p t. 9, to , a n d la , iS S i; M a n c h e s te r E x a m m e t a n d T im e s ,
S e p t. 12. 1881; D a ily T e le g r a p h , S e p t. g, lo , a n d 12, 18S1.
26 T h e p r o c e e d in g s w e r e n o te d in m a n y d a ily p a p e rs , b u t th e report, in th e B r a d fu r d
O b s e rv e r o f S e p t. 17 , 1881. seem s to be m o st c o m p le te . S ee a ls o W . J . D a v is , T h e B r it is h
T r a d e s' U n io n C o n g ress, I , 86; a n d S id n e y a n d B e a tr ic e W e h h , H isto r y o f T r a d e
U n io n is m , p p . 394-95 a n d n o te. A ls o L a b o u r S ta n d a rd , O c t. 15, 1881, a n d ffltV T r a d e ,
" R e p o r t o f Y e a r ’s P ro g r e s s ," D e c . 28, i888, p . i8 o n o te .
36
LABOR AND A N TI-B O U N TY M OVEM EN T
to eject undesirable persons by force. O n reassembling, the C on ­
gress found that Peters had left, but Lind, who remained, had to
be escorted from the builditig by the doorkeeper.
N aturally, these events brouglu severe criticism on the heads o f
Fair Traders. “ If a num ber of persons with the requisite am ount
of spare cash choose to spend it in subsidizing [the Fair T rad e
movement],’’ wrote the Daily News^
. . that is their affair. . . .
B ut it is time to have done with the pretense that they are m aking
unpaid converts am ong the workingm en."
T h e Daily Chronicle
characterized the attempt as "far worthier of the ‘baser sort’ of Irish
agitation than of law-abiding Englishmen,"
A lon e of the great
metropolitan papers, Bortltwick’s M orning Post came to the defense.““ T h e National League, the Fair T rad e shadow organization,
was unable to recover from the blow. T h e D uke of R utland was
optim istic enough to subscribe £100 to the League's fund in O c­
tober/” and there was some talk of convening another national
convention of protectionist workers;
but the League was never­
theless finished. Before the close of 1881, it had quite disappeared
from view.
Meanwhile, workers who had accepted the Fair T rad e offers
faced a measure of justice in their trades' councils. In Birm ing­
ham, when H ariowe and Maddocks admitted they had been paid
to attend the Congress “ to promote the Fair T rad e movement,"
the Council censured them for “ w ithholding . , . when offering
to attend the T rades’ U nion Congress at their own expense, the
im portant fact that they were already engaged to attend the C on ­
gress as the paid agents of a political organization." A resolution
was then passed “ alfirming that Free T rad e has been and is bene­
ficial to this country; and that any proposal to pu t im port duties
on food of any kind is so absurd as to be altogether outside dis­
cussion.”
T h e Trades' Councils of Bristol, Sheffield, and Leeds
took sim ilar action,^ T h e matter was not finally settled until the
D a ily N ew s, S ep t. 15, 1881.
D a ily C h r o m c le , S ep t. 17, 1881.
M o r n in g P o st, Sept. iS , 17 , s i , a n d s6, 1881.
3“ B r a d fo r d O bserver, O c t. 4, 1S81,
i t S ta n dtird, S ep t. a t , 18S1.
32 M.SS M in u te B o o k o f B irm in g h a m T r a d e s ' C o u n c il, S ep t, 24, 1881, q u o te d in
W e b b M SS, A - m - 4 - 2 0 4 - 3 ,
33 Ib id ., A -I I I -4 -2 0 6 .
3* M SS M in u te B o o k o f B ris to l T r a d e s ' C o u n t ll, q u o t e d in ib id ., A -I I I -5 -2 6 8 ;
L a b o u r S ta n dard, O ct. 2a, t8 8 i.
LABOR
AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
37
follow ing year. It was said that Peters, K elly, Kenny, and Pirn
“ swore vengeance [on Broadhurst] and openly declared that the
‘Fair T rad ers' w ou ld harass and w orry the life ou t of him .” T h e y
kept up “ a most unjust, vindictive, and m alicious” attack which
the Congress of 1882 described as ” an attem pt at m oral assassina­
tio n ,”
T h e Congress, in a tinaniiiious resolution, reaffirmed its
confidence in Broadhurst, and thereby put the m atter officially at
an end."®
K elly and Peters, however, were not yet ready to bow oft the
stage. A fter ru n n in g afou l o f the T rad es’ U nion Congress, they
busied themselves agitating am ong the disinherited o f London's
East End, where unem ploym ent was m ounting in trades dependent
upon sugar and shipping. T h e ir friend W ign ilon was president o f
the W aterm en and L ighterm en of the R iv er Tham es; L in d was
general-secretary of the Seam en’s Am algam ated Protective Society;
and K en n y him self was secretary o f the D ock Porters and Sugar
Warehousemen,^’' A ll these groups took part in the cam paign
against foreign bounties, often indistinguishable from the Fair
T rad e m ovem ent, and in the mid-eighties an organization know n
as the East End Fair T ra d e League em erged.’ ®
L ik e most enterprises that K elly and Peters touched, tlte East
E nd Fair T rad e League enjoyed a spectacularly b rie f career. Its
dow nfall came early in 188G. In February, w'lien London was fu ll
of cold and unem ploym ent and tlie L ord M ayor was collecting a
fund to relieve distress, T rafa lga r Square was the scene of two
disorderly m eetings w hich fell, not by accident, it seems, on the
same day. O ne was organized by John Burns and liis Socialist
friends; the oth er by Kelly, Peters, and Kenny. As the tivo groups
strove fo r the attention of tfie crowd, the excitem ent became great.
Burns charged that K elly and Peters were "the paid agitators . . .
of the Fair T ra d e L eagu e” ; someone was throw n into the fountain;
tiien a mob w ith join ed hands surged over the Fair T ra d e platform ,
smashed it, and scattered the crowd into adjoining .streets. In Pall
M all and Piccadilly, tvindosvs of fashionable d u b s ivere smashed
and m any shops w recked and sacked before reinforcem ents from
Scotland Yard could d e a r the streets.’ " For several days the W est
SS D a v is, o p . c it.. I , g o; W e b b , o p . cit., p p . 394-9511.
sa D a vis, o p . cit., I , 93 -94.
S ' M o r n in g P o H , J u ly 19, 1881.
as T im e s , F e b . 9, 1886.
ao I b id ,, F eb , 9, 1886.
38
LABOR AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
End was on tenterhooks w hile crowds gathered in Trafalgar Square
to hear speeches and read handbills, and the rumor spread that
armies of unem ployed were form ing in the suburbs. T h e Times,
recalling the Chartist demonstrations, said that in some respects
the present disorders were even more grave."
N ow w hile there is no reason to believe that the Eminent V ic­
torians of tlie Fair T rad e League ordered windows to be broken
in the Conservative Club, there can be no doubt that they used
such agitations for all they were worth. T h e League admitted that
“ T h ere was, of course, much Fair T rad e Literature circulated in
the croivds . . . as tliere always is on the occasion of people’s dem­
onstrations.” " A nd Fair Trade expressed the hope that the riots
w ould open Liberal eyes "to the fact that big as the loaf may be,
it is not cheap when foreigners prevent Englishmen from earning
the wages wherewith to buy it.” "
T im e and again the T rad e Union movement was shocked by the
deception and audacity of Peters and Kelly, supported by the Fair
T rad e League. In 1887 the Trades' U nion Congress voted to “ re­
pudiate and denounce” them for falsely claim ing that the Congress
had endorsed one of their m eetings." Shortly after, Peters and
K elly led a large and disorderly procession from W liitecliapel to
H yde Park, where, after provoking a near riot, they promised "to
work for and vote for anybody, even the D evil himself, tails, horns,
and hoofs all included, if his Satanic Majesty would only come
out as a Fair T rad er.” " In the procession were banners, bands,
and wagonettes, suggesting a degree of preparation and expense
quite beyond the means of Peters and K elly w orking unassisted. It
was reported that despite the presence of numerous police, ruffians
"did not scruple to rob anyone they could lay their hands on,” and
speeches "were now and then interrupted by the chase of a pick­
pocket.” "
A nother characteristic episode occurred later at a Liberal meet­
ing, where Peters persisted in interrupting until given a hearing.
W hen he rose to speak lie was
40 T im e s,
F eb . lo a n d i i , laBG.
s i F a ir T ra d e , F eb . 19, 1886.
rb id ., Feb. aO, 1886.
la T im e s, S ep t. 9. 1887.
44 Ib id ., O c t. 4, 1887; F a ir T ra d e , S ep t. 30, a n d O c t. 7, 1887.
45 T im e s, O c t. 4, 1887.
LABOR AND
ANTI BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
39
met with a perfect storm of hissing, howling, and groaning, and cries
of . . . "How do you get your living?" . . . He could get no further,
for the storm was renewed until he left the platform, which he did very
quickly. When he got down he showed signs of wanting to use a large
stick he had, but an inspector of police put his hand on his shoulder
and said; "If you do that, my boy, I shall run you in." Peters then sub­
sided and with his friend Kelly and others left the precincts of the
d u b .”
M eanw hile, Fair T ra d e — and particularly Fair T rad e am ong the
workers— had becom e intim ately bound u p w ith the cam paign
against sugar bounties, to w hich w e must now turn,
TH K
A N T t-B O U N T Y
A G IT A T IO N !
PLAN TERS
AND
R E F IN E R S
W h ile Peters and K elly were causing fur to fly in the w orld of
labor, the sugar industry in England was undergoing what Sir
L ouis M allet called a "progressive process of extin ction .” ” A
Select C om m ittee on Sugar reporting in 1880 concluded that for
eign bounties on the export o f sugar were chiefly responsible and
that these bounties had two m ain consequences: first, they had
practically extinguished the loaf-sugar refining trade in G reat B rit­
ain; and second, they had checked the developm ein o f tlie sugargrow ing industry in the C olonies, principally the W est Indian C o l­
onies, whose future prosperity seemed greatly endangered. T h e
C om m ittee recom m ended an International Sugar Conference for
the suppression o f bounties, and urged that when most-favorednation treaties w ere renew ed, the Foreign Office should make cer­
tain that liberty to apply countervailing duties against bounty-fed
sugar be expressly recognized. T h is phrase countervailing duties
m ust be carefully noted; it becam e the rallyin g cry of the organ­
ized sugar industry in G reat B ritain and, by supplying a new lever­
age for those desiring to overturn the "dead weight o f tlie Cobdenite tradition," played an im portant role in the Fair T rad e
m ovem ent.
W hen we speak of the “ organized sugar industry" w e mean,
roughly, two groups: the sugar refiners of G reat B ritain and the
sugar planters of the W est Indian Colonies. Both had been seri” S (a r (L o n d o n ), M a y 6, i8 S g.
U T h e q u o t a tio n a n d th e m a te r ia l f o llo w in g it a te t a k e n (lo m th e R e p o r t o f th e
S e le ct C o m m itte e o n th e S u g a r In d u s trie s , P a r lh m c n la r y P a p e rs, iS 8 o (33s) x ti. 3 19,
40
LABOR AND A N T I-B O U N T Y
MOVEMENT
ously affected by the action of foreign bounties. In 1864, it was
said, there had been about thirty loaLsugar refineries in Great
Britain; by 1875 the industry was practically extinct. T h e im port
of loaf sugar, meanwhile, had risen from 13,731 tons in 1863 to
157,807 tons in 1878, Sir R obert Giffen claim ed that refiners had
adequate compensation in the expansion of "m oist sugar” refining,
which was not adapted to continental conditions and remained
therefore a practical m onopoly of British refiners. T o what extent
this ameliorated the hardship of the loaf-sugar refiners as a group,
it is difficult to say. T h e leaders of the anti-bounty campaign
claimed to have suffered practically a dead loss, and the time and
energy they gave to the campaign suggest that there was more than
a little truth in their claim. B ut as for the refining of moist or
"soft" sugar in general, there is no doubt that a great expansion
was in progress: to meet the needs of the growing industry, the
im port of raw sugar rose from something just short o f 400,000 tons
in 1864 to about 700,000 tons in 1880. A t this point the com plaint
of the West Indian planters was heard. For w hile Great Britain
was almost doubling her total imports of raw sugar, the amount
which she took from the W est Indies remained virtually stationary:
186,264 tons in 1863, and 194,846 tons in 1878. T h e planters
claim ed that they were unable to share proportionately in the ex­
pansion, because they could not m eet the com petition of bountyfed beetroot sugar im ported from the continent, chiefly from Aus­
tria. Witnesses appearing before the Select Com m ittee of 1880
agreed that the average sugar estate in the W est Indies was oper­
ating at a loss; and all anticipated "a general abandonment of
sugar cultivation should the present state of things continue.” “
Both refiners and planters were organized foraciion . T h e Sugar
Refiners’ Committee, under George M artineau and James D u n ­
can, had raised tiie cry against bounties as early as the 1850s, when
the loaf sugar of France and H olland first made its appearance on
a large scale in the British market. Refiners were later joined by
colonial planters, who saw that " every ton of foreign refined sugar
imported displaced an equivalent quantity of their raw sugar.” "
T h e planters worked through the West India Com m ittee, com*8 T h e q u o ta tio n a n d tlie m a ie ria l fo llo w in g it are ta k e n fro m th e R e p o r t o f the
S ele ct C o m m itte e on th e S u g a r In d u stries, P a rlia m en ta ry Pa p ers, tS So (33!) x ii. 519.
*8 J a m es M a rtin e a u , Sugar, p . i j o .
LABOR AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
41
posed of “proprietors, merchants, bankers, and others connected
with the British W est Indies and British G u ian a.”
T h e C om ­
m ittee was a pow erful organization boasting a lon g record o f lob by­
ing activity. D u rin g the eighties it m aintained a perm anent office
and library in L ond on , and used its funds and connections in a
vigilan t defense o f the '“proprietary interests in tlie British W est
Indian C olon ies.”
T h e claim was frequ ently made, by planters and refiners alike,
that their cam paign for countervailin g duties had n othin g to do
w ith Fair T rad e. T h e y argued that their object was to restore real
free trade by “ n eu tralizin g” the effects of foreign bounties and thus
creating conditions o f equal com petition. B ut to Englishm en ac­
customed to think of tariffs in the language of black and w hite, this
distinction between protection and "neu tralization ” was dubious.
A fte r all, even Ecroyd refused to call him self a protectionist; what
did it m atter if the sugar interests refused to call themselves Fair
Traders? B oth wanted tariffs, and both had the acum en to see that
if one w anted .something in a C obdenite world, one had to use
C ob d en ile language to get it.” O n ly G eorge M artineau o f the
Refiners seems to have been genu in ely troubled b y the thought of
a protective tariff. T h e others, in one degree or another, were w ill­
ing to use or to abuse Fair T ra d e according as it served their ends.
N evile L u bb ock, chairm an of tlie W est India C om m ittee and real
leader of the anti-bounty cam paign, was on intim ate terms w ith
Fair Traders. H e took part in the ill-fam ed N ational L eague of
1881, and in 1886, by signing the m inority report o f the R oyal
Com m ission on the Depression in T ra d e and Industry, em braced
the F a ir T ra d e program in every im portant particular.
T h e anti-bounty cam paign assumed m any forms. In the first
place there w ere recurrent pocket-sized agitations, usually set off
by the im position of a new bounty abroad. For exam ple, in 1884,
W est I n d ia n C ir c u la r, N o . 6 j. F eb . 16, i g g j ,
SI W e s t I n d ia M SS, M a r c h 1 , 1888.
ss T h is w a s th e v ie w ta k e n b y t h e p e r m a n e n t oiB cials a t th e B o a r d o f T r a d e , w it h
w h o m th e s u g a r in te re sts c a rr ie d o n a n e x te n s iv e a n d f r e q u e n t ly b itte r c o rre sp o n d e n ce .
A s S ir T h o m a s F a r r e r irr o te , th e B o a r d w e re " R r m ly c o n v in c e d o f t h e im p o lic y o f
p r o h ib it in g o r r e s t r ic t in g im p o it a t io n b y p r o t e c t iv e o r c o u n te r v a ilin g d u t ie s ," a n d
c o u ld n o t g r a n t llie v a lid it y o f d is tin c tio n s d r a w n b y in te re ste d p a r tie s in a n a tte m p t
t o sec u re p r o t e c t io n ( o r t h e ir o w n p ro d u c ts. B o a rd o f T r a d e M S S , F a rre r to th e
F o r e ig n O ffice, M a r c h 1 1 , 1881,
42
LABOR AND AN TI-BO U N TY MOVEMENT
when the French Cham ber was considering a proposal to subsidize
the export of crystallized sugar, the West India Com m ittee re­
solved to seek the support o£ other groups "in a general agitation
. . . w ithout any restriction as to the form in which such agitation
should be m ade.’’ Cooperation with the Refiners was easily ar­
ranged, but in other quarters there was some difficulty. T h e L iver­
pool Sugar Association replied that although w illin g to lend cor­
dial support, they "w ere'n ot di.sposed to take any active part in
prom oting the agitation am ong the working men.” T h e Glasgow
Association were w illin g to protest against bounties, but, being
staunch free traders, saw no reason to ‘‘depart from their former
position as to counten'ailing duties.”
W ith this lim ited support
the agitation lapsed after two well-publicized Mansion House
meetings under the Ix>rd M ayor.”
A rather- more elaborate campaign was undertaken in 1884
when the W est India Com m ittee became absorbed in forwarding
a proposed U nited States-West Indian commercial treaty, under
the terms of w hich W est Indian sugar was to be admitted free in
the U nited States market. T o the planters, who felt that they were
kept out of the British market only by tlie short-sighted commercial
policy of the m other country, the treaty seemed to offer admirable
compensation.^' It came to grief, however, against the opposition
of the permanent officials at the Board of Trade, w ho stood guard
like watchdogs over B ritain’s free-trade principles. Thom as Farrer,
permanent secretary, pointed out that the draft treaty placed the
Am erican, not the British interpretation on the most-favorednation clause; that is to say, concessions made by the contracting
parties were to be generalized to include only those nations which
offered an equivalent consideration in return, not, as was the B rit­
ish practice, all those which signed most-favored-nation treaties,'^
Another clause to wliich Farrer took exception w ould have con­
fined the reciprocal tariff concessions to goods carried in vessels
belonging to one or the other contracting parties.'® T h e West India
Com m ittee struggled vainly. Nevile Lubbock, serving in W ashing­
ton as teclmical adviser in the negotiations, put the Com m ittee’s
w W est I n d k M SS, J u n e 5 a n d J u ly 4, 1884.
Ba T im e s , J u n e ag and J u ly 14^ ]884.
5* / b id .,
PaTiiam entary P a p ers, Lu h bo ck-V V est, [c. 4340J, p . i g .
s s B o a r d o£ T r a d e M SS, F arre r-F o reig n O ifice, J an . ig , 1885.
A u j . 7, 1884.
bt
[ b id , p . a i .
LABOR
AND AiN TLBO U N TY M OVEM EN T
43
case before B ritish Am bassador West.®® In L o n d o n there w ere
m eetings, m em orials, and the usual batch o f letters to the Times.^°
B u t F arrer’s views p revailed , and L o rd G ra n v ille at length w rote
W est that G reat B rita in co u ld n ot adopt the d raft treaty
In the lo n g ru n the m ain o b ject o f the sugar interests was to i.
ob tain w h at the Select C o m m ittee o f 1880 had recom m ended: an
In tern ation al Sugar C on feren ce fo r the suppression o f bounties
and reco g n itio n o f the p rin cip le that co u n te rva ilin g duties w ere
legitim ate m eans'of n u llify in g th eir elfects. T o this end both p lan t­
ers and refiners directed most o f th eir efforts d u rin g the eighties
and n in e t ie s .L e a d e r s h ip was in the hands o f the W est India C o m ­
m ittee, b u t for ob viou s reasons the planters p referred to work
throu gh oth er organizations com passing refiners and w orkers and
g iv in g the im pression o f risin g above special interest. T h u s , in the
early eighties, the N a tio n a l A n ti-B o u n ty L eague was put forw ard
as the vo ice o f the co m b in ed sugar industry;
and later, w ith
colon ialism in the air, the British and C o lo n ia l A n ti-B o u n ty Asso­
ciation was formed.®*
T h e first task o f these organizations was to keep the question
a live in the p u b lic m ind. T h is they did, p articu la rly at election
tim e, w ith a stream o f pam phlets, m eetings, m em orials, and letters
to the press.®® T h e ir second task was to arouse o p in io n in P a rlia ­
m ent. In 188a advances w ere m ade to Edw ard C la rk e, M .P ., w ith
^^Parliamentary Papers, [c. 4340], pp. 6, ig.
«* Times, April 5. Aug. 13, Nov. 28, 1884. and Jan. 22, 1886, for example.
Parliamentary Papers, fc. 4340], pp. go-23.
92 T h e West India Committee had asked for such a conference before the Select
Committee of 1880 recommended it. See Hill-Granville correspondence, containing a
long review of the Committee's efforts, in Times, Jan. 23, 1882.
63 West India MSS, March 9, i88a; Times, Aug. 4, 18S5.
64 It is possible that the plan to form the British and Colonial Anti-Bounty
Association originated with the Refiners. In February. 1887, the West India Committee
received from them a letter expressing the hope of forming a “ combination of the
Refining and Colonial interests for the purpose of dealing effectively wilh the Bounty
question during the present session of Parliament.’’ West India MSS, Feb. 3, 1887. But
leadership quickly passed to the West India Committee, which convened a meeting
at the Cannon Street Hotel, where the British and Colonial Anti Bounty Association
was formed, Feb. 10, 1887. Nevile Lubbock was elected chairman, and representatives
of the various sugar-growing colonies were placed on the Committee. T he Liverpool
Sugar Refiners were represented by T . O. Easton. A little later James Duncan of the
British Rehners was given a place on the Committee. West India MSS, Feb. 3, 1887West Indian Circular, No. 10, Feb. 22, 1887; Times, April 12. 1887.
95
A P "* 8 and Aug. 4. 1881;: April 21, Aug. 21, 1886. See also West Indian
Circular, No. g, Jan. 10, 1887. suramariring action against bounties in 1886.
44
LABOR
AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
the object of raising the bounty question in the H ouse of C om ­
mons.''' Four years later “ Various suggestions w ere m ade w ith re­
gard to form ing a Parliam entary party on the bou nty question to
be carried ou t as soon as mem bers com e to town for the session.” "
L ord C lau d e H am ilton was invited to be leader of the m ovem ent,
b ut w h ile p ledgin g assistance, he declined “ to accept . . . on ac­
count of oth er w o rk .”
P arliam en t’s absorption in the Irish debates tem porarily para­
lyzed action on all save essential matters, b u t in 1886, w hen the
shattered party lines fell together behind a Conservative G overn ­
m ent, the bounty question m oved gradually to the fore. U n lik e
their L ib eral predecessors, Conservatives had not, on the w hole, a
doctrin aire antagonism to discussion of the tariff. T a k in g advan­
tage of the new clim ate of opinion, the sugar interests succeeded
at last in 1887 in form ing a “ parliam entary com m ittee.” "® It was
know n that the G overnm ent was already considering open in g n e­
gotiations w ith foreign powers on the question of bounties;
and
in J u ly came the long-awaited announcem ent that interested gov­
ernm ents w ere b eing invited to send representatives to an In ter­
national C o n fere n ce,"
T h a t the C onference did not issue in effective action was no fau lt
o f the sugar interests, w ho were active in the lobbies throughout.
First an effort was m ade to load the British delegation w ith men
favorably disposed toward cou n tervailin g duties, .An attem pt to
exclude orthodox B oard of T ra d e experts failed, b u t after the
A n ti-B ou nty Association had exerted pressure, the G overnm ent
included in the delegation a friendly m em ber o f the C olon ial O f­
fice, L ord O n slo w ." T h e pressure was not relaxed w hen the C on ­
ference was in session. A deputation from the A n ti-B ounty Associ­
ation, callin g on the leader of the British delegation, w ere told
« W e.si In d ia M SS, M a r c h 9, 1883.
I b id ., J a n . 6 a n d 20, 18 8 ;.
ez W esI I n d ia M S S , D e c . S ! , .886.
68 W est I n d ia n C ir c u la r , N o . 12, A p r il iS , 1887. W h e n S ta n h o p e b e c a m e C o lo n ia l
S e c re ta r y in A u g u s t , 188G, a d e p u t a t io n s u p p o r t e d b y fo r ty M .P .'s w a ite d u p o n h im to
u r g e a il in t e r n a t io n a l s u g a r c o n fe r e n c e a n d th e p r o m o tio n o f a tra d e a g r e e m e n t
b e tw e e n th e c o lo n ie s a n d t h e U n it e d S la te s, W est I n d ia n C ir c u la r , N o , 9, J a n . 10, 1887.
In 1887 t h e m o s t o u ts p o k e n c h a m p io n o f t h e c a u s e in th e H o u s e o f C o m m o n s w as
H . K im b e r o l W a n d s w o r th . See H a n s a rd 's P a r lia m e n ta ry D e b a te s , 3 d S e r „ V o l. 3 16, C o l.
159 3; V o l. 3 19, C o l. 343; a n d V o l. 3 18 , C o ls . 926 a n d 1534.
ro H a n sa r d 's P a r lia m e n ta ry D e b a te s , 3 d S er., V o l. 308, C o l. 78 1.
" I b id ., V o l. 3 16 , C o l. 159 3.
72 T im e s , N o v . 16 a n d s6 , 1887.
LABOR
AND A N T L B O U N T Y
MOVEMENT
45
that the G overnm ent were “ determ ined as far as it is in ou r power
to put a stop to the bounty system. . . . T h e question o f fair trade,
however, is in no way before the Conference . . . and if it has
been discussed it has been only by those persons free to express
their independent opinions." ”
T h e form ula reached at the Conference bound signatory powers
eith er to p rohib it im portation o f bounty-fed sugar or to erect
cou n tervailin g duties “ w hich must necessarily exceed the am ount
o f the bou n ty.” ” Free trade, said a G overnm en t spokesman, was
not in question; the G overnm ent w ere m erely attem pting, as they
had in the M erchandise M arks A c t o f 1887, to put a stop to un fair
trade practices.
Alm ost anyone could have told him , how ever, that the merest
m ention of duties umiild b rin g tiiiinderbolts on his head. “Sugar,"
said G ladstone, “ is the article second only to corn am ong the com ­
forts o f the population. , , , I need hardly say, every Liberal w ill
resist.” ” T h e resistance was tooth and nail. T h e Tim es bristled
w ith letters from outraged free traders; the Cohden C lu b issued
floods o f leaflets; and at the heiglit o f the agitation a mass m eeting
in St. Jam es’s H all, after a fifteen m inute disturbance in the gal­
lery, denounced the C onvention as a "sk illfu lly engineered attem pt
to assail that principle o f Free T rad e w hich is the cause of national
prosperity.” ” T h e sugar interests, retu rnin g blow for blow , lield
a counterdem onstration w hich ended when a gang o f ruffians
forced an entry into the hall.” '
C learly, the question of bounties was not one w hich could be
dealt w ith "ab ove party” as the G overnm en t hoped. Conservatives
found themselves d riftin g w illy-n illy toward the battleground of
free trade and protection, where, ow in g to their dependence on
” I b i d „ D e c . 9, 1887; see I b id ., N o v . 24, 18S7, f o r a c c o u n t o f a s im ila r tie p iita tio n ;
a n d ib id ., O c t. 28, 1887. to r a c c o u n t o f a d e p u t a t io n fro m th e L iv e r p o o l R efin e rs.
'V A r t ic le V II o f th e C o n v e n tio n a d o p te d A u g . g o , 1888. P a r lia m e n ta ry Pa p ers,
5577J- P- 447 - T h e C o n v e n t io n w a s to b e in fo r c e fr o m S ep t, 1, j8 q i.
T im e s , O c t . 16, 1S89.
S ee T im e s , O c t . 3, is , 16. 26. 27, a n d N o v . iS , 1BS8; J u n e 6, 8, 13, 15 a n d 87, 1880;
a n d in p a r t ic u la r a le t t e r fr o m S ir W illia m H a r c o n n , ib id .. M a y 13, i88n. S ee a lso
C o b d e n O u b L e a fie ts , X L I I I , L , L V , L X I V , L X V J - L X X V I f l . C o n c e r n in g t h e St.
J a m e s ’s H a l l m e e tin g , see T im e s , M a y 15, 1869. T h e m e e t in g w as sp o n so red b y ttw
L o n d o n L ib e r a ! a n d R a d ic a l U n io n , S ee a lso A , G , G a r d in e r , S ir n 'itU a m ffe r M n r C ,
T im e s , M a y 25, 1889.
■
46
LABOR AND ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
Liberal Unionists, they dared not for the moment tread. T iie only
course open, and the course followed in the end, was to postpone
action until the uproar had somewhat abated, and then quietly to
withdraw the bill. T h is they did in i8go.”
T h e anti-bounty campaign had, thus far, fallen considerably
short of its authors' largest hopes. T h e International Sugar Con­
vention was still-born. T h e proposed commercial treaty between
the U nited States and the W est Indies had failed. Foreign bounties
were spreading and growing, and no steps w'hatever had been taken
either to curb them or to neutralize their effects." Y et this was far
from the w hole picture. T lie agitation had been kept alive during
the trying period when m inor agitations perished by the dozen in
the w hite heat of the Irish debates. Not only had it been kept alive;
it had begun to assume the stature of what Lord Salisbury liked to
call “ proxim ate questions” — questions m atured by discussion and
ripe for action. T h e commercial treaty with the U n ited States
m ight have been adopted without ado had not Farrer and Giffcn
stood at the controls in the Board of Trade; and with a wider
margin of security in Parliam ent, the Governm ent w ould no doubt
have forced a show-dosvn on the issue of the International C on ­
ven tio n ." Here was progress, and tlie reasons for it were not far
to seek. T h e bounty question, like Fair T rade, had been brought
to the attention of the laboring classes; and by 1889 the movement
had a sizable follow ing which no government could entirely ignore.
O R G A N IZ E D
I .A B O R
AND
TH E
A N T I-B O U N T Y
A tU T A T IO N
T h ere is little doubt that the action of foreign bounties had
caused considerable discontent among workers, although statisti­
cal estimates of their hardship varied sharply. A W orkm en’s Com ­
mittee claim ed that 10,000 men had been employed in loaf-sugar
> S T h e B ill v v a s s s V ic to ria . See P a rliam entary Pa p ers, 1889 (194) v iii. 1S5. See also
S ir T . H . F a rre r, T h e S ugar Corm ernion.
T h e im p o r t o f raw can e s u g a r from B ritish possession s h a d fa lle n fro m 5,561,399
civis. in 1S79 to 3,180,483 cw ts. in 18S7, In th e sam e p e rio d th e im p o rt o I ra w su gar
fro m b e e t-g ro w in g c o u n tries h a d risen fro m 3,397,793 cw ts. to 9.233,856 civLs. T h e
im p o rt o f re lin e il s u g a r fro m b e e t-g io w in g c o u n tr ies h a d risen from 2,572,165 to
6,220,453!
I t is in te re stin g 10 n o te th a t o f th e 9.223,856 cw ts. o f raw b e e t s u g a r im p o rte d in
1S87, 7,658 48 1 cw ts. cam e from G e rm a n y . In 1S72 G e r m a n y h a d sen t o n ly 341,856 cwts.
S ec P a rU a m en iaty Pa p ers, 1888 (353) x c iii. 527.
SDSuch a c o n v e n tio n w as a c tu a lly sig n ed in 1901.
LABOR
AND
ANTI BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
47
refinin g in 1864 and that by 1880 the industry was shattered u t­
terly. Gladstone, on the other hand, asserted that no m ore than
1,130 such jobs had failed and that expansion of m oist sugar m anu­
facture, in volvin g em ploym ent o f 1,800 new "hands,” had m ore
than taken up the slack,®i T h e tru th was that disruption of the
sugar trade and the action o f foreign shipping bounties had
brought hardship to unnum bered laborers outside the refineries
— seamen, shipwrights, carm en, and ironworkers, for exam ple —
and workers in other trades feared that it was on ly a m atter o f
tim e before they too w ould feel the pinch. "It happens to be the
sugar industry today," so tlie thought ran, “ b u t it m ight be the
engineering, the textile, the clothing, or w oodw ork trades tom or­
row .”
O ne ju d ges that there was some suffering and much appre­
hension, b u t beyond this it is difficult to go.
T h e W est India Com m ittee and the British Sugar Refiners natu­
rally desired to enlist the support o f workers, and there is abu n ­
dant evidence that, w ith every good intention, they w ent to con ­
siderable expense to do so. It is not surprising that one of the first
w orkm en w ith w hom they dealt was tlie fam iliar Sam uel Peters.
Peters was him.self a sugar operative, and after 1877 frequently
called attention to the hardship o f that industry.** It is probable
that he was collaboratin g w ith the sugar interests in A p ril, 1878.
fo r about that tim e, together w ith his friend Thoma.s K elly, he
helped form the "W orkm en's N ational Association for the A b o li­
tion of Foreign Sugar B oim iies.” In the same year, 1878, the pair
w ere perm itted to take seats at the T rades' U n ion Congress, al­
though K elly ’s credentials aroused suspicion, and there was a gen­
eral fear that both were in the pay of "sugar capitalists.” O nce on
the floor, they ‘ caused a scene in attem pting to discuss the sugar
bounty question, b u t Congress w ould have none o f tlieir nonsense,
and the 'n ext business’ re.solution settled them .”
B y May, 1880, workm en, refiners, and planters were w orkin g
81 P a r lia m e n ta ry P a p e rs, 1881 (3 17) I x x x iii. 6 8 1.
b2 I b id ., 1688 [c. 5259] x c iv . 1.
as L o n d o n T r a d e s ' C o u n c il, ly t h A n n u a l R e p o r t (iS S g).
as B r is t o l T r a d e s ' C o u n c il M in u t e B o o k , q u o te d in W e b b M S S, A - lH - 5 - a 6 iH ,
as S e e a d v e n is c m e m in .Mortiin/r P o if, A u g . 16, >881. In J u n e . 1878, th e A ss o c ia tio n
was s o lic it in g th e s u p p o r t o f th e L o u d o n T r a d e s ' C o u n c il. L o n d o n T r a d e s ' C o u n c il
M SS, J u n e 11. 1878. F o r a n e x a m p le o f th e A ss o c ia tio n 's e a r ly m e e tin g s , see A fo iie td rv
G a i e t u , A p r il i s , iS 7 g .
88 O a v is , B fx iis h T rades" U n io n C o n g re is, I , 72.
48
LABOR AND ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
hand-in-glove. A public m eeting at the Mansion House was con­
vened by a letter over the signatures oE N evile Lubbock lor the
West India Com m ittee, George Martineau for the Master Refiners,
and Peters and Kelly, joint secretaries of the W orkm en’s Associa­
tion. T h e object was to bind together all groups dependent on
sugar in a united effort to secure a countervailing “ duty on Bountyfed Sugar.”
H enceforth the movement grew rapidly, and K elly
claim ed that one m eeting was attended by y,ooo persons.** Am ong
the newcomers were John McLcan, representing the Scottish W ork­
m en’s Association; Sir Algernon Borthwick, editor of the protectioni.st M orning Post; Ecroyd and Lloyd of the Fair T rad e League;
and C. P. Ritchie, who sat in Parliament for Totver Hamlets,
ivherc several large refineries ivere located."’ Ritchie, setting a new
pace, led a deputation of workmen to call upon Gladstone; later,
with the help of the West India Committee, a similar group gained
admission to the conference room of the House of Commons, where
they were cordially received by interested members.®'
After these hopeful beginnings, the W orkm en’s Association rap­
idly lost face. On the heels of tlie scandal raised by Peters and Kelly
at tile T rad es’ U nion Congress came damaging revelations of an
attempt to bring the London Trades’ Council into the anti-bounty
campaign. T h e secretary of the London Council. George Shipton,
had spoken independently against bounties, and in 1880 was
approached by the W orkm en’s Association.®’ Shortly after, he
launched, with the endorsement of the London Council, a news­
paper called the Labour Standard, which advocated and provided
a forum for Fair T rad e and anti-bounty views.®® H enry Broadhurst
wrote that "T h ere is good ground for believing that the Standard
was established to convert the Unions to the Sugar Bounty M ove­
s’ l-'oreign E x p o r t D o tin lie s a n d E rec T r a d e in Sugar. iS S o . See
M a y ag, i8So.
also J M lish
E m p ir e ,
x ^ M o n iin g P o st, J u ly 18, 1881; Dai/y .Vews, M a rc h 3 1, 1B81: B ra d fo rd O bserver,
M a rc h 3 1 , 1881; a n d E c o n o m ist, O ct. 23, 1880.
B irm in g h a m D aily P ost, M ay n , 1881; M a n c h e sie r G u ardia n , A u g . 10, 1881.
so B ra d fo rd O bse/ver, M a y 19 a n d J u n e 29, 1881; Tim e.s, M ay 24, 1882.
L a b o u r S/andardj O ct. 22, i8 8 j.
02 L o n d o n T r a d e s ' C o u n c il M SS, J a n . i i . iB 8 i. L a b o u r Standard, M a y 2 t, J u n e 25,
J u ly 9, 1881, fo r e x a m p le . H . J . P e ttifc r o t th e N a t io n a l F air T r a d e L etrgue w as a
fr e q u e n t c o n trib u to r. A le a d in g a rtic le e n d o rsed th e u ttera n ces o t " t h e n ew m em b er
from P reston , M r. E c ro y d , w lio speaks n o t as an a g ita to r , b u t as a le g isla to r, w ith
p ra c tic a i g oo d sen se." L a b o u r S tan dard, J u n e 18, 1881.
LABOR AND
ANTI BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
49
m en t’’ ;
and the charge was made that Shipton had been paid
£ 11 8 for his w ork in behalf o f the A nti-B ounty League/^ Shipton
at once denied the allegations, pointin g ou t that he had advocated
“ suitable measures fo r the abolition of bounties” long before the
League was founded."” Later he produced letters show ing tliat he
had received only £23 from the N ational A nti-B ounty League "for
certain expenses o u t of pocket" and that he had frequently at­
tended m eetings "to advocate the abolition of foreign bounties
w ith ou t any rem uneration whatever, and at personal pecuniary
sacrifice to him self.” *“
Shipton’s nam e was saved, b u t the N ational A n ti-B ou nty League
and its subsidiary W orkm en ’s Association w ere seriously discred­
ited. O n e could grant that the sums paid were m erely for "o u t of
pocket” expenses; bu t the fact rem ained that sums w ere paid, and
what they bought was protectionist agitation am ong workers. Jos­
eph Cham berlain spoke w hat m any suspected when he said the
W orkm en's Association was a “ sham Association witli precious lit­
tle w orkm en about it. It is got up and paid by a few W est Indian
planters, w ho w ant to m ake a profit ou t of an increased price of
sugar.”
T h e sugar interests m ust have seen that it was high time
to part w ith Peters and K elly, A t all events, relations seem to have
been qu ietly dropped."®
T h e next tim e the planters solicited the support o f labor they
dealt d irectly w ith Shipton and the L ondon T rades' C ou n cil. In
1886, w hen the agitation for an international conference was near­
in g its peak, N ev ile L ubbock appeared twice at C ou n cil meetings
“ to explain the loss to English labor caused by tlie bounty sys­
tem .”
Cautious at first, the C ou n cil m erely accepted L u b b o ck ’s
offer to read a paper and made it clear that members w ere “n ot
com m itted to— nor opposed to— the subject involved in the pa
per.”
A fter L u b b o ck ’s second appearance it was m utually agreed
B r o a d h u r s t's n o ic s , q u o t e d in W e b b M SS, A -1 6 439.
L e t t e r tro m R . I L A r m it , p r im e d in t b c E c h o , O c L 3. 1881.
E c h o , O c t . 0 . 1881.
L a b o u r S ta n d a rd , O c t , im. 1881.
T im e s , N o v , 13, 1885.
3« In 1884 a d e le g a t io n o f s u g a r w o rk m e n v isite d th e C o n t in e n t 10 m a k e a c o m ­
p a r a t iv e s tu d y o f c o n d itio n s in tlie s u g a r in d u s tr y . T h e i r e x p e n se s iv e ie p a id in p a r t
b y t h e N a t io n a l A n t i- B o u n t y L e a g u e , T im e s , A u g . s g , S e p t. 8. 10, a n d 26, 188.1. It is
n o t p o s sib le to say w h e t h e r P e te rs a n d K e lly w e r e m e m b e rs oE th e d e le g a tio n .
3® IV est I n d ia n C ir c u ia r , N o . g . J a n , 10. 1887,
100 L o n d o n T r a d e s ' C o u n c il M SS, O c t . 7 , 18B6.
50
LABOR AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
“ that the subject should be revived at a subsequent tim e." and
the W est India C om m ittee voted fo raise a fund to help the L o n ­
don T rad es’ C ou n cil w ith its m eetings.’®
^
Results were not lon g in com ing. In M arch, 1887, a large m eet­
ing o f delegates from all the L ondon trades voted, w ith only one
dissentient, “ tiiat Foreign State B ounties are a violation of the p rin ­
ciple o f Free T ra d e, and urged the governm ent to take such meas­
ures as it may deem expedient, consistent w ith Free T ra d e princi­
ples, to secure their im m ediate abolition ." “ = Shipton then wrote
to trades’ councils in a ll parts of the kingdom requesting them to
pass sim ilar resolutions and to appoint representatives to accom ­
pany a deputation to the P rim e M in ister.'”" M ore than 220 execu­
tive councils responded w ith resolutions, and in J u ly a deputation
claim ing to represent h alf a m illio n organized workers called upon
L ord Salisbury.” * T h e follo w in g year, at the suggestion of the
Lond on C oun cil, a national conference o f organized trades met
in London to protest against bounties and spur the G overnm ent to
action.” ®
It was alm ost inevitable that a cam paign of this m agnitude w ould
raise the suspicion that “ sugar capitalists” were supplying the
funds, as indeed it turned out they were. T h e L on d on Star charged
that the anti-bounty agitation had cost the London C ou n cil “ very
nearly £1,000, w hile the total incom e o f the C ou n cil fo r the year
was only £ 18 8 /15/2 ." T h e m oney, it was said, had been furnished
by "th e T o r y P arty,” and "not a penny had com e from the C ou n ­
c il’s incom e.”
It w ou ld appear that these allegations w ere based
on inform ation supplied by \V. C. Peacock, leader o f a cliq u e op­
posing Shipton in the London C o u n cil.'”' Peacock later w rote the
editor o f the Star that the anti-bounty agitation had begun "w hen
the leading sugar capitalists invited the mem bers o f the C ou n cil to
WJ W e s t I n d ia M SS, D e c e m b e r g , 1886; L o n d o n T r a d e s ' C o u n c il, 2 7 th A n n u a l R e ­
p o r t (18B7).
102 L o n d o n T r a d e s ' C o u n c il M S S, M a r c h 10, 1887. T h e p tu 'ase "c o n s is te n t w it h
F r e e T r a d e p r in c ip le s " w a s lo o s e ly c o n s tru e d . I t d id u o t ru le o u t “ a c o u n te r v a ilin g
d u t y e q u a l to th e b o u n ty , a n d c o n t in u e d o n ly so lo n g as th e b o u n t y was m a in t a in e d ."
T im e s , N o v . 30. 1887,
=62 L o n d o n T r a d e s ’ C o u n c il M S S , J u n e 2, 1887.
10* L o n d o n T r a d e s ’ C o u n c il, a g tb A n n u a l R e p o r t (1889).
' “ 6 L o n d o n T r a d e s ' C o u n c il M SS, F e b . 2, rS88; C o n fe r e n c e of D e le g a te s fr o m t h e
O r g a n iz e d T ra d es.
IDS S ta r (L o n d o n ), M a y 10, 13, 1889; a lso M a y 3, 1889.
w t L o n d o n T r a d e s ’ C o u n c il M S S , M a y 2, 1889.
LABOR
AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
51
a soirde at a certain restaurant in Fleet Street.” In particular, he
claim ed to know ,that the sugar interests had paid the expenses of
country delegates ivJio accom panied the deputation to L ord Salis­
b u ry .'”*
W h ile Shipton’s defense revealed that there was som e truth in
tliese charges, there was no evidence that his intentions were anytiiing but honorable.”'® H is policy was evidently know n w ell in
advance by the mem bers of the C ou n cil, in whose view the ac­
ceptance o f such assistance was entirely w itliin the bounds of cor­
rect union policy. Shipton showed that a fu ll delegates’ m eeting
had, w ith only two dissentients, authorized him to call anti-bounty
conferences "w ith the fu ll know ledge that the expenses w ou ld be
defrayed by a subscription apart horn the C ou n cil fu n d .” T h e
conferences had been attended lay a total of 164 delegates, wlio were
paid on the basis adopted by the T rad es’ U n ion Congress: that is,
10s. 6d. to L ondon delegates for the loss o f a day’s w ork, plus all
expenses; and m ore to ou t of-town delegates, according to the dis­
tance traveled. Shipton insisted that ‘ ‘no m oney had com e from
any party— m uch less the T o r y p arty” ; rather, that “ m em bers o f
all the great R eform and Liberal C lubs had subscribed toward the
expenses, h u t purely from an industrial standpoint.” W h ile deny­
in g that so much as £1,000 had been subscribed, lie w arded oft a
proposed in q u iry into this m atter by insisting that “ tlie tivo m ain
issues w e re — first, had the money com e from the T o r y Party— and
second, had it been honestly expended for the purposes for w hich
it had been subscribed.” H e later produced
the whole of the accounts, including the n.imcs of the subscribers and
the amounts of money received and disbursed . . . and a letter . . .
from the subscribers, expressing their full satisfaction at the proper ex­
penditure of the money . . . as attested by one of their number who
. . . had been present on both occasions and superintended the pay­
ment for out of pocket expenses to the delegates.
A fter “ due exam ination” the C ou n cil resolved that it was “ thor­
oughly satisfied,”
and tw enty mem bers signed a letter to the
Star, denouncing its “ unjust attack.” " '
(I.o n d o n ), M a y 24, i8 8g,
d e t r s ^ " '* ° "
i m / t i d . , J u n e 6, 1889.
M a y 16. i8 B g, c o n t a i.iit ig f u l l r e p o r t o f S h ip to n 's
m i f c i d . , J u ly 25, J8S9.
52
LABOR AND
TH E
w o r k e r s
’
ANTI-BOUNTY
A N T I-B O U X T Y
MOVEMENT
M OVEM ENT
AND
F A IR
TRADE
T h is bare account of the scandals and successes of the workers’
anti-bounty movement leaves several vital questions unanswered.
For example, how many workers were involved? Was their aim to
restore free trade by defeating bounties, or were they really pro­
tectionists? A n d finally, where did the anti-bounty workers stand
in regard to the Fair T rad e League?
Unfortunately, the num ber of workers involved cannot be ac­
curately determined. T h e upper lim its are suggested by Yhe fact
that George Shipton's attempt to introduce the bounty question
at the Trades' U nion Congress of 1888 came off rather badly,’ "
Yet the anti-bounty movement was no tempest in a teapot. T h e
lower limits must include, in addition to sugar workers, a generous
num ber from other trades, many of whom were affected or feared
chat they would soon be affected by the action of bounties. Support
came from the T rad es’ Councils of London, Liverpool, Oldham,
Nottingham , Belfast, and Bristol, as w ell as from such diverse or­
ganizations as the Rent and Sussex Labourers, the N ational L a­
bour Electoral Association, the Boiler Makers and Sfiipbuilders.
the Am algam ated Railw ay Servants, and the Journeym an Felt
Hatters,’ " T h e claim of the London T rades’ Council that societies
containing 423,883 members had endorsed the movement was
w ithout doubt a little toplieavy; but it seems unlikely that the
strictest analysis w ould reduce the figure by much more than
half."*
It is worth recalling that in the eighties British workers were
largely untouched by the socialist doctrine of an irrepressible class
conflict and that they frequently identified their well-being with
the well-being of tlie trade in which they happened to be en­
gaged. A worker employed by a firm whose business suffered from
foreign com petition or foreign tariffs was at least as likely to join
his employer in advocating protection as he was to join other work­
ers in advocating a strike. T h ere was ample evidence of this tend­
ency in towns like Siieffield and Birmingham, where certain export
trades declined with dramatic suddenness upon tlie imposition of
iiS T in ie 5 j Sept. 4, 1888.
ParHam eniaTy Pa p ers, 1SS8 [c, 5259] x c iv . 1.
Sec the c ritic a l a p p ra isa l o f th e figures in E c h o , M ay 3. 1889.
LABOR
AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
53
new tariffs abroad.” ^ "W h a t is to becom e of the 'hands,’ ’’ m any a
worker asked, "w hen E ngland’s im m ense exp ort trade begins to
shrink down every year instead o f expanding?” ” *
T h e anti-bounty workers, like m any of their employers, did all
in their power to hide the fact that they w ere protectionists. N o
labor leader could afford to w aver in his devotion to the “ cheap
loaf,” and since tim e out o f m ind the "cheap l o a f ’ and free trade
had been popularly taken as faces of the same coin. W hen one de
m anded a tariff, therefore, one frequ ently did so in the nam e of free
trade, n ot Fair T ra d e or protection. T ire masquerade made good
politics, b u t perp lexin g logic. W h at was happening— and a few like
L ord Salisbury saw it— was that in many quarters tariffs were com ­
in g to be regarded not w ith reference to the doctrinaire principles
popularized by C ob den and Bright, bu t pragm atically, tariff by
tariff, article by article, country by country.” ’ T h e question was
not so m uch free trade o r protection; but rather. H ow m uch free
trade?— H ow m uch protection?— P rotection for w hat and against
whom? If a tax on corn m eant rising bread prices, it was folly to
advocate it; b u t if a tax on sugar or matches m eant protection for
British labor, it was equal folly to raise the false alarm of the "dear
loaf." Y et such was the power of old catchwords, that w hile m any a
Free T r a d e r ' dem anded tariffs, they were rare indeed w ho an­
swered to the nam e "F a ir T ra d e r” ; and o f self-confessed "protec
tionists” there w ere virtu ally none.
T h e contradictions of the position were obvious, however, and
it did not take m uch looking to see that im portant changes were
being w rought. T h e anti-bounty workers insisted, m ost of them,
that their aim was to restore "free trade” ; all they w anted was an
international conference for the suppression of bounties. B u t ev­
eryone agreed that an international convention w ithou t a penal
clause w ou ld be a "sim ple illu sio n ” ; and a penal clause, purely and
simply, m eant eith er prohibitions o r cou ntervailin g duties. It was
SIS F air Trade, f u l y 18 a n d 25, 1890: M u n d e lla [O J . D . L e a d e re r, A uguM 34, 1890,
M u n d a lla M S S; Tim er, O n . 6, 1890, J a n . 15, 1891. T h e s e s h o w re a c tio n s 10 th e M c ­
K in le y T a r ilf . B u t th e sam e t h in g h a d o c c u r re d , o n a s m a lle r s c a le , m u c h earlier: see
G a r v in , Josep h Cham berlain, I I , l a i - g a , a n d J c y c s a n d H o w , Sir Hotjuard Vincent
p p . 168-69.
l i e L a i o u r S ia rtd a rd , J u n e 18, 1881.
I l l F o r a n e a rly e x p re ss io n o f th is v ie w .see th e a r t ic le e n t it le d " I s P o litic a l E c o n o m y
a S c ic n c c f" Q uarterly Review, J a n ., 1879, P P - ‘ B s-a o * .
54
LABOR
AND
ANTI BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
said, som ew hat ap olo g etica lly, that “ T h e effect o f such a clause is
precisely the practice o f T r a d e Societies in th eir efforts for the com ­
m on elevation o f la b o u r”— in oth er words, the b oyco tt a p p lied in ­
tern atio n ally. B u t it was d ifficult to pursue such thoughts as these
w ith o u t strayin g off the C o b d e n ite reservation; w ith o u t, for ex a m ­
ple, g o in g on to attack the “ academ ic school" o f econom ists, w hich,
w h ile n ot actu ally d efe n d in g b ou nties, “ deprecates any in terfer­
ence w ith them'.”
D id the C o b d e n C lu b say that consum ers b enefitted from the
ch ea p e n in g effects o f bounties?
T h ere is a line of cheapness [came the reply] belo w which nothing but
the degradation of the workers is the result. . . . T h e insatiable de­
mand for the lowest price . . . is the curse of modern industrial life.
. . . M uch might be done by a healthy public determination to en­
courage native production in preference to so-called cheap importaT h e tim e for m in cin g w ords was past. “ A s to free trad e,” G eo rge
S h ip to n was q u oted as saying w h ile presid in g o v er the T ra d es '
U n io n C ongress o f 1888, it was the “ o ld nostrum . . . that they
sh o u ld b u y in the cheapest . . . m arket q u ite irresp ective o f the
con d itio n s o f lab ou r. . . . If such was to be the case they m ight
as w ell im p ort O rie n ta l lab ou r, endorse the sw eatin g system, and
approve of the slave trad e."
T h e cards w ere on the table. If the
"d em o n of cheapness”
was w h at free traders w anted, then not
a few w orkers w ere cp u ttin g the gam e.
Y e t fo r a ll this, the anti-b ou n ty w orkers rem ain ed , on the w h ole,
at a discreet distance from the F a ir T r a d e L eagu e. Suspicions
aroused b y th e L e a g u e ’s a ttem p ted co u p at the Congress o f 1881
w ere n ot easily d ispelled, and m any w orkers w ere u n ab le to forget
that F air T r a d e stood n ot on ly for in d u strial p rotection , b u t for
the dreaded foo d ta x as w e ll.” ®In face of this h ostility. F air T rad ers
i i s L o n d o n T r a d e s ’ C o u n c il , s g i h A n n u a l R e p o r t ,
n o D a ily A ’e iiij, J u l y s i , 1888; le t t e r tr o m t h e L o n dd to n T r a d e s ' C o u n c il d e p u t a t io n .
I t a lic s iTiinc.
J25 T i m e s , S e p t. 4, iHSH. S h ip t o n w a s at t h is t im e v ic e - c h a ir m a n o f t h e C o n g r e s s ’
P a r lia m e n t a r y C o m m it t e e .
321 T h e p h r a s e w a s H e n r y B r o a d h u r s l ’s. T i m e s , S e p t. 4 . 1888. N e e d le s s t o s ay,
E r o a d h u r s t , w h a t e v e r h is v ie w s o n ‘ ’c h e a p n e s s ,” d id n o t g o a l o n g w it h S h ip t o n on
t h e m a t t e r o f p r o t e c t io n .
132 T h e t .o n d o r i T r a d e s ’ C o u n c il o n c e c a lle d a n a t i o n a l c o n fe r e n c e o f o r g a n iz e d
tra d e s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s h o w in g t h a t t h e a n t i b o u n t y c a m p a ig n w a s, a t h e a r t , f r e e
LABOR
AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
55
d ecid ed in the late eigh ties and n in eties to let w ell enough alone.
T h e ir program , they said, offered p ro tectio n to em ployers and em ­
ployees alike, b u t since their advances had m et w ith no response
from the unions, they w o u ld w ait now fo r the m o u n ta in to m ove
to M oham m ed. T liis standpat a ttitu d e was strengthened by the
fact that the L e a g u e ’s coun try m em bers w ere fearfu l lest industry
receive an u n d u e prim acy in the F a ir T r a d e program.^'^^ It w ould
have taken n o little in g en u ity to court the w orkers,‘w h o w anted the
cheap lo a f,” w ith o u t losing the affection o f farm ers, w h o w anted
the dear loaf. ’ W h en the F air T r a d e L eagu e d elib erately chose
the farm ers, there was n o g o in g back.
N o t that F air T rad e rs surrendered their interest in the labor
question. W h ile no lo n g er d e a lin g w ith established unions, they
d id encourage the fo rm atio n o f “ in d ep en d e n t” w o rkers’ p ro tec­
tion ist societies. T h e m ost im portan t o f these was the W o rk m e n ’s
A ssociation o f the D efense o f B ritish Industry, fo u n d ed by H . J.
P ettifer, an itin e ra n t organizer w ith a rough and ready eloqu en ce
and a lo n g record o f co lla b o ratio n w ith em p lo yer groups.*-^ T h e
W o rk m en s A ssociation a tta in ed considerable influence o ver the
o ld C o n servative Party W o rk in g m e n ’s Associations, and, at the in ­
stigation o f H ow ard V in ce n t, the m ettlesom e M .P . from Sheffield,
becam e the spearhead o f a protection ist revolt w hicfi greatly em ­
barrassed party leaders. T h is is a story b e lo n g in g pro p erly in antrade and had n othin g to do w ith the Fair T rad e League. London t rades’ Council
MSS, Feb. 2, 1888; also Conference . . . in Favour of Free Trade and Condemnatory
o f Foreign Bounties.
129 Fair Trade. Aug, 3, 1888.
12^ Between 1881 and 1884 Pettiter served as one of the Fair T rad e League's busiest
lecturers; as a Liberal and a workm an, he was a rare find. In 1884 he left the League
after deciding that he could not conscientiously advocate a tax 011 food. See bio grap h ­
ical sketch in Fair Trade, Nov, 25, iSSy.
Pettifer then joined H. J. Guerrier, a retired businessman and a protectionist, in
fou n d ing a Society for the Defense of British Industry. G uerrier furnished most of
the funds, but was later assisted by a "cotnm ittee o f earnest m en" w ho were attracted
by the Society's program . Ibid., Nov, 25, 1887, Jan. 16 and 30, 1891. Sec also Rowley
and Pettiter, Free Trade versus Fair Trade and G uerrier, Phitosophy of Cheap.
A fter sp litting w ith G uerrier, Pettifer founded the W orkm en’s Association for the
Defense of British Industry. By this time he had gravitated from Liberalism 10 C on­
servatism and found it in his conscience 10 advocate food duties once more. A fter
giving up his trade, he became full-tim e secretary of the Association, which received
financial help from one David Evans, a businessman of the C ity, the Fair T rad e
League, and Howard Vincent and his friends. Fair Trade, Nov. 11 and 25, 1887;
July 5, 1889, For Evans’s views see his letter to the Labour Electour, March 15, 1890;
see also Times, Dec. 14, 1895.
’
50
LABOR AND
ANTI-BOUNTY
MOVEMENT
other ch ap ter,'"' H ere it is enough to note the close partnership
betw een tlie AVorkmen's Association and the Fair T ra d e I.eague.
T h e ir programs were, in all im portant respects, identical; in 1887,
when a com m on fund was established, F air T rad ers subscribed
£5,000, in clu d in g £1,000 from S. C . Lister; and later, a “ U nited
Labour C o m m ittee'’ was form ed to coordinate relations.” "' T h is
new approach lo labor had obvious lim itations, however. P ettifer
had not a w ide follow ing, and his close association w ith H ow ard
V in cen t and protectionist Conservatives gave the group a political
orientation distasteful to many workers. T h e W o rk m en ’s Associ­
ation becam e a pressure grou p w ith in the Conservative Party,
thereby surrendering all pretence of representing the mass of w ork­
ers. T o m any it was a “ snare and a d elu sion ,’’ a renegade body,
sv'hich had “ sold o u t” the true interests of labor.
W hen the decade of the nineties opened, it was d e a r that Fair
T rad e, in so far as it aim ed to rally the laboring masses, had missed
the boat. Even the anti-bounty m ovem ent, after spending most of
its strength in the agitation for an international conference, began
to decline. T h e trade-union m ovem ent in B ritain was en terin g a
new and fateful phase of its history. D istu rbin g doctrines were fa ll­
in g from the lips of m en like K eir Flardy and Ben T ille t; and doc­
trine was soon follow ed by “ d evilm ent." f t was m ore than an a n ti­
quarian interest w hich prom pted a correspondent of Fair Trade
to rem ark m eaningfully in 1889 that " T h is year is the centenary o f
the French R evo lu tio n .”
Strikes at B ryant and M ay, Silvertow ne,
and the L on d on Docks w ere follow ed by one in L ister’s ow n estab­
lishm ent, w hich la.sted twenty-one weeks. L ister claim ed, w ith con­
siderable justice it seems, that as a result o f the M cK in ley T a riff
his export business to the U n ited States “ was almost ann ihilated."
Fair T ra d e pam phlets urged that u n til cheap foreign com petition
had been dealt w ith, workers w ho dem anded higher standards
125 S ee p p . C7-JO,
15G P a ir T r a d e , N o v .
3 a n d 1 1 , 1687, a n d J u ly 5 , i8 8 g . I h a v e seen h a n d b ills b r a c k e t ­
in g th e n a m e s o£ th e tw o o r g a iib a t io n s .
T h e W o r k m e n 's A s s o c ia tio n ivas fo u n d e d f o r " t h e a d v o c a c y , in th e in te re sts o f
la iio u r , o f th e im p o s itio n o f im p o t t d u tie s u p o n fo r e ig n p io d t ic t io n , o t h e r tita n ra w
m a t e r ia l, c o m p e tin g w it h lir it is h a n d Iris h in d u s try ; a n d th e g r a n tin g o f p r e fe r e n tia l
ra te s to I n d ia n a n d C o lo n ia l g r a in ,” S e c T h e C o n ip e tilio r i o f i-o r c ig n e r s, issu e d b y
th e W o r k m e n 's A ss o c i.itio n fn r th e D e fe n s e o f B r it is h In d u s try .
12T F a ir T r a d e , A p r i l 5, 18S9.
12B I .is ie r , f a i r T r a d e v e r su s F ree T r a d e .
LABOR AND A N T M i O U N T Y
MOVEMENT
57
were trying to lift themselves by the bootstraps. But time was run­
ning out and militant doctrines were running in, and the Fair
Trade League learned too late that its hopes for labor peace were
merely pious wishing.
Ill
T A R IF F
REFORM
AND
C O N S E R V A T IV E
I
88
I -
TH E
PARTY
1895
RGANIZED CONSERVATISM gavc tariff reform a better hearing than
did organized labor. For protectionists, Fair Traders, and tar­
iff reform ers of ever)' description, all roads fed directly to the C o n ­
servative Party. D u rin g the sixties and seventies Conservatives had,
for the m ost part, bow ed to the im peratives of the “ cheap loaf,” But
there rem ained many like L ow ther and R u tla n d w ho kept the
“ poor dim tapers of protection liopefully flickering” and many
m ore like Salisbury wJio were “ scornfully critical of the lofty claims
o f C obdeiiite orth od oxy.” ’ W iien ever protectionist whisperings
were heard— as they occasionally were even at the noontide of free
trade— they issued invariably from the Conservative side. A n d
d u rin g the eighties, the w hispering becam e a tum ult.
O
THE
C O N .S E R V A T I V E
D R IF T
TOW ARD
T A R IF F
REFORM :
18 8 1-18 8 6
W hen the Fair T ra d e League was form ed, T o ries were still
sm arting under their defeat of 1880, and it may have been, as John
B righ t said, that they w ere “ hard u p for a topic.” - In any event,
the ink on the Fair T ra d e M anifesto of 1881 was scarcely dry when
they began to polish up the old weapon of protection. In Septem ber
G ladstone com plained bitterly against “ the ‘Fair T r a d e ’ im posture
and the use m ade of it by the T o ries to repair some portion of
their defeats.” ' A n d M undella, w atching Fair T ra d e grow in Shef­
field, uTote; “ T h e T o ries seem to have lost all grasp o f principles.
1 L a d y G w e n d o le n C e c il. S a lisb u r y , I. 337.
E x a m in e r a n d T im e s , S ep t. 12, j8 8 i.
s G la d s to n e MS.S, G la d s to n e to H a lif a x , S ep t, 18, i 83 i.
3 M a n c h e ste r
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
59
. . . Protection, Fair T rad e, and even Irish discontent, is turned
to account.” *
Beneath this Liberal smoke there was no lack o f T o ry fire. In a
single month, three Conservative candidates declared for protec­
tion at by-elections, and many local party associations and w orking­
m en’s d u b s passed protectionist resolutions.® T h e Lancashire Union
of Conservative Associations, for example, resolved ‘ ‘that the prin­
ciple at present pursued by England o f m eeting hostile tariffs with
free imports is not only economically unsound, but utterly ruinous
in practice,” and urged ‘‘that the time has now arrived when a re­
versal o f such policy is im peratively necessary in the interests of
British industry. ” « T h e debate moved to the House of Commons
when R itchie subm itted a motion favoring countervailing duties
on sugar. A fter Ecroyd and R itchie had crossed swords with Cham ­
berlain and J. K. Cross, the motion was defeated, 153 to 80. T h e 80
were exclusively Conservative.’' So alarm ing was the count that at
Gladstone’s suggestion the Cobden C lu b printed 180,000 copies of
the speeches by Cham berlain an d Cross.'' ‘‘ Unless some authorita­
tive declaration to the contrary is speedily made,” said the Econo­
mist of September 3, 1881, ‘‘the country w ill be bound to assume
that reciprocity has been formally adopted as part o f the new Con­
servative platform .” A nd the Standard of London, a Conservative
paper, on September 6 im plored party leaders to keep clear of pro­
tectionist heresies.
T h e gentlemen on the front opposition bench were beset with
doubts. For the most part they wanted neither to silence nor to
sanction Fair T rade. W hat was needed was a statement o f policy,
which, w hile freeing the party from the charge of protection, would
< M undella MSS, A . J. M un della to C. Leader, Sept. a, 18B1.
a Names: H enry de W orm s, Edward Clarke, E. Hardcastle, H . Drum m ond W olff,
A . Slaveley H ill, W . F. T ollcm ach e, W . L, Jackson, D avid M aclver, Lord Henry
T h y n n e, J. E. M ellor, A lgernon Egertou, Ashm ead llartlett, Sir H ardinge Giffard
J. H . Sidehottom , Sir H. Selvin Ihbctson, Lord Claude H am ilton, Sir R . A. Cross
Places: D eptford, Southw ard, Ashton-U ndcr-Lynnc-O rm skirk, Cheshire, Kidderm in
ster, Guiseley, Coventry, Farnsworth, K irkburton , Launceston, ’to w er Hamlets, Staly
bridge, Shrewsbury. See Bradford Ohservcr, Nov. s s, ag, 1881; Manchester Guardian
A u g. 1, 2, 8, i88t; M orning Post, June 27. July S i, 1881; Birm ingham Weekly Post
Nov. 5, 1881; Daily Telegraph, Dec. 2, i88t.
3 Manchester Guardian, Aug. 15, iSSt.
1 Hansard’s Partiainenfary Debates, gd Ser., Vol. 264, Cols. 3-15; Manchester
G uardian, A ug. 15, 1881.
* Manchester G uardian, Aug. 15, 1881; Tim es, July 31, 1882.
Go
THE CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
yet permit a measure o£ experim entation in constituencies where
"F air T rad e winds" were stirring. Salisbury’s form ulation— not im ­
provised. by the way, but representing his best thought on the sub­
ject— most nearly filled the bill. In matters o f tariffs, he said, "each
case could only be dealt with on its own merits.” ®England could
little afford to accept discrim ination by foreign powers without
striking back. H e could not endorse Fair T rad e, or any other pro­
gram which w ould press “ upon the food of the people” ; but, he
added, "in spite of any formula, in spite of any cry of Free Trade,
if I saw by raising the duty on luxuries, or threatening to raise it,
I could exercise pressure on a foreign Power, inducing it to lower
rates and give relief, I should pitch orthodoxy and form ulae to
the winds and exercise pressure.”
T h rou gh ou t the controversy,
with a consistency rarely matched, he m aintained substantially the
same position.
Sir Stafford Northcote, Conservative leader in the House of
Commons, tried to steer the same course, though his tacking was
far less skillful. T o placate Fair Traders, he appeared conspicuously
with Ecroyd, M aclver, and R utland at public meetings; " when
he came to speak for himself, hmvever. Liberals professed, w ith
some justice, not to have "the slightest idea what he meant.” ”
W h ile prote.sting his loyalty to free trade, he insisted that Eng­
land had “ put herself in a false position with foreign countries in
dealing upon this m atter." H e argued that Britain needed "the
freest and widest acces.s to the markets of the world, as well as the
means of m anufacturing as cheaply as po.ssible,” but observed that
the home market, on the other hand, need not be neglected "if
we use the right means to support our commercial interests.”
T h e fog was tliickest when he remarked that protection was not
an “ article of faith” of Conservatives but merely a “ pious opinion"
which he himself did not share.” T h e “ shifty and disingenuous
coquetting of Sir Stafford N orthcote” became the chief target for
Liberal and Cobdenite abuse,”
o C i c i l , S allsh u ry, jg fi.
m B r a d fo r d O b serv er, O ct. 13, )B 8 i.
11 A t M a n c h e ster a n d Sheffield. See P resto n G u a rd ia n , J u n e 4, i8 8 i; B ra d fo rd
O hseru er, Sept. 2, 1881.
12 T h e w ord s w ere G ra n v ille 's; see B r a d fo r d O b serv er, O c t. 12, 1881.
m B r a d fo r d O bserver, O c t. 4, tS 8 i.
is I b id ., O c t. 12, 1881.
15 I b id ., D ec. 1, 1881.
le M a n c h e ster E x a m in e r a n d T im e s , D e c. 3 1, 1S81; see also G ra n v ille 's sp eech at
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
fii
Lord R andolph C h u rch ill, w ith characteristic im petuosity,
steered straight into the storm. B rita in ’s system o f so-called free
trade, “ the certain cause of the long continued depression in this
Country,” he said bluntly, must be overthrow n. Foreign markets,
like oysters, needed open in g w ith a “ strong clasp knife, instead of
b ein g tickled w ith a feather.” ” In the event of war, Britain's food
supply w ould be in gra\e peril. "W o u ld it not be wise,” he asked,
"to take steps In time to draw ou r supplies of food from our colonies
and dependencies . , . rather than rem ain absolutely dependent
upon a foreign power [the U nited States] w hicli though friendly
today m igh t be hostile tom orrow?" **
W ith this encouragem ent from their leaders, T o r y protectionists,
as lon g as G ladstone was in office, made the m ost of their oppor­
tunity "to damn w ithou t defining.” W h at policy they w ould adopt
if suddenly presented w ith a Parliam entary m ajority, no one could
say; bu t their grow ing confidence in opposing free trade was un­
m istakable. T h e re was only one b rief lu ll. T h is was in 1882, when
trade was distinctly belter, Gladstone, in a pow erful speech at
Leeds, had tem porarily crippled the proponents o f the "great and
m ischievous delusion," and rebuffs at the T rad es’ U nions Congress
and the Farmers’ A llian ce had given Fair T ra d e “ almost its death
b lo w .”
As soon as trade was slack again, protection leaped to the
fore of political discussion. O n January 10, 1883, the Tim es fore­
saw "a period, m ore or less protracted, of restricted profits and con ­
sequent difficuhies in trade." T h e D uke of R u tlan d seized the
opportun ity to address the editor on the necessity o f protection, and
a few months later raised the question in the H ouse of Lords.’ "
L ord D unraven, rising rapidly in T o r y circles, becam e president
o f the Fair T ra d e League. Lord R andolph C h u rch ill advocated
cou ntervailin g sugar duties.’ ^ On they talk, said the T im es, "long
after all the waters o f dem onstrable argum ent have gone over their
heads." == Liberals were frankly w orried. M undella, in his corre­
spondence, displayed concern at the prevalence o f Fair T ra d e ideas
t h e I r o n a n d S te e l I n s titu te , B r a d lo r d Observer, O c t, 12, iS 8 i, o r Eronom isi, O c t. 8,
iS B i.
I t B r a d fo r d Observer, S ep t. 19, 1881.
s t lb id ., N o v . 2, i8 8 i.
IS Tim es, O c t. 8, i8 8 i; see a lso U o p d - G la d s t o n e c o r r e s p o n d e n c e p r in t e d itt Times,
O c t. 2 1 , 1881.
*0 T im e s ,
J u n e 11 , 1883.
T im e s , J u n e 7. 1884.
I b id ., N o v . 14, 18B4.
62
THE CONiSERVATIVE PAR TY
among the leading people of Sheffield.®® T he Cobden Club, fearing
that newly enfranchised voters would prove susceptible to “ sophis­
tical economical arguments," laid plans to distribute preventive
literature. Gladstone himself contributed ttventy pounds to the
Special Publications Fund.®*
A partial test of T ory intentions came in June, 1885, when Glad­
stone fell, and Salisbury formed his first Government, “more than
one of the members of which are tvell known advocates of . . .
tariffs.” Of the men holding office, at least six— Salisbury, Northcote, Churchill, Lord George Hamilton, Sir R, A. Cross, and Sir
Hardinge Gilfard— had spoken favorably of protection. Fair Trade,
or retaliation; and Dunraven, now an official spokesman for the
Fair Trade League, was Under-Secretary for the Colonies.®®
It tvas understood that protectionists refrained from acting be­
cause tlicy were dependent upon Parnell’s Irish votes, and because
in Salisbury’s view only a mandate from the electorate would justify
a departure from free trade. T o a delegation pressing for duties
against bounties, the Prime Minister spoke regretfully. Armed
only witli exhortations, not weapons, he said, he was powerless to
help. T he people must decide whether the necessary weapon, a bar­
gaining tariff, ought to be placed in his hands.®’ Here, seemingly,
was a plain invitation to "the reciprocitarians” to create a public de­
mand authorizing him to follow out policies already made his own.
“ Had the new Ministry come into power with an effective major­
ity,” said one observer.
. . it would have been quite upon the
cards that a reversal of the British economic policy would have
been attempted.”
Meanwhile, the Government had shown tlieir indifference to
33 Mundella MSS, Mundella to C. Leader, Sept. 17. May 11, 1884,
31 Times, June 30 and Dec. 37, 1884,
25 Chamber of Commerce Journal. July 4, 1885.
88 Dunraven had recently resigned as president o£ the League but he continued to
speak for Fair Trade. See Times, Jan. 39 and Oct, 13, 1885; see also Dunraven, Past
Times, H, 131.
“ My own view has always been that ibe power of modifying your fiscal system in
order to defeat any oppressive action on the part of foreign countries is a pouer that
ought very rarely to be exercised, but which you ought to possess, and that if you
arc known to possess it, it will very seldom be necessary that you should exercise it."
Times, Aug. 6, 1885.
8* Chamber of Commerce Journal, July 4, 1885.
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
63
Cobdenite preachments by creating the Royal Commission whose
well-knoivn report on the depression in trade and industry appeared
in 1887.-“ The appointment of the Commission and tlie Final R e­
port were closely bound up with the Fair Trade controversy. Pro­
tectionists had long demanded such an inquiry; Cobdenites had
opposed it, arguing that trade would right itself without undue
fuss and bother. As a result, the question became largely political.
Conservatives, ‘‘tainted with protection,” were favorable; Liberals,
‘‘crushed under the tyranny of economic bigotry,” were opposed.®“
When the Commissioners were being chosen in 1885, there were
those who suspected an open assault on free trade. T he suspicion was
heightened by the announcement that Dunraven, Ecroyd, Nevile
Lubbock, and P. A. Muntz, an old protectionist, would sit as
members. In horror, many Liberals elected to boycott the whole
enterprise. When J. K. Cross w'as invited to serve, Gladstone wrote
him:
N o o n e w o u ld m ore effe ctiv e ly th an y o u rse lf d e fe n d the p rin c ip le s of
F re e T r a d e o n the p ro p o sed C o m m issio n o f Im iu iry . B u t if m y o p in io n
as to servin g o n it b e asked, I th in k the w h o le th in g u n so u n d at the
core, a p p o in te d w ith an in d ir e c t m o tiv e, a n d h a v in g n o le g itim a te p u r­
pose; a n d I w o u ld “ to u ch n ot, taste n ot, h a n d le n o t.” Y o u w ill p ro b a b ly
en d in it as o n e o f a p r o te s tin g m in o rity .’ t
In the Same spirit, Shaw-Lefevre, William Fowler, Thomas Farrer,
and G. J. Goschen refused to serve, charging that the Commission,
with a protectionist bias, was not siifhciently repre,sentative to “com­
mand public conhdence.”
That these fears tvere greatly exag­
gerated is suggested by the moderate character of the majority re­
port, A ll the Commissioners agreed “ that the trade and industry
of the country are in a condition which may fairly be described
as depressed," and that “ foreign tariffs and bounties, and the re­
strictive commercial policy of foreign countries” were among the
important causes.” T h e majority, however, argued that tliese mat­
ters were independent of Britain’s control; while protectionists had
Royal Cotiimission on the Depression, Final Report.
2“ T/ie Globe, Sept, 20, 1885; also C/ianiber of Commcrre. journal, Oct. r„ and
Dec. 5, 1885.
■
31 Gladstone MSS, Gladstone to Cross, July 17, 1885.
Times, July 22, Aug. 11 and 22, Sept. 5, 1885; also Fair Trade, Oct. 23, 1885.
33 R oyal Com m ission on the Depression, Final Report, p. 28.
64
t h e
c o n s e r v a t i v e
PARTY
to be content w ith a m inority report con tain in g an elaborate
statem ent of the F air T ra d e case.®*
Before the Com m ission finished its labors, B ritain passed through
the fire and w ater o f the elections o f 1885 and 1886. T h e “ un au­
thorized program /’ H om e R u le, and the L ib eral ru p tu re p u t all
other questions in a secondary place, b u t beneath the com m otion
was abundant evidence that Conservatives w ere d riftin g steadily
toward adoption o f tariff reform . In opening the cam paign o f 1885
Salisbury told voters that the “ Conservative desire is so to m anage
affairs . . . that you shall obtain an entry to m arkets w h ich are
now closed to yo u ” ; and later, though ru lin g o u t a return to the
C o rn Laws, he renew ed his plea for weapons o f retaliation.®® Dunraven, now assisting in the publicatio n of the w eekly F a ir T rade,
advocated the L eagu e’s program entire. H e was supported by L ouis
Jennings, C h u rc h ill’s A m erican friend standing as candidate for
Stockport. C h ap lin , Ecroyd, Low ther, L lo yd , W . J. Harris, and Sir
Edw ard C lark e sw elled the chorus.®® T h e protectionist appeal seem­
in gly was most effective in m anufacturin g districts, and m ight help
to explain, along w ith the Irish vote and m em ories o f G ordon, w hy
the towns generally favored Conservatives in 1885. Such L iberal
leaders as B righ t and H arcourt accepted protection as an im portant
secondary issue, and dw elt upon it at length, w h ile H artin gton, en­
countering F air T rad ers in Lancashire, “ found them to be stronger
than he had im agined." ” “ Fair T r a d e ,” sighed C h am berlain when
the p o llin g was over, “ you have no idea w hat a hold it has upon
the artisans.”
3+ Royal Commission on Che Depression, Final R ep ort, pp. 55, 137-45. One is perhaps
entitled to wonder if the alliance with Liberal Unionists in any way softened the blmvs
of the Commission’s majority.
95 Cecil, Salisbury, III, aba, 367-68. See also Fair T rade, Nov, 13, 1S85.
36Dunraven, Past T im es, II, 130-33, T im es, Sept. 29, Dec. 12, 18R5. Channing,
M em ories of M id la n d P olities, p. 38. Sir Edward Clarke, T h e Story of My L ife.
T im es, Nov. 12, 19, and 23. 1885. Gardiner, .Sir IViHiam H arcourt, I, 54a. Holland,
E ig h th D u k e o f D evon shire, I, 163; II, 268.
Garvin, Joseph C ham berlain, II, 121-22. Before the election of 1885 the Fair
T rad e League undertook “ work of a more m ilitant nature” than ever before. T h e
num ber of provincial brandies and correspondents was increased to 500. T h e sub­
scription charge was lowered to is,, and over 2,500 new members joined the Central
Office, not to mention others who m ight have joined branches w ithout recording
their names at headquarters. D uring the election more than 100,000 tracts and
pamphlets were circulated ivcckly. 'Scc Fair Trade, March 26, 1886, and Oct. 23, 1885,
T h e Cobden Club entered the lists with leaflets and handbills addressed particularly
to the newly enfranchised voters. See series of Cobden Club Leaflets, from 1885, George
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
65
In 1885 Fair T rad e was beyond doubt “ one of the leading elec­
tion cries.” In the Hom e R u le election of 1886 it played, for obvi­
ous reasons, a less conspicuous part. B ut anyone suspecting that
Conservatives had forgotten was to be set right by events soon to
follow.
TH E
FRO N T BENCH
IM PO SE S A C E N S O R S H IP :
1 8 8 6 - 1 89O
It was the misfortune of Fair Traders that their agitation reached
its d im a x when customary political alignments were shattered al­
most beyond recognition by the impact of the Irish Question. T h e
form ation o f a Conservative Governm ent under Lord Salisbury in
August, 1886, brought meager results. H old in g power by the
merest thread, which Cham berlain and H artington could have
snapped in an instant, the G overnm ent faced certain defeat on the
introduction o f protectionist legislation, “ T h e new party attach­
ments were ad hoc and experim ental, and it remained to be seen
whether they could bear the strain which events w ould put upon
them. ’ From time to time it looked as if the Government's days
could be counted on the fingers of one hand— when Lord Randolph
C h urchill resigned in December, 1886, for exam ple. Churchill,
despite his unorthodox views on tariffs, had been Cham berlain’s
“only sympathetic bond w ith the M inistry” ; and Goschen, who
supplanted him, “ was tlie last man whom Cham berlain desired to
see” in his p lace." Under the circumstances, protectionists had to
be hidden away am ong the back benches. A t the first hint of Fair
T rade, said Cham berlain’s son, "the Unionists w ould secede en
bloc .’' "
Y et hiding Fair T rad e was like concealing a hurricane behind
a haycock. W hen, on the m orrow o f the Home R u le election, the
League looked about to assess its gains, 69 members were found to
Baden-Pow ell said ihe election was the first since the forties that had brought colonialcom m ercial questions to the fore. Times, O ct. ae, 1S85. A fte r the election there was
lengthy and indecisive debate as to w hether Fair T ra d e was “ more largely represented
in the new Parliam ent than in the last." See Times, Dec. 3, la . and 17, 1885. Fair
Trade took the view that the cause w ould be better served by Conservatives when
they were freed o f the responsibilities o f office. It was claim ed that many T o ry
sympathizers “ have fough t shy of the question for fear o f in ju rin g the existing posi­
tion. . . . In opposition, however, we m ay look to all this being changed." Fair Trade,
Jan. 29, 1886.
3 9 Financiflf Reform Almanac for 1886, p. 2.
G ardiner, Sir WHUam Harcouri, II, 1.
G arvin, Joseph Chamberlain, II, s66, 433.
^2 F air Trade, Sept. 21, 1888.
66
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
be frie n d ly to the caused^ D ix o n -H a rtla n d , an u n m u zzled p ro tec­
tio n ist m em b er, cla im ed la te r that had the Irish Q u e stio n n o t
sp o iled liis plans, he co u ld have m u stered 186 votes for p ro tectio n
to n ative ind ustry.*’ D u rin g the early m on th s o f th e M in istry, p ro ­
tectionists, b y co m m o n consent, rem a in ed q u iet, in o rd e r to fu r­
ther “that u n io n .of in terest th ro u g h o u t the E m p ire w h ich is th e
basis o f the F a ir T r a d e p o lic y .”
L o rd D u n ra v e n , sensing, perhaps,
the em barrassm ent w h ich his d e cid ed p ro te ctio n ist view s caused the
G o v e rn m e n t, resign ed as U n d er-Secretary for the Colonies.*® B u t
early in 1887, after S a lisb u ry had w ea th ered the storm p re cip ita te d
b y C h u rc h ill's resign atio n , the p ro te ctio n ist b lo c b ecam e restive.
F o llo w in g a series o f p riv a te m eetin gs, n eg o tia tio n s w e re op en ed
w ith party leaders fo r the in tro d u c tio n o f a p ro tectio n ist m o tion .*'
Fair Trade, July 23, 1886.
Tim es, Nov. 3, 1H87. Protection for agricu ltu re, h e said, was far less popular.
T h e Cobden C lu b claim ed that a fter N orth cote’.s death, the cabinet contained not a
single free trader; in fact, w ith the exception of R itch ie, it was said that a ll the
members of the Iront bench had pledged them selves to "P rotection of some sort or
anoth er.” Tim es, M ay 16, 1887. H . H . A sq u ith predicted that when the T o r y Party
“ could move its otvn lim bs and take its own course,” he tvould find nine out of ten
nicnibers “ saying farew ell to Free T ra d e, and w orkin g their best for a disguised
system of Protection in this coiintry.” Fair Trade, Nov. 2, 1888.
Fair Trade, -Aug. 27, 188O. H enry C liajiliii told the protectionist farm ers of
L in colnshire that “ He did not d ou b t ilie syinpathles of tlie governm ent were w ith
them , but . , . they occupied an exceptionally difficult position at the present tim e,
and he thought the last th in g anyone W'ould desire w ould be to force their dem ands
upon them at an unreasonable tim e, or Ijy u n du e persistence to place them in a p osi­
tion of em barrassm ent w hich the w hole country w ould reject." Fair Trade, in N ov.,
1886. Fair Trade said: “ T h e fact m ust not be ignored that the Conservatives are in
office by favour of a section of the L ib eral Party. , . . N ot u n til the cpiestions o f
Ireland and procedure are settled in some form or another can ive expect . . . to
have a free liaiid. . . . In m inor m atters L ord H artington and M r. C ham berlain w ill
in all p ro b ab ility abstain from opposition , . , but if any m ajor question, such as
that in volvin g the reconsideration of ou r fiscal policy, even in the direction of Im ­
perial Federation, w ere introduced, they w ould doubtle.ss regard their alliance as
dissolved.” Fair Trade, N ov. 5, 1886. akso Sept. 3, i88S. T h e Fair T ra d e policy was
to agitate in the country u n til a clear protectionist m ajority was returned: "A g itatio n
always, and still agitation , both indoors and outdoors, Init, at this ju n ctu re, especially
outdoors." F air Trade, Feb. 25, 1887.
■
5C He had continued to talk Fair T ra d e even w hile in office. Tim es, O ct. 18, 1886.
In his letter of resignation, he indicated that althou gh he intended to continu e to
support the G overnm ent, he desired more independence than a m em ber of the
G overnm ent could reasonably dem and, D unraven to Sir H enry H olland , Tim es,
Feb. 10, 1887. For his continued attack.s on free trade, see Tim es, A p ril 27, 1887.
47 ta ir Trade, Feb. 4, j i , 25, and M arch 4, 1887. A little earlier, certain members
from farm constituencies had form ed “ a sessional agricu ltu ral com m ittee” of some 50
members, including C h ap lin , .Sclater-Boolh, Sir E. B iik h eck , .Sir R. Paget, Lord
G riniston, C. W . G ray, and L ord A lcho, w ho were friendly toward Fair T rad e. See
Fair Trade, M arch 18, 1887.
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
67
T h e G o vern m en t consented, b u t the pressure o f Irish business,
a b so rb in g m any nights usually a llo tted to private m em bers, caused
the debate to be canceled/® Salisbury tried to placate Fair T ra d e rs
w ith the statem ent that he did ‘ ‘not im agin e tliat d ifferen tial duties
in favo r o f o u r colonies, w h atever m ay be said for or against them ,
can p ro p erly be described u n d er the term P ro tectio n .”
But this
was slender satisfaction in view o f his obvious in ten tio n to let the
session d ie w ith o u t g ra n tin g o p p o rtu n ity for debate.
L ouis Jennings, a lead in g protection ist m em ber, co m p lain ed to
party leaders that their ‘‘absolute veto . . . upon m y b rin g in g the
su b ject fo rw ard ” w o u ld place m any m em bers at a ‘‘grievous dis­
a d van tage” before th eir constituencies. “ O u r \otes have increased
the strength o f the g o vern m en t,” he w rote the party lead er m C o m ­
m ons, “ and yet we are w eakened by b ein g deprived o f every o p p o r­
tu n ity o f fu lfillin g o u r em ph atic an d repeated p led ges.”
That
m any local party organizations w ere pressing for action, there can
be no d o u bt. R esolu tions fa vo rin g protection. Fair T ra d e , and com ­
m ercial fed eration o f the E m p ire w ere com m on am ong C o n serva­
tive Associations in Y o rksh ire and the Midlands.®' In July, 18S7,
the Scottish U n io n o f C on servative Associations voted to endorse
protection.®- T h e pressure becam e so great, indeed, that the P rim ­
rose L eague, tvh id i previou sly had asked its speakers not to em ­
barrass the G o vern m en t by m ention o f tariffs, now gave them a
free hand.®®
. ‘
A t the ra te F a ir T r a d e was g r o w i n g in the s u m m e r a n d a u t u m n
o f 1887, it ivas o b v io u s that w ith p ro p e r le adersh ip it m i g h t cause
a m irio r p o lit ic a l e a r t h q u a k e . T h e
a n n u a l C o n s e r v a tiv e P a rty
C o n fe r e n c e was to m eet at O x f o r d in N o v e m b e r . I f the r a n k a n d
Fair Trade, A p ril i, July i and 15, 1887. D ixon-H artland had given notice that
he would introduce a com prehensive m otion covering the tariff question, Ijtit "to suit
the views o f M r. W . H, Sm ith," this had to give way to a less sweeping m otion in ­
troduced by Jennings. Fair Trade, Feb. 25. and March 4. 1R87.
Fair Trade, .April 15, 1887.
5* Jennings to W. H. Smith, Fair Trade, July 29 1887
F s fa ir Trade, Nov, 5, 1886, A pril 15 and July j , 18S7.
„ 2 F a ir T rade, July 8, 1887, Six m ouths earlier the Union bad I w n silent for fear
o f em barrassing the Governm ent.
‘ 5 - 1887. Howard Vincent claimed that 52 Cham bers of Com ­
merce had ofTicially declared that foreign tariffs, bounties, and foreign com petition
" r L
depression. Tim es, Nov. 29. 1887. Over the sum m er and autum n
of 1887 the activity o f the Fair T ra d e League reached new heights; speakers were sent
out to more than 67 towns. Fair Trade, Oct. 7, 1887
68
THE CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
file could be persuaded to seize the occasion to pronounce em­
phatically in favor of Fair T rad e and if a spokesman of sufficient
stature came forward to confront Lord Salisbury, die Governm ent’s
position would be aivkward, to say the least. But although the Fair
T rad e League scored one success after another in local party organi­
zations, it was no easy matter to find a leader with the necessary
boldness and authority. Lord Dunraven, who m ight conceivably
have qualified, put party loyalty first and urged Fair Traders against
pressing demands which would weaken the Governm ent’s posi­
tion."*
Lord Randolph C h u rd iill was another to be considered. So little
respect had he for political niceties tliat a few months earlier he
had almost pushed the Governm ent over the brink w ith his spec­
tacular resignation. Fair Traders, believing tliat he w ould welcome
an opportunity to place himself at the head of a popular "cause,”
urged him to make a positive declaration."" But shortly before the
Party Conference their hopes were dashed. Churchill repudiated
Fair T rade, because (as he said privately) "it is open to such fearful
attacks from the Radicals am ong the country population that we
should lose more than we should gain” and because (as he said
publicly) "I believe that low prices in the necessaries of life and
political stability in a democratic Constitution arc practically in­
separable, and that high prices in the necessaries of life and political
instability in a democratic Constitution are also practically in ­
separable.” It began to look, indeed, as if Fair Trade, as a politi­
cal movement, was destined to play the role of the headless wonder.
W ith Churchill and Dunraven out of the picture, a new leader
emerged in the person of Howard Vincent, the dynamic member
from Sheffield. Vincent never occupied a position on the front
bench, but, as an imperialist who knew the Empire at first hand
“ f a i r T r a d e , N o v . 18 a n d 25, 1S87.
s.
=0 W .
C h u r c h ill, L o r d R a n d o lp h C h u r c h ill, II, 327. " H a n l ly a d a y passes,” said
L o r d R a n d o lp h C h u r c h ill, " th a t f d o n o t g et letter.? fro m d iffe re n t p e o p le in the
c o u n tr y o i a ll classes im p lo r in g m e 10 tak e up th e q u e s tio n o f fa ir trad e, a n d 10 ta k e
a le a d in g p a r t in th e m o v e m e n t fo r fa ir t ra d e ." Sp eech a t Stock ton , T im e s , O c t. 29,
i88j.
ts W . S. C h u r c h ill, op . cit., II, 328, 330; also T im e s , O c t. 21, 1887. L a w re n c e T ip p e r
re c a lle d seve ral years la te r th at C h u r c h ill h a d to ld h im : " W it h in th e w alls o f this
ro o m 1 am a fa ir trad er; b u t o u tsid e this roo m 1 k n o w n o th in g o f th e q u e s tin ii."
T im e s , D e c. 14, 1895, C h u r c h ill’s son takes a m o re c h a r ita b le view . W , 5 , C h u rc h ill,
o p . c it.. I I. 333.
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
69
and as a shrewd reader of the p u b lic m ind w ho articulated b r il­
liantly w hat was stirring in the hearts o f his constituents, he ex­
ercised considerable influence.*’ A n early nicniber o f the Fair
T rad e League, he took up tlie cause in earnest in 1887, and through
tireless w riting, lecturing, and organizing, soon established him self
as the group's m ost respected spokesman.'* A fter sounding out
party leaders, be gave notice in O ctober that he w ould introduce
a Fair T ra d e m otion at the O xford c o n fe icn c e ." M eanw hile, the
Fair T rad e League had been sending delegations u p and down the
kingdom to enlist support for the protectionist revolt.™
W h a t view L ord Salisbury took at this tim e, it is im possible to
say, b u t no doubt his daughter states bis position m ildly w hen she
characterizes V in cen t’s m aneuver as displaying ‘‘a sin gu lar want
of tact.”
T h e G overnm ent's future was highly uncertain. As late
as A ugust, 1887, C ham berlain had gone into the lobby w ith G lad ­
stone against suppression of the Irish N ational League,*® and in
the same m onth he was discussing w ith M orley the possibilities of
L ib eral reu n io n ." "It was a m om ent of life and death for the
U n ionist alliance,” ** Y et here was a calculated attem pt by Salis­
b u ry’s own followers to force him to take up a policy w hich u n ­
doubtedly w ould strain the alliance near the breaking point.
In the trial of strength w hich ensued at O xford, the early inn­
ings w ere in V incen t's favor. O n the first day he introduced a m otion
reading: “ T h a t the continued depression in trade and agriculture,
the increase in scarcity of em ploym ent, and the consequent dis­
tress am ong all classes, render speedy reform in the policy of the
U n ited K ingdom as regards foreign im ports and the influx of
indigent foreigners a m atter o f vital necessity to the people of
G reat B ritain and Ireland.” From the m om ent V incen t ro.se ttiere
was no doubt as to the outcom e. T h e delegates, some 1,000 of them,
clam orously applauded supporters of the m otion and rew arded
opponents w ith derisive shouts of "N o, n o!” " T h e resolution was
then pu t and carried by an immense m ajority, not m ore than a
dozen delegates vo tin g against it.” " A few hours later V incen t disSee J eyes a n d H o w , Sir H o w a r d V in c e n t.
F a ir T r a d e , N o v . i i , 1887.
T im e s , N o v . 2 g . 1887.
»<>f a i r T r a d e , O c t . J, 1887.
C e c il, S a lisb u r y , ]V , 17 7 .
s* G a r v in , J o se p h C h a m b e r la in , I I , 30Q.
Ib id ., I I , 3 0 9 -13 ,
as I b id ., I I, 3 16,
“ T im e s , N o v . 23. 1887: a lso N o v . 22, 1887.
58
70
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
patch ed a telegram to L ister, reading; “ G lo rio u s news! By looo
to 12 the C on servative A ssociations o f E n glan d declare for y o u r
p o lic y ,”
.
E veryon e w h o tinderstood the stakes that h u n g in the b alan ce
w a ited o n tenterhooks fo r Salisbury to address the con feren ce n e x t
day. B u t tvithou t en terin g in to the m erits o f the F air T r a d e d ecla ­
ratio n , the P rim e M in ister tried m erely “ to b rin g th e delegates to
a sense o f sin for th eir unseasonable a ctio n .”
T h e r e is no reason,
h e said, w h y C on servatives and L ib era l U n ionists co u ld n o t w ork
in harm on y, since they tvere
on a ll present question s— I lay enorm ous em phasis on that ad jectiveas close togeth er as the various sections o f the C on servative party are
close together. I q u ite ackn ow ledge if you go off present questions— if
you go to quest ions w h ich are in the far past, or to questions w hich are
in the far future, you m ay find grave differences o f o p in io n , and there­
fore I should deprecate any discussion that you co u id call m erely aca­
dem ical and w h ich does n ot com e w ith in the region o f p ractical p o li­
tics.®*
L ib e ra l U nionists ivcre n o t easily persuaded that F air T r a d e
vo les iv'ere “ m erely acad em ical.” C h a m b erla in had sailed fo r A m e r­
ica the m on th before, le a v in g his cou n trym en to sp ecu late u p o n
his views. B u t H artirigton gave n o q u arter:
I do not thin k it w o u ld be possible fo r us to speak in too stron g terms
in deprecation o f the ado ptio n o f such a p o licy as this by the C on serva­
tive p ariy. . . . I fu lly adm it that . . . a retrograde policy with regard
io commercial matters would be a danger so great as would threaten to
endanger the strength of the Unionist cause, and I hope the leaders of
the p arty w ill w eigh w ell the consecjuences before they give to it any
coun ten an ce or support.*®
A s if there co u ld be any d o u b t a b ou t his feelings, Joh n B rig h t w rote
w ith ch aracteristic pun gency: “ Y o u have ob.served w hat the C o n ­
servatives Iiave b een saying at O x fo rd . T h e y retu rn , shall I say,
lik e a d og to his vo m it."
C . J. G oschen, the L ib e ra l C h an cello r
o f the E xch eq u er, issued a th in ly veiled w a rn in g to his T o r y c o l­
leagues w'hen h e told the M aidston e F arm ers’ C lu b that h e w o u ld
b e o b liged to w ith d raw his siib scripiion if the C lu b passed a resolu ­
tion en dorsing p ro te ctio n .’''
lie F a ir T r a d e , D e c . 2, 18 87.
6? O e d l , S u lisb iir y , J V , 178.
es T i m e s , N o v . 24, 18 87.
r o i b i d . , N o v . 2 g , 18 87.
es i b i d .. D e c . g , )S 3 7 . I t a lic s m in e ,
n i b i d . , D e c . 16, 18 87.
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
71
T h e storm signals w ere u n m istakable, and m any T o r ie s q u ick ly
sou gh t cover. O n e after an oth er, w ith ultra-protectionists like
A . S taveley H ill, L o w th er, and D u u ra v en in the lead, they pledged
them selves to k eep tat iff reform in the b ackgrou n d so lo n g as it
w o u ld “ im p e ril in any w ay the a llian ce w ith th e L ib e r a l U n ionists
w h ich had been form ed in the interests o f the co u n try .” ” In a
p o w e rfu l speech at D erby, w ith H o w a rd V in c e n t on the platform
beside h im , S alisb u ry protested against tlie im pression that because
V in cen t had led the F a ir T r a d e m ovem en t a t O x fo rd , " e ith e r he
o r those w ho fo llo iv him , and still m ore H . M . G o v ern m en t, are
in any w ay on that accou n t com m itted to the d octrin e o f P ro tec­
tio n .” ” L is te r h im self teas m oved to ad m it “ tliat the m om en t chosen
fo r the d eclaratio n o f p o licy was in o p p o rtu n e ” ;
an d the E x e c u ­
tiv e C o m m itte e o f the F a ir T r a d e L ea g u e con ced ed that “ the Tightin g stage’ o f the m ovem en t, o n w h ich three m onths ago w e seem ed
on the eve, is n ot fo r the p resen t,”
Y e t events fo llo w in g the O x fo rd C o n feren ce, u n fa v o ra b le though
they w ere to tlie im m ed iate ad van cem en t o f F air T r a d e , offer u n ­
ch allen ge ab le evid en ce that the C o n serva tive P arty had a b an d o n ed
the co n ven tio n al d o ctrin e o f free trade. T lie ir retreat was pu rely
tactical, and in v o lve d no com prom ise o f p rin cip le. In the D erby
speech, in w h ich h e reassured I.ib eral U n ionists, S alisb u ry added;
T h o u g h re p u d ia tin g, both in respect o f corn an d o th er m atters, the
doctrin e o f p ro tectio n , I d eclin e to m ake any o th er fiscal jilcdge: I d e ­
clin e CO say h o w far o r to w h at e xten t o u r fiscal system m ay be m odified;
fo r such questions m ust b e dealt w ith sim ply on the merits o f each in ­
d iv id u a l case, a n d cann ot be in clu d ed in a n y gen eral form ula, I can
q u ite im agin e that m any m odifications o f o u r fiscal system m ay be de­
sirable. I am by n o m eans an enthusiast for the extrem e sim p licity o f
fiscal arran gem en t w hich is due to M r, G ladsto n e's in tro d u ctio n , b u t I
e n ergetically protest against b e in g considered a p rotection ist, because
I w ill n o t accept all the illeg itim a te consequences w hich he lias d educed
from free trade.'®
Ac this m om en t the C on servative G o v ern m en t w ere n eg o tiatin g
w ith foreign pow ers w itli the in ten tion of tak in g a ctio n against
22 T l i e s e w e r e H i ll 's w o r d s . F « ir T r / id f, fa n . (i, i8 g 8 , a ls o T i m e s , D e c . lu D e c
D e c. 3 1 .1 8 8 7 .
'
■
'
73 T i m e s , D e c . ao , 18 8 7.
56
7j fb id .
17
I’
m f a i r T r a d e , F e b . 3 . 1888.
T im e s , D e c . 20, 1887. F a ir T t a d e e x p r e s s e d a p p r o v a l o f lliis s t a ie in e iU , iiic e rp r q t i n g it 35 a r e je c t i o n o t p e r v e r t e d F a i r T r a d e d o c t r in e , b u t a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e
g e n u i n e a r t i c le . F a ir T r a d e , J a n . 6, 1888.
72
THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
bounties. Cobdenitcs, said Salisbury', tried to justify tlicse bounties
on the grounds that prices were lotvered, but they did not “ see that
advantages to the consumer secured by illegitim ate means are
only transitory in their character, and that when they have served
the purpose of destroying the industry against which they have
been leveled, the advantage to the consumer w ill cease.” ”
A few extremists, indeed, were reluctant to surrender an inch of
ground. Vincent, heaping contempt upon tliose w illin g to heed
“ the command of ‘ Hold hard,’ ” proceeded with plans to assemble
a protectionist demonstration at St. James's Hall w ithin two weeks
after the O xford Conference.'" T h ree months later, just before
Go.schen's budget was introduced, Vincent put before the House
o f Commons a Fair T rad e petition, 300 yards long, containing, it
was claimed, 15,000 Sheffield signatures.®" Birm ingham protection­
ists form ed a Fair T rad e branch, and after a large demonstration
in the T o w n Hall, laid plans for carrying the fight to the local
wards."^ T h e Land and Labor Defense Association, advocating
protection for farmers, launched a campaign to establish new
branches,®" and the W est of England Association called a confer­
ence of protectionist farmers in Ixindon “ to thoroughly organize
the country w ith a view to political action.”
U nder die circumstances it is not surprising that the Govern­
m ent took strong measures to calm the fears of Liberal Unionists.
It was said that “ Party organizations, which in 1885 were so glad
of the Fair T rad e cry, have had strictest instructions from head­
quarters to leave it alone; and the rank and file who broke out at
O xford , . . have been sat upon both by local and central chiefs.”
In June follow ing the O xford Conference, Salisbury mysteriously
summoned a num ber of party members to the Foreign Office for a
discussion of Unionist relations. T h e secrecy with which he at­
tempted to veil the proceedings was pierced only by an alert “ newsagency," wliose account, though in some respects garbled, gave
what seems to be an accurate impression of the Prime M inister’s re­
marks."" According to the report, Salisbury confessed that Liberal
f J A t L iv e rp o o l. T im es, J a n . is , 1888.
is T im e s , D e c . S4, 1B87.
's I b id ., D ec. 7 a n d 9, 1887.
s o / a i r T r a d e , M a rc h 30, 1B88.
SI T im e s , J an . 6, 1888. Fa ir T r a d e , F eb . 17. 1888.
sz F a ir T ra d e , A u g . 17. 188B.
s s / iiiii., J u ly 13, 1888.
^ il b id ., “ R e p o r t o i Y e a r's P ro g ress." D e c . aB, i888.
s s T h e ''n e iv s a g e n c y 's ” re p o rt a p p e a re d in th e T im e s , J u n e 22, 1888; n o tes o f
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
73
U nionists were becom ing restive, and urged Conservatives to sink
their secondary differences for the sake of unity. H e strongly depre­
cated recent signs of disaffection am ong the T o r y "left-w ing," m en­
tion in g in particular that protection was "open to two opinions and
need not be raised at this ju n ctu re." T h e urgency of Salisbury's
plea is perhaps suggested by the perceptible decline in protection­
ist activity shortly thereafter. Even V incen t conceded that “ the
really effective action he w anted to take was barred for the m om ent
by the difficulties o f the political situation.”
It was a more form idable task to discipline the local party organi­
zations, w hich, through their influence at annual conferences, were
gain in g the increased respect of Conservative leaders. T lie year
follow ing the O xford resolution, V incen t m oved, "am id loud cheers
from the large m ajority of the delegates,” that " it is vital to the
Im perial interests of the Britisli Em pire to stim ulate by all possible
means the advantageous interchange o f com m erce between all its
territories." " A fter some debate, w hich brought cheers for Fair
T raders and "considerable in terru p tion " for its opponents, the
vo tin g was postponed ow in g to the lateness o f the hour.** N e x t
m orning, under the most suspicious circumstances, before the
Fair T rad e leaders had arrived and w ith only about fifty of the
thousand delegates present, the m otion was pu t aside in favor o f an
am endm ent stating that com m ercial matters ivere receivin g "th e
attention of Lord Salisbury and liis colleagues and are best left
to their consideration."
Some of the protectionists “ entered a
vigorous protest against the u n fair advantage" w hich had been
taken o f their late attendance, bu t w ith the consent of V incen t and
Staveley H ill, the record rem ained unaltered.®"
W h en the delegates assembled the follow ing year at N ottingham ,
a m otion was introduced declaring that the Conference ought to
pass ju d gm en t on questions of organization on ly and that quesc o rre c tio n fro m G e o r g e C u r t o n a n d G . C . T , B a r t le y a p p e a re d n e x t d a y , b u t n e it h e r
su g g e s te d th a t S a lis b u ry 's p o s itio n w a s in a c c u r a te ly d e s c rib e d . T im e s , J u n e 23, 1888.
86 f a i r T r n d e , A u g . 3, i8 S g.
9? T im e s , N o v . g , 1888.
»s I b id .
88 I b id .; F a ir T r a d c , N o v . g, i 8 S3 . T h e s ta te m e n t th a t o n ly 30 d e le g a te s w e r e p r e s e n t
is b ased o n F a i r T r a d e 's te s tim o n y . T h e T im e s s ta te d m e re ly th a t " a t th is tim e th e
a tte n d a n c e o f d e le g a te s w a s s m a ll.” A c c o r d in g to G la d s to n e , " a m o d e o f p r o c e e d in g ,
srh ic h a p p e a rs to h a v e b e e n e x t r e m e ly p e c u lia r , w a s a d o p te d fo r th e p u r p o s e o f
g e t t in g r id o f th e d iscu ssio n b y s h e lv in g t h e p r o p o s a l b e fo r e th e m o v e r o f it h a d
a r r iv e d ." F a ir T r a d e , N o v , 9, 1888.
“ F a i r T r a d e , N o v , g , 1888.
TMK c o n s e r v a t i v e
74
PARTY
tions o f p olicy, w h ile they m ight be discussed, should n ot be b ro u gh t
to a vo te.” Supporters of the m otion freely ad m itted that th eir in ­
ten tio n was to prevent a re p etitio n of the O x fo rd resolution . B u t
a lth ou gh the m ajority o f delegates seem to have been persuaded that
p ro tectio n ist dem onstrations ivere ill-advised, tliey nevertheless
refu sed to siin e nder their p rivilege to voce u p o n tlie w hole sphere
o f p olicy. A t V in cen t's suggestion, the proposal to lim it tlie field
o f vo tin g was referred to the C o u n cil, ivhere it ap p aren tly died.®*
A s lo n g as the fu tu re o f the U n io n ist a llia n ce was un certain ,
responsible party m em bers agreed that p ro tectio n m ust rem ain
a skeleton in the closet, B u t the conferences o f 1887, 1888, and i88g
le ft no room fo r d o u b t that the skeleton w o u ld enjoy the freedom
of the house as soon as L ib e ra l U n ion ists tvere m ade to f e d m ore
co m fo rta b le in the parlor. C o b d en ites co u ld w ell b e apprehensive.
F o r th eir d o ctrin aire argum ents Salisbu ry had n o th in g b u t con ­
tem pt. W ith liis h eart in the laboratory at H atfield, he recogn ized no
a priori form ulae, b u t only " c a d i case on its ow n m erits” and trial
and error. D evo ted to the affairs o f tlie F o reign Office, he longed
for a rveapon in the new dip lom acy o f tariffs. A n d the ran k and file
of his party w ere in revolt. If the co n d itio n s o f trade did n o t vastly
im p ro ve and if the U n io n ist A llia n ce w ere declared e ith er dis­
solved or in d isso lu ble, it was safe to say that the C o n servative P arty
w o u ld soon give its blessing to the protection ist cause.
TH E
L I F T I N 'G
OF
TH E
C E N S O R S H IP ;
l
8 [) 0 — l 8 g 2
In the ttvo years before Salisbu ry’s G o ve rn m en t fell, that is b e­
tween 1890 and 1892, the position o f the C o n servative Party was
con siderably eased. In N o vem ber, iS go , the O ’Shea divorce led to
the d isru p tio n o f the G ladston e-P arn cll a llia n ce and threw H om e
R u le forces in to a state o f con fu sion . O n e result, as clear as day,
was to strength en Salisbu ry in his dealings w ith L ib e ra l U n io n ­
ists, ivho, because th eir votes had been in dispensable to defeat
H om e R u le , had h eretofo re exercised an in flu en ce far o u t o f pro­
p ortion to their num bers. It was certain , said Fair T rade o p tim is­
tically, “ that the d isru ptio n o f the G ladsto n e-P arn ellite allian ce
T im e s , N o v. 27, 18B9.
^2 I b id . F u tu re con feren ces, as w ill b e seen b elo w , re g is te re d o p in io n s o f g o v e rn m e n t
p o lic y in n o u n c e rta in term s.
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
75
is a prelude to the road b eing opened to a renew ed recognition of
ou r cause.” " It is interesting to speculate, in this roniiection, how
far Chainberlain m ight already liave traveled along the road w hich
was to lead him to adopt Fair T ra d e in 1903, T h e r e is some evidence
that he was at least facing in new d ir e c t io n s ,a n d if the evidence
is reliable, perhaps it is worth recalling that in Decem ber, 1891,
H artington, an undoubted free trader, w ent to the House of Lords,
leaving Cham berlain as L ib eral U nionist leader in the C om m on s."
It is certain, in any event, that in 1891 "th e breach betw een the
Liberals and the L ib eral Unioni.sts w idened” and that conversely
relations between C ham berlain and Salisbury improved. In N ovem ­
ber, C ham berlain attended for the first time the annual C onserva­
tive Caucus and declared: "N o w I neither look for nor desire re­
u n io n .”
W h ile Conservatives were regaining their freedom of action,
the U n ited States struck B ritain a staggering blow by the adoption
of the M cK in ley T ariff, T h e Tim es called it an "act of u n frien d ­
liness . , . hardly less decided than tlie Berlin and M ilan decrees
of N apoleon ." " In Sheffield, ivhile the M cK in ley Bill was pend­
ing, num erous meetings o f m aim factureis and workers dem anded
retaliation, and the m ayor sent a circular letter to all other mayors
of the U n ited K ingdom , u rgin g them to act " in order that the
pu blic opinion in your n eigbborliood m ay be expressed to the
G overnm ent,
“ J suppose I shall have a fight on my hands in
B rigbtside," M undella wrote one of bis Leader friends. "L e n g [edi­
tor of the Sheffield Telegraphy is furbishin g up the old weapons.
. . . It looks to me as if F air T ra d e is the horse they declare to tvin
w ith ."
V incent, in his annual address to his constituents, said
that although Fair I'radc view's were distasteful 10 many, " I w'ill not
shrink from them, so lon g as you give me your confidence, despite
the solemn w’arning of a C abinet M inister, w ho recently visited
Sheffield, tltat they w ould be politically disastrous to m e personF a ir T r a d e , D e c . 5 , 1890.
G a r v in , J o se p h C h a m b e r la m , I , 4 3 3 -3 5 . a n d I I . 468-69.
I b id ., I I , 527 II.
^•8 G a r d in e r , S ir JV illiam I la r c c u r l, I I , 156.
or C a ™ , o p . c li.. I ] , 443.
, s T im e s , O c t. 13, 1890.
so F a ir T r a d e , .Aug, 1, 1890. See a lso Ih e a c c o u n t o f th e g r e a t w o rk e rs' d e m o n str a tio n
lie ld in P a ra d is e S q u a re u n d e r th e a u sp ic e s o ( th e S h effield F a ir T r a d e L e a g u e , ib id ..
J u ly 18 a n d 55, 1890.
®
JO D M un d ella .MSS, .M u n d ella (o J, D , L e a d e r , A u g . 24, i S qo .
76
THE
CONSERVATIVE PARTY
ally."
Sim ilar protests were heard in Bradford and Birm ingham ,
and in Bristol a new Fair T rad e m onthly called T h e Patriot ap­
peared.'®' W hen the M cKinley T ariff was about to go into effect,
the Tim es said “ that during the few hours w ithin wliich commod­
ities can still be im ported at the old rates the rush to 'clear' had
waxed wildly feverish.
It is not too much to say that the shock caused by the M cK inley
T ariff did more than ten years of Fair T rad e agitation to bring dis­
credit to the Cobdenite school. W hile protectionists were striking
hammer blotvs for retaliation, Cobdenites seemed to be clouting
phantoms. Sir Lyon Playfair told his constituents at Leeds that
Americans, who w ould soon see the folly of their new course, were
actually on the eve o f adopting free trade.’ "' Gladstone confidently
predicted that “ any injury that is done us w ill be . . . but the
minutest fraction of that which is done by the protecting country
to its own population."
Events, however, tore the predictions
to pieces. W ithin three months after the M cKinley rates went into
effect, it was announced that several Sheffield firms had reduced
wages by 5 percent.'®" "C u tlery firms engaged in the Am erican trade
are working short time," it was said a little later, “ and many men
are entirely out of w ork.”
Lister reported from Bradford that the
“ M cK inley T a riff .sent 3,000 Manningham workers into the streets
at a blow, and has been the chief factor in tlie overthrow o f the great
firm of SaUaire, where possibly 3,000 more operatives w ill have to
face a hungry winter,”
In Wales hardship spread as a result of
the drop in tin-plate exports to Am erica.’ ®*Vincent complained that
“ Four well-known English textile firms have moved a w hole or a
portion of their plant across the A tlan tic.” ” ®Cobdenites did not
deny that suffering existed, but their argument that the cause was
101 Sp eech o£ Sept. i . See F a ir T r a d e , .Sept. 5, i8go,
102 T o th e b est o f m y k n o w te d g e n o c o p ies a re p reserve d . See F a ir T r a d e , J u n e 57,
tS g o . AI.SO T im e s, O c t, fi, a n d 7, i8go.
103 T im e s, O ct. 13, 1890.
i n / b i d , , N o v . 14, iS go.
105/ b id ., O ct, 30, i8 go.
10 a/b id ,, J an . i j , i S g i.
lo r / b id ., A p r il 3, 1891; oirtcial trad e figures fo r the la st q u a r t e r o t th e yea r sh ow ed
th a t c u tle ry ex p o rts to th e U n ite d S tates h a d d e c lin e d fro m £50,000 the p re c e d in g
y ea r, to £a2,374.
iv a / b id ,, N o v . 1, 189a,
l i t F a ir T ra d e , J u ly 3, 1S91, e stim a te d th a t fro m tw en ty to tw en ty-fiv e th o u sa n d
m en h a d b een d ep riv ed o f em p lo y m e n t in W a les. See also F a y , G rea t B r ita in from
A d a m S m ith to th e P resen t Day, p p . 146-47 a n d C la p h a m , E e o n o m ic H istory o f M o d ­
ern B r ita in , H I,
110 T im e s , A p r i l s6,189 8a
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
77
short harvests in Europe and abundant harvests in Am erica began
to fall a little flat.’ “ W hat it amounted to, said Vincent, was an in­
vitation to America to “ Strike us yet again, heap duty upon duty.
. . . we cannot object, we can make no representation, we cannot
retaliate.”
Even the Tim es changed its direction enough to con­
fess that “ if Richard Cobden had no more cogent arguments . . .
than those which his bannermen are using . . . the economical
principles with which his name is associated w ould have owed
but little to his advocacy.”
T h e tide was running fast. As early as July, 1890, Vincent warned
Salisbury that “ the volum e of opinion is fast growing, and in a
large proportion o f the constituencies the balance of political power
lies in the hands of a few resolute men o f independent views.” ” *
Shortly after the M cK inley rates went into effect, the Prime M in ­
ister was cautiously feeling his way back to arguments for retalia­
tion.
The conflict which we have to fight is still a conflict of tariffs [he said].
. . . We know that the various nations are looking up their arms, and
are seeing with what alterations of tariffs they can meet hostile import
duties . . . how they can defend themselves, how they can compel a
relaxation of the restrictions which they dread. . . . We have no re­
taliation to exercise, because we have already reduced our tariffs to the
lowest point that the revenue demands will permit us to accept. It is
an interesting subject— the consideration for us whether that attitude
will or will not be sustainable in the end, or whether the madness of
our neighbors will force us to deflect in any degree from the sound and
sensible position we adopt.” ®
In June, 1891, when Vincent led a delegation o f protectionists
to call upon him, Salisbury had moved a little farther, Britain
w ould be ill-advised, he agreed, ever again to enter into most111 See fo r exam ple, Parrer in Tim es, Sept, 17, 1891.
Times, Oct. g, 1890. See also Z tm yd ’s letter, ibid., Oct. ao, 1890.
113 Times, July 14, 1890.
n r Vincent 10 Salisbury, Fair Trade, July 25. 1890.
ris Times, Nov. 11, i 8go. T h e (oUoii'ing March, Salisbury told the Associated
Chambers of Commerce that h was futile to remonstrate with protectionist nations
as so many deputations urged him to do. “ T he belief in the effect of a remonstrance
is something touching and pathetic, and also slightly infantile. . . . T h e object of a
foreign Poiver in raising its tariffs is to exclude your commodities, and when you tell
them in reproachful tones that the effect of their policy will be to exclude your
commodities, the only result is that they say. ‘T hank you, that is just what I intended,'
and they gtve another turn to the screw of the tariff . . . and leave you to your
reproaches.” Times, March 5, 1891.
78
THE CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
favored-nation treaties which tvould prevent the M other Country
from offering preferential advantages to her dependencies. As for
positive protectionist legislation, he advised them to stir up the
country first; for on “ organic questions” which
control the very existence of our Empire and the very foundation of
our trade . . . public opinion must be formed before any government
can act. . . . It is the duty of those who feel themselves to be the lead­
ers of such a movement and the apostles of such a doctrine to go forth
and fight for it, and, when they have convinced the people of this coun­
try, their battle will be won.®'®
T h e apostles did not need to be told twice to go forth and fight
for their doctrine. D uring 1891, protectionist activity— bound up
now with the clam or for imperial tariff preference— became ever
more feverish. Vincent went to Canada— upon .Salisbury's advice,
it was rum ored— and the Canadian Parliam ent’s address to the
Q ueen asking for repeal of the Relgian and French most-favorednation treaties soon folloivcd,” ' A great congress of the Chambers
of Commerce of the Empire was planned for the follow ing year;
the first topic on the agenda called for debate on schemes for com­
mercial federation. In September, the Associated Chambers of
Commerce voted to endorse im perial commercial union and w el­
comed the Em pire Congress as a first step in that direction. If it
was public opinion that Conservative leaders waited for, it looked
as if the time for action had arrived.
T h e party Conference assembled expectantly at Birm ingham in
Novem ber, 1891. O n the first day— perhaps in deference to Cham ­
berlain, w ho was on the platform with him — Salisbury advised the
delegates not to jeopardize unity by bringing up any question that
m ight be "perfectly defensible, but is not a burning question of the
moment.'^® T h e delegates heard him courteously and put their own
meaning on his words. "By an overwhelm ing m ajority and amid
much cheering"— there were, in fact, only six dissentients— the
Conference voted to endorse Vincent's program for the “ exten­
sion of commerce upon a preferential basis throughout all parts of
119 r im e r ,
716 T im e s,
J u n e an, 18 91,
l u S e e b elo w , p p . 1 1 2 -1 4 .
N o v . 26, i8 g i, f a i t T r a d e w a rn ed th a t "h is leOuJship is p la y in g a
d a n g e ro u s g a m e — a g a m e iv h ic h p ro m ises to h u r l h im from oflice w h e n e v e r a G en era l
E le ctio n com es a b o u t.’' F a ir T ra d e, D e c. H , 1891.
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
79
the B ritish E m pire." WJiat is m ore, the resolution expressed "the
earnest expectation that H. M .’s G overnm ent w ill see their way clear
before the next electoral campaign to make some decisive declara­
tion of their intem ioii to endeavour to prom ote m utually-favouring
customs arrangements betw een the colonies and the hom e coun ­
try.”
It was perhaps too m uch to say, as H arcourt said at D erby,” ®
that the rank and file had kicked the Prim e M inister downstairs;
after all, Salisbury had told V incen t that if he could oiganlze
sufficient opinion, the G overnm ent w ould respond. Y'et it was u n ­
deniable that the party caucus liad given the front bencli som ething
resem bling a mandate for protection, and Salisbury, w ho knew that
the election w ould not be lon g in com ing, began to m ake prepara­
tions almost at once.
T h e Prim e M inister's course was not easy, but he steered w'ith
consum m ate skill. R em em bering t)>e power of the cry “ dear loaf,”
he tried first to avoid it by stating that w hatever the strengtli o f
agricu ltu ral protectionists in his party, he could “ hold out no hope
o f a return" to corn duties.” ' T h en , in a m em orable speech at
Hastings in May, shortly before advising the Q ueen to dissolve,
he nailed his colors to the mast.” ' For the benefit of Liberal U n ion ­
ists he insisted that the object o f his criticism was not the doctrine
of free trade, w hich was still as sound as ever, b u t rather the “ legends
and traditions” w ith w hich the C obdenite “ R ab bis" had sur­
rounded the original doctrine. C ontrary to their predictions, the
w orld had not follow ed IJi itain ’s free-trade exam ple, but had instead
almost w ithou t exception turned to tariff protection. U n der the
circumstances, the nation tvhich desired to enjoy free trade w ith
its neighbors liad to use the threat of retaliation in order to gain
access to their markets.
T h e Hastings speech was distinctive in that Salisbury no lon ger
put upon protectionists the burden o f arousing the country, but
Stepped forth boldly as the cham pion of their cause. “ If I may aspire
to fill the office of a councillor to the p u b lic m ind," he w-ent on. “ I
w ou ld impress upon you that in this conflict of com m ercial treaties,
to hold your own, you must be prepared, if need be, to inflict upon
li e I ta lic s m in e . T im e s , N o v . s8, i8 g i.
121 f b id ., D e c . g, 18 91,
120 I b id ., D e c . 4, iB g t.
1=2
M ay i g , 189a.
8o
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
the n ation s w hich in ju re you the p en alty tvhich is in y ou r hands,
that o f refu sin g them access to yoiir m arkets.”
W h a t w ere the
steps w h ich the '‘c o u n c illo r to the p u b lic m in d " recom m ended?
W e must confine ourselves, at least for the present, to those subjects on
which we should not suffer very much whether the im portation con­
tinued or diminished. , . . You cannot raise the price of food or raw
materia], but there is an enormous mass of other articles of importation
. . . which are mere matters of luxurious consumption; and if it is a
question of wine, or silk, or spirits, or gloves, or lace, or anything of
that kind (a voice, "H ops,” and cheers)— yes, there is a good deal to be
said for hops— but in those cases I should not in the least shrink from
dim inishing the consumption, and interfering with the comfort of the
excellent people w ho consume these articles of luxury, for the purpose
of m aintaining our rights in this commercial war. . . . W c must dis­
tinguish between consumer and consumer, and w hile jealously preserv­
ing the rights of a consumer who is co-extensive . , . w ith the whole
people of the country, we may fairly use our power over an im portation
which merely ministers to luxury, in order to maintain our own in this
great commercial battle.
T h e r e was no m istak in g it. T h e h a t w h ich Salisbury h a d throw n
in to the rin g Bore a p rotection ist lab el, o n ly this tim e it was not
hid d en b eneath the band. T h e L ib era ls— P layfair, M o rley, L o rd
G rey, an d G lad stone am ong them — accep ted th e ch allen ge, and
tried to tear the heart o u t of the C on servative G o v ern m en t o n the
grou n d s th at free trade and the "ch ea p lo a f” w ere in p e ril."*
S alisb u ry m ade a n o th er effort to dissociate th e party from advocacy
o f food duties, b u t in vain."® W h ile the C o b d e n C lu b d istrib u ted
alarm ist tracts b y Farrer, P layfair, and the o th e r " R a b b is,” “ the
fa m ilia r cry o f the little lo a f was heard th ro u g h o u t th e la n d .”
W h e n th e returns w ere in, G lad ston e had a m a jo rity of forty co u n t­
in g the Irish bloc. B rita in 's C o b d e n ite policy was safe fo r y e t a n ­
o th er little w hile.
W h a t part fiscal reform played in the election o f 1892, it is id le
323 A t th is , w e a r e t o ld , t h e a u d ie n c e b r o k e in t o " l o u d a n d p r o lo n g e d c h e e r s ,” a n d
a v o ic e c r ie d : " C o m m o n s e n se a t la s t .” " T h e r e is a r e p r o a c h in th a t in t e r r u p t io n , "
r e p l ie d S a lis b u r y a m id la u g h t e r , " h u t I h a v e n e v e r s a id a n y t h i n g e ls e .” T i m e s , M a y 19,
1892. T h e r e iv e re 4,300 p e o p l e p r e s e n t .
'
l i i i b i d . , M a y 2 1 , 23, a8, a n d J u l y S, 1892.
I b id ., J u n e to , t S g s .
i 2« S e e C o h d e n C lu b 's " A n n u a l R e p o r t ," T i m e s , A u g . 8, 18 9a. S e e a ls o L u c a s , L o r d
G k n e s k a n d t h e M o r n in g P o s t , p . 3 3 5 , L u c a s w a s h im s e lf a p a r t i c i p a n t o n t h e
C o b d e n it e s id e , a n d i n le a d i n g a r t ic le s in G le n e s k 's ( f o r m e r ly S ir A lg e r n o n B o r t h w ic k )
M o r n i n g P o s t, " r e c e iv e d im m e d i a t e a n d s e v e r e c a s t ig a t io n ." I b id ., p . 335.
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
8i
to speculate. B u ried beneath H om e R u le and disestablishm ent, it
perhaps gained a few seats here or lost a few tliere; but w hat its
total effect actually was or how the British people w ou ld have
divided had the field been cleared of m ore com pelling issues, it
is n ot in the evidence to decide. Some Cohdenites pretended to
believe that tfie m ajority of forty represented precisely the m argin
by w hich G reat B ritain had rejected the T o r y program of retalia­
tion.’ ’ ’ Fair T rad ers gave events qu ite tlie opposite m eaning. T h e
slenderness of G ladstone's victory in a year when a landslide had
been expected, they explained, was due largely to the T o rie s’ bold
position on the tariff. Low ther and nearly all advocates of im perial
preference iiad been returned, said V incen t, in many cases w ith
increased m ajorities.” *
A m id these conflicting claim s, on ly one thing is certain: the ex­
perience o f 1892 had n ot convinced T ories that tariff re fo rm was
p olitically “ u n tou chable.” W hen the party conference assembled
in Decem ber, the delegates adhered to their custom of endorsing
fiscal reform “ by a large m ajority" and stressed “ the im portance of
prom pt steps being taken" to put the question before Parliam ent.” *
T h e delegates w ere close to their constituents, and should have
known, if anyone knew, approxim ately w hat the hum or of the
voters w ou ld allow .
T H E DECLINE OF T A R IF F REFORM :
18 9 2 -18 9 5
A fte r the flood tide o f fiscal reform in 1892, the waters began to
recede, and at the end of the ensuing three-year Liberal interlude,
seemed to have subsided almost entirely. Fair T raders were left
high and dry, puzzling for an explanation. H ard times, they had
reasoned, w ou ld eventually do their w ork fo r them— and du rin g
G ladstone’s prem iership the depression in trade was m ore acute
than at any time since i888. T h e y had fondly expected, too, that
the T o ries, w hen freed from the responsibilities of office, w ou ld
form ulate a tariff program to be executed w hen the L iberals were
izT C o b d e n C lu b " R e p o r t s / ’
A u g . 8. 1893, a n d J u ly 24, 1893,
128 r i m e j , J u ly 25. 1892. V in c e in p r o d u c e d a r e s o lu t io n 'p a s s e d b y th e St. P e te r's
C o n s e r v a tiv e C lu b o f S h effield , a c k n o w le d g in g th a t " C o l. V in c e n t ’s r e tu r n h in g re a t
m e a s u re d u e to th e h o n . m e m b e r ’s u n t ir in g effo rts to o b t a in fo r th e w o r k in g classes
in d u s t r ia l c o m m u n ity s u c h p r o te c tio n fro m fo r e ig n c o m p c iiiiu u a n d pro*
h ib it o i y tariffs as w o u ld e n a b le th e m to e n jo y th e f r u i i o f th e ir o w n i n d u s t r y ’' I b id
13^ I b id ,, D e c . 14.
8a
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
ousLc'ti. Rut although A'inceut did all he could to keep the question
alive, neither depression nor the delights of opposition produced
the desired result.
H ow exp lain the decline? D espite the lack o l conclusive evidence,
certain suggestions may be hazarded. In the first place, the founda­
tions tvere b ein g laid for tlie eventual m erger of the Conservative
and I.iberal U nionist Parties, and doubtless there was pressure on
both sides to com prom ise on controversial issues. By 1895, although
they retained separate party m achines, the allies w ere m oving
under the com m on term "u nionists,” and w hen Salisbury form ed
his third cabinet in June, the L ib eral U nionists accepted office w ith
him . Progress had not been easy. I'he profou nd differences sepa­
rating C ham berlain from certain cliques of the Conservative Party
often caused feeling to run higli. As late as A p ril, 1895, w hen there
were pu blic recrim inations, C ham berlain "resolved either to crush
the Conservative m u tin y or to leave a ‘stupid party’ to its unaided
devices.” ” " U nder the circum stances, it is no tvonder that T o ry
leaders desired to push fiscal reform once more into the background.
T h ere was no chance, Salisbury told the party caucus of N ovem ber,
1895, that the G overnm ent w ou ld adopt
the romantic dreams o f some esteemed friends amongst us. . . . If we
look at other countries under other fiscal systems we find the suffering
there is hardly inferior to our own, W e must not look, therefore, to any
violent or revoltitionary changes . . . for if wr. do anything to disturb
violently the relations of men and the confidence with which they deal
with each other we shall aggravate instead of dim inish the suffering
wdiicli we deplore.” '
In face of tliis w arning, the delegates asked m erely for the abroga­
tion of most-favored-nation treaties and p rohibition of prison-made
im p o rts,'" A few days later Salisbury exp lained
even m ore posi­
tively tliat "th e coustruclion of the G overnm ent" ruled ou t all
tbouglit of tariff reform . O n ly V incen t and a few die-hards re­
m ained active. B ut their opportunities in P arliam ent tvere lim ited,
and when they did succeed in arranging a debate, their only frontG a r v in ,
C h a n ib c Y la iu , I I , Gat).
” 1 T im e s , N o v . ao, 1895. Ita lic s m in e . '
m I b id ., N o v , 30 a n d 2 1, 1895.
” 3 T o a d e p u t a t io n o f h o p g ro w e rs. I b id ., N o v . 23, 1895. U a lic s m in e .
THE
CONSERVATIVE
PARTY
^3
bench support cam e from Low tlicr, w ho was obliged to confess
that he spoke only for himself.'®*
Secondly, the protectionist m ovem ent, though bound up w ith
the relatively easy-going im perialism of the eighties, was paradox­
ically lost from view in the extravagant and fevered im perialism of
the nineties. T h ese were the years when Rhodes and Jameson put
vast tracts of A frica under the British flag; when C hina loom ed as
an almost lim itless export m arket; and ivlien B ritain was hvpnotized by the fantastic schemes o f Barney Barnato and W hitaker
W righ t. A gainst the fascination o f K im berley's diam onds and the
lu re o f the R a n d ’s gold, foreign trade statistics and debates on im ­
perial preference seem ed very prosaic indeed. W h at was m ore im ­
portant, this im perial expansion, by prom ising new markets for
British goods, relieved B ritain of the necessity (or so it seemed) of
forcing an entry into protected markets or o f cu ltivatin g com m erce
w ith the old dom inions. Salisbury no longer spoke so much o f
retaliatin g against foreign rivals, but he dw elt at length on the need
of outflanking them by reaching new m arkets first.
If we mean to hold our own against the efforts of all the civilized powers
o f the w orld to strangle o u r commerce by their prohibitive finance we
must be prepared to take the requisite measures to open new markets
for ourselves am ong the h a lf civilized or uncivilized nations o f the
globe, and we must not be afraid if that effort, w hich is vital to o ur in ­
dustries, should bring w ith it new responsibilities o f empire ami gov­
ernment.'"®
Im perial expansion, not im perial preference, now provided the
answer to the question '“w hether ou r prosperity is to go on, as in the
past, increasing, or whether from this m om ent it is to decline."
In 1893 and again in 1895, the Associated Cham bers of Com m erce,
w hich several years earlier had endorsed V in cen t’s scheme, defeated
m otions favoring im perial preference.’ ” Even am ong Federationists, w ho fought this tendency to neglect the dom inions, an increas­
in g n um ber pu t Kriegsve.rein before Zoilverein, dism issing tariff
preference on the grounds "th a t w e should all get on much faster
H a n sa r d 's P a r lia m e n ta r y D e b a te s , 4 th S er., V o l. 3 1 , C o l. 1210. See a lso ib id .,
V o l. 30, C o l. 110 ; v o l . 26, C o l. 1 1 ; V o l. 10, C o l. 13 13 : v o l . I , C o ls . B93 a n d 138.4.
155
T im es, M ay 34. 1895.
15’
C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e J o u r n a l, S u p p le m e n ts o f A p r il, i g g j , a n d M a r c h , 1895.
lai/bi'rf., M ay 34, 1895,
84
t h e
c o n s e r v a t i v e
PARTY
with the practicable part of Federation if we could cease talking
about a point which only leads to dissension and liinders real
progress."
T h e changing character of British imperialism and the prelim ­
inary negotiations leading to the creation of a single Unionist
Party m ight tlius account, in large measure, for the decline of hscal
reform after 1892. It must not be forgotten, however, that the
Liberal program of legislation drained off a great deal of public
and party attention. Hom e R ule not only opened old animosities
in the country at large, but occupied the Commons for 85 sittings;
38 days were spent debating Fow ler’s Parish Councils B ill; and
H arcourt’s death duties and seemingly endless wrangling with the
House of Lords took a severe toll of the rem aining time. A ll of this
coincided w ith events in the U nited States which encouraged B rit­
ain to hope that Am erica w ould soon abandon the follies of the
M cK inley T ariff. T h e election of Cleveland, known in Britain
chiefly as a free trader, was hailed by the Cobden C lu b as "the most
noteworthy event of the past twelve months.”
A lth ough the
U nited States tariff remained highly protectionist, there was some
relaxation of duties in 1894; it is perhaps significant that Bradford,
in particular, profited by the reductions.'*®
W ith tariff reform losing ground, many Conservatives who had
advocated it now turned to other things. T h e agitations against
prison-made imports, alien im m igration, and Governm ent con­
tracts with foreign firms appealed to many; others, particularly
farmers, entered the "B im etallic League” ; still others swelled the
cry for greater and more efficient aid from consular agents in foreign
markets. A t the same time tiie movement for countervailing duties
against foreign bounties was losing much of its force. T h e protec­
tionist movement had, to a very large extent, passed into the hands
of farmers; but w hile protection "all round” m ight have been
politically feasible, protection for agriculture alone was “abso­
lutely out of the bounds of political possibility.” '*' Britain set too
much store by the “ b ig loaf” to tolerate any such heresy as that.
Im p e r ia l F ed era tio n , J a n ., 1893.
TU w i'j, J u ly 24, 1893.
M ay 24, 1895.
n i T h e w ord s w ere S alisb u ry's. See a lso h is rem a rk s in th e H o u se o f L o rd s,
H a n sa rd 's Parlia m enta ry D e b a te s, 3d Ser., V o l, 323, C ols. 829-32.
IV
TARIFF
REFORM
AND
IMPERIALISM
I 88 I - 1 8 9 5
rTTHE WATCHWORDS of tlifi eighties were Ireland and Em pire. W e
X .
have seen in the preceding chapter hotv the form er diverted
attention from F air T rad e and brought abou t political com plica­
tions most unfavorable to the cause, Jt is the business of the present
chapter to show how the latter tran.sforincd Fair T ra d e from a
question of protection to British industry and agricu ltu re to a
question in volvin g a niajor revolu tion in British im perial policy.
W hen the Fair T rad e League was form ing, “ L ittle E ngland" was
by no means dead, and “ G reater B rita in ’ ' by no means fu lly ma­
tured. " A colony may exclu de ou r m erchandise by its tariffs,’’ com ­
plained the Tim es of January 6, 1881; " it may repudiate our
influence on its policy, it may assume all the attributes of an in­
dependent State, and yet if it falls out w ith its neighbors it expects
us to fight its battles.” T h e Financial R eform Alm anac, urging
England in the best C obdenite tradition to cu t the glory and get on
w ith business, grum bled that w hile British taxpayers paid for the
defense of colonies against native attacks, their only rew ard was to
be m et w ith hostile tariffs against British goods. “If this be persisted
in,” said the Alm anac, “ the tim e may come, and soon, when the
British people w ill in q u ire w hat benefit they derive from the colo­
nies beyond the questionable one of finding lucrative posts for
mem bers of the titled aristocracy.” ^
Y e t British pride m ust have been stirred when the observation
was made, again in the Tim es, that although im perial political ties
w ou ld grow weaker, E ngland must sooner or later becom e “ the his­
torical center of a race tliat num bers hundreds o f m illions, speak­
ing our language, reading our books, developing o u r traditions as
1 F in a n c ia l R e fo r m A lm a n a c f o r 1880, p. iii.
86
IMPERIALISM
new modes of life demand.” ' A n d some interest must have been
awakened wlien David M aclver argued before the R oyal C olonial
Society that the weakening of political ties could be averted only
by the im position of im perial preferential tariffs.'' For those who
were interested in 1881, there were, in addition to the Colonial
Society, the Empire C lu b, where imperial-minded noblemen and
gentlemen tvere accustomed to gather, and also occasional meetings
at the Mansion House, where the L ord Mayor, himseif a “ colonial
merchant of high repute,” w ould urge his listeners to "strive to
the utmost to develope this [colonial] trade.” *
A ll in all, it w ould have been difficult for anyone w ithout the
toughest of "Manchester minds” to go unm oved by the lusty im ­
perialism that swept through England when the Fair T rad e agita­
tion was reaching its height. A decade earlier T horold Rogers bad
expressed doubt whether four-hfths of the members sitting in the
House of Commons knew “ the names of the chief towns in the
several British colonies, or could give any but die vaguest answer
as to their population, their resources, or their wealth.” =B ut in the
eighties and nineties, Britain put her nose in a geography book:
C. P. Lucas published his In tro d u ctio n to an H istorical Geography
o f the B ritish Colonies; * Bartholomew, the cartographer of E din­
burgh, enjoyed a national reputation, as anyone fam iliar with ad­
vertisements of the period w ill know; and the O xford and Cam ­
bridge Sdiools Exam ination Board began to place special emphasis
on geograpliy.' “ T h e subject is being taken up by all exam ining
bodies,” said the T im es; "lecturers upon it are in great demand." ®
Indeed, if you had colonial experience and a hundred attractive
magic lantern slides, you stood to make £5 5s. for a single Illustrated
lecture." Later, if your heart was in the right place, you volunteered
approxim ately the same service free ot charge.” If you were handy
with a pen, you could compete for a fifty-pound prize offered by
the London Cham ber of Commerce for the best essay on im perial
2 T im e s , J u n e 2, 1881. T h e E c o n o m is t was m o v in g in [h e sam e direcdion ; sec Ihc
. issu e o f N o v, 5, 1881.
3 M o r n in g P ost, J u n e 16, 18S1.
4 ;tiid .. J u ly i 3 , 1881.
fi Q u o te d in an a n o n ym o u s p a m p h le t. T h e F e d e ra tio n 0/ Canada and A u stra lia
w ith G rea t B r ita in a n d Irela n d , p . s,
6 L o n d o n , 1S87.
7 T im e s , N o v. 24, 1887.
3 .A lfred M o rris d id . F a ir T ra d e , M a ic ii 28, 1890.
8 H ,id , D e c. 30 i8Bu
’
W S eeley fo rm ed a g r o u p of le ctu rers ivlio d id . T im e s , O c t. 13, a n d N o v. i g , 1894.
IMPERIALISM
87
federation; " a thousand guineas offered b y the Statist for the best
essay on an im perial customs union; ” or, if you happened to be a
C am bridge undergraduate, the M em bers’ Prize for tlie best fjitin
essay on im perial federation.” If you bad not passed British E m ­
pire geography, on tJie other hand, you could not get a jo b in any
capacity at the C olon ial Office after 1887. Some feared that since
E m pire geography was not introduced in elem entary schools u n til
the sixth standard, m any were not being reached at all; and in the
nineties the R everend Headmaster of H arrow was tellin g the R oyal
C olon ial Institute how boys cou ld be educated to a sense o f their
im perial responsibilities.'* Y e t some o f those w ho left school early
doubtless had their im perialism served u p in volumes such as Lays
o f Federation, w hich the Fair T rad e League retailed for zd.'=
M eanw hile the course of E m pire had brought British rule to
Egypt in i88z, Papua in 1884, Becliuanaland and U pper Burm a in
1885, N igeria in 1886, Som aliland and Zu lu lan d in 1887, Kenya
and Sarawak in 1888, Rhodesia in 1889, Zanzibar in 1890. Scarcely
a year passed, it seemed, that som ewhere another diam ond was not
set in the aging Q u ee n ’s im perial crow n. M ore im portant, for the
tariff-reform m ovem ent at any rate, was the attitu d e of the elder
colonies. Instead o f claim ing independence as L ittle Englanders
had predicted, they were as enthusiastic as you n g guardsm en in
their dem onstrations of loyalty. A t the C olon ial C onference of 1887
it was n ot a representative o f the m other cou ntry bu t Griffith o f
Q ueensland and H ofm eyr o f South A frica w ho suggested im perial
preferential tariffs; and at O ttaw a in 1894 the colonies acted on their
own initiative to draw the Em pire closer together. In B ritain, pub­
lic opinion pressed constantly for a m ore affirmative im perial policy.
T h e Im perial Federation League appeared in 1884; in 1886 came
the Indian and C olonial E xh ib ition and the first Congress of C ham ­
bers of Com m erce of the Em pire; in 1887,
first C olonial C on ­
ference; in 1891. the form ation o f H ow ard V in cen t’s U nited Em pire
T rad e League; in 1892 the second Congress of Im perial Cham bers
o f Com m erce.
It looked, indeed, as if G reater B ritain had com e to stay, Im31 C h a m b e r
o f C o m m e r c e J o u r n a l, A p r il 5 . 1886.
“ F a i r T r a d e , M a r c h 13, i8 g i.
J o u r n a l o f I k e R o y a l C o lo n ia l I n s titu te , X X V I , K ig -Sfi
IS f a i r T r a d e , J u ly 3, ,8 9 ,.
°
u T im e s , S ep t, 26. 1804
88
IMPERIALISM
perial federation, said the Tim es, on June 18, 1891, “ is the great
task wliicli lies before the British statesmanship of the future. W ith
the colonies massed around us we can hold our otvn in the ranks of
the world Potvers. . . . W ithout them we must sink to the posi­
tion of a merely European kingdom— a position which for England
entails slow but sure decay." T h is was a very different tune from
that which the Times had sung ten years earlier. It was on every­
body's lips, and not least on those of Fair Traders,
P R O T E C T IO N ,
F A IR
TRADE,
AND
E M P IR E ,
18 8 1-18 8 6
It has been said of the period under review that between Ireland
and the Empire there was scarcely time to plant an agitation or
room to let one gro w ." T o accommodate the Fair T rad e agitation,
however, it happened that there was space in tlie large preserve
marked off for Empire.
For, as Ecroyd said in 1879, the patriotic and economic questions
were one and indivisible. His first aim, he insisted, was not protec­
tion, but
to consolidate and strengthen the Empire, and so to give all its citizens
the sense of belonging to a great nation. . . . England is called to a
great work. . . . She has her Empire to reconquer and consolidate,—
not by blood and iron, but by a patient, unwearied, resolute, yet peace­
ful policy, directed to a d ear and definite, though perhaps distant end.'’
T h e distant end was nothing less than a "Federal Union of all
English-speaking communities, w hich shall give them increased
strength and wealth and assurance of peace; and shall enable them
to extend to less civilized lands . . . a participation in their own
priceless inheritance of freedom and order based upon Christian
civilization." "
Nor was Ecroyd alone among Fair Traders in his passion for Em ­
pire. It must not be forgotten that Sir A lexander Galt, the first
Canadian High Commissioner to London, assisted in founding the
League; chat Sir Frederick Young of the Royal Colonial Institute
was on the Executive Com m ittee; that the first distinctively Fair
T rad e publication was called the British Empire; and that the
G . M . Y o u n g , in h is V ictorian E n g la n d .
IT W . F- E croyd , P o lic y o f S e lf-H e lp , p p . ic>-20.
^ ^Ibid., p . 25.
IMPERIALISM
89
League, in its propaganda, displayed a con tin u in g interest in im ­
perial affairs.”
T h e Fair T ra d e proposals for the Em pire w ere contained in the
League's M anifesto of 1881. T h e principal item of preference was
to be food; w hen im ported from foreign countries, it was to bear
a ‘ ‘m oderate d u ty ,” w hen im ported from the E m pire, no duty at
all. T h e purpose was to transfer a ll B rita in ’s food-grow ing to the
Em pire, where British m anufactures w ou ld be accepted in return,
subject only to revenue duties “ probably not equal to one-third
of the protective duties levied by the U n ited States, Spain, Russia,
etc.” In addition, certain lu xu ries like tobacco, w ine, and spirits,
already heavily taxed for revenue, should, w hen im ported from the
Em pire, bear a duty 10 percent loiver than tvhen im ported from
foreign countries. T h e program was recom m ended for m ilitary as
w ell as com m ercial reasons. W ith the consolidation of the U nited
States and the em ergence o f G erm any as a first-rate industrial
power, B ritain w anted instinctively to draw the Em pire closer
rou nd her; not on ly because there was safety in num bers, b u t be­
cause her food supply m ust not be left in the hands o f potentially
hostile states. T h e r e was reassurance in the estim ate that the poten­
tial corn-growing lands of Canada surpassed those o f Germ any,
France, Spain, Italy, and European Russia com bined; " and in the
confident b e lie f that Canada, w hen she had her “ m ighty fill of
popu lation ,” w ou ld pu t her giant southern neighbor qu ite in the
shade.
Y e t as an im perialist m ovem ent. Fair T ra d e was suspect. T h e
League was never q u ite able to overcom e the impression that many
o f its mem bers were m erely stowaways on the good ship Em pire
because their own protectionist ship had little prospect o f m aking
port.
Protectionists lurk in many places where you would scarcely expect to
find them [said Goschcn], Some of them . , , join the Imperial Federationtsts and wrap themselves round in the folds of the Union Jack,
F a ir T r a d e , F e b . 18, a n d S e p t. iG, 1887; M a y 4. an d .Sepf. 2 1 . iS S S; O f t . s.f, 1890;
F eb . 7 , a n d M a rc h 13, iR y i. See a lso G . J. M ., T h e B r itis h J a g g e r n n lh , p p . 94-90;
W a r n e t o r d M o ffa tt, L a n d a n d W o rk, p p . 2 0 1-3 ; F. S. W i llo u g h b y , T h e D eh rcssia n in
T r a d e ; E . S. G a y le y , F a ir T r a d e a n d F r e e T r a d e , p . 16.
" R . G . W e b s te r, in D a ily C h r o ttic le , N o v . 23, i8 8 i.
go
IMPERIALISM
I trust that we may be able to keep separate this question of closer union
w ith the colonics, because I am afraid . . , if it is suspected of too much
of the Protectionist taint, it w ill not have that influence on the masses
which we desire/'
Certain it is tliat during the eighties at least. Fair Traders were,
as a group, protectionists first and imperialists afterwards. T h e
leading m anufacturing members— with the possible exception of
Ecroyd— tvcre interested prim arily in securing protection tor
British products in the home market and forcing entry, through the
threat of retaliation, in foreign markets. Although the Manifesto
made it perfectly clear that the proposed preferential duty on food
w ould not be abandoned as a result of reciprocity agreements with
foreign states, the suspicion was prevalent that if the U nited States
offered reciprocity, Fair Traders w ould urge acceptance and tell
im perial farmers to go abcgging. A t the same time the League was
embarrassed by the presence of many fanners who urged protection
against im perial as well as foreign products. T o them it mattered
not whether com petition came from Minnesota or M anitoba; what
they wanted, simply, was a “ dear loaf,” W hen Fair Trade, calcu­
lating the L eague’s political pro.spects, said that it was only ‘ ‘for
the sake of carrying the commercial federation of the Em pire” that
food duties could be imposed, simon-pure imperialists were en­
titled to wonder if there were not strangers in their midst. In i8 g i,
when they more fully understood the signs of the times, many
Fair Traders tried to change their spots by adopting the name
U nited Empire T rad e League. B ut during the eighties, they were,
on the whole, protectionists undisguised.
Fair Traders who came by their imperialist sentiments hon­
estly, as it were, and who desired to emphasize preference before
protection or retaliation, carried on their agitation, for the most
part, outside and apart from the League. Thus Frederick Young
was a leading figure in the R oyal Colonial Society: Sir Alexander
G alt and various other Canadian Fair Traders were active in the
I.ondon Cham ber of Commerce; w hile Dunraven, Sir Charles
T upper, Sir John Eardley-W ilm ot, and Young again, bored from
within the Imperial Federation League. In each case they adopted
tactics to meet tlie situation, and Fair T rad e was sometimes watered
21 H ansard's
Pariiam etM ary D e b a les. 3 d ,Ser,, V o l. 350, C o l. 935.
IMPERIALISM
91
down, occasionally even lost from view. T h is was an understanda­
ble consequence o f their desire to gain the assistance o f men such
as F. P. de L abilliere and W . E. Forster, who were interested pri­
m arily in strengthening the Empire and who conceded, some of
them, that England "m ight find it wise to abandon or m odify” free
trade, " if by so doing she could promote its adoption throughout
the Em pire.” ”
Fair T rad ers’ most striking success prior to 1887 was won in the
London Cliam ber of Commerce. Here the conviction rvas grow­
ing in the early eighties that the depression in trade was not transi­
tory, but rather, “ that industrial com petition with other nations
w ill continue to increase, and that we must, as merchants, resign
ourselves to this altered position.” ” " T h e time when this little
kingdom was the absolute mistress o f the industiial universe, as she
still is of the maritime world, is gone, never, it is feared, to return.” -*
Under the circumstances, said the Cham ber’s Journal, “ the trade
of the future will have to be conducted on new principles. W e can
no longer w ait for markets to reach, unaided, the condition of
settled, peaceful, and financially organized states. W e shall have to
interfere, more actively than in the past, in anticipating these re­
sults.”
W hat the Chamber of Commerce Jo u rn al advocated was “ a new
colonial movement from which alone a revival o f trade can be ex­
pected.” T h e movement could assume two forms: either it could
aim at repeating in the undeveloped areas o f the world what Brit­
ain had already accomplished in India, or it could aim at the "con­
centration and consolidation of our present possessions.” T h e
Journal, though it did not state an official position, favored the
latter:
"C ontinental nations have w ilfully acted from their own
standpoint w ithout taking our interests into consideration. T h ey
must not be surprised if such one-sidedness leads Englishmen to
consider what steps they may best adopt for self-protection.” T h e
ultim ate solution would be to bind the Empire together in some
kind of Federation “ in order that we may, as merchants, intcrtrade
22 R. Jebb, Imperial Architects, p. 139. T h e words were Labillierc’s; see ibid., p. 143,
for Forster’s position, which was only slightly different.
Cham ber of Commerce Journal, June
25 Ibid., May 5, 1885.
2T Ibid., May 5, 1884.
1, i88a.
24 ib id ., Nov. i, i88a.
28 ibid., June 5, 1884.
zs ibid., July 4, 1883.
92
IMPERIALISM
over its w hole surface and develope the products o f its various soils
and clim es."
T h ese trends of opinion had great im portance in the struggle
for im perial unity of the eighties and nineties. In 1886 the London
C ham ber sponsored the fust Congress of Cham bers of Com m erce
of the Em pire. T h e Journal predicted that the event w ou ld "supply
a un iqu e occasion for the delegates to consider, if not to discuss, the
possibility of prom oting a British Zollverein or Com m ercial
U n io n ."
T lie difference betw een "considering” and "discussing”
the question was probably the difference betw een talkin g abou t it
privately and talkin g abou t it in public. D oubtless, the delegates
exchanged tariff views behind the scenes, and possibly they laid
foundations for proposals to em erge later. B u t the political situ­
ation in Britain made this m om ent singularly inauspicious for p u b ­
lic exam ination of the question. G ladstone’s free-trade G overn ­
m ent was still in office, and Conservatives, taking their Irish case
to the hustings, w ere feelin g their w ay toward an understanding
w ith free-trade L ib eral Unionists. O n e is probably justified in sup­
posing that in some cases, at least, the keen loyalty of the delegates
stood in the w-ay of a fu ll discussion of tariff preference.
Most of the speakers, w hether deliberately or not, follow ed the
recom m endations of the M arquis of L o m e, whose keynote address
em phasized the need for patience.” T h e remarks o f Sir Saul Sam­
uel, A gent-G eneral for N ew South W ales, w ho later by no means
held aloof from Fair T ra d e ,” were typical. W ith o u t expressing ap­
proval or disapproval of preferential tariffs, he stressed the difficulty
o f persuading the m other country to abandon free trade.
I am quite sure [he went on] that every m an desires , . . commercial
federation if it can be carried out properly. B u t it is useless and idle to
discuss this question unless we face some of the difficulties. . . . I f you
w ant to bring about commercial federation, your aim should be to brin g
about free trade between your colonies and the m other country.
29 C Jm m b er o f C o m m e r c e J o u r n a l. D e c . i . 1882. It is in te r e s tin g to ito te th a t C a n a ­
d ia n in flu e n c e w a s s tro ttg h e re . T l i e I.o tid o n C h a m b e r h a d b een fo u n d e d in 1880
la r g e ly as a r e s u lt o f o v e r tu r e s b y t h e D o m in io n B o a rd o f T r a d e , w h o se d e s ire w a s to
arran .ge a c o n fe re n c e o f I m p e r ia l C h a m b e r s o f C o m m e r c e in i.o n d o n ; C a l t a n d T u p p e r
w e r e fr e q u e n t ly h e a rd at m e e tin g s ; a n d in 1883 a s p e c ia l C a n a d ia n T r a d e S e c tio n w as
fo rm e d . I b id ., J u ly 3, 1883.
3 9 / b id ., J u ly 5, i8 8e.
31 P ro c e e d in g s a re in I b id ., S u p p le m e n t o f A u g .
32 See, fo r c x a n ip lc . T im e s , M a r c h 2 1, 1894.
5, 1886.
IMPERIALISM
93
W , M cM illan o£ Sydney and Sir F. D illo n Bell, Agent-G eneral for
N ew Zealand, also took their cues from I.orne, aFiti Sir A lexan d er
G alt, w ho on ly several days earlier was pleading for im perial
preference, filled his speech w ith cautious generalities. T h e sole
protesting voice was, as m ight have been expected, Sir Charles
T u pp er's, T h e tim e had come, he said, when the question o f im ­
perial unity must be faced, and “ when some means must be d e­
vised of presenting before the p u b lic m ind some practical solution
of the question .” For him self, he was convinced that the answer lay
in increased im perial trade, for w itliou t the binding tics of m utual
interest, im perial loyalty m ight dissolve into thin air.
W hen it came to voting, the delegates went no tariher in the
sphere o f com m ercial policy than to adopt L o rn e’s m otion urging
"th at the C olonies may be always consulted in reference to any
com m ercial treaty.” Far more significant was the resolution, unani­
m ously passed, to send a deputation to w ait upon the P rim e M inis­
ter “ requesting that the colonial governm ents i)e at once consulted
. . . as to the best means o f carrying out .some effKient sclieme of
Im perial Federation,” H ere, possibly, was the germ of the betterknow n C olon ial C on ference of 1887.”
In the background of these events was the great Indian and C o lo ­
nial E xh ib ition of 1886. T h e E xh ib ition was not, of course, in any
way d irectly related to the tariff-reform movem ent; it did, how ­
ever, emphasize the com m ercial possibilities of the Em pire, and
was visited by m ore than five and a lialf m illion people, “ at least a
proportion o f w hom m ust have been impressed by the m anifold
possibilities of the Q u een ’s dom inions."
U p o n the d osin g of the E xhib ition , a perm anent Im perial In ­
stitute svas established at the suggestion o f the Prince of W ales. T lie
purpose o f the Institute ivas to sponsor discussions and support a
museum for the “ Arts, M anufactures, and Com m erce of the Q u een ’s
C olon ial and Indian E m pire"; and the Prince hojied it “ would
tend to . . . expand tlie trade betw een the different Britisli com ­
m unities, and to drasv closer the bonds w hich unite the E m pire.”
For the convenience o f Em pire traders, tliere was a branch tor
33 C o m p a r e
J , E . T y l e r , S tr u g g le fo r I m p e r ia l U n ity , p p . 1 1 2 -14 .
33 I b id ., p. 112,
'
as I m p e r ia l F e d e r a tio n . N o v ., 1886. T h e ])rop osal ivas n o t e x a c t ly n e w . S e c J. F o rb es
W a ts o n . T h e I m p e r ia l M u s e u m ; .see a lso Im p e r ia l I n s titu te J o u r n a l, J a n ., 1895.
94
IMPERIALISM
maps and charts; another for reports and publications; a newsroom
where fellotrs and merchants consulted leading Empire journals:
and a Com m ercial Intelligence Departm ent tv'hich gathered com­
mercial inform ation from all parts of the Empire.*' A lthough it
ivas not the business of the Institute to agitate or to pass resolutions,
in its otvn way it doubtless played an im portant role in the move­
m ent to stimulate interempire trade.
OE infinitely greater importance than any of these, in the long
run, was the Im perial Federation League. Founded in 1884, the
League was not, for several years at least, directly related to the
movement for tariff reform. Fair Traders were am ong its members,
indeed among its founders; but because the object of the League
ivas Co unite men of conflicting views whose only basis of agree­
ment was a vague desire to strengthen im perial bonds, Fair Traders
were obliged to keep their controversial fiscal proposals in abey­
ance.
Some members of tbe Im perial Federation League were inter­
ested prim arily in imperial defense, others in trade; some were
com m itted to federation in the strict sense of an imperial parlia­
ment; others went no farther than to support a vaguely defined
"closer union.” Differences were tem porarily suppressed because
for the time being the paramount need was to popularize the idea
of Empire. T h ere was general agreement that events had reached
a turning point which must lead toward either disintegration or
closer union and that from every standpoint the latter course was
desirable.
In the conversations leading to the formation of the League and
indeed for several years thereafter, Fair T raders like Lord Dunraven, Sir John Eardley-Wilmot. Sir Frederick Young, Sir Charles
T u p p er, and Sir John Macdonald worked more or less amicably
with such free traders as W . E, Forster, W . H. Smith, G, J, Goschen,
and Lord Rosebery, W hen, at a prelim inary meeting, Dunraven
spoke guardedly of tariff preference, Forster, the chairman, replied
that here was "a matter in which we shall do no good by attempting
interference” ; but he added, for the benefit of Fair Traders, that
any sort of closer imperial union w ould undoubtedly increase im31 I m p e r i a l l / is l il u t e Jo u r tm l, J a n .. iSgt;; T i m e s , .‘t u g . 20, 1S88,
IMPERIALISM
95
perial trade.” Later, w hen a perm anent com m ittee was form ed, it
w ould seem that extrem e rare tvas taken to achieve a balance of con­
flictin g views: D unraven and M acdonald appeared on one side of
the scales, Rosebery and Hicks-Beach on the other. T h e cobpera
tion of these m en doubtless helped to brin g im perial questions to
an em inence w hich they had not attained in B ritain for many years;
bu t it must be emphasized that the L eagu e was, in a very real sense,
a provisional organization, and tliat the truce w hich brought Cobdenites and Fair T raders together on the basic question o f im ­
perial unity could not be lon g m aintained.
Except in the m inds of a com parative few, the tariff question and
the im perial question were by no means as clo.sely linked before
1887 a.s they were after. In the Fair T rad e L eague the accent was
on tariffs, usually undefined; outside the League, it was on Em pire,
usually undefined. W h en the tim e came for definitions, however,
it was found that the terms cou ld be used alm ost interchangeably,
to the advantage o f advocates of both.
PRESSURE
FROM
THE
COLON IES,
18 8 7-18 9 !
Im perial federation, said Salisbury in open in g the C olon ial Con
ference o f 1887, was still ‘‘nebu lous m atter” ; b u t he predicted tiiat
in the course o f tim e it w ou ld “ cool down and condense into ma­
terial from w hich many practical and business-like resolutions may
very likely com e," It is w ell to note the date. For after 1887 the con­
densation proceeded rapidly, and im perial preference emerged
from the haze, a thing of shape and substance, in vitin g study and
debate.
W h at prim arily caused the change was. it w ould seem, the dis­
covery by British Fair T rad ers and im perialists that colonial opin­
ion on the question of preference had advanced farther than British
opinion, and tlieir conviction that if som ething w'ere n ot done
soon, a matchless opportunity m ight be forever lost. W e have seen
how G alt, T u p p er, and oth er Canadians were very early identified
w ith the tariff-reform m ovem ent in Britain; and we shall .see in the
present chapter how they were join ed by representatives o f the
R e p o r t i o f t h e c o n fe re n c e s le a d in g to th e ro rm a tio n o f th e L e a g u e n il ! lie foim ti
in T im e s , J u ly
30. N o v . 19, D e c. g, 1884.
96
IMPERIALISM
Cape and the Australasian Colonies during the eighties and nine­
ties.
V ie w in g the m atter sim p ly, it m ay be said that there w ere tw o
reasoirs w h y the C o lo n ies tvere, on tlie w hole, m ore favorably dis­
posed totvard preferen ce than B ritain herself. In the first place,
tvith the excep tio n o f N e w South W ales, they w ere a lread y com ­
m itted to p ro tectio n ist policies. T h is m eant that the gran tin g o f
preferen ce w o u ld in vo lve m erely an adjustm ent o f existin g duties
and was not com p licated, as in B rita in , b y the v e x in g qu estio n o f
p ro tectio n versus free trade. Secondly, the greater part o f the trade
o f each C o lo n y, u n lik e that o f G reat B rita in , was carried on w ithin
the E m pire. T h is m ean t th at m easures to stim ulate in terem p ire
com m erce at the expense o f fo reign com m erce w o u ld benefit tvhat
was already the m ore p rofitable p o rtio n o f the C o lo n ies’ trade at
the exp en se o f the less p rofitable. In the m o th er coun try, as was
freq u en tly p oin ted out, the effect w o u ld have b een precisely the
reverse, since she d id som e three-quarters of her trade w ith foreign
nations.
Colon ists w ere persistent in pressing the view that if im p erial
Imtids w ere to be strengthened, there m ust be some reco gn ition o f
com m on m aterial interests. T h e effect on the tariff reform and im ­
perialist m ovem ents in B rita in was p rofoun d. B ritish protectionists,
w h ile c o n tin u in g to empha.size the im p erial possibilities of th eir
program , becam e, as p rotectionists, far m ore outspoken . In the
Im p e ria l Fed eration L eagu e, w here free traders and protectionists
had h ith erto w o rk e d in harm ony, the two groups "b eg an to harden
in to so m eth in g very lik e hostile parties and a period o f controversy
set in w h ich en d ed w ith the d isru p tio n o f the L ea g u e .” "
T h e great o p p o rtu n ity fo r the expression o f colonial view s came
at the first C o lo n ia l C o n feren ce, w h ich gathered in L on d o n in 1887,
In the p relim in a ry correspondence lea d in g u p to the C on feren ce,
S ir Sam uel G riffith, rvritin g on b e h alf of Q ueensland, expressed
the hope that there m igh t b e som e discussion o f schemes by w h ich
the dom in ion s co u ld offer "each other com m ercial concessions
greater than those w h ich are gran ted to subjects o f other states,”
A n d am ong the subjects recom m ended fo r discussion by Cape
C o lo n y ivas " T h e feasib ility o f p ro m o tin g closer un ion betw een
T y le r , op . cit., p , 176.
IMPERIALISM
97
the various parts of the British Em pire by means of an Im perial
customs tariff, the revenue derived from such tariff to be devoted
to the general defence o f the E m pire."
T h e C onservative G overnm ent, currently at the m ercy of freetrade L ib era l U nionists, was naturally reluctant to encourage sucli
proposals. Salisbury, in opening tlie Conference, said it was neces
sary for the present to "p u t in the distant and shadowy portion of
o u r task, and not in the practical part of it, any hope of establish­
ing a Custom s U nion am ong the various parts of the E m p ite." It
was not, in the nature of things, impossible, he w ent on, ‘ B u t the
resolutions w hich were come to in respect to ou r fiscal policy forty
years ago set any such possibility entirely aside, and it cannot now
be resum ed u n til on one side or the other very different notions
w ith regard to fiscal policy prevail than at the present m om ent."
A s matters stood, h e preferred to point the attention of delegates to
the "K riegsverein, w hich I helievc is the real and most im portant
business upon w hich you w ill be engaged."
R eflecting tiie deter­
m ination of the G overnm en t in this m atter, the C olon ial Secre­
tary (Sir H enry H olland) used his powers of discretion to exclu de
the Q ueensland and C ape proposals from the form al agciida.n
D espite the opposition of Salisbury and H olland, the delegates
foun d three occasions to publicize their views. In the first place,
there were the well-knoivn proposals of Sir Sam uel G rillith, repre­
senting Q ueensland, and Jan H ofm eyr, representing tiie Cape.
G riffith’s argum ent was the old one that if you wanted to consoli­
date the Em pire you ought to recognize "th e principle that H er
M ajesty’s subjects, as such, have a com m unity of m aterial interest
as distinguished from the rest of the w orld." H e did not w ant to
“ venture into the deep waters of Free T rad e and P rotection ," but
m erely to observe that w hile in most matters a distinction was
drawn betw een foreigners and subjects of the Q ueen, B ritain ’s at­
tachm ent to Cobdenism made such distinction im possible in the
m atter of trade. It was conceivable that one day free trade w ould
spread throughout the tvorld. “ B u t in the m eantime, w hile other
countries do not recognize that doctrine . . . it is desirable that
we should give practical effect to the principles that w e hold by
35 R ,
J e b b , T h e I m p e r ia l C o n fc r e tic e , I . 1 6 -1 7 .
p , 18.
41 Ibid., p p , 24-H5.
98
IMPERIALISM
giving material advantages to the people of our own kith and kin."
Griffith recommended that each unit of the Empire be left free to
decide on what goods and at what rate it w ould levy customs duties;
what was im portant was that in each case a differential advantage
be extended to the m other country and sister Colonies.**
Hofm eyr urged that each Colony impose, in addition to its ex­
isting customs duties, a further a percent tax on articles imported
from foreign countries. His main object, apparently, was to provide
funds for imperial defense. T h e am ount of foreign goods imported
into the Em pire in 1885 he estimated at £352,000,000. T hu s, at an
average rate of 2 percent a ll round, a fund of roughly £7,000,000
could be produced, enough to “ pay for a considerable portion of
the British fleet.”
Hofm eyr did not overlook, however, the obvious advantage of
offering the Colonies "greater fiscal privileges w ithin the Empire
than are accorded to foreign powers” ; and it was this aspect of the
proposal which struck the attention of other delegates, T liere was
no question of their overwhelm ing support. T h e Canadians,
lim ited by instructions from their Government, alone were silent;
but probably no one doubted that in Canada, of all places, the
scheme w ould be welcomed. T h e delegates from N ewfoundland,
Natal, Australia, and N ew Zealand had nothing but praise. Sir
John D ow ner of South Australia said that self-interest had been
the motive of those w ho brought abut free trade and that self­
interest would, in time, cause free trade to be abandoned. Sir
W illiam Fitziierbert of New Zealand echoed Griffith’s contention
that closer trade relations were of param ount importance if the
bonds of Empire were to be drawn tighter. James Service of V ic­
toria confessed that w hile the idea of a common im perial tariff had
always struck him as an impossibility, the suggestion tiiat prefer­
ence m ight be achieved without a uniform tariff, had awakened “ a
new sec of ideas” in his mind. Service was probably not the only
deiegace who could report: “ I never looked at the matter in that
light before, but I have thought about it a good deal since, and I
must say it appears to m e at present that there is a good deal in
that point.” A lfred Deakin of Victoria said positively that the
42 R . J e b b , T h e Im p e r ia l C o n fe re n ce , I , p p . 63 (I.; an d A , D o u g la s G ra h a m , S ir Samu d ]\'alki;T G r ijjith , p p . 6 7 - 7 1 .
43 [bid.,, G5 ff.
IMPERIALISM
99
people o f his C olony, ‘‘Protectionist and proud of being Protec­
tionist,” w ou ld agree ‘‘w ith unanim ity and enthusiasm to jo in in
ta rryin g out any such proposal." John R obinson of N atal described
the scheme as the "on ly concrete proposal w hich has been brought
before this Conference, d ealin g d irectly upon the unification of
the E m pire," and urged, despite the hesitancy o f the British G ov­
ernm ent, that the Conference “ should put forth some definite ex­
pression o f o p in io n ” in support of it,**
T h e C olon ial Secretary, needless to say, felt bound to deflect the
discussion from a course w hich cou ld only embarrass his G overn­
m ent. " I think, it was understood that w e were not to have reso­
lution s,” he rem inded the delegates. H e acted, he said, ou t o f
consideration for C olon ial Governm ents, for ivhom it m ight be aw k­
ward " if the delegates w ere to tie themselves to any resolution.”
B u t surely n oth in g cou ld veil the significance of the fact that H ofm eyr s proposals found abundant support am ong colonial repre­
sentatives and that only ilie circum spection of the H om e G overn ­
m ent prevented a decisive declaration. N o dou bt many of the
delegates returned to their homes feeling, w ith A ltred Deakin, that
w hile differential duties were em inently desirable, the question
was "really for the English people, and not for the C o lo n ie s ” to
decide; and that until a very great change in B iitish opinion cam e
about, " it is almo,st idle for us to raise the issue.”
T h e question o f tariffs em erged again in connection w ith the
bou nty problem . A tten d in g the C onference by invitation, N evile
L u b b o c L chairm an of the W est India C om m ittee, presented the
fam iliar case for the sugar interests.*® H e asked the delegates to
express their opinion to the British G overnm en t that; i) foreign
sugar bounties were injurious to a large colonial industry; s) justice
to colonial industries ou gh t to be one of the m ain concerns of the
Brinish G overnm ent; 3} the B ritish G overnm ent ought to "spare
no effort to b rin g about the abolition o f a system so destructive of
sound and healthy com petition.” U nanim ous approval greeted
L u b b o ck ’s propositions; some delegates, indeed, wanted to go even
l i J b i d . , 1. 7 5 fl.; a lso W a lt e r M u r d o c h , A lfr e d D ea kirt, p . 1 1 9 .
55 J e b b , o p . cit., ! , 7 6 - 7 7 .
59 Xc w as a m a i le r w h ic h a ffe c te d , in a d d it io n lo th e W e s t I n d ie s , Q u e e n s la n d , N e w
S o u th W a le s , F i j i — in w h ic h A u s t r a lia n c a p it a l w a s h e a v ily in ie s c c d — N a t a l, a n d
M a u r itiu s , A s im ila r issu e h a d a rise n in N exvfw uncllam ], w h e r e (h e F re n c h c o d -flsh e jy
w a s s u b s id iz e d w ilh b a u iu ie s . I b id ., 1 , 83-90.
loo
IMPERIALISM
farth er and recom m en d c o u n te rv a ilin g d u ties.” Jam es S ervice of
V icto ria , an “ avow ed F ree T r a d e r ," ch arged that the b o u n ty sys­
tem itself destroyed real free trade.
T h e re fo re, I say that the p ro p er course for us to take, w hether Free
T rad ers, F a ir T ra d ers, or Protectionists, is to recognise the fact that we
have to d efen d o u r industries against this attack. . . . It seems to me
that there is n o b etter w ay . . . th an by the im p osition o f these coun ­
terva ilin g duties. . . . I th in k th at fo reign coun tries are now presum ­
in g u p o n w h at we m ay alm ost call the tra d itio n a l Free 'I ’rade p o licy,
as co n trad istin gu ish ed from the in te llig e n t Free T ra d e p o licy w hich
gave Fingland a very grea t start, and w h ich . . . sh o u ld still be m ain­
tained. T h is tra d itio n a l Free T ra d e p o licy consists o f Free T ra d e
phrases im p ro p erly a p p lied to circum stances w h ich d id not exist at
the tim e the great question w as argu ed out, and to w h ich the a rg u ­
m ents . , . w o u ld n o t app ly.
T h e d ebate was again d riftin g totvard the deep w aters o f free trade
and p rotection . T h e C o lo n ia l Secretary, a fte r d ep reca tin g any reso­
lu tion s on the su bject, asked to b e in fo rm e d “ w h eth er the delegates
desire to in stru ct m e that they are o f o p in io n that, u p o n o u r fa il­
in g to in d u ce foreign cou n tries to g iv e u p their system o f bounties,
H e r M ajesty’s G o v ern m en t sh o u ld consid er w h eth er w e m ust not
p u t on c o u n terv a ilin g d u ties’ ’; and on this p o in t there was u n a n i­
m ous agreem ent.
T h e delegates’ th ird o p p o rtu n ity was presented w h en Sir D illo n
B ell, A g en t-G en eral for New' Zealand, asked them to discuss the
ex p ed ien cy o f e x te n d in g to the A u stra lian C olon ies the po w er a l­
read y possessed by C an ada o f n eg o tia tin g com m ercial treaties w ith
fo reig n cou ntries. B e h in d the suggestion was the desire o f the N ew
Z ealan d G o v ern m en t to offer Fran ce recip ro ca l tariff concessions
in retu rn fo r relax a tio n o f the F rench d u ty o n frozen m eat. T h e
delegates, reco gn izin g in the proposal the very antithesis o f im ­
p e ria l preferen ce, w ere im m ed iately u p in arms.
I ven tu re to hope [said Sir Sam uel G riffith] that the F ren ch w ill never
h ave a preference over the B ritish in trade m atters, o r in any other
matters, in N ew Z ealand , o r in any other p art o f the B ritish com m u­
nity. I can p erfectly see the ap p aren t im m ediate advantages to be
4 ' S ir P a t r ic k J e n n in g s o f N e w S o u t h W a le s r e p o r t e d ( h a t h is G o v e r n m e n t , t h o u g h
c o m m it t e d t o F r e e T r a d e , s h ie ld e d its in f a n t s u g a r in d u s t r y f r o m b o u n t ie s w it h a
d u t y o f £ ] to £ g p e r to n . “1 t l i i n k , ” h e s a id , " t h a t ilie s tr o n g e s t F re e T r a d e r in th e
C o lo n y w o u ld s c a r c e ly a t t e m p t to r e m o v e t h a t d u l y . ” / h id .. I , 85.
IMPERIALISM
101
gained; but certainly the ultim ate result m ust be that . . . there w ould
be seeds o f disunion sown , . . and it w ould becom e quite impossible
, , . to attem pt to bring about any general union of trade interests. So
that I hope the New Zealand G overnm ent w ill consider the matter very
fu lly before they press it upon H er M ajesty's Governm ent,
H ofm eyr took a sim ilar view , asking the delegates to consider
w hat w ou ld have been the result in Am erica if, w hen the U nion
was form ed, each state had been granted the right to make its own
fiscal arrangem ents and to enter into treaties w ith foreign govern­
ments. T h e U n ion, he said, w ou ld have entirely gone to pieces, and
“ I f you grant the right, you just as effectively prom ote disintegra­
tion o f the B ritish E m pire.” D eakin added that instead of en­
cou ragin g trade relations between a C olon y and a foreign state, the
delegates ought to assert tiic preferential principle along ' the lines
suggested by M r. Hofm eyr, w hich w ou ld draw the Em pire and its
parts closer together, and not on the lines w hich w ou ld either keep
or perhaps force them apart.” In view of the apparent unanim ity
of opinion, Sir D illo n B ell announced that he w o u ld w ithdraw his
proposal.*®
B ritish protectionists, desiring to raise the tariff question above
the reach of charges of self-interest, drew great encouragem ent from
the C olon ial C onference o f 1887. T o ask for protection for particu ­
lar industries was one thing; but to ask for it as a means of b in d ing
the E m pire together was q u ite anotlicr. T h e support of colonial
delegates had the effect of enlarging and d ign ifyin g tlie issue, of
surrounding it, so to speak, w ith an air of history. W hether recog­
n izing tliis or not. Fair Traders seized the occasion of the C o n fer­
ence to cultivate what afterwards proved to be extrem ely useful
relations w ith their colonial friends, T h e L eague entertained dele­
gates at a large banquet;
the London C ham b er o f Com iiierec
invited them to one of its meetings;
and later, the M anchester
branch of the Fair T rad e L eagu e (which ciiose, significantly, Co be
know n as the British U nion) added the names of H ofm eyr and Sir
S. L. T ille y , Lieutenant G overnor of N ew Brunsw ick, to its list o f
vice-presidents."
Perhaps even more im portant than die C olon ial Conference,
J e b b , T h e I m p e r ia l C o n fe r e n c e ;
13
1,
8 2-83.
T im e s , A p r i l s g . M a y t , a n d 6, 1887; a lso F a ir T r a d e , M a y B. a n d 20, 1B87.
so r i m e j . M a y 10, 1887.
oi I b id ., O c t. 18, iSRS; F a ir T r a d e , O c t, a6 , i888.
102
IMPERIALISM
in ils effect upon the tariff reform movement, at any rate, was
the renewed controversy in Canada between those desiring closer
economic ties with the U nited States and those leaning toward im ­
perial preference. T h e year of the C olonial Conference in London
was a year of depression in Canada, "Farm ers found the Am erican
market barred, the British market flooded, the home market stag­
nant," Factories which had grown up under Sir John M acdonald’s
National Policy found, instead of the grow ing market they had
hoped for, a steadily shrinking one. W hat was needed was a trade
outlet; and the old question— whether Canada's salvation lay
toward the south, in tlie market of the United States, or across
the seas, in the British market— arose again w ith great urgency.
Such colonial debates were faithfully reported in the English
press, and no doubt many readers were acquainted with the issues.
O ne read, for example, of the Canadian Com m ercial Union League
and its ominous design of bringing about closer trade relations
w ith the U nited States. It was not entirely clear what the League
advocated, but one propo.sal frequently m entioned was absolute
free trade between Canada and the U nited States, "w ith a common
agreed tariff against the outside w orld,” “ H ow this w ould affect
Canada’s trade with the m other country apparently did not con­
cern tlie League in the slightest. G oldw in Smith, one of the villains
of the piece, wrote in a letter to the London Tim es that Canada’s
commercial future lay on her own continent; the alternative, he
said, “ tlie commercial unity of the Empire, was abandoned when
colonies were allowed to lay protective duties on Britisit goods,
and cannot now be restored,”
Englishmen could take heart,
however, in the fact that Smith's program was not w ithout opposi­
tion am ong his own countrymen. Leading the opposition was the
Canadian branch of the Im perial Federation League, which in
1887 began to advocate “ a Com m ercial U nion of the British Em ­
pire as the alternative to the proposition of a commercial union
with tlic U nited States."
Could these loyal Canadians carry the
day w ithout the cooperation of the mother country? Some British
observers probably pondered this question when they saw, quoted
=2 T y le r , S trug gle fo r Im p e r ia l U n ity , p . 140.
53 T im e s , N o v . g, 1887: also N ov, 3 1, 1887, F eb . 27, 18S8, a n d M a rc h 23, 1889.
53 G . T . D e n iso n , S tru g g le fo r Im p e r ia l U n ity , p p . 85, 9 1-9 2 .
IMPERIALISM
103
in Im perial Federation, in June, 1888, the statem ent o£ the T oron to
N ew s that "on that small bu t significant w ord 'trade' the w hole
question hangs. T h e colonies do n ot ask 'W ill federation further
m ilitary schemes, w ill it help em igration?' b u t they ask ‘ W ill it as­
sist trade?,' and u n til it can be shown that it w ill assist trade . . .
the im perial federation idea is a m eaningless one to colonists, and
especially to Canadians."
T h e controversy in Canada had an im m ediate effect on the tariffreform m ovem ent in B ritain. A m e e tin g o f Birm ingham C onserva­
tives resolved, as early as Decem ber, 1887, that "th e true way in
w hich to avoid losing that advancing C olon y [Canada] . . . is to
further the m ovem ent for Im perial F ederation” along com m ercial
lin e s." O n e notes too that whereas the resolution aclopted at the
C onservative Caucus of 1887 was protectionist pure and simple, the
resolution proposed in 1888 called pointedly for the stim ulation of
interem pire trade. In the minds o f many protectionists like V in ­
cent, svho introduced both resolutions, it w ou ld seem that the
question of tariffs was becom ing very closely related to the que.stion
of Em pire.
Ac the same tim e, in the minds of some im perialists like J. A.
Froude, for exam ple, the question o f Em pire was becom ing closely
related to the question o f tariffs. "I cou ld put no faith in any
scheme for political federation," w rote Eroudc, “ so long as w e gave
no m aterial inducem ents to m ake them [the Colonies] wish the
connexion to continue. . . . It is as sure as the m ultiplication
table that if we do not offer Canada sucli a union the Am ericans
w ill, and the C anadian D om inion w ill be practically lost to us."
So strongly did he feel that he becam e one of the vice-presidents of
the Fair T ra d e L ea gu e’s M anchester branch. H e adm itted that
tariffs w ou ld cause a rise in prices, bu t added: "I believe the m ain­
tenance of the Em pire o f so immen.se im portance to ou r future
position that a slight rise of price in some articles of popular consuniption svoiild be as nothing in comparison tvith the attachment
w hich it w ou ld assist in strengthening.” **
In Canada, the controversy halted tem porarily when Parliam ent
" I m p e r ia l F e d e r a tio n , D e c ., 1887.
" F to u d e -W '. W . C a d e ll c o rre sp o n d e n ce , r e p r in t e d in
F a ir T r a d e , O c t. 26, 188S.
T im e s , O c t. i8 , 1888, a n d
104
IMPERIALISM
in 1888 defeated a m otion calling for commercial union ivith the
U nited States. In Britain, liorvever, there tras a growing conviction
that the time had come tvhen vague talk about im perial federation
ought to give way to a consideration of more detailed proposals. In
i88g, some members of the Im perial Federation League started to
agitate for “ the further definition oE the aims of the League . . .
and for the adoption of more active measures to propagate its
views." A t about the same time, and with apparently the same ob­
ject in view, Canadian residents in London began to urge that the
Colonies again be consulted on the question of im perial unity. It
was hoped, no doubt, that colonial endorsement o f tariff preference
w ould serve to tip the scales in the controversy in Britain. Thus,
Richard R . D obell of Quebec, an old advocate of preference, asked
the Im perial Federation League to invite colonial branches “ to
express their views" as to the best means of stim ulating im perial
trade.”' W hen this move failed. Sir Charles T u p p er put his more
considerable prestige behind a proposal that the Governm ent be
urged to “ invite a Conference of the representatives of the autono­
mous Colonies to consider the best means of prom oting the unity of
the Em pire.” H e added that in his opinion “ a feasible policy of
m utual preferential trade m ight be adopted,” “
T h e C ouncil of the Im perial Federation League, dominated by
free traders, was not prepared to go the whole distance, bu t it
liumored T u p p er by agreeing to ascertain the Government's re­
action. T h is was a relatively “ safe” move, inasmuch as Salisbury’s
hands were still tied by Liberal Unionists. Probably no one was
surprised at his reply that it was not “ w ithin the province of Her
M ajesty’s Governm ent" to summon such a conference.
I f the C olo n ies desire to con su lt together fo r this purpose [he w ent on],
they can select representatives to do so w ith o u t any sum m ons o r assist­
ance from us. T h e in terven tio n o f H e r M ajesty’s G overn m en t . , ,
w o u ld seem to im p ly that we w ere prepared to m ake recom m endations
fo r establish ing closer and m ore substan tial u n io n betw een the M other
C o u n try a n d the C olonies; or, at least, th at w e w ere fu lly con vin ced of
the p ossib ility o f d o in g so.”'
57 Im p e r ia l F ed era l ion , J u ly , 1889.
58 E. M . S afin d crs, cd .. Sir C h arlex T u p p e r , I I , 13a- See also S ir C h av les T u p p e r ,
R ecollectio jus o f S ix ty Years, p p . 24 8-51.
Im p e r ia l F e d e r a tio n , A u g ., 1889.
IMPERIALISM
105
T h u s was the m atter thrown back on the C olonies', and m ore par­
ticularly on C an ada’s, doorstep. Since the C ouncil had bound itself
in advance to be gu ided by the Prim e M inister’s opinion, there was
n othin g left but to fall back on the old milk-and-water policy w hich
the preference group deplored.
Fair T rad ers in the Im perial Federation League w ere im patient,
however. Im m ediately upon receipt of Salisbury’s reply, V incen t
and some of his follow ers made it know n that halt measures w ould
no longer suffice. T h e y waited, perhaps, for a m ore favorable politi­
cal situation in the m other country and for m ore assistance from
Canada. It was clear, nevertheless, that the uneasy alliance betw een
tree traders and Fair T rad ers in the Im perial Federation League
was doom ed.
'F he showdown tvas brought on by tbe M cK in ley T a riff and the
C anadian R ecip rocity election o f 1891. T h e M cK in ley "crim e”
arou.sed fears on both sides o f the w ater that Am ericans intended
not m erely to pull the lio n ’s tail, but perhaps to clip it by outright
annexation o f Canada. T h e aim o f the U n ited States, G alt wrote
Gladstone, was "to create a state of feelin g in Canada hostile to the
m aintenance of the C olon ial com iection”
T h e Am erican corre­
spondent of the T im es reported th.at it u’ould be “ difficult to per­
suade any considerable portion ot the people of the U n ited States
that the ultim ate destiny o f Canada can be anything else than ab­
sorption by this great R e p u b lic ,” Erastus VViman, a leader o f the
C anadian Com m ercial U nion Leagtie, had the effrontery to w rite
the Tim es that C anadian loyalists, b y asking their countrym en to
look to the M other C ou n try rather than to the U nited States, were
trying to p u ll asunder "w hat G od has join ed together." ** N atu ­
rally, language of this kind kindled strong fires. TJte m ajority o f
Canadians w ou ld not be b u llied by the “ audacious and am bitious
foreigner," wrote V incent, “ . . . not even for the shifting markets
o f their grasping Southern neighbor, nor be coerced by the threat
o f a prolonged dose o f M cK inleyism ,” *■
' T h e ju d gm en t of the
Canadian Im perial Federation League, w idely circulated by Fair
T raders in B ritain, was that “ T h e M other C ou n try and our sister
Colonies are all seriously affected by the recent legislation at Wash»» O , D . S k e lto n , S ir A le x a n d e r G a lt, p . 971.
5-' I b id .. F e b . 28, 1891.
tn T iv ie s , F eb . 17, i 8 n i .
M a r c h 3,' 1891!
io6
IMPERIALISM
ington, and no time could be more opportune than the present for
the Canadian people to urge the importance of some scheme of im ­
perial com bination for the advancement of the trade interests of
all."
These demonstrations were probably not w ithout effect on
British opinion. G. J. Goschen, w ithout surrendering his view that
free trade was econom ically sound, began to wonder if it would not
be wise “ to consider how far this fiscal question may be a p olitica l
question in the very widest sense." ” Im p eria l Federation , hitherto
hostile to the idea of a Z o llv erein , published an article entitled
" T h e Hofm eyr G erm ” and spoke not unfavorably of E croyd."
It w ould be interesting to know how much farther British opinion
m ight have veered from its accustomed path if the Canadian elec­
tions of 1891 had gone in favor of the Liberals and if “ unrestricted
reciprocity” w ith the U nited States had become a live possibility.
But the victory of Sir John M acdonald and the Conservatives—
the victory of the old man, the old flag, and the old country—
probably quieted the fears of most Englishmen, Fair T rade, call­
ing attention to M acdonald’s reduced m ajority, warned that if B rit­
ain did not soon alter her policy, “ Canada is practically lost as a
part of the Em pire.” " B ut it was soon clear that M acdonald’s vic­
tory, decisive if not sweeping, had dealt "unrestricted reciproc­
ity” a blow from which it could not easily recover. "O pin ion seems
to be almost unanimous in both parties,” reported the T im es's
Canadian correspondent, “ that the cry for commercial union with
Am erica has received its death-blow.” " By 1893 the Liberals had
entirely abandoned the idea; and a few years later they were
strongly advocating imperial preference. In view of the conse­
quences, the election of 1891 certainly "was no mere incident in
the domestic history of the senior dom inion,” "
M eanwhile, the Canadian branch of the Imperial Federation
League had commissioned one of its members. Colonel George
F a ir T ra d e, O c t. 24, 1890; Im p e r ia l F e d e r a tio n , N o v., i8go.
n iitie. H an sa rd's F a rlia m en ta ry D eb a tes, gd Set,. V o l. 330, C o ls. 932-40,
F eb . 17, 1S91. G oscben wa.s a p p a r e n tly w illin g to co n sid er co m m erc ia l tc d e ia u o n on
th e b asis o f free trad e iv ith in th e E m p ire , b u t o n n o o t h e r tefm.s.
es T y le r , Strugg le fo r Im p e r ia l U n ity , p . 188 a n d n ote.
St Fa ir T r a d e , M a rc h 13, i g g i .
os T im e s , M a y n , i8 g i.
T y le r , o p . cit., p . ig o .
9‘"' Ita lic s
IMPERIALISM
1 07
Denison, to spread some enlightenm ent in the m other country.
D enison w en t to Lond on to “ prom ote the gospel o f com m ercial
un ity of the E m pire,” and more specifically to urge the parent
League to w ork for the denunciation of the Belgian and G erm an
treaties as a first step toward restoring preferential tariffs.'® H is
visit exposed to broad view the spineless character o f the London
brancli. “ H ere is som ething to argue abou t,” said the St. James’s
Gazette, “— som ething to accept or reject or m odify. T h e Canadian
Im perial Federatlonists, at any rate, mean business." " kV'hen D en­
ison encountered the free traders dom inating the League in L on ­
don, it was certain that he m eant business. A t a stormy m eeting of
the E xecutive C om m ittee, after a head-on collision w ith that archC obdenite, Sir T hom as Farrer, he secured perm ission to insert in
the annual report a clause describing the state o f feeling in C an ­
ada and prom ising the L eagu e’s support of any action taken against
the com m ercial treaties.”
W h at happened when D enison proposed to speak in favor of
preference at the annual m eeting of the League a week later, is
belter told in his own words.
T h e mom ent I suggested the idea it was at once objected to; everyone
present said it w ou ld be impossible. I was persistent and said, “ G en tle­
men. 1 have been stopped twice already, but at the annual m eeting I cer­
tainly have the righ t to speak.” T h e y said that L ord Rosebery w ould
be annoyed, I said, “ W h at difference, does that m ake.” “ . , . there
w-ould be no use in my com ing from Canada, learning L ord Rosebery’s
views, and then repeating them .". . . T h e y then said “ that it w ould
be unpleasant for me, that the m eeting w ould express disapproval.”
I said, " T h e more reason they should hear my views.” finally saying,
"G enilenien, i f I cannot deliver the message I have undertaken to de­
liver I shall not speak at ail, and w ill report the whole circumstance to
Che League in Canada, and let them know that we are not allow ed to
express our view s." T h is they w ou ld not hear of, and agreed that I could
say w hat I liked.'®
T h e lessons o f D enison’s visit, o f the C olon ial C onference of
1887, and of the Canadian reciprocity debates were not lost on
protectionists and im perialists in Britain, It was plain that by jo in ­
ing forces and m aking the q u ejd ons of im perial unity and trade
w D e n iso n , o p . cU ., p . 139.
S i, J a m e s’s C a ie t le , F eb . 4, 1S90.
'2 D e n iso n , S tr u g g le fo r Im p e r ia l U n ity , p p . 1.40-4!.
rs i b i d , p p . 142 -43 .
io8
IMPERIALISM
one and indivisible, they could gain valuable support from the
Colonics. And early in 1891 some, at least, began to practice what
they Jiad learned.
TH E
L J N tT E D
E M P IR E
TRADE
LEAGUE
T h e Britisli answer to the colonial agitation was the formation
o f the U nited Empire T rad e League in February and March, 1891.
T lic founders of the League said that colonial enthusiasm could
not long be sustained unless some "practical scheme" was pre­
sented by the m other country. Soon it m ight be too late. It was
their intention to draw together all the elements of British opinion
favoring the use of tariffs to serve im perial interests; to encourage
Colonists not to abandon the cause; and at the same time to form u­
late a practical scheme upon which all could unite,’ * T h e elements
o f British opinion favoring tariffs were to be found in the Fair
T rad e League and the old Im perial Federation League. Although
a few individuals belonged to both, the two organizations had re­
mained apart; because in one, protection, on the whole, was put
before Empire; and in the other. Empire, on the whole, was put
before protection. In vietv of the pressure exerted by the Colonies,
it was now recognized by some members of both organizations that
there was a rather complete identity of interests. T h e form in which
imperial unity was most likely to find acceptance in the Colonies
w ould appear to be preferential tariffs; the form in w hich protec­
tion was most likely to find acceptance in Britain was im perial
unity. It was easy to conclude that a single organization was needed
to advocate both.
Before definite steps were taken, a final attempt was made to
convert the Im perial Federation I.eague. In the Executive Com­
mittee of the League Vincent moved that a deputation be sent to
the Prime Minister to urge "a thorough inquirj' by Im perial C on ­
ference or R oyal Commission into the possibility of establishing a
Com m ercial Federation w ithin the Em pire.” O nly three members
favored the motion. T h e majority, said the L eague’s journal, were
"entirely against narrowing the scope of the Conference . . . in
M a n ife sto , r c p r in ie d in Im p e r ia l t'ed era tio n . M a y , 1891.
IMPERIALISM
109
the way proposed by M r. V incent. T h e League has never endorsed,
and is very u n lik ely to endorse such a m otion.” ”
O n February 13, i 8 g i , a m eeting in H oward V^incent’s home was
attended by several leaders of colonial opinion, M em bers of P arlia­
m ent, and representatives o f some eleven associations." T h is was
the beginning o f the U nited Em pire T ra d e League, the broad p u r­
poses of w hich w ere announced by V incen t in a letter to the Tim es.
T h e aim of the League was to unite "on a broad, popular, and
patriotic foundation all societies and persons, in the U nited K in g­
dom and throughout the E m pire, interested in the extension of
British trade, the security o f British capital, and the prosperity o f
British labour." T h e re were two objects, the pursuit of w hich could
be carried on qu ite independently of parties: "a) T h e furtherance
o f m u tu ally advantageous trading relations amongst all w ho share
allegiance to the Q ueen; b) the advancem ent o f the interests o f
British industry and com m erce throughout tlie w orld.” ”
It is w orth n oting the effort made in w ording the announcem ent
to appeal to the Englishm an's sense of business as w ell as his sense
of Em pire. T h e same was apparent in the M auifeslo which ap­
peared a little la te r." " T h e U n ited Em pire T rad e League affirms
that the Britisli Em pire was established by the Britisli for the Brit
ish,” .so the Mariijeslo ran. " T h e tchole object of Em pire is C om ­
merce and the extension of com m ercial relations. It is w ith this
view that India was subjugated, that N orth A m erica and the W est
Indies w ere acquired, that Australasia and South Africa were set­
tled .” T h e reader was rem inded that in 1845 goods from the Em ­
pire had received a preferential advantage o f 50 percent. T h e first
task of the L eague must be to secure denunciation of the com m er­
cial treaties w hich were the on ly legal obstacle to restoring that
system. O f the colonial statesmen favoring such a policy. Dailey,
Service, Griffith, G ait, Vogel, Rhodes, Hofm eyr, T u p p er, T h o m p ­
son, and Sprigg w ere listed. T h e M anifesto added that “ T h e im ­
position of any arrangem ent w hich m ight be distasteful to the free
Im p e r ia l F e d e r a tio n , M a r c h , i8 g i.
re r im e s , F e b . 14, 1891, a n d F a ir T r a d e , F e b . so , 1S91.
” T im e s , M a r c h 3, i8 g t . T h e L e a g u e w as lo b e u n d e r (lie c o tu r o l o f " a g e n e r a t
c o u n c il, r e p r e s e n tin g h o m e a n d c o lo n ia l in d u s ir ie .c "
rs I m p e r ia l F e d e r a tio n , M a y , i S g i .
no
IMPERIALISM
people of any single colony is not suggested." N or, naturally, was
"the slightest increase in the cost of food, or the taxation of raw
materials in any way advocated.”
It did not require close analysis to observe that the U nited Em­
pire T rad e League was coming dangerously dose to the same con­
tradictions which had embarrassed the Fair T rad e League. T here
was, to be sure, a decided emphasis upon Empire, which tended to
obscure inner antagonisms; but there was probably more than a
little justification for Sir Lyon Playfair’s charge that the "dark
horse" of the U nited Empire T rad e League was protection for
English corn and cattle and better rents for English landlords."
T h e new League disclaimed any desire for a rise in prices, but it
nevertheless advocated tariffs; and w hile its propaganda did
not stress reciprocity w ith foreign nations, it was not easy to see
by what other means it intended to expand British commerce
“ throughout the w orld.” It is worth noting, too, that shortly after
Vincent launched the new organization, the Fair T rad e League
was dissolved, and a good many hardshelled protectionists joined
the U nited Empire T rad e League. Am ong them were James Lowther and J. Rankin, both fam iliar advocates of protection in
the Associated Chambers of Agriculture; and A . Staveley H ill,
P, A. M u n tzand Knatdibull-H uggessen, who, along w ith Lowther,
had frequently raised the tariff question in the House of Commons.
A t the same time, it would not do to overlook the enormous
advantage which the new League gained by taking care to move
w ith the im perialist w ind at its back. T h e St. James’s Gazette and
the G lobe both took the view, still fairly novel in England, that
though the U nited Empire T rad e League’s proposals w ould in­
volve a rise in prices, “ the gain to the Empire at large w ould be
w ell worth the sacrifice.” *' A year later the Tim es, that slowly
crum bling Cobdenite fortress, said: “ It is certain that for the con­
sumer generally absolute free trade is the best, but it is not certain
that the interest of the consumer, as such, is the only thing to be
considered.” If some members of the new League were suspected
o f looking after their own interests, these were probably counter­
' s T y le r , op. a t . , p . [ j i .
80 Q u o te d in Im p e r ia l F ed era tio n , S ep t., iS g i.
81 T h e le a d in g a u i d e w en t o n : '-W h en n a tio n s lik e th e U n ite d S tates, R u ssia, an d
F ran ce a re stre n g th e n in g th e ir e x c lu s iv e system s ag a in st us . . . it is n o t p le a sa n t to
c o n te m p la te th e p o s sib ility th a t . . . o u r c o lo n ia l tra d e m ay s lip fro m us a n d the
IMPERIALISM
111
balanced in the eyes of m any by the presence of num erous prom i­
n en t Colonists w ho certainly had no interest in British m anufac­
tu rin g or agriculture as such. A t the end o f its first year, the U nited
E m pire T ra d e L eague boasted am ong its vice-presidents the pre­
m iers of C ape Colony, Queensland, and N ew foun dlan d; and in its
council were 300 im perial M .P .’s.®" It was a list to make the liead
swim; by contrast, the F air T ra d e League was as dry as dust.
T h e agitation undertaken by the U n ited Em pire T rad e League
was varied and vigorous. D u rin g the first year m any p u b lic m eet­
ings were held; 100,000 pam phlets, atlases, and com m ercial dia­
grams were distributed; and the m em bership grew to 5,120.** In
Ju n e a deputation from the L eague waited upon Salisbury, whose
utterances w ere now som ewhat less restricted by the requirem ents
o f the L iberal U nionists alliance. Speaking of those "veiT unfortu­
nate pledges” contained in the G erm an and Belgian treaties, the
Prim e M inister said: “ I can give you w ith the greatest confidence,
I think, the assurance that not on ly w ill not this G overnm ent, but
any fu tu re G overnm ent, ever be disposed to enter into any such
engagements again," H e w ould not promise to denounce them, for
the treaties as a w hole conferred m any benefits on British trade;
and “ you cannot denounce a treaty by bits.” T h e date for renewal
was not distant, however, and he had ‘ ‘no dou bt that before a very
long tim e has elapsed some means of m itigating this evil may be
fou n d .” As for tariff legislation, his advice was that they arouse the
electorate and present the G overnm ent w ith a mandate.®'
T h e r e was some evidence that d u rin g i8 g i the electorate was
b egin n in g to be aroused. T h e annual conference o f British Cham ­
bers of C om m erce in Septem ber unanim ously approved a vague
resolution u rgin g measures to secure “ closer com m ercial union be­
tween the m other country and the colonies." ®
= In N ovem ber, the
Conservative Party conference, after several years of silence, passed
a resolution standing in V in cen t’s nam e advocating the "extension
o f com m erce upon a preferential basis throughout all parts o f
the British E m pire." A nd all this w iiile Vincent, D unraven, and
p o lit ic a l a lle g ia n c e o t o u r c o lo n ia l fe llo w -s u b je c ts m a y b e g r a d u a lly b r o k e n d o w n ."
T im e s , A p r il s y , iS g s .
'
sa F irst A n n u a l R e p o r t , T im e s , A p r i l 23, tS g a .
53 [b iri.
s* T im e s , J u n e s o , if ig i; a n d F a i r T r a d e , J u n e 26, 1891.
** F u c h s , T r a d e F o iic y o f G rea t B r ita in a n d H e r C o ia n ie s, 3 5 5 -77 .
112
IMPERIALISM
Low ther were keeping the question alive in Parliament.** T h e fol­
low ing May, when Salisbury made his great speech at Hastings, his
accent was, to be sure, on retaliation. B ut surely no one had the
illusion that the United Empire T rad e League opposed retaliation.
A n d it was noted tliat the Prim e M inister had specifically men­
tioned wines and spirits, on which preference could be granted to
Australia and the Cape.
M eanwhile, in a w hirlw ind tour across Canada, Vincent had
scored his most spectacular triumph. Meetings in T oron to, M on­
treal, Ottawa, St. John, Halifax, Ham ilton, W innipeg, Regina, C al­
gary, and Vancouver all passed resolutions approving the principles
of the U nited Empire T rad e League and urging the abrogation of
the treaties which stood in the way,*’ V incent was well suited to
his task, having traveled widely in the Em pire and behaving usu­
ally rather more like a colonial than a British politician. It was
.soon reported that 105 members of the new Canadian Parliament,
nearly half, had endorsed his program. T h e Tim es colonial corre­
spondent observed that there was a “ fair chance of a w orking ma­
jority if any practical question connected with the subject should
arise,”
Vincent himself was enchanted. T hrou gh ou t Canada, he
wrote a friend at home.
W e have met w ith eager and unanimous support. It is perfectly clear
that everything rests with the people of England. T h e idea is so uni­
versal that they are so wedded to free imports, that it is of no use for
the colonies to approach them upon closer trade relations. I tell them
that this is true of the professors but not of the lads in Yorkshire. T h is
is the center of the most glorious wheat country imaginable, and yet
but a looth part occupied. Here is the granary of England on the West­
ern Continent.*®
U pon several occasions, in his enthusiasm, Vincent made state­
ments, later retracted, indicating tliat Britain was closer to aban­
doning free trade than was actually the case. Th is gave critics on
both sides of the water their opportunity. T h e M ontreal Herald
remarked that Canada w ould better beware of V incen t’s “ fad,” be­
cause there was not "a single public man of recognized ability and
eo H a n sa rd ’s P a rlia m en tary D eb a tes, 3 d Ser., V o l. 350, C ols. 908-44: sec also T y le r ,
o p . cit., p . 193.
8’ T im e s , J u ly 30, 1891, a n d S ep t. 25, 1S91.
SS Ib id ., A u g . 5, 1891,
Q u o t e d in ib id ., S ep t. 29, 1891,
IM PERIALISM
113
in flu en ce in the n atio n al cou n cils o f G reat B rita in w h o w o u id seri­
ou sly ad vocate the ad op tio n o f such a p o lic y .”
B u t th o u gh V in cen t confessed that he h eld n o w arran t from the
B ritish G o v ern m en t, tlicrc is som e reason to sp ecu late ivheth er
p a rty leaders w ere n o t m ore in terested in his jo u rn e y than they
cared to ad m it. A B ritish M .P ,, p ro b a b ly L o u is Jen n in gs, w rote in
the N e w Y o rk H era ld th a t
Some members o l Parliam ent are bringing pressure to bear upon Lord
Salisbury to carry out a commercial reciprocity policy for England. It
is admitted that the work must be begun with the English colonies, and
communications w ith Canada, Australia, and N ew Zealand have been
privately going on for some time past lor the formation of an Imperial
Zollverein.^^
W , H . S m ith , C on servative lead er in the H o u se o f C om m on s, was
co m m u n ica tin g gu ard ed ly w itli the C an a d ia n G o v ern m en t on the
su b ject o f p referen ce; and S alisb u ry h a d p ra ctica lly in v ite d V in ­
cen t to force the G overn m en t's hand by arou sin g p o p u la r o p in io n .
W h ile V in c e n t was in C an ada, both houses at G tta w a ad op ted an
address to the Q u een , ask in g fo r th e d en u n cia tio n o f tlie G erm an
and B elgia n treaties.” I t was said th at V in c e n t had in flu en ced
C an a d ia n statesm en to send the address, an d ru m o r had it that
S alisb u ry ’s vietvs had b een consulted.*’ It is c ertain ly n ot fantastic
to suggest that, in regard to the address to the thron e an d V in c e n t’s
part in it, if any, there was stron g lik e lih o o d that tlie G o v e rn m e n t’s
consent h a d b een secured in advance.
A fte r co m m u n ica tin g som e o f his enthusiasm to C an ada, V in ­
cen t tried to com m u n icate som e o f C an a d a ’s enthusiasm to B ritain .
N o t a little was lost in the exclian ge, n atu ra lly , b u t a triu m p h a n t
h om eco m in g am ong his Shefiield con stitu en ts ad d ed to the im pres­
sion o f a sw ellin g p u b lic o p in io n . A t a w elco m e rally in M o n tg o m ­
ery H a ll, Shefiield, h e rep o rted chat C an ada teas n ow ready fo r
com m ercial fed era tio n and a p p e ale d to B rita in to m eet tlie d o ­
m in io n halfway.** H e later carried the same message to th e Sheffield
Q u o L e d in I m p e r i a l F e d e r a tio n ^ O c t ., 18 9 1.
“ I Q u o te d in tftid., A u g .. i S g i. T h e n am e o f th e a u th o r is n o t g iv e n , b u t it is said
th a t h e is a B ritis h M .P , Ji w as very lik e ly J en n in g s, fo r h e was an M .P- an d re p re ­
sen ted th e H e r a l d in L o n d o n , T im e s , F eb. lo, 1893.
“
F u c h s , o p . c it .. 3 6 3 -6 5 .
8S F a ir T r a d e , D e c . 18, 18 9 1 ; T i m e s , S e p t , 38, 18 9 1.
•r Sheffield UatVy re/e g ra p /i, J a n . 1 a, 1892.
r
s
114
IMPERIALISM
Cham ber of Commerce ” aod to a public m eeting in Manchester,
where Lon-tlier and Lister (now Lord Masham) appeared on the
platform wdth him .” Less than three months later, the Canadian
House of Commons, going a step farther than the address to the
throne of 1891, resolved, by a m ajority.of 98 to 64, that if Britain
gave a preferential advantage to Canadian products, a substantial
reduction of duties on British products w ould be granted in re­
turn,” W hether Vincent was in any way responsible for this pro­
posal, it is impossible to say. But the cum ulative effect of his agi­
tation and the Canadian offer was to give added weight to the
argum ent for imperial preference. As the Times put it, if the other
Colonies were prepared to match the Canadian offer, there would
be a strong body of opinion in Britain which w ould urge accept­
ance even at the cost of raising prices.”
Soon, however, V incen t’s plans crum bled like a house of cards.
T h e second Congress of Chambers of Com m erce of the Empire,
m eeting in 1892, was clearly not an adequate test of either British
or C olonial opinion, but it was the nearest thing to a test that the
times afforded; and tlie rcjctaion of im perial preference by the
Congress was disastrous.
V incent and his followers had hopes that endorsement of im­
perial preference by colonial delegates w ould have a decisive in­
fluence. Fair Traders had lon g been urging the Governm ent to
summon a second colonial conference to encourage growth of the
seeds planted by Hofm eyr and Griffith in 1887. T h e Congress of
Im perial Chambers, a “ true Parliam ent of British Com m erce,” ”
so-called, would, it was probably hoped, have the same effect. Be­
fore the Congress opened, colonial delegates were entertained at a
United Empire T rad e League banquet, where Vincent and Lowther expounded the League program and emphasized the Em pire’s
potential independence of foreign nations.’ ®
"
T h e London Cham ber of Commerce, on whose initiative the
Congress was called, had of late been giving serious thought to
the question of commercial federation. A lthough no official posi­
tion liad been adopted, the Cham ber’s Journal frequently urged,
09 Sheffield
Daily T e le g r a p h ,
21, ,892.
00 I b id ., F eb . g , 1892.
t>‘ o ig g le fo r I m p e r ia l U n ity , p p . 193-96.
oa T im e s , A p r i! 27, 1892.
“0 Sir J o h n L u b b o c i, C h a m b e r o f C o m m erce J o u r n a l, S u p p le m e n t, J u ly 14, 1892.
100 T i n i f j , J u n e 24. 1892,
IMPERIALISM
115
as a rem edy for B rita in ’s com m ercial difficulties, “a more aggressive
policy in the shape of a British T ra d e Federation, w ith w hich the
other nations of the w orld w ould be com pelled to treat.”
N ow,
on the agenda for the Congress, the first subject for debate was
"C om m ercial R elations of the M other C ou n try w ith her C o lo ­
nies and Possessions, w ith special regard to the renew al of E uro­
pean T reaties, and recent com m ercial legislation in the U nited
States.”
A prelim inary circular asked each cham ber to "fo rm u ­
late its views in a distinct shape on this question, in a resolu
tion or other such form as it m ay deem exp ed ien t" and to select
"a delegate or delegates w ho w ill be prepared to support tlie pro­
posal at the sittin g o f tlie C ongiess.”
T h e circu lar tvas issued al­
most a year in advance of the actual m eeting; the cham bers may
thus be assumed to have had all the time needed for careful de­
liberation.
T h e principal issue on w hich the delegates to the C ong ress d i­
vid ed was not, of course, w hether interem pire trade ought to be
encouraged, bu t whether, in order to achieve this end, the m other
country w ou ld abandon free trade for differential duties, or the
Colonics abandon protection for im perial free trade,” * T h u s G . \V.
M edley, a leader of the C obden C lu b, secured adoption o f a m otion
stating that ‘‘prelerential duties, being based on Protection, w ould
be p o litically dangerous, and econom ically disastrous; and that the
arrangem ent which, m ore than any other, w ou ld conduce to an
intiin ale tom m ercial un ion, w ou ld be by our self-governing C o lo ­
nies adopting, as closely as circumstances w ill perm it, the nonprotective policy of the M other C ou n try,” T h e opposing view was
expressed in Sir Charles T u p p e r ’s rejected am endm ent:
R esolved:— T h a t in order to extend the exchange and consumption of
the home staple products in every part of the British Empire, a slight
differential duty should be adopted by the Im perial and C olon ial G o v­
ernments in favour of home productions against the im ported foreign
articles.
A n analysis of the voting reveals that ig out of ps Canadian
Cham bers supported T u p p e r ’s am endm ent; of the rem aining colo­
nial Cham bers, 7 were for, 17 against; w hile the Briti.sh opposed
u u Cham ber of Comm erce Journal, M a y lo . 1892.
7 “ / l i d , J u ly 10, 1891.
10, i S g i .
101 P ro c e e d in g s a p p e a r m ib id ., J u ly 1 4 , 189a,
iiG
im p e r ia l ism
liim, 35 to 7. T lie net result was tlie defeat of T a p p e r’s amend­
ment, 55 chambers to 33, and the adoption of M edley’s original
free-trade motion, 47 to 34. It is w oitli adding that, again as at the
first Congress in 1886, some of the colonial delegates— James Huddart of M elbourne, for exam ple— opposed T u p p er not because
they differed witli him in principle, but ratlier because they recog­
nized that there was little liope of persuading the British to depart
from the traditional policy of free trade.
It would appear that M edley and T u p p er had come very close to
stating the fundamental difference of opinion which made com­
m ercial federation of the Empire, for the time being at any rate,
a virtual impossibility. T here was, among tariff reformers in B rit­
ain, altogether too little understanding of the meaning of the “ N a­
tional Policy" of protective tariffs to ivliich Canada had turned in
1879. N o t a few Fair Traders seemed to im ply in their arguments
that it would be possible to return to the essentials of the old colo­
nial system, under which, before repeal of the Corn Laws, colonial
food and ratv materials had been exchanged for manufactures from
Brj£.am,
T h e situation was no longer so simple, liowever. T h e Colonies
were no longer w illing to play “ tlie role of granary to industrialized
Britain.”
As D ilke pointed out in 1890, they were determined to
build up their oivn inclustries, which lived in particular dread of
British and Indian competitors.’ "" T h is was most clearly the case
in Canada, of course, but, to a lesser degree, the same was true of
oclier parts of the Empire. J. X. M errim an of South Africa wrote
in 1887 that “ Canada and N ew Zealand, to say nothing of "Victoria,
mean to secure their own markets and to compete in others, and
with cheap material, cheap food, and cheap land, w ho shall say
them nay?”
Five years later the view was expressed by the Grahamstotvn Journal, in M errim an’s own Colony, that “ we are , . .
bound to . . . give some protection to our young colonial m anu­
factures."
N ot less im portant as an obstacle to commercial federation on
the basis of free trade w itliin the Empire was the undoubted colo105 T y l e r ,
o p . cit., p . 34.
p . il> ;; D il k e , P r o b l e m s u f G r e a t e r B r it a i n , JD 4 7 5 .
107 S 'in e tte n th
C e n tu r y , A p r il, 1887, q u o te d in T yler, o p . cit., p , 17 1.
10s T y le r , o p , cit., p. 171 n ote.
IMPERIALISM
117
nial dependence upon tariffs for the m ajor part of revenue needs.
It was estim ated that, in the Colonies, customs revenue "ran ged at
between 60 per cent and go per cent of the gross taxation."
Inas­
m uch as the greater portion of colonial imports came not from
foreign countries b u t from the E m pire itself, adoption o f im jierial
free trade or possibly even differential duties w ould have necessi­
tated serious fiscal readjustments. It probably w ould have m eant
increased dependence upon direct taxation, to w hich there w ould
doubtless have been strong opposition.
It is far from certain, of course, that the idea of a free-trading
Empire protected from foreign com petition tvoukl have carried
the day even in the m other country, although a strong body of
opinion w ould unquestionably have favored it. N evile L u bb ock
attem pted to sound ou t the Congress o f Cham bers of Com m erce
on this head; had he succeeded, the reaction o f the British cliambers w ou ld have been very interesting indeed. B ut T u p p e r m an­
aged to deprive L u b b o ck ’s resolution of any m eaning by changing
the words “ free trade w ithin the British E m p ire" to "freer trade
w ith in the British E m pire."
W hatever the feelin g of the British
delegates, this m aneuver by one of the leading C anadian advocates
of preference was significant. It u nderlined the fact that the form
of com m ercial federation w liich stood tlie best chance of acceptance
in B ritain was precisely the form w hich Canada was most likely to
reject.
T h e alternative to com m ercial federation on the basis o f free
trade was a system of im perial preference in w hich the Colonies
w ou ld be left free to put “ eleven foot tariffs on foreign goods and
ten foot tariffs on the goods of the m other country,"
w hile Great
Britain w ou ld be required to enact a tariff at least sufficient to al­
low the C olonies a differential advantage. As the debates at the
Congress o f Cham bers of Com m erce brought out, British opposi­
tion to such a one-sided schem e was n ot less form idable than
C anadian opposition to im perial free trade. It was said, and re­
peated tim e and again, that the m other country, by her policy of
free trade, already gave the greatest possible advantage to imports
z“ I b id ., p . 168,
110 C h a m b e r o f C o m m e r c e J o u r n a l, S u p p le m e n t, J u ly i.j, 1892,
m P a r a p h r a s e d fro m G o s c h e n ’s r e m a rk s . See H a n sa r d 's P arH a m cn ta ry D e b a te s , j d
S er., V o l. 350, CoLs. 93 3 -40 , F eb . 17 , i8 g i.
ii8
IMPERIALISM
from all countries, including the Colonies. Since 75 percent o£ these
imports originated outside the Empire, differential duties would
mean, in effect, penalizing three-quarters of Britain’s trade for the
sake of encouraging one-quarter— and the one-quarter would still
face substantial protective barriers in the Colonies. Canada had
made a "tempting offer” to give the mother country a preferential
advantage, said Lord Brassey, "but such an undertaking would be
of no practical advantage if the barrier raised against us, albeit
lower than that reared up against the foreigner, would still be so
high that we could not leap over it.” “ =There, for the time being,
the matter lay. T he grounds of disagreement had been clearly
stated on both sides, and there was no apparent prospect of com­
promise.
In the same month that the Congress of Chambers of Commerce
of the Empire held its final sitting, the liberals scored their victory
of 1892, and in August Salisbury resigned. T he Liberals were to
learn, to the surprise of only a few, that the driving force of im­
perialism could not be turned back. But the imperialism of the
Liberal interlude was, as we have seen, Kipling’s rather more than
Ecroyd’s or Vincent’s; and for three years, at least, all hope of real­
izing the program of the United Empire Trade League vanished
into thin air.
PR ESSU R E
FROM
TH E
C O L O N IE S ,
18 9 2 -18 9 5
W hile Vincent and the British tariff reformers were licking their
wounds after the defeats of 1892, leadership of the movement, even
in London itself, passed again into the hands of Colonials. Con­
certed action in behalf of imperial trade by the Colonies, or at
least by their representatives in London, was not entirely new. In
1890, Sir Charles T upper and the Agents-General of seven Colo112 Chamber of Commerce Journal, Supplement, July 14, 1892. This was, of course,
an old Cobdenite argument; but it was no longer stated in the rigorous terms which
had infuriated Fair Traders. Erassey admitted that while Britain prospered under
free trade, the United States was no less prosperoti.s under protection, and he drew
the inference that the arguments used in favour of free trade are not quite so con­
clusive as the staunch supporters of its doctrine assert.” His explanation was that
"the sources of prosperity in the two countries are tot,illy dilferent." England depended
on the export of manufactured articles; the United Stales on a huge internal trade
and vast exports of food and raw materials. Each had to cut her fiscal system to suit
her needs. "O ur crowded population could not live," said Brassey, “ if they failed to
hold their osvii as exporters and manufacturers.”
IMPERIALISM
119
nies had petitioned the C olon ial Secretary to help bring about the
term ination of the B elgian and G erm an com m ercial treaties/'*
W hat was distinctive about efforts of this kind after 1892 was that
they w ere directed not so m uch toward influencing the policy o f
the m other country, but toward en abling the Colonies to take
steps, independent o f the m other country, for encouraging trade
am ong themselves. As early as February 16, i8 g i, the T im es's colo­
nial correspondent, discussing the aims of the Conservative Party
in Canada, reported that “ the notion begins to gain groun d that
groups of colonies, even w hen not federated, m ight . . , enter
into preferential customs agreem ents with each other, on the same
principle as that em bodied in Mr. H ofm eyr’s scheme for the Em ­
p ire.” It was hoped, as w ill be seen, that if the C olonies could prove,
by their ow n experience, the practicability of preferential tariffs,
the m other country w ould eventually be persuaded to join.
N ot that G reat B ritain was given up as lost— far from it. Late
in 1892, the Canadian M .P. w ho had introduced the m otion offer­
in g the m other cou n iry reciprocal preference, was in E ngland urg­
ing pu blic m eetings to endorse his policy. H e wa.s accom panied by
George Foster, later to play a conspicuous part in the m ovem ent.” *
W h en the Im perial Federation L eague was disbanded in L o n ­
d on ,” * the C anadian branch, w hich had not been consnlied, ob ­
jected strenuously. C olonel G eorge neriison charged that the
dissolution had been engineered by opponents o f preference who
feared that the idea had gained sufficient strength to dom inate the
federation m ovem ent. Possibly because o f the annoyance of the
Canadians, steps w ere soon taken in L ondon to revive the organi­
zation, b u t the tariff question im m ediately raised its ugly head.
Should com m ercial union be based on free trade w ithin the Em ­
pire or m erely freer trade, as the Canadians advocated? A fter D en i­
son had again visited London, a com m ittee was appointed to w ork
out a com prom ise arrangem ent.” ®.Abandoning precise definitions,
the new League bound itself on ly “ to consider how far it may be
possible to m odify any laws or treaties w hich im pede freedom o f
U S E . M . Saunders, e d „ Sir Charles T u p per, II, 142-43: also Jacques !e M onnier,
L a P oiitiijue des larifs pre.jereniiels, p p. 22-23.
i t * Im perial Federation, Jan.. 1893,
T y le r, op. cit., C h a p ie r X V II.
110 D e n is o n t o S ir J o h n L u b b o c k , q u o t e d in T im e s , J u n e 14, 1894; le t t e r d a te d M a v
a g . 1894. Tim es, J u ly 27, 1894.
120
IMPERIALISM
action in the m aking o f reciprocal trade arrangem ents betw een the
U n ited K ingdom and the C olonies, or betw een any two or m ore
British Colonies or possessions.”
T h u s the Im perial Federa­
tion L eague was revived under the nam e o f the British Em pire
L eagu e."* T h e C anadian branch at once began to urge their G o v­
ernm ent to grant a preference on British goods w ith ou t w aiting
for the m other country to act. T h is was the policy adopted by the
L au rier G overnm ent in 1897. M eanw hile, in the Canadian tariff of
1894, though duties rem ained high, the substitution o f ad valorem
for specific duties and slight reductions on textiles, hardware, and
m anufactured iron and steel gave some benefit to B ritish prod­
ucts.""
In the m eantim e. South A frica had added her voice to that o f
Canada. W hen C ecil Rhodes, w h o was one of the U n ited Em pire
T ra d e L eagu e’s vice-presidents, visited E ngland in the early n ine­
ties, it was reported that he had stood u p fo r "th e scheme of M r.
H ofm eyr as a w orkin g platform ” of im perial un ity and that he had
urged consideration o f the plan on L o rd Salisbury.*’ ®Rhodes was
apparently disappointed w ith the reception given the scheme in
B ritain, for he soon was soliciting the support o f statesmen in other
parts of the E m pire. H is letter to Sir John M acdonald, after C an ­
ada’s R ecip rocity E lection o f 1891, m ay be quoted in full;
8 May 1891
I wish to write and congratulate you on winning the elec­
tions in Canada. I read your manifesto and I could understand the issue.
If I might express a wish it would be that we could meet before stern
fate claims us. I might write pages, but I feel I know you and your poli­
tics as if we had been friends for years. T he whole thing lies in the ques­
tion; Can we invent some tie with our mother-country that will prevent
separation? It must be a practical one, for future generations will not be
born in England. T h e curse is that English politicians cannot see the
D E A R s i r :—
i i i D e n i . i o n , o p . c it., p . 208. T h e C a n a d ia n i a g r e e d to th is c o u rse a n th e u n d e r ­
s t a n d in g th a t th e y w o u ld h a v e t h e r ig h t , as a n in d e p e n d e n t b r a n c h , 10 a d v o c a t e t a r iif
dia n g e.s.
11s A r r a n g e m e n ts h a d b e e n c o m p le te d b y J u ly , 1894. T h e D u k e o f D e v o n s h ir e w as
p r e s id e n t. T im e s , J u ly 27, 1894.
I ts T in 's w as th e ta r iff o f M a r c h , 1894. A s u m m a r y a p p e a r e d in T im e s , J a n . 4, iS g g .
S ee a lso T t m c j, A p r il 16, 1894.
120 T im e s , M a rc h 6 a n d 16, 1891. T h e R e p o r t , a p p e a r in g in a s p e c ia l a r t ic le b y an
u n k n o w n c o r re sp o n d e n t, set o ff a b o m b a r d m e n t o f le tte r s to t h e T im e s , in c lu d in g
o n e fr o m S ir. T . H . F a rre r, T im e s , M a r c h 10, 1891.
121 S ir L e w is M ic h e ll, R h o d e s , I I , 29-30.
IMPERIALISM
1 21
future. T h ey think they will always be the manufacturing mart of the
world, but do not understand what protection coupled with reciprocal
relations means. I have taken the liberty of writing to you, and if you
honor me with an answer I will write you again.
Yours,
c . J. RHODES
P. S. You might not know who I am, so I will say I am the Prime M in­
ister of this Colony— that is, the Cape Colony.
A t about the same tim e, Rhodes wrote in a sim ilar vein to Sir
H enry Parkes, P rem ier of N ew South W a les,'”
I recognize [he said] that in the future, if we are to remain a part of the
British Empire, which is my present hope, we must receive special con­
sideration from the Mother Country, 1 do not know whether you have
considered the question of preferential consideration as to our products,
but I believe that if we were united in our views we would obtain such
a consideration.
T w o years later, after the conquest o f M atabeleland, Rhodes ap­
proached the m other country w ith a m crnorandum suggesting the
inclusion in the charter of tiie new territories the proviso that
tariffs on British goods, if levied at all, should not exceed the duties
o f the South A frican Custom s U n io n .” ' B u t L ord R ip on , L iberal
C olon ial Secretary, suspected that the m em orandum contained the
en tering wedge of preference. H e suggested, probably to the utter
mystification of Rhodes, that the words “ im ported good s” be sub­
stituted for “ British goods.” T h e fiscal policy w hich Rhodes ad­
vocated, added R ip on , was “ not the one w hich has com m ended
itself for the last half century to the large m ajority o f the people
o f this country ; the British G overnm ent could not perm it such a
m om entous change to be carried ou t “ indirectly, and as it were by
a side w ind, in a docum ent of the nature o f the m em orandum .”
R e p ly in g in the Cape Assembly, Rhodes did not try to soften his
blows.
T hey have been talking in England [he said] about three acres and a
cow, about liquor legislation, and about the question of local govern­
ment for Ireland. They spend their whole time in these matters, but
i s i T t i e le t t e r w as c o m m u n ic a te d to th e r i m e s b y D r . J a m eso n in S ep t., i g o j , a n d
w a s r e p r in te d in th e J o u r n a l o f Ih e R o y a l C o lo n ia l I n s titu te , X X V , 8 1-8 2 .
123 S ee P a r lia m e n ta ry P a p e rs, C o m m e rc ia l N o . 177 o f 1894.
see a lso T im e s , J u n e 2 1, 1894.
122
IMPERIALISM
the big question o f the trade of the people they neglect. . . . T h e
■world, seeing that England is un rivalled . . . in . . . m anufactures
. . . has o f late years been devising schemes, by protective and prohibi­
tive tariffs, lo shut her out . . . and yet the most extraordinary thing
is that, w hen the English people are offered the privilege tliat south of
the Zam bezi their goods shall be adm itted forever on a fair basis, their
rulers absolutely refuse. . . . B ut, Mr, Speaker, I do not m ind that.
1 m ean to fight the clause u n til the Im perial G overnm ent gives in, and
I am quite certain that wiser counsels w ill ultim ately prevail.” “
Y e t though the H om e G overnm ent retreated some slight distance,
it refused to countenance any step toward preference. T h e m atter
was settled, as R ip on had suggested, by the substitution o f the words
“ im ported goods” fo r “ British goods.”
B ut four years later w hen
Joseph C ham berlain was C olon ial Secretary, the Rhodes clause was
em bodied in the constitution of Southern Rhodesia. A n d , when
another five years had elapsed, South A frica, follow in g the exam ple
of Canada, granted a preference on British goods.'”
If Canada and South A frica were in the van of the m ovem ent for
an adjustm ent of im perial tariffs, the Australasian C olonies were
not far behind. L iv in g am idst tlie tension of European rivalries in
the South Pacific, A u stralia’s interest in the im perial connection
had rested traditionally upon her desire for naval protection. But
as Griffith had shown at the C olon ial C onference of 1887, there was
no lack of interest in trade as w ell as defense. N or had H ofm eyr’s
attem pt to dem onstrate that preferential tariffs could contribu te
to the solution of both problem s gone un noticed.’ "®In the spring
and sum m er o f 1893, A ustralia was plunged into a serious financial
crisis.’ ” R evelations of fraud on the part of the land banks had
underm ined the C olon ies' credit, and prices fell precipitou sly.'”
N aturally, there was a desire for new trade outlets. E arly in 1894,
R obert R eid , Defense M inister of V ictoria, and T hom as M ’llw raith, C h ief Secretary o f Queensland, visited Britain, Canada,
and the U n ited .States. A lth o u gh M 'lh vraith was interested piim a1=5 R h o d e s 's s p e e c h o t “ y e s te r d a y ," q u o te d in T im e s , J t jn e s o , 1894.
126 F. W . H ir s t a n d o th e rs. L ib e r a lis m an d th e E m p ir e , p . 70.
12’ R e g a r d in g th e C o n s t it u t io n o f S o m h e r n R h o d e s ia , see C a m b r id g e H is to r y o f t h e
B r ilis h E m p ir e , V I U , 73 9-40 ; r e g a r d in g S o u th A fr ic a n p r e fe r e n c e o n im p o r t s fro m
B r it a in , s ee .A. J. B r n w e r , P r o te c tio n in S o u th A fr ic a , p . 148.
128 S ee
F re d e r ic k V o tin g 's le t t e r a n d e n c lo s u r e . T im e s , J u n e 23, 1894.
122 See T im e s fo r M a y a n d J u n e , 1893.
12“ C a m b r id g e H is to r y o f th e B r ilis h E m p ir e , V ! I , F t. I, 3 71.
IMPERIALISM
,23
lily in the projected Canadian-Australian cable, he neglected no
op portu n ity w h ile in England to discuss A u stralia’s need of a m ar­
ket for her w o o l." ’ R e id ’s m ain object, as he said, was “ to make
inquiries w ith a view to establishing m arkets for the products o f
this colony [Victoria] and generally extending its trade.” T h a t he
was th in kin g in im perial terms is suggested by his observation that
the m anufacturing interests o£ the m other country were in a low ly
state as "a result of the prevalent w ant of confidence exh ib ited by
Britishers toward the colonists.”
R eid was, in fact, trying to secure the assent o f the Im perial G o v ­
ernm ent to the Australian C onstitution A ct A m endm ent to perm it
A ustralian Colonies to extend to all parts of the Em pire the prefer­
ential advantages w hich they had been able heretofore to offer
only each other; he was also u rgin g the desirability of repealing
the Belgian and Germ an treaties."® “ W e in A ustralia," he told his
B ritish listeners, “ want to trade as freely w ith Canada and South
A frica as K ent trades with Surrey, or Surrey w ith Yorkshire. W ith
the introduction o f prohib itive tariffs and w ith foreign countries
taking away our trade in all directions, our cry must be B riiain
for the B ritish.’ ”
T a riff reformers in the m other couiitry n atu­
rally w anted to make the acquaintance o f these Australian visitors.
A n op portu n ity was found for R e id to address the Sheffield C h am ­
b er of Com m erce; "= and later both he and M 'llw ra ith attended a
U n ited Em pire T ra d e League luncheon, w here they heard speeches
b y V incen t and Low ther, and themselves spoke in friendly terms
of the L eagu e’s objects.""
T h is colonial tariff-reform m ovem ent, as it may be called, reached
a clim ax at the Intercolonial C onference at O ttaw a in 1 8 9 4 . T h e
O ttaw a m eeting was in one sense a sequel to the C olon ial C on ­
ference of 1887, but, in another and very im portant sense, quite
un ique. W hereas the earlier gathering was sponsored by tlie Im ­
perial G overnm ent on the occasion of the Q u een ’s Jubilee, the
Intercolonial Conference at Ottawa, as its very name suggests, was
a distinctively colonial enterprise, brought about on colonial in iti­
ative at a colonial capital, w ith a representative of the Britisli Gov1 0 T i m t s . M arch 2, 1894.
133 Ibid., M arch 26, 1894.
m I b id ., Jan. 26, jS n j,
i s * /thti., M arch ao, iS g j
i s 5 /iiirf., J a n . j i , 1894.
" " / b i d . , M a r c h 2 1 . 1894.
124
IMPERIALISM
ernm ent attending not as a participant, b u t merely as an observer.
Such a move, ow ing to the mother country’s refusal to entertain
the idea of preference or even to provide colonial delegates with
an opportunity to present their views as they had in 1887, was, it
would seem, almost inevitable. Salisbury had stated in i88g that
it Colonics desired to confer with one another, they were at liberty
to do so w ithout acting through the good offices of the mother
country,” ’ T h e Canadian Governm ent had been tliinking along
these lines even earlier,” * and in 1893 Mackenzie Bowell, accom­
panied by Satidford Flem ing, visited Australia and put the seal on
the plan.” " T h e gieat questions, as indicated by the circular of in ­
vitation, were to be preferential trade and the projected Pacific
cable.” "
W hen the Conference convened June 28, 1894, delegates w'ere
present from Canada, N ew South Wales, Tasm ania, Cape of Good
Hope, South Australia, N ew Zealand, Victoria, and Queensland;
L ord Jersey attended for the Briti.sh Governm ent "to hear and re­
port what passes and to give inform ation to the Conference on
matters of fact."
T h e Ottawa Conference passed three resolutions which in the
history of the rise of im perial preference are of immense im por­
tance. T h e first asked for "Im perial legislation enabling the de­
pendencies of the Em pire to enter into agreements of commercial
reciprocity, including power of m aking differential tariffs, with
Great Britain or with one another."
T h is was for the benefit of
the Australasian Colonies, who at the time had power to make
preferential treaties am ong themselves, but not with any other
member of the Empire. T h e second requested the mother country
to remove from existing treaties any provisions "w hich prevent the
self-governing dependencies of the Em pire from entering into
agreements of commercial reciprocity with each other or with
Great Britain."
This, of course, was aimed at the Belgian and
Germ an treaties.
T h e third and most im portant resolution urged "the advisability
of a customs arrangement between Great Britain and her Colonies
T im e s , A u g . 3, i88g.
is s jc b b . T h e Im p e r ia l C o n fe re n ce , I, 141.
ZM J o u r n a l o j th e R o y a l C o lo n ia l In slU iU e , .X X V I, 85-Bfl.
n il J c b b , op. e it.. I, 163.
141 F a rlia m en ta ry P a p ers, 1894 [C.-7553J, p . 37a,
1*2
p . 82.
11s I b id ., p p . 154 -57,
IM PERIALISM
125
b y w h ich trad e w ith in th e E m p ire m ay b e p laced o n a m ore fa v o u r­
a b le fo o tin g th an that w h ic h is carrie d o n w ith foreign co u n tries” ;
and ad ded that
until the M other Country can see her way to enter into customs arrange­
ments w ith her Colonies it is desirable that . . , the Colonies o£ Great
Britain, or such of them as may be disposed to accede to this view, take
steps to place each o th e fs products in whole or in part on a more fa­
voured customs basis than is accorded to the like products of foreign
countriesd**
T h e r e co u ld scarcely h ave b een b etter ev id en ce of the ad vance
w h ich the id ea o f p referen ce h ad m ade in o u tly in g parts o f the
E m p ire and o f th e im p a tien ce w h ich co lo n ia l statesm en felt at the
com p lacen cy of the m oth er cou n try. T h e resolu tion s p ro b ab ly had
a p ro fo u n d effect u p o n the B ritish tariff-reform m ovem en t, whose
leaders had o fte n d w e lt d a rk ly u p o n the them e that if the m oth er
c o u n try d id n ot soon resp o n d to co lo n ia l desires, the E m p ire was
head ed sooner o r later fo r d issolu tion . O n b eh a lf o f the U n ited
E m p ire T r a d e L ea g u e, H o w a rd V in c e n t sen t the O tta w a C o n fe r­
ence a cab le g ra te fu lly a ck n o w led g in g th e delegates’ en d orsem en t
o f the L eagu e's p o licy .” * T h e d ebates a t O tta w a stron gly suggest,
indeed, that o n e o f the p rim ary purposes o f the resolu tion s was to
in flu en ce o p in io n in B rita in . T h e ta riff con troversy in the m oth er
co u n try, said Foster, was
verging towards the practical point, and it w ill have to be settled by
the British people. . . . In the meantime (he Colonies are . . . Iree
. . . to take hold of this question and solve it for themselves. . . .
W hatever the Colonies undertake to carry out w ill have by its pressure
the power of causing thought and m oulding the subsequent action of
G reat B ritain itself.” "
T h e a im was n ot to d raw the C o lo n ie s apart from the M o th er
C o u n try , b u t rath er to create a system o f in terco lo n ia l recip ro city
m Ita lic s m in e. E x c e p t to r th e in it ia l p o rtio n o f the th ird re so lu tio n , th e v o tin g
o n a ll reso lu tio n s was u n an im o u s; in th is in sta n ce, N e w So u th W a les,
Zealan d ,
an d Q u ee n sla n d op p osed , la rg e ly o n th e gro u n d s th a t the clau se gave the im pression
o f d ic ra tm g to the m o th e r co u n try.
T h e re s o lu tio n sta te d th a t th e S o u th A frica n C u stoin s U n io n , w h ic h in c lu d e d th e
fo reign O ra n g e F ree State, s h o u ld be "c o n sid e re d as p a rt o f th e te rrito ry ca p a b le o f
b e in g b r o u g h t w ith in th e sco p e o f th e co n te m p la te d tra d e a r ta n g e m e n ts." Tebb
o p , cU ., I, iS8.
i*s f i n a n c i a l R e f o r m e r , J u ly 15. 1894.
149 Je b b . o p . c it.. 1 , p . i8 t .
ia6
IMPERIALISM
which m ight one day become the nucleus of a broader system ot
im perial preference. In this sense, the proceedings at Ottawa con­
stitute a very im portant chapter in the history of tariff reform in
Britain,
T h e immediate practical effects of the Ottawa Conference were,
in the commercial sphere at least, not very large, Canada and the
C ape opened negotiations for a preferential tariff agreement,’ " but
apparently nothing concrete resulted. In 1895 N ew Zealand and
South Australia concluded a reciprocal trade agreement which was
to have lasted seven years, bu t which had to be terminated earlier
when South Australia was merged in the Com m onwealth; N ew
Zealand and Canada concluded another of even shorter duration.
T hese lim ited results may be attributed to several circumstances.
In the first place, the Canadian Governm ent in 1897 committed
itself to a more ambitious program of preference by granting d if­
ferential advantages to Britisfi goods without asking for favors in
return. Secondly, the Australian Colonies were soon to forget al­
most everything else in their efforts to bring the federation m ove­
ment to a successful conclusion. N ext, the war in South Africa
absorbed tfie Empire's whole attention. "W hen interest in that
quarter began to wane, the Cham berlain movement was already in
fu ll swing; so that the question o f intercolonial reciprocity, as a
thing apart, could never again acquire a leading position."
W hat stood out above everything else in the aftermath of the
Ottawa Conference was the unyielding attitude o f the Liberal G ov­
ernment in London. In the proceedings of the Conference itself.
L ord Jersey, the British representative, had made no effort to hide
his opinion that imperial preference was not likely to commend
itself to the mother country; 76 percent of B ritain ’s trade, lie had
reminded the delegates, was still w ith foreign countries.’ *® Lord
R ipon, the Colonial Secretary, elaborated this position in a circu­
lar dispatch to Colonial Governors in 1895.’ "® T h e Government
w ould welcome closer im perial trade relations on the basis of free
trade, he said, but differential duties in favor of Colonial produce
were ‘ ‘open to all the objections from the consumer’s point of view
which can be urged against a general duty." If the Colonies stood
W’ Cham ber o j Commerce Journal, M a y , 1895.
u s F a rlia m en ia ry Pa p ers,
[C.], p .
.
1894
7553
195
j g b b , op, c it„ I , 192.
I60 ip ia .,
[c.- a ]-
,895
78 4
IMPERIALISM
1 87
to gain by the adoption o f such a policy, their gain w ould "b e a l­
together incom m ensurate w ith the loss to the M other C ou n try.”
As regards reciprocal agreem ents am ong the C olonies themselves,
it w ould be necessary to advance w ith the utm ost caution. Since the
greater part o f each C olon y's trade was w ith other Colonies and
the m other country, jt w ould be difficult to give preference ‘‘solely
at the expense of the foreigner, and w ith ou t at the same tim e d i­
vertin g trade from the M other C ou n try or from sister Colonies
w ho may not be parties to the arrangem ent.” A n y such agreem ent
w ou ld require "carefu l consideration in regard to its probable ef­
fect on the com m erce o f the rest of the E m pire.”
As regards die denunciation of the Belgian and G erm an treaties,
R ip o n was eq u ally adamant. T h e British G overnm en t had been
Inform ed by B elgiu m and G erm any that the clauses in question
could not be abrogated iritliou t den oun cin g the entire treaties,
and this the British G overnm ent were by no means prepared to do.
R ip on did, however, construe the treaties in such a way that w hile
the Colonies could not grant preference to the m other country,
they were at lea.st free to grant preference to each other. His only
further concession was in connection w ith the A ustralian request
for repeal of legislation barring preferential agreem ents between
Australian and non-Australian Colonics; on this head lie reported
that the obnoxious provisions had already been repealed.” '
R ip o n ’s dispatch, showing that even in 1895 a fairly literal brand
of Cobdenisra actuated Liberal policy,'*' may come as a surprise
to some. B u t to tariff reform ers it was an old story, Gladstone w ould
n ot even receive a deputation from the U n ited Em pire T rad e
League in 1893;
and when conferring w ith representatives of
the Im perial Federation League, he went out o f his way to explain
that it was im possible to entertain any idea o f an Im perial ZoUverein.^^'- Even R osebery seldom missed an op portu n ity to attack
tariff reform .
Still, there were signs, in 1895. that the work of Fair Traders
and tariff reform ers had not been aliogetlier w ithou t result. T h e
See 58 an d 59 V k i. C a p . 3.
C om p are R ip on's dispatch w ith Sir T h o m a s F arrer’s speech at the Cobd en C lu b
ban quet o f 1S95, in Tim es, A ug. ig , 1895.
*53 G lad sto n e to V in cen t, p rin te d in Tim es, A p ril 13, 1893.
T im e s , A p ril 27, 1893.
is
8
IMPERIALISM
Tim es, com m enting on R ip on ’s dispatch, agreed w ith much tliat
it contained; but added, cautiously, that there were some consider­
ations relating to im perial trade which, while not the only ones,
were “ too im portant to be left out of account.” O ne could grant
that Britain's foreign trade far exceeded her trade with the C olo­
nies; nevertheless, "under a customs union,” im perial trade "w ould
possess one quality w ell worth considering— it w ould be more
stable, for it would no longer depend on the whims and fancies
of other countries, and w ould no longer be exposed to the influence
of hostile tariffs.” U nder existing circumstances, tariff changes in
the U nited States or France could throw British investment and
em ployment ou t of joint in a tw inkling. “ It is useless to argue that
these trade dislocations inflict most injury on the country which
causes them. A ll that we need care to know is that they inflict very
grave injury on ourselves, and that it would be worth ou r while to
get rid of them at some loss to the mere volum e of our trade,”
T h e Times, after all, had not the habit of crusading for hopeless
causes. W ith the loyalty of the Colonies at once apparent and
strong, with fearsome coalitions massing on the continent of Eu­
rope, and w ith G erm any and Am erica m oving fast on B ritain ’s
heels in the race for commercial supremacy, the time was preparing
when some statesman of first rank w ould face the issue squarely and
ask England to throw her precious free trade to the winds.
Tim eS j J u ly ao , 1895.
V
T A R IF F
REFORM, INDUSTRY,
AND AGRICULTURE
1881-1895
HILE THE idea of protection, in one or another of its forms, was
setting off controversies am ong im perialists, trade unionists,
and members o f the Conservative Party, the Fair T ra d e League was
playing, sometimes in the light of day and sometimes far beneath
the surface o l events, a role w hich is difficult to appraise. A n effort
w ill be m ade in the present chapter to suggest in w hat m anner and
to w hat extent the m em bers of the League made their influence
felt. W e shall then pass on to the question of w hat particular
groups, industrial and agricultural, form ed the backbone of the
protectionist m ovem ent.
W
TH E
SPREAD
OF
F A IR
1
RADE
A fte r establishing themselves in London, Fair T raders turned
their attention to the provinces, w here, as they never tired o f re­
m ind in g themselves, Parliam ents and tariffs w ere m ade and un­
made. T h e y had tlieir earliest success in Sheffield, w here A m erican
tariff increases and vehem ent leading articles in Sir W illiam L en g’s
Daily Telegraph had already done h alf the w ork.' In a tow n where
a rise or fall of cutlery exports spelled a vast difference, tariffs, re­
taliation. and im perial preference were qu ite n aturally congenial
topics for discussion.
In Septem ber, 1881, at a small “ m eeting of prom inent m er­
chants and m anufacturers,” a Sheffield branch of the Fair T rad e
1 See F a ir T r a d e , A u g, 3, 1888, an d N ov, 14, 1890. Five years earlier, it h a d been
reported th at one large S h e fS e ld firm had b e e n o bliged to tr a n s fe r a ll its business
across the w ater, an d a gro u p o f alarm ed citizens had p etition ed t h e G overnm ent to
ad o p t retaliatory m easures in co m bin ation w ith th e Colonies, f ir t a n c ia l R e fo r m e r ,
D ec, 1, 187G,
130
INDUSTRY AND
AGRICULTURE
League was formed.* A month later some 3,000 people attended a
great Fair T rad e m eeting in the A lbert H all and resolved that
foreign tariffs were “ w orking most injuriously to the welfare and
prosperity of the nation, and endangering the steady employment,
the fair wages, and the future ivcll-bcing of our w orking classes.”
Further resolutions tailed for the adoption of the schemes of com­
m ercial union and reciprocity which the new League advocated.®
T h e Fair T rad e leaders in Sheffield were J. E. Bingham, the master
cutler, a wealthy, self-made manufacturer; * and Benjam in Fletcher,
a workingm an who had lifted him self from hum bie origins to a
position of some prominence in Sheffield local politics,® T h e com­
bination of labor and capital which these men typified was always
an im portant aim of Fair Traders, It tvas perhaps most successful in
Sheffield, where the workers were, by and large, specialists in one
type of work. T o them it was cold com fort to be told by Cobdenites
that when one trade shriveled and died as a result of foreign tariffs,
em ploym ent could be found in other lines which were expanding."
Save for these events in Sheffield, Fair Traders received little
encouragement from the provinces in 1881. Branches at Liverpool,
where the emphasis was on countervailingduties against bounties,’
and at Coventry, wliere the old story of French com petition and the
ribbon trade was revived." met with indifferent success. A n attempt
to install Fair T rad e at Derby was checked when Cobdenites
packed the inaugural m eeting and carried a resolution urging
continuation of free trade in perpetuity." In m anufacturing centers
such as Oldham, Preston, and Leeds, Fair T rad e ideas gained wide
currency, but it would seem that there was not, for the moment,
sufficient public demand to justify the formation of branches."
Doubtless this stunted growth may be explained in part by the
revival of trade whicli contemporaries marked in the closing months
of 1881. “ Everywhere trade is im proving,” said a woolen trade
journal in November; " and a m onth later it added; “ From Brad­
ford. Leeds, Leicester, and other centers of industry, we learn that
2 T im e s ,
S ep t, 7, l 38 l .
3 Ib id ., O c t. 5 , 1881.
* F a ir T ra d e, J u n e 27, 1890.
" Ib id ., A u g . 3, 1888 an d M a rc h 28, 1890.
3 T y le r , T h e S tru g g le fo r Im p e r ia l U n ity , p . 64.
I T im e s , S ep t. 13, 1S81.
s i b i d . ; P a l! M a ll G a zette, S ep t. ig , i8 8 i.
» T im e s, O c t. 3, 1881.
Sec O ltJIiam Sta n da rd an d Preston G u a rd ia n fo r N o v, an d D ec., 1881.
11 W o o l an d T e x t ile Fabrics, N o v . 13. 1881.
INDUSTRY
AND
AGRICULTURE
131
trade is ve ry an im a ted .” ’ " A s early as S ep tem b er 15, 1881, the
T im e s had said of F a ir T r a d e , “ W e have seen it in its fu ll force,
and it does n ot a m ou n t to m u ch .” In D ecem b er an oth er o b se rv tr
rem ark ed chat
after a sickly existence of a few weeks, this movement . . . perished of
sheer inanition, leaving behind it no other peicepiible result than the
proof it incidentally afforded of the readiness of T ory leaders to coun­
tenance for party purposes opinions which it w ould be an insult to their
understandings to suppose that they really shared.’ ®
E ven E croyd had to a d m it tlie d eclin e. H e b elieved that “ the q u es­
tion w o u ld grow as the years passed o n ,” b u t for the tim e b e in g he
exp ected little progress.”
T h e d eclin e o f F a ir T r a d e a fte r 1881 m ay be m easured b y the
ex p en d itu res o f th e L ea gu e d u rin g the n e x t few years. In the first
tw elve-m on th p eriod som eth in g over £3,054 was p a id out; in the
second, o n ly £ g g 8 .’ = T h e figures on p u b lic m eetings and the d istri­
b u tio n o f literatu re in clu d ed in the second an n u al rep o rt in J u ly,
1883, tell a sim ila r sto ry.’ “ A t m ost o f the m eetings d u rin g this
p e rio d atten d an ce was d isa p p o in tin g ly sm all,”
A fte r 1884, w h en there was, sign ifican tly, a sharp d rop in
B ritish ex p o rt figures,’ ®F a ir T r a d e was on the m ove again. T h e
n e x t fo u r years w ere the p e rio d o f the L eagu e's greatest activity.
E xp en d itu re s in 1884 w ere u p to £ 1,6 3 6 ; in 1885. £ 1,8 5 7 .’ ® In
1884, branches o r local correspon dents w ere established in 449
tow ns and in d u strial centers; 436 p u b lic m eetings w ere held;
417,096 pam ph lets and leaflets d istrib u te d .’ ®In the fo llo w in g year
the n u m b e r o f branches and local correspondents surpassed 50O,
and m ore than a m illio n tracts an d pam ph lets w ere c irc u la te d .”
T h e m ost im p o rta n t u n d e rtak in g was the p u b lica tio n o f the w eekly
F a ir T rade, w hich appeared from 1885
1891. Its ed ito r was
Jam es E dgecom e,’ ’ T h o u g h the paper was fran kly d ed icated to
’ 2 /fcirf.. D ec. 3 , iftS i.
13 M a n c h e s t e r E x a m in e r and T im e s ,
D e c . 3 1 , i 83 i . S e e a ls o D a ily C h ro n icle , D e c .
3 1 , t8 8 i.
■1* P r e s t o n H e rald , D e c . 14. 18 8 1.
u F a ir T ra d e , M a y 6, 1887.
18 See T im e s, J u ly 30, 1883.
'
i t / d id ., N o v, 27, 1S83, fo r ex am p le ,
13 P arliam en tary P ap e rs, 1909 [c. 4954].
w F a ir T ra d e , M ay 6 , 1887.
23 T u n e s , M a rch ig , 1885. See also th e b a rra g e o t le tte rs o n fiscal p o licy in T in ic j,
N o v . 20, 24, 27, 28, D ec. 5, 12. 26, 1884. an d Ja n . 5, 9 , 23, 1885,
31 F a ir
T r a d e , M a r c h 26, 18 86 .
22 See a b o v e , p . 19 , n o t e 86,
132
INDUSTRY AND A G R IC U L T U R E
keeping the fiscal question alive w ithout sparing the enemy, its
tone tvas, save for occasional lapses, uncommonly high for a publica­
tion of its type.'*
T h is burst of activity corresponded w ith tlie emergence of
tariff reform as an im portant political question in the mid-eighties.
T o meet the needs of the time, the League underwent a drastic
reorganization in 1886. Its national structure was made to conform,
as nearly as possible, to the pattern of constituencies in the United
Kingdom , In each constituency was established a local lodge, which
was to devote itself
to obtaining new recruits, especially among voters, taking charge of
local petitions to Parliament, arranging meetings and lectures , . .
seeing that literature, handbills, and wall-posters . . . are well circu­
lated in the Lodge’s district and the members working at election times
. . . on behalf of candidates who shall adopt the Fair Trade platform.
In each county a "C entral L odge” was to be formed. Supervision
of the entire machinery was in the hands of a General Council,
w ith headquarters in London. Central Lodges were to contribute
£5 yearly to the national war cliest; Local Lodges, ir, for each mem­
ber, in return for which all League literature w ould be received
at cost price.**
A fter the reorganization, came an appeal for added funds.*'
It would seem that the response was not wholly unsatisfactory, for
in 1887, during the several months preceding the O xford meeting
o f the Conservative Party, Fair T rad e meetings were held in more
than 66 towns. In most cases arrangements were made with the
local Cham ber of Com m erce (or Agriculture); meetings sponsored
by tliese organizations were addressed by tried and trusted Fair
T rad e speakers, who introduced protectionist resolutions and de­
fended them in debate.
In one place, liowever. Fair Traders overreached themselves.
T h is was in Manchester, where an underhanded attem pt was made
to pack the Cham ber of Commerce with sympathizers who could be
23 S p e c ia l m e n tio n s h o u ld b e m a d e o f th e S p e c ia l E x tr a N u m b e r o f D ec. 3 1, 1887,
c o n ta in in g a b r ie f h is to ry o f th e m o v e m e n t, th u m b n a il sketch es o f th e ie id e r s , a n d
a la r g e p ic tu r e o f th e E x e c u tiv e C o m m itte e , I t was sa id th at "O rd e rs h ad been le ft tor
q u it e JO ,000 copies, a n d a s m a n y m o te w ere w a n te d a t o n c e ." F a ir T ra d e , J an . 6. 1888.
T h is is o u r o n ly h in t as to th e c irc u la tio n o f th e p a p er,
24 Ib id ., A u g , 13 , iB86.
25 Ib id ., M ay 6, 1B87.
INDUSTRY AND AGRICU LTU RE
133
trusted to pass a protectionist resolution. T h e great prestige and
well-known Cobdenite leanings o f the Manchester Chamber
tempted some protectionists to play a reckless game. In 1886,
A lfred Morris, a Fair T rad e League lecturer, was sent to Lancashire
to investigate the possibility o f founding branches there. In M an­
chester, w ith the help o f two local businessmen, Sibson S. R igg and
H . T . H ibbert, he founded a Fair T rad e branch, carefully disguised
under the name “ Manchester U nion” or “ British U nion.”
F air
T rade frankly admitted that the U nion was “advocating precisely
the same views as those of the Fair T rad e League” and w orking “ in
entire unison w ith the Fair T rad e operations in other parts o f the
kingdom .” ”
T h e assault on the Cham ber o f Comm erce developed slowly.
H ibbert, already a member, at first represented the protectionist
position almost single-handed: his failure to convince his fellow
members “ induced Mr. Sibson R igg and others who sympathized
w ith his Fair T rad e views, to join the Chamber for the sake of
assisting M r. H ib b ert.”
D u rin g the next two years, the Fair
Traders bided their time. U pon several occasions they introduced
protectionist resolutions, but were defeated, once by only a single
vote.=® A t length, at a m eeting in December, 1888, they found them­
selves mom entarily in a m ajority and offered a resolution urging
that im ported goods should pay that equal and proportional share of
taxation “ which they w ould have paid if produced or manufactured
in the U nited K ingdom .” Free traders, seeing that they were out­
numbered, rose during the debate and left the Cham ber "almost in
20/bid., Nov. 85. 1887, May 6, and June 13, 1890. Rigg was associated with Rigg
Bros., cotton spinners and manufacturers. Hibbert was head of Isaac Hibbert and Co.,
flour merchants and importers o f sago, flour, and farina; he was also mayor and alder­
man of Chorley and a member of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce,
HI Ibid., Nov. 85. 1887, T h e membership included: the Duke of Manchester, who
was president, the Marquis of Exeter, Viscount Torrington, Lord Napier of Magdala,
Moleswonh-Hepworth, E. Burgis, H. H. Howorth, Arthur H. Sykes. S. Chester
Thompson, J. Croston, R. Boyd, and W, F. Ecroyd. Twenty-nine Members of Parlia­
ment were members.
28 T his was in May. 1886. Italics mine. See Fair Trade, June 13. 1890, and Times.
May 5, 1886.
29 Manchester Chamber of Commerce MSS, Nov. 1, 1886 and April 25. 1887; Times,
Nov. s and 3, 1886; Fair Trade, Nov. 5 and 12, 188G.
In February, 1887, the Board of Directors of the Chamber voted, 7 to 3, against
receiving a delegation from the National Fair Trade League. Manchester Chamber of
Commerce MSS, Feb. 23, 1887.
80 Manchester Chamber of Commerce MSS, Dec. 19.
134
IN D U STR Y
AND
A G R IC U L T U R E
a body." The resolution was carried without division, and copies
were sent to the Prime Minister and to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.
In the minds of many Englishmen, the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce spoke upon economic questions with the authority of
a high court. This sudden abandonment of its traditional rockribbed Cobdenism might have been a matter of the highest sig­
nificance. No wonder, then, that the free trade members of the
Chamber, who were, after all, still a majority, immediately raised
the cry of fraud. One of them pointed out in a letter to the Times
that only eighty of the Chamber’s total membership of more than
a thousand had attended the crucial meeting. It was publicly
charged that the principal supporter of the protectionist motion
was Alfred Morris, “the paid Secretary of the recently established
‘British Union,’ ’’ who had joined the Chamber to forward the
Fair Trade interests.''^ With feeling on both sides running high,
the Board of Directors declared their “ unfaltering adherence to the
principles of Free Trade so often affirmed by this Chamber,” and re­
solved that the protectionist resolution did “ not represent the views
of the Chamber as a whole.” The Board’s action was later upheld,
556 votes to 821.®*
There can be little question that Fair Traders were responsible
for what was at best a devious parliamentary maneuver and what
might have been, and was, interpreted as a clear case of misrepre­
sentation. Fair Trade said: “It has been through the members of
the ‘British Union’ that action has been instituted and resolutely
followed up . . . in the Manchester Chamber of Commerce,”
r im e s , Dec, 20, 1888.
32 Letter from W illiam Fogg in ib id ., Dec. a6, 1888,
Manchester Cham ber of Commerce MSS. Jan. 7, 1889. Morris and H ibbert claimed
that the Board m eeting was attended by only to of 24 members and that all save one
o f tho.se present were Liberals and Cobdenites. See M an chester C o u rier a n d L a n ­
cashire G en era l A d v ertiser, J a n . g, 1889; also T im e s, J a n . 9, 1889.
»4 M anchester Cham ber of Commerce MSS, Jan. 18. 1889, T h e Fair T rad e group
later circularized the metiibers, a.sking whether they favored a “ straightforward dis­
cussion O n the floor of the Cham ber” or a "decision w ithout discussion by circular as
proposed by a m inority o f the B oard o f Directors." A lfred M orris claimed that a
m ajority of 23,4 votes was in favor of discussion, f a i r T ra d e, Jan. 25, 1889.
Several further attempts were m ade to carry protectionist resolutions at Chamber
meetings, bu t each time the Fair T raders were defeated. Manchester Cham ber of
Commerce MSS, Jan. 30, i88g; F air T ra d e, Feb. 8 and July 19, tSSg, M ay g, 1890.
May 1 and 15, 1891,
3 " F air T ra d e, Dec. 28, 1888.
31
33
INDUSTRY AND AGRICU LTU RE
1 35
L ater, w hen recalling the protectionist vote of 1888, Fair Trade
adm itted that it was H ib b e rt’s w ork and had com e “ after careful
thought and preparation by him self and friends . . . backed up
by the action of the 'B ritisli U nion.' “ " It is perhaps worth adding
that the annual report of the British U n io n for 1888 was concerned
alm ost exclusively w ith progress made in the M anchester
Chamber.®’
In contrast to the disappointm ents encountered in Manchester,
the welcom e found w aiting fo r F air T rad ers in Birm ingham is
illu m in ating. If cotton merchants were, on the whole, unbending
in their loyalty to Cobdenism , the m anufacturers of iron and steel
products were, in large num bers, begin nin g to entertain doubts.
Representatives of the Fair T rad e League w ho addressed tlie B ir­
m ingham C ham ber of Com m erce in March, 1887, were rewarded
with a unanim ous resohition that “ this m eeting approves of their
recom m endations in favour o f a change in the fiscal policy o f the
country."
T h e follow in g January, a B irm ingham branch of the
N ational Fair T ra d e League was established. T h e m oving spirit
was H enry H awkes, a m anufacturer o f steel buttons and toys, w ho
had been a m em ber of the Fair T ra d e E xecutive Com m ittee since
1881 ." Hawkes* ch ief collaboiater was W illiam Priest, a partner in
the Q uadrant T ric y cle C o m p a n y ." L eadin g members ivere R . P.
Yates and R alph Heaton, In Birm ingham there was apparently no
necessity to cloak protectionist aims in m isleading language; men
w ho desired Fair T ra d e boldly adm itted as much. Even P, A.
M untz, w ho sat in Parliam ent and had to tem porize to some extent
in order to keep L ib eral U nionists happy, made it know n that
w hile he had ‘ 'not thought it wise” to declare him self a Fair T rad er,
he was '‘clearly in sym pathy” w ith the aims o f the Fair T r a d e
League.*' In i888. Birm ingham was the scene o f the annual F air
T ra d e national conference, the first to be held outside London.*®
In the mid-eighties, num erous protectionist societies sprang up
in other parts of the kingdom . T h e re was, for exam ple, the West
o f England Society for the Preservation of AgTiculturc and O ther
Industries, founded in 1886 by S. W . Poynter. Poynter argued that.
“ I b id .,
x ilb id .,
-•o ib id .,
“ I b id ,,
J u n e 13, iS g o .
M a r c h 18, 1887.
N o v . s8, 1890.
J u n e t , 1888.
iT I b id ., F e b . i , 1889.
so Ib id ., O c t . 17 , 1890.
« T im e s , U n . 6, 1888.
136
INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE
protectionist farmers ought to agitate independently, because the
Fair T rad e League was dominated by industrialists, from whom in
the last resort fanners could expect nothing.*' Closely associated
with his group— so closely, indeed, that at times it is difficult
to distinguish the two— was the so-called W est o£ England As­
sociation for the Defense of National Industry, under the leader­
ship of James Hunt. Sometimes, it appears, H unt and Poynter
worked togetlier, hut for reasons which are difficult to fathom,
they preferred to maintain separate organizations.** A third agri­
cultural group was the Land and L abour Defense Association.
It was founded in H ereford in 1887, and within a year seven
branches were established.** Another Fair T rad e society parad­
ing under an assumed name was the British and Irish Free
T rad e Society, formed at Glasgow early in 1887,*" Still others were
the W orkm en's Association for the Defense o f Britisli Industry and
the Society for the Defense of British Industi7, which have been
m entioned above,*’ It must be emphasized that these organizations
were all part and parcel of the Fair T rad e movement. Some ad­
m itted it, and those wliich did not advocated Fair T rad e w ithout
calling it by that name. A ll of them, said an annual report, “ have
practically worked as though they were branches of the League.” *®
Shortly before the crucial Conservative Party Conference of
1887, the Fair Trade League took steps to bind these scattered
forces together. A ll protectionist societies were invited to send one
or two representatives to attend a conference “ to consider generally
the present position of the movement, and to adopt measures of
joint action d arin g the com ing winter and spring.”
T h e repre­
sentatives assembled in London early in Novem ber, but agreement
eluded them. Dixon-H artland said the time was ripe for bringing
pressure upon the Governm ent, and the assembly cheered. H e said
he could not support a duty on corn, and the assembly groaned.
IS F a ir T r a d e , N o v . ag, 1887. T h e S o c iety w as la u n c h e d a t a m e e tin g in B risto l.
a Ib id ., N o v, 25. 1887.
Si ib id ., N o v , 25, 1S87; a lso A u g . 17 , 1888.
*6 B ritis h a n d Iris h F ree T r a d e A s s o tia tio ii, Free T r a d e in liile r n a iio n a l C om m erce,
e s p e d a lly p p . 23-25; also F a ir T r a d e , N o v . 25, 18H7. T h e m o v in g s p ir it seem s to
h a v e b een o n e W . V . J ack so n . I t w as o p e n ly a d m itte d th at th e m is le a d in g n a m e h a d
b een ch osen to d isa rm th e p re ju d ic e d : so m e ex p e c te d th a t it w o u ld be c h a n g e d to
th e S cottish P a ir T r a d e L e a g u e ; b u t so fa r as ca n b e kn orvn , th is w as n o t d on e,
■U See a b o v e, p p . 55-56 , esp ec ia lly n o te 12,5.
ta F a ir T r a d e , J u n e 1, 1888.
*0 I b id ., O c t. 14, 1SS7. P ro c e e d in g s o f th e c o n fe re n c e a p p e a r in ib id ., N o v. 4 an d
1 1 , 1887. See a lso T im e s , N o v . 3 a n d 4, 1887,
INDUSTRY
AND
AGRICULTURE
137
Lord Stanley of Alderley asked for los. on com. And so it went. It
was moved that the groups establish a single headquarters in
London; that they have a common staff of speakers and a common
expense fund; that they adopt the name “National Fair Trade
League for the Restoration of Prosperity of Trade and Agriculture
by Fiscal Reform." But the differences could not be reconciled.
After naming a committee to explore the possibilities of federation,
the Conference adjourned without settling anything of conse­
quence."*
For more than a year the negotiations for combined action
dragged on. At length it was decided that the various societies need
not change their names, since for local reasons they might not want
to be identified with Fair Trade. They were, however, to be loosely
bound together under the Fair Trade League, and were to elect
representatives to the League’s Associated Council, which was to
take the place of the old General Council. The common program
called for “moderate import duties upon all competing foreign
products, other than raw materials for industry, leaving the
definition of such raw materials and the special treatment of
Indian and Colonial products to be determined by the Legi.slature,”
These changes, embodied in amendments to the constitution of the
Fair Trade League, were finally adopted at the quarterly meeting
in the summer of 1889.=’
TH E
D E C L IN E
OF
F A IR
TRADE
The Conference of 1887 and the ensuing negotiations marked a
turning point in the history of the Fair Trade League. For six years
members had been waiting for the spontaneous growth of pro­
tectionism finally manifested in the formation of these scattered
societies. But when it came to formulating a common program, the
barriers were all but insuperable. Imperialist, manufacturer, farmer
T h e Fair Trade League, bowever, adopted the suggestion that a coinmon fund
be made available to anyune advocating fiscal reform. Several of the leaders executed
a trust deed for a "National Fair Trade Fund,'' to he applied not to any special or­
ganization, but to Fair Trade purposes generally. Those execuiing the deed sub­
scribed £5,000; S. C. Lister alone subscribed £1,000, The first trustees were Lister,
Lloyd, and Percy Wyndhain; concurring in the deed were Viscount Toriington, Lord
Stanley of Alderley, Sir H. Hoare, Ecroyd, Edward Charles Healey, and J. E. Bingham.
See Fair Trade, Nov. 11 and 23. 1887.
‘ I Ibid., Supplement, July g, i88g: also March 8, 1889. A list of the Associated
Council appeared in Ibid., July 4, 1890.
138
INDUSTRY AND
AGRICULTURE
— each had liis own idea as to the shape which the program ouglit
to take; the only basis o£ agreement was opposition to free trade.
Said the Tim es, apropos of the search for a “ common program” ;
“ It is like proposing a toast in favour of the Pretender and then
immediately adding— ‘B ut wiio Pretender is and who the King,
G od ble.ss us all, ’ tis quite another thing,' ” ”
W hen the purely negative agitation against free trade had ac­
complished as much as could be expected, and when the time
came for setting forth detailed proposals, the Fair T rad e League
became the scene of a tug of war that paralyzed all forward move­
ment. Fair Trade com plained that there were "a very large num ­
ber of titular Fair Traders, wlio strive to protect that class of in­
dustry in which tlicy themselves arc interested, and tliink that they
should be especially treated; but when a similar remedy is planned
for others, they have some other panacea.” " Again, members had
to be reminded that “ In practical politics great principles can
alone be carried by a m utual surrender of extreme points, and the
highest patriotism is to be found in lionest compromise.” " T h e
League was further weakened by the silence which the political
situation imposed on some members and by the improvement in
export figures which was noticeable after 1887.®® As trade picked
up, leadership of the protectionist movement passed ever more
into the hands of farmers, who were, after all, fighting a hopeless
battle for the “dear loaf.” T h e reports for 1888 and 1889 showed
a distinct lu ll in Fair T rad e activity. In 1888 only 293,000 pam­
phlets and leaflets were distributed, and 94 public meetings held
— a sharp drop. 1889 was no better.*®
T h e decline continued until i8 g i. Fair Traders recognized that
the only way to keep the tariff issue alive was to emphasize its im­
perial implications. T h e report of 1888 noted that tariff reform
could be accomplished only “ from the side of Com m ercial Federa­
tion with our Empire— and with Canada as a first step to the
rest." " In other words, outright protection had to be thrown
overboard. In view of the history of the f.eague, that meant
sooner or later cutting all ties with the past. Early in 1891, there52 T im e s , D ec. 17, 1887.
ss F a ir T r a d e , N o v. la , i886.
e i l h i d . , F eb . i i , 1S87.
a P a rlia m en la ry P a p ers, 1909 [c. 4954].
28 See F a ir T ra d e, D e c. a8, 1888, a n d J u ly 4, 1890.
s i ] b id ., D ec. s8 , 1888.
INDUSTRY AND
AGRICULTURE
139
fore, the Fair T ra d e League closed its doors, and many of its
m em bers join ed H ow ard V in cen t’s U n ited Em pire I'rade League.
Some hard-shell protectionists form ed a "F air T rad e C lu b ” to
render "assistance to all and every kind red society in prom oting
the objects each has in view "; and £5,000 was subscribed for this
purpose.'® A few Fair T ra d e C lu b publications appeared; there
w ere occasional banquets and letters to the T im e s." B u t Fair
T ra d e as a protectionist m ovem ent was dead. A n d Fair T rad e as
an im perialist m ovem ent was swallowed up in larger events which
have been recorded above.
T A R IF F
REFORM
AND
IN D U S T R Y
It is easy to see that the advance of the Fair T ra d e League and
indeed of the w hole tariff-reform m ovem ent was seriously retarded
by conflicts arising between various groups dem anding protection,
particularly by the conflict between farm eis and m anufacturers. It
is q u ite anotiier thing, however, to determ ine the extent to which
farm ing and industrial groups took u p protection. W e must be
content w ith only a few tentative suggestions.
L et us begin w ith industry. T h e early protests against free trade
du rin g the fifties and sixties had an unm istakable industrial bias
and the same was true o f views expressed by the Foreign Tim es
d u rin g the seventies. A m on g the founders of the Fair T ra d e
League were a sugar refiner, a banker and publisher w ith interests
in iron and steel, a m anufacturer of silks, and another m anufac­
turer of woolens and w orsteds." These were later Joined by a
goodly num ber o f farmers, but B ritain's concern fo r her “ cheap
loaf w ou ld have made protection virtually a dead issue had it
been advocated by farmers alone. T h e re can be n o question that
the tarifi’-reforiii m ovem ent derived its real strength from the side
o f industry and that it prospered, as a ru le, roughly in proportion
as industry was depressed.
In w hat industries were demands for protection most com m only
heard? T h e literature of tariff reform does not yield statistics on
58 I b id ., D e c . 25. 1891.
50 See J a m e s E d g e c o m e . c d „ F a ir T r a d e M a n u a l. F o r F a ir T r ,id e C lu b d in n e r s see
T im e s , J u ly 3 1 , 18 91, F e b . 10, 1893, M a r c h g , 1893. S ee a b o E d g e c o m e 's le t t e r 10 t h e
T im e s o f J u ly a y , 1893.
•0 See a b o v e , p p . 1 j - 1 5 and SJ.
140
INDUSTRY AND AGRICULTURE
this point, but from time to time it throws out significant hints.
In biographies printed in Fair Trade one finds lierc and there a
little light, and a stray pamphlet occasionally opens a wide w in ­
dow. One assumes, of course, that industries mo.st frequently m en­
tioned correspond roughly to those in which tariff reformers had a
special interest. If the assumption is correct, iron and steel must be
placed very near the top of tlie list. One is not surprised, for the
cheapening of steel in the eighties “ meant the scrapping on a
wholesale scale of the greatest iron industry in the w orld,”
and
marked the emergence of Germany as an industrial rival of the
first importance. T h e price of steel rails fell from £ ia is. id . per
ton in 1874 to £5 7s. fid. in 1883; the price of iron rails fell almost
by half. In the fourteen years after 1870 British pig-iron produc­
tion increased 31 percent; "yet during the same period the quan­
tity produced by other nations increased nearly 138 percent.” ®
"
N o wonder that manufacturers of iron and steel were among the
first to question the wisdom of free trade; less wonder still, in
view of the relatively high proportion of iron and steel exports
going to .self-governing Colonics: 14 percent in 1880, ao percent
in 189a.®* T h is meant that im perial preference held out high
promise. In such industries as cotton, w hich sent only 4 percent
or 5 percent of total exports to self-governing Colonies, the op­
posite was the case. T h e Manchester cotton merchants, with their
eyes fixed on the Levant, India, and China, gave Fair Traders a
notoriously cold reception.
A lo n g with iron and steel went hardware and cutlery, im ple­
ments and tools. Com plaints about foreign com petition and for­
eign tariffs were here numerous and loud, particularly in Sheffield
and Birmingham after each upward jerk of the U nited States tar­
iff, As for the proportion of exports going to self-governing C olo­
nies, the figures in 1892 were 28 percent for hardware and cutlery,
23 percent tor implements and tools.” N ext came woolens and
worsteds, bringing Ecroyd and a host of lesser manufacturers into
the picture. A n d so on down the list, through numerous special­
ized interests: sugar refining, jewelry, guns, watches, ribbons, bi6' I.. C . A , K n o w les, In d u s tr ia l a n d C om m ercicd R e v o lu tio n s, p . 143.
ss Pa rlia m enta ry Pa p ers, 18SB [c. 4B93], p . v iii.
T y le r , S trug g le fo r I m p e r ia l U n ity , p p . 5 1 - g a .
I b id ., p . s u
INDUSTRY
AND A G R IC U LT U R E
141
cycles, boots and shoes, shipbuilding, tinplates, earthenware, and
silk.
T h ese conclusions are, on the whole, borne o u t by the testi­
m ony presented before the R oyal Com m ission on the Depression
in T ra d e and Industry in 1886. 'Lhe most interesting evidence is
to be found in questionnaires filled out by some one hundred
Cham bers of C om m erce," O f these, 46 urged that foreign tariffs
m ust som ehow be dealt witli; 18 called for measures to stim ulate
trade w ith the colonies. C loser exam ination reveals that iron and
steel, w oolens and worsteds were their predom inant interests,
w h ile other trades follow in m uch the same order that they are
listed above.
T h e R o yal Com m ission testimony must, however, be taken cau­
tiously. T h ere is no evidence that all, o r nearly all, of the C ham ­
bers of Com m erce desiring action against foreign tariffs w ould
have gone so far as to advocate reciprocity; frequently they urged
"negotiations" to be carried on by the Foreign Office or by the
M inistry o f Com m erce w hich they hoped w ould soon be created.
N o r is there evidence that closer trade relations w ith the Colonies
was understood to mean the adoption of im perial preference.
T h e r e is, on the oth er hand, abundant evidence that sharp differ­
ence o f op in ion existed w ith in many cham bers and titat obscure
language was deliberately chosen to brush over these differences.
Even the Sheffield C h am b er had to report disagreem ent on the
question of tariffs, suggesting at tlie same time that any measures
taken to strengthen im perial relations w ou ld undoubtedly im ­
prove trade. A gain, after the C o u n cil of the N ottin gham Cham ber
had replied in a free-trade sense to the Com m ission’s form al re­
quest, witnesses reported that a subsequent m eeting revealed that
"th e action of the cou n cil did not represent the views of the m a­
jo rity ." "
A m o n g the witnesses called to testify before the Commissioners,
there was no lack of protectionist sentim ent, b u t w hat stands o u t
above a ll is the hesitation and d ou b t of those h old in g these views.
T h e r e was apparently a widespread b elief that although a protec­
ts See P a r lia m e n ta ry P a p e rs, 1886 [c. 4621], p p . 7 3 -1 J 3 ; an d 18S6 [c. 4 715 ], p p . 384­
408.
so I b id ., 1886 [c. 4 715 ]. p . 245.
142
INDUSTRY AND
AGRICULTURE
tive tariff w ould bring relief, there was scarcely any hope of ob­
taining it. A silk nianiifacturer o f Macclesfield stated that depres­
sion had come to his trade “ almost step by step tvith the removal
o f protection” ; but when asked if he wanted protection, replied;
"N o. I do not think, even if I tvere to propose it, that there would
be any chance of getting it." *’ A paperinaker who had to be
pressed before com m itting himself finally admitted that protection
“w ould benefit our trade very much," b u t hastened to explain that
he could not “ answer that question generally.” " A m anufacturer
of heavy steel, after endorsing im perial preference, added: “ It is a
difficult subject, I admit, and whether it is feasible or not, I do not
know ,” " These are only a few examples. Protectionists were still
in a m inority, and no one knew it better than they.
T h a t the protectionist movement as a whole gathered strength
as industry was depressed and lost it as industry revived w ould ap­
pear to be almost beyond dispute. T h e rapid growth of protection­
ism during the late seventies and the formation of the Fair T rad e
League in 1881 were d early connected w ith the nose dive of ex­
port industries from 1873 to 1879, Similarly, we may assume that
the im provem ent in trade between 1880 and 1883 explains in large
measure the accompanying decline in protectionist agitation. T h e
depression of 1884-8G brought tariff reform to the fore again; re­
covery in the last years of the decade had the expected opposite
effect. W ith the depression of the early nineties came renewed agi­
tation; but then other factors, particularly the imperial factor,
came into play, and the correlation was destroyed. W hat stands
out is that tariff reformers were usually about a year behind the
business cycle. T h e year 1881 was for them a year of great activity;
the business cycle was hesitantly pointing upward. T h e same was
true in 1887. In 1S91, however, tariff reformers were a little more
prompt.
So much for industry. A m ong farmers, protectionist feeling
ebbed and flowed with a somewhat different rhythm. It w ill be
well, therefore, to start at the beginning and tell the story of farm
protectionism year by year.
8T See P a rlia m en la ry P ap ers, 1886 [c. 4 715], p p . 272, 2741S86 [c. 4S93J, p . 8.
[4715]. p, 108.
INDUSTRY AND
T A R IF F
REFORM
AGRICULTURE
AND
143
A G R IC U L T U R E
W hen the Fair T ra d e L eagu e was form ed, disaster had already
struck British agriculture. T h e half dozen summers since 1875 had
been the worst in mem ory; there was rain and cold and little sun.
In times past, short crops had brought their own com pensation in
higher prices. B ut now, foliow in g upon the developm ent o f rail­
ways, agricultural m achinery, and faster shipping, a flood of im ­
ports from the Am erican W est drove prices steadily downward.
T h e average annual im port of food for 1867-69 had been £79
m illion; in 1877-79
£.i^S m illion. In nearly eveiy county o f
England and Scdlland, and in some parts of W ales, there was “ dis­
tress of unprecedented severity.” A t last England was face to face
w ith the fu ll consequences of C orn Law repeal,’ "
*
H ere, obviously, was fertile ground for Eair T ra d e ideas. M any
landlords like the D uke of R u tlan d and L ord Stanley of A ld erley
had not reconciled themselves to repeal, even w hile prices re­
m ained high, “ He did not believe in it," one old T o ry squire was
reported to say; "h e was a protectionist, and he was not go in g to
change because a lot of men were m aking m oney . . . he had
been born a Protectionist, lived a Protectionist, and if it did not m at­
ter to anyone else (or for the m atter of tliat, if it did) he proposed
to die a Protectionist.” ” In 1879 M aclver and John Sangster were
tu rn in g up at scattered farmers' m eetings, where resolutions were
passed endorsing protection and protectionist candidates for Par­
liam en t.'' B y [881 the agricultural journals and the London press
w ere taking frequent notice of such m eetings and opening their
columns to correspondence urging everything from “ light duties
on barley and rye” to "protective duties as they were in 1845.”
In Parliam ent, although there were no full-dress debates on prot^ I b id ., 1882 [c, 330Q], p p . 1 1 - 1 4 . T h e te s u U in g tra g e d y ivas to ld in S ir Jam es
C a l r d ’s sta tistic s; ta k in g fiv e b a d season s f lo r a th e p e r io d p r e c e d in g i8 6 i a n d five
fr o m t h e p e r io d a ft e r i 8 ; g , h e fo u n d th a t in th e fo r m e r th e a v e ra g e p r o d u c e o f
w h e a t p e r a c re h a d b een 24 b u sh e ls , tlie a v e ra g e p r ic e p e r q u a r te r , 6 i / i ; w h ile in
th e la t t e r t h e fig u res w e re 19 b u sh e ls a n d 49,''in. I b id .
J . H tirle sc o n L e c h c , q u o t e d in F a i r T r a d e , O c t. 3 1 , 1890. T h e s ta te m e n t a p p e a r s
to h a v e b e e n m a d e in th e s ix tie s,
ts See, fo r e x a m p le . F o r e i g n T i m e s , A u g , 16, S ep t. 27, a n d N o v . 8, 1879.
rs A g r i c u l t u r a l G a z e tte , S e p t. ig , 1881, S ec a lso t h e C h a m b e r o f A g r ic u l t u r e J o u r n a l
a n d F a r m e r s ' C h r o n ic le , N o v . 14, i8 8 i; a n d D a i ly C h r o n ic le , F e b . 24, 1881.
144
INDUSTRY AND AG R ICU LTU R E
tection, members from agricultural districts ivere bringing the
subject in through the side door, so to speak, whenever debates
on commercial treaties or general fiscal policy offered tlie oppor­
tunity.’ *
A clim ax of a sort was reached in 1881, when, at by-elections in
Lincolnsliire and Durham , strongly protectionist candidates were
returned. James Lowther trium phed in Lincolnshire after assert­
ing "unhesitatingly that some means for stopping unfair and un­
due com petition must be entertained" and that he was not afraid
of “ the bugbear of Free T rad e.”
"You have returned an answer
to the question of Free T rad e and Fair T rad e . . .” he told elec­
tors after his victory; “ the answer of N orth Lincolnshire has
sounded the death knell of the Manchester school.”
In North
Durham the issue of protection was somewhat obscured by County
Franchise and tiic Land Question, but the return of an outspoken
protectionist Conservative was widely hailed as a Fair T rad e vic­
tory.’ ’
Y et one cannot escape the impression that in 1881 and indeed
for several years thereafter, the demands for agricultural protec­
tion issued in the m ain from large landowners whose right to
speak for the whole farm ing com m unity was very much in doubt.
Many tenants and farm laborers suspected that Fair Traders in ­
tended m erely to divert attention from the rent question and land
reform .’ * In Aberdeenshire, a m eeting o f several hundred farmers
w ith obvious Radical leanings resolved “ that it is hopeless to look
for relief by returning to Protection under the guise of Fair T rad e
or reciprocity, that such a proposal is both undesirable and im ­
practical.”
T h e tenant farmers of James H oward’s influential
Farmers' A lliance branded “ the agitation for 'fair trade’ as a de­
lusion and a snare," calculated to keep u p rents and postpone the
J * S o m etim es a n a g ita tio n can best be m ea su re d b y t h e q u a lity o f o p p o s itio n it
arouses: in liiis ease L o r d H a r tin g to n , J a m es C a ir d , th e E a rl o f Jersey, a n d th e E arl
o f K im b e r le y ivere o n ly a feiv o f th e fre e trad ers ivh o f e lt o b lig e d to s p e ak o u t.
B r a d fo r d O b serv er, N o v . 5, 1881; P a ll M a ll G a zette, N o v . 18, 1881; A g r ic u ltu r a l
E c o n o m is t, O c t. i , iS S i; D a ily A'ea.’s, J u n e a j , i 8 3 i .
’ 5 L in c o ln s h ir e C /irornclc, A u g . go, i8 8 i.
Ib id ., S ep t. 6 , iB S i’ 7 D u r h a m C h r o n ic le , A u g . aS a n d Scpc. 9, 18S1,
’ 3 S ec, fu r e x a m p le , I. S, L c a d a m , W h a t P r o te c tio n D o e s fo r th e F a rm er a n d L a ­
b ou rer, j t h e d „ p p . 5 1 - 5 3 .
sa D a ily F ree P r ess (.A berdeen). S ep t. 9, 1881; H e r a ld a n d
.(A berdeen ), S ep t. to , 1881.
W eek ly F ree Press
INDUSTRY AND AG R ICU LTU R E
1 45
fundam ental land reforms “ w hich are the only true remedies in
the hands of Parliam ent for restoring prosperity to the farm ing
interests.”
W hen these charges w ere taken up b y the L ib eral
press, the larger farmers and landowners hastily covered their
tracks by defeating a protectionist resolution in the C en tral and
Associated Cham bers of A gricu ltu re: not, w e ju d ge from the d e­
bates, because of any passionate devotion to tree trade, bu t be­
cause they preferred to w ait to see which tvay tlie w’ind was going
to blow."’
A t the same tim e the opinion was widely shared that although
protection for farm products m ight be desirable, farmers w ho ad­
vocated it were w asting valu able tim e, since no British Parliam ent
w ou ld dare to vote for it. T h e re tvas some justice in this view .
M ore than one election had been turned by a heart-rending de­
scription of the “ hungry forties,’ ' when, as Joseph C ham berlain,
w ho knew the form ula w ell, pu t it, “ People w alked the streets like
gaunt shadows, and not like hum an beings.”
John B right m en­
tioned the “ dear loaf ” so often that it was said a little girl identi­
fied him to her teacher as “ the gentlem an w ho invented bread.”
Even Joseph A rch, head o f the A gricu ltu ral Laborers U nion,
wrote: “ I w ell rem em ber eating barley bread, and I shall always
do my best to prevent tliose w retched times b ein g repeated by tax­
in g the po or m an’s loaf."
N aturally, there was room to doubt
w hether agricultural protection lay w ith in the bounds o f practical
politics. Instead of trying to convince G reat B ritain to abandon
free trade, said one Scot farmer, protectionists ou ght to “ try their
hand at clamming up the G u lf Stream as a first experim ent.”
Jam es H ow ard argued that even if a tariff on food were obtained,
it w ould soon be repealed, leaving farmers w ho had expanded pro­
duction to lose heavily.** M any gave up hojie for a duty on wheat
and confined their efforts to barley, oats, meat, wool, and the
like.*’ O thers preferred m erely to wait:
3 0 A g r i c u f l u r o l G a i e t t f , S ep t, 19, ififli; C h a m b e r o f A g h c i d l a r e J o u r i i a h S en t. ig .
i8 8 i: T i m e s , S ep t. j g , i8 « i.
31 C h a m b e r o j A g r ic u l t u r e J o u r n a l , N o v . 14, i8 8 i.
82 F. W . H ir s t , F r o m A d a m S m ith la T h i li p S n o w d e n , p , ag.
88 G h b c , N o r . S3, 1885.
s i f a i r T r a d e , N o v . 1, iRRg.
3 S D a ily F r e e Press (.A berd een ), S ep t. g, 1881.
8S J an ies H o w a r d , T h e S c ie n c e of T ra d e.
87 w . C . T a b o r . F r e e T r a d e , p . 23. T a b o r w a s a m e m b e r o f th e F a ir T r a d e L e a g u e
a n d th e N a t io n a l A s s o c ia tio n to r th e P r e s e rv a tio n o£ A g r ic u lt u r e a n d O t h e r In d u s trie s .
1 46
INDUSTRY
AND
AGRICULTURE
If I may venture to offer a word of advice to my brother farmers [said
C. S. Reade, M.P.] . . . I would suggest to them the inexpediency of
the agricultural interest being the first to suggest a return to protective
duties. However just such a demand may be, if the farmers ask for it
the whole manufacturing and mining intere.st will be arrayed against
them; whereas if the cry for reciprocity should come from the towns,
the country districts could then take up the demand with a much better
prospect of success.*®
Perhaps the greatest difficulty facing the farm protectionist
m ovem ent in tlie early eighties was that scarcely anyone yet qu ite
realized to w hat extent the position of British agriculture had
been altered by the influx o f food from A m erica. T h e farm er on
the farm knew very w ell the effect of the w eather on his prospects:
btrt he had to p low through tables o f im port statistics to discover
the effect of Am erican wheat. M ost witnesses appearing before the
Com m issioners of A g ricu ltu re in 1881 nam ed the w eather as the
prim ary cause of depression and foreign com petition as the second­
ary cause.®" As John B right said, you could b u ild you r tariff skyliigh, liut it w ould not entire the sun from behind the clouds. Be­
fore u rging protection, m any farmers had to learn tvhcre the shoe
pinched; and not a few did learn in the course of the eiglities.
A fter 1882 came a succession of com paratively good seasons, but
the depression gave no prom ise of lifting. T h e conclusion; foreign
com petition, not bad crops, was at the root of the matter; and
the n ext great agricultural inquiry, held in the early nineties,
showed that there was w ide agreem ent on this point.""
O ne task w hich the Fair T ra d e League set for itself in the eigh t­
ies was to educate fanners in the dam aging effects of A m erican im ­
ports. D eputations w ere sent up and down the kingdom to address
farm ers’ meetings and to introduce F air T ra d e resolutions. A typi­
cal m eeting was that held by the L.incolnshire C ham ber of .A.gricu ltu re to receive a delegation in clu d in g James Edgecom e and
A lfred Morris. B oth these gentlem en m ade Fair T rad e speeches,
and after some debate it was resolved that “ false free trade is a
failu re obtained at the expense o f the native producers."
Sim ilar
so B r it is h E m p ir e , A u g . 16, 18 79.
‘ 4 I b id ., 1897 |c. 8540], p p . 4 3 -53 .
s i p a r l i a m e n l a r y P a p e r s , 1S82 k -3 3 0 9 I .
F a ir T rtid C j D e c , 24, i 8 8 5 ; T im g .t, D e c . 18, 18B6.
INDUSTRY
AND A G R IC U L T U R E
147
results tvere obtained at many other meetings.”’ Soon some farmers
began to act on their own initiative, form ing several nom inally
inde]iendent protectionist societies.”^ By 1886-87, tlie trend of
opinion tvas unmistakable. A t a m eeting o f hop growers of Kent
and Sussex a committee was appointed to confer w ith other associ­
ations for the purpose o f impressing upon Parliam ent the need for
immediate remedial legislation.'” A t O xford, 500 tenant farmers
voted for protection.”” “ T h e legislative wrongs of half a century
ago must be speedily dealt w ith ” and foreign competition
“ brought into fair and legitim ate lim its,” said the magazine A gri­
culture, which had heretofore maintained a correct free-trade posi­
tion.”®T h e A gricultural Econom ist, though more hesitant, was
m oving in the same direction.”' James Low ther was asking for
1 0 5 . on corn, and W . J. Harris, Algernon Borthwick, Lord Brabourne, and the D uke of R u tlan d tvere not far behind.”®In De­
cember, 1887, the Central Chambers o f A griculture voted, 20 to 6,
“ that, in the opinion of the Chambers, a reform of the present
fiscal system w ith foreign nations and tlie colonies is urgently
needed.” ”” Fair Traders were literally overwhelm ed by the re­
sponse; for once they had encountered more protectionist feeling
than they knew how to handle. F a ir T rade com plained that there
were, among farmers, many extremists who desired protection
against im perial and foreign com petition alike; and Edgecome
had to warn them that it was only “ for the sake o f carrying the
commercial federation of the Empire, which always obtained sym­
pathy from an audience, that a policy of import duties on food
products was likely to be accepted by the nation.”
Had not the Irish question broken the parties loose from their
moorings, this agitation of the eighties might have gone much
farther. M any farm leaders recognized, liowever, that protection,
like other secondary issues, had to be written off the books for the
92 A list may be compiled from Fair Trade, numbcfs ranging from Oct 2a i886
to Dec. 17, 1886.
’
’
93 See above, pp. 135-3G.
Fair Trade, Sept. 10, 1886, and Oct. 22. 1886.
95 Times, May go, 1887,
Agriculture, April 27, 1887; see also leading articles of Jan. 18 and Feb. i, 1888.
which show that the conversion has been completed,
'
A^icultural Economist, Oct. i, 18S8.
93 Times, Jan. 1, July 28, Aug. 13, 1885; Oct. 27, Dec. 12, 1887.
99/fcid., Dec. 8. >887.
too fa ir Trade, Nov. 11, 1887.
148
INDUSTRY AND AGR ICULTU R E
duration of tiic Unionist alliance. “ I am a Unionist first, and a
protectionist afterwards,” said Lowtlier; and he continued: "U n ­
der no circumstances should our opinions upon fiscal questions be
allotted to create embarrassment in the Unionist camp.”
Henry
Chaplin, M inister of .Agriculture in the Unionist Government,
took the same tack. H e remained a protectionist to the core, he
said, but there was a time and a place for everything. Still, he liad
to com plain when his free-trade colleagues criticized him for urg­
ing the prohibition of diseased foreign cattle. "Acknow ledging as
I do that Free T rad e, at all events for the time being, is the ac­
cepted policy of this country, I sometimes have a difficult course
to steer,”
T h e pressure was apparently felt in the Central
Chambers of AgTiciilture too, for only a few montJis after voting
in favor of fiscal reform , the Chambers defeated a “ strenuous en­
deavour” by protectionist members to gain control of the business
committee. O nly one Fair 'I'rader was admitted to a com m ittee of
eight. Lowther, whose protectionist speeches had become a feature
of Cham ber meetings, chose on this occasion to absent himself.''*
B ut political needs, however imperative, could not hide the suf­
fering of farmers; and in the nineties, “ that sad, very sad subject
of agricultural distress”
asserted itself with renewed force. A fter
ten years of reasonably good weather, England endured a pro­
longed drought in iggg; heavy rains in 1834; and drought again
in 1895.'“' M eanwhile, the import of wheat ran as follows: an an­
nual average of 79 m illion cwts. for the three-year period 1887-89;
89 m illion for 1890-92; and 99 m illion for 189 3-95.'" H enry
Chaplin said the depression in Lincoln was the worst in h istory.'"
Farmers were calling many local conferences, where protection
was one of the favorite top ics.'" T h e St. James’s Gazette proposed
a “ National Loaf League,” consisting of consumers who would
purchase nothing but a standard English loaf, and of bakers who
would supply them tvith it,’ " Lon-ther, ivlio had behaved rather
well under the exigencies of the alliance witli Liberal Unionists,
could now keep silent no longer: "W hatever euphemism m ight be
T im e s , nc-c. 10, i8 8 j.
.
lo s i b i d . , M a r r ii 7 a n d g , 1S8S.
F a rlia m en la ry Pa p ers, 1897 [c.
' “ '.-Ig n 'fH lfririif F.conontisI, p -n . i,
C a b le , S ep t. 28, 1895.
loz [b id ., A p r il 2,j, 1891,
lo i S a lisb u ry a t B r ig h tu n , ib id ., N o v. ao, 1895.
8540], p . 6.
1 " 7 & (d„ p , 54.
1893.
™ [ b i d . , D ec. 1, l8na.
INDUSTRY
AND
AGRICULTURE
149
fo u n d e x p e d ie n t in som e q u arters,” he said, “ I spell p rotection
w ith a b ig ‘P .’ ”
N o r was l.o w ih e r the o n ly on e w illin g to call things by th eir
nam es. T h e findin gs o f the R o y a l C om m ission on A g ric u ltu r a l D e ­
pression, w h ich sat d u rin g the m id-nineties, show that p rotection
was m a k in g m arked gains. G la n c in g at la n d o m th ro u g h the re­
ports o f th e A ssistant C om m issioners, w e find: in a H am p sh ire dis­
trict, “ T h e answ er I received , in n in e cases o u t o f ten, in a ll parts
o f the d istrict, m ay b e sum m ed u p in the on e w o rd — ‘ P ro tectio n .’
. . . I o n ly m et two o r three farm ers tvho d id n ot ad vocate P ro ­
tectio n in on e or another o f its form s";
in a K en tish d istrict, a
“ w idespread, th ou gh by n o m eans u n iveisa l, fe e lin g in favor o f
P ro tectio n ” ;
in the S tratford-on -A von d istrict, “ In a ll b u t a few
instances, 'P ro tectio n ' . . . is advocated as the rem ed y ";
in a
N o rth u m b e rla n d district, "M a n y fann ers advocate fair tra d e” ;
in a L in co ln sh ire d istrict, u n an im ou s agreem en t that free trade
was the source o f tro u b le ,” * O f the fifty-seven w itnesses w lio dis­
cussed th e tariff, a stron g m a jo rity favored jw oiection ; som e o f
these had no hop e o f o b ta in in g it, how ever; and others confin ed
th e ir hopes to b arley, rye, beans, etc.. w ith perhaps a m oderate
d u ty on flo u r."" T h e r e was still great respect fo r tlic p o w er o f the
cry "d e a r lo a f,” b u t con sid erab ly less than in 18S1, for distress was
n o w b o rd e rin g on desperation.
O n e sign o f the tim es was a great co n feren ce co n v en ed late in
1892, u n d e r the auspices o f the C en tra l C liam b ers o f A g r ic u l­
tu r e ." ’ D esp ite C h a p lin ’s insistence that the constitu en cies w o u ld
n o t, in th eir present tem per, p erm it a p rotection ist cam p aign , d ie
con feren ce resolved, after h eated d eb ate, “ that a ll co m p e tin g im ­
ports sh o u ld pay a d u ty n ot less than the rates an d taxes levied on
hom e p ro d u c tio n .” T h e m ost im p ortan t action o f the C on feren ce,
how ever, was a resoh itio n c a llin g fo r the establishm en t o f an
agricultural union, composed of all persons ol w haicvcr class who are
interested in the land of tlie U nited Kingdom, in order; j) T o give
effect to such resolutions as may be passed by this conference; g) T o
110 T i'n iff, D ec. 14, 1895.
Ihid., p. 37.
m Parliarnen/ary Papers, [c. 7365], p p . sG -iy.
Pariiaiitcitlaty Papers, [e. 7372], P- 31-
n */6id,, [e. 7334], p . 93.
ns/(iid., [t. 7374], p . 23.
t-'-c Ibid., [c. 8146], Digest o£ Evidence, under "I’torL'ciien."
A g r ic td tn r a l E c o n o m is t, J a n . i , 1893.
150
INDUSTRY
AND
AGRICULTURE
frame such measures as may, from lime 10 time, be needful m ihe agri­
cultural interest; 3) T o organize its members into a compact body of
voters in every constituency pledged to return, ivirliout distinction of
party, candidates who agree to support such measures; 4) And, gener­
ally. 10 promote the cooperation of all connected with the land, whether
as owners, occupiers, or laborers, lor the common good.
T h e E arl of W inchilsea, w ho introduced this resolution and
later becam e the guardian angel of the proposed union, was one to
reckon w ith. T w ic e returned to I’arliam eiit front L incolnshire and
careful to rem ain in close contact w ith the voters after his succes­
sion to the peerage in 1887, he had set his heart on creating a
strong and un ified farm m ovem ent capable of dictating terms to
the grasping industrial popu lation of the towns. H is first object
was to convince all classes earning their livin g from the land, la­
borers, occupiers, and owners alike, of their com m on interest."®
B elievin g that class differences w ere encouraged by the undem o­
cratic character of the Cham bers of A gricu ltu re, he decided to
b u ild anew w ith an all-inclusive N ational A g ricu ltu ral Union,"®
W inchilsea was one of those w ho understood the m eaning o f the
R eform Bills, and he knew w hat was requ ired to start an agitation
and to keep it alive. Soon after .settling the details of the new or­
ganization, he launched a penny w eekly entitled T h e Cable, ad­
dressed inan-to-man to everyone interested in the fate of British
fa rm in g ."' C td loqu ial, hard-hitting leading articles, appearing
over a facsim ile of W in chilsea’s signature, prom ised farmers that
w hen they learned to p u ll together they w ou ld w ield the strongest
political force in the k in g d o m ,'"
D id the N ational A g ricu ltu ral U n ion endorse protection for
British farmers? T h e C onference o f Decem ber, 1892, had passed a
protectionist resolution, and one of the stated objects of the U nion
was to “ give effect to such resolutions as may be passed by this
conference.” TJiat m ight appear to have ended the m atter. B u t
W inchilsea, betraying some dou bt as to the U n io n ’s pow er to fend
entirely tor itself, was reluctant to take a strong position. A t the
second annual conference, adm itting his personal b elief in protec­
tion, he w ent on to say:
t t s A g r ic u ltu r a l E c o n o m is t, M a y i, 1893.
t i s i b id ., M a r c h 1, 1893.
'
120 W h e n th e first n u m b e r a p p e a r e d , M a r c h 23, 1S93, i t w as c a lle d th e N a tio n a l
A g r ic u ltu r a l U n io n C a b le ; b u t a f t e r J tily 15 o f th a t y e a r , m e it-ly T h e C a b le .
N a tio n a l A g r ic u ltu r a l U n io n C a b le , M a r c h 25, 1893.
INDUSTRY
AND
ATxRICULTURE
151
When I am asked as a practical point, acting as your outlook committee
as it were for this great movement, whether I recommend agriculturists
to put upon their program a return to protective duties, I say unhesi­
tatingly that I do not. . . . I would respectfully advise this Congress,
that this should be left an open question, upon wliich every member
of the Union is free to hold whatever opinion he chooses.
H e conceded that the day m ight com e w hen foreign com petition
w ould be so great that farmers tvould have to ask for protection.
B u t he urged that if they first exhausted every alternative, their
case w ou ld be tw enty times stronger. For the tim e being, he said,
‘ ‘W e had better, as a U nion, leave this question alone. If it is to
come, let it com e from the great centers of population, and then
let us be ready to say ‘w hat is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander.' . . . If there is to be protection at all, it m ust be pro­
tection all arou n d ."
A cceptin g W inchilsea's aignm ent, the C o n ­
ference asked Parliam ent m erely “ to m odify certain existing du­
ties for the purpose o f revenue where this can be done w ithout
increasing the price the consum er pays.” A nother resolution asked
for better treatm ent at the hands o f railroads, charging that pref­
erential rates to foreign producers am ounted to “ nothing less than
a bounty on foreign corn .”
Despite W in diilsea's efforts to evade
the issue, m ention of protection continued to crop out at annual
U nion conferences and in tlie correspondence colum ns of T h e
Cable, ind icating that in all probability the protectionist resolu­
tion o f 1892 continued, d u rin g the next three years at least, to rep ­
resent m ajority opinion.
O ne is perhaps entitled to w onder how m uch o f W inchilsea’s
restraint was due to political necessity. H e was, after all, a staunch
Conservative, and after 1892, as w e have seen, the Conservative
Party abruptly dropped proposals for tariff reform . In 1895, Salis­
b u ry told a delegation of protectionist hop growers that the issue
was not the “ m ere question of im ports o r n o im ports” and that
“ speaking as one desirous of ju d gin g the political forces of the
tim e,” he could not honestly hold out any prospect of farm protec122 T h e C a b le , D e c . 16, 1893.
l i s j g r i r u l t u r a l E c o n o m is t, J a n . i , 1B94. J a m e s E d g e c o m e c o n c e d e d th a t it w a s th e
p a n c£ w is d o m fo r th e N A .U . to stay d e a r o t c o n tr o v e r s ia l to p ic s; h u t n o te d th a t
th e U n io n ’s s p e a k e rs w e re a ll p r o te c tio n is ts a n d th a t th e g r e a t m a jo r it y o f m em b ers
s t ill s u p p o r te d , in a ll p r o b a b ilit y , th e p r o te c tio n is t m o tio n o t 1892. S ee F a i r T r a d e
M a n u a l, e d , b y J a m e s E d g e c o m e ,
'
152
INDUSTRY AND
AGRICULTURE
tion. W h en this brought m urm urs from the deputation, he added:
" T h a t is, I am asvare, very cold com fort. . . . I do not speak
it in any way to our exclusive credit, or as claim in g any .special
m erit at your hands; b u t it comes from the construction of the
G overnm en t.”
Indeed, as one farm lab orer com plained, " 'P rotection' is an
ugly w o rd ” ; b u t “ if w e only had a Beaconsfield to coin some 'word
to catch on, I can assure you that three parts of the laborers of
E ngland svould turn their attention to that very thin g,”
Per­
haps a new term was needed, for James Low ther, u rgin g “ protec­
tion w ith a b ig ‘P ,’ ” did not advance very far. W hen he raised the
subject in the C en tral C ham bers o f A g ricu ltu re in 1895, members
voted, 26 to 1 ], that the time svas inopportune for a discussion of
tariffs.’ "
Losvtlier adm itted that p u b lic opinion was not yet ready to
abandon free trade;
b u t as for “ the great mass of those engaged
in agricu ltu re,” he said, there was "a very decided conviction that
the fiscal system required alterin g in a protectionist sense.”
He
had no desire to embarrass the G overnm ent, b u t he svas convinced
that if p u b lic opinion were aroused, the G overnm ent w ou ld
q u ick ly respond.’ " Accordingly, in 1895, he called a conference
of “ protectionist gentlem en,” in clu d in g Lloyd, C ropley, D avid
Evans, W . J. Harris, T ip p er, and G uerrier. T h e presence of these
m en and the support of Masliam and V incen t suggest that L ow ­
ther svas seeking to b u ild m ore than a farm m ovem ent. H e was.
in fact, revivin g Fair T ra d e w ith an agricu ltu ral bias; and the old
im perial program and the old faces w ere there,’ " T h e conference
voted to send a note to the new C olon ial M inister, endorsing his
recent action in behalf of inter-Biiti.sh trade and expressing the
hope that it -u’ou ld ‘‘be speedily follow ed by the establishm ent of
preferential trade relations between all parts of the British E m ­
pire.”
T b e “ protectionist gentlem en” knew their man. T h e new C o ­
lon ial M inister tvas Joseph C ham berlain.
124 T im e s , N o v , 23, 1895,
125 .V iib e rtiri’s s p e e c h to N .A .U . C o n fe r e n c e , T h e C a b le , D e c. 21, 1895.
125 T im e s , A p r il 4 , j S g ; .
l i t I b id ., S ep t. 7 , 1895.
rss sib id ., N o v . 1 3 , 1895.
D e c . 14, 1895.
ISO T h e T im e.s r e p o r te d th e f u s t m e e tin fj u n d e r th e h e a d in g ' T a i r T r a d e ." Ib id .,
S e p t. 7 . 1895.
l i t I b id ., D e c . 14, 1895.
BIBLIOGRAPH Y
I. M A N U S C R I P T S
B oard of T ra d e (London) Manuscripts.
G ladstone Manuscripts.
London Trades' Council Manuscripts.
M anchester Cham ber of Commerce Manuscripts,
M undella Manuscripts. Slielheld, England. Privately owned.
W ebb Manuscripts. London Scliool of Economics.
West India Manuscripts. West India Committee, London.
n.
p e r io d ic a l s
a n d
n e w sp a p e r s
( T h e files fo r th e p e rio d u n d e r re v ie w w e re co n su lted )
Agricultural Economist
Agricultural Gazette
Agriculture
Birm ingham Daily Post
Birm ingham Weekly Post
Board of Trade Journal
Bradford Chronicle and M ail
Bradford Observer
British Empire
Bullionist
Cable, T h e, see National Agricultural Union Cable
Chamber oj Agriculture Journal and Farmers' Chronicle
Chamber of Commerce Journal
Contemporary Review
Daily Chronicle (London)
Daily Free Press (Aberdeen)
Daily News (London)
Daily Telegraph (London)
D urham Chronicle
Echo (London)
Economist
Fair Trade
Financial Reform Almanac
Financial Reform er
Foreign Times
154
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fortnightly Review
FraseFs Magazine
G lobe, T he (London)
■
Herald and Weekly Free Press (Aberdeen)
Im perial Federation
Im perial Institute Journal
Journal of the Royal Colonial Institute
Labour Elector (London)
Labour Standard (London)
Lincolnshire Chronicle
Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser
Manchester Examiner and Tim es
Manchester Guardian
Monetary Gazette
Morning Post (London)
National Agricultural Union Cable (March 05 to July 15, 1893: thenafter called T h e Cable)
National Fair Trader, T he (Preston)
National Review
New Review
N ineteenth Century
Oldham Standard
Pall M ali Gazette (London)
Preston Guardian
Preston Herald
Quarterly Review
St. James’s Gazette (London)
Saturday Review
Sheffield Daily Telegraph
Stamford Mercury
Standard (London)
Star (London)
Times (London)
West Indian Circular
Westminster Gazette (London)
W ool and T extile Fabrics
HI. BOOKS A N D P A M P H L E T S
Anthony, Charles. P opular O pinion and Party Government. National
Press Agenqf, London, 1881.
Anti-Coal Duty Renewal Committee. London C oal Duties; Reasons
against T h e ir Renewal. London, 1886.
Arch, Joseph. Free Trade versus Protection or Fair T rade. Coventry
and Leam ington, 1884.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
155
Arnott, Sir John. Second Letter on an A lternative Policy for Ireland.
Cork, 1886.
Ashley, W . J. M odern T a riff History. London, 1904.
Association of the “ Revivers” of British Industry. Manifesto. 1869.
T o the People of England of A ll Classes, M ale and Female.
1869.
A veling, F. W ilkins. Free Trade. T aunton, 1887.
Bastable, C. F. T h e Commerce of Nations. London, 1891.
Bateman, W . B. Bateman Hanbiiry, sd Baron. Lord Batem an’s Plea
for L im ited Reciprocity. London, 1877.
T h e Six Millions: How to Raise T h em . London, 1878.
Boase, Frederic. M odern English Biography. T ru ro, ig a i. Vol. 'VI.
Bodelson, C, A. Studies in M id-Victorian Imperialism. Copenhagen,
1924.
_
Bonham, John M. Industrial Liberty. New York, 1888.
Bowker, R. P. T h e Economic Fact Book and Free Traders' Guide. New
York, 1885.
Brady, Alexander. Canada. London, 1932.
Bray, John. Facts for the New Electorate, London, 1885.
Brett, John. Free T rade. London, 1886.
British and Irish Free T rad e Association. Free T rad e in International
Commerce, Glasgow, 1887.
Bruce H „ and D, Chalmers. Mr. Gladstone and the Paper Duties. Lon­
don, 1885.
Bruwer, A . J. Protection in South Africa. Stellenbosch, 1923.
Burn, Richard. T h e Darkening Cloud; or. England in Commercial D e­
cline, and the Depression of O ur N ational Industry from the Inroads
of Foreign Com petition. Liverpool and Manchester, 1856.
Burn, Richard. See also Manchester Man, A.
Burnley, J. T h e Story of British T rad e and Industry. London, 1904,
Burt, A. L . Im perial Architects. O xford, 1913.
Buxton, Edward N . T h e A B C of Free Trade. Revised edition, London,
1888.
Cam bridge History of the British Empire. 8 vols., 1930-36.
Cam pbeil-W alker, A. Proper Free T ra d e and W hen Are W e to Have
It? London, 1886.
Candidate, A. T h e R evival of British Industries; the Most Iniportanl
Question at the Approaching General Election. London, 1885.
Cashin, T . F. Free T rad e Fallacies; or, Cobdcn R d u tc d . London,
1886.
Castle, Horace. T h e Doctrine of Protection to N ative Industries Ex­
amined. Philadelphia, 1888.
Cayley, E. S. Fair T rad e and Free Trade. Bradford, 1881.
Cecil, Lady Gwendolen, L ife of Robert, Marquis of Salisbury. 5 vols.,
1921-35-
156
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clianning, F, A, Memories o l M idland Politics, London, 1918.
Chapm an, Sydney J, T h e History of T rad e between the U nited K ing­
dom and the U nited States, London, 1899.
Chaytor, Henry. Agriculture and the T rad e Depression. London, 1880.
Churchill, W . S. L ife of Lord Randolph Churchill. London, 1906.
Clapham , J, H . Econom ic History of M odern Britain, Cam bridge, 193a.
Vol. II.
Clarke, Sir Edward G. T h e Story of M y Life. London, 1918.
Cobden Club. Free T rad e and the European Treaties of Commerce.
London, 1875.
Leaflets.
Conference of Delegates from the O rganized Trades of the United
Kingdom . . . on Thursday, M arch aa, 1888. London, 1888.
Craig-Brown, T . Foreign Tariffs: T h eir Effects on British Commerce.
Edinburgh and London, 188G.
Curror, C. Industrial Depression, Edinburgh, 1885.
Davis, W . J. T h e British I'radcs’ U nion Congress; History and Recol­
lections. London, 1910.
Denison, G, T . T h e Struggle for Im perial Unity. London, 1909.
Dilke, Sir Charles. Problems of Greater Britain. London, i8go.
Disciple of R ichard Cobden, A. Com m ercial Treaties; Free I ’rade and
Internationalism , London, 1870.
D ixwell, George Basil. T’he Premises of Free T rad e Exam ined. Cam ­
bridge, Mass., 1881.
Domergue, Jules. L a Comedie Libre-Echangiste. ad ed., Paris, 1891.
Les Dessous du Libre-Echange Lyonnais. Paris, 1891.
D on't Care, Is Free T rad e a Mistake? Southsea, 1887,
Doughty, H. M ontagu. Fair Trade, Tithes, and the Land Laws. Ipswich,
188G.
Drage, Geoffrey. T h e Im perial Orgaiiizaiioii of T rade, London, 1911.
Dudley, Thom as H. Protection or Free T rad e for the U.S.A.? Liverpool,
1880.
R eply to August M ongredien’s .Appeal to the Western Farmers
of Am erica. Philadelphia, 1880.
■
Dunraven, and Mount-Earl, 5th Earl of. Past T im es and Pastimes. Lon­
don, 1922.
Ecroyd, W. F. Fair Trade, London, 1882.
Policy of Self-Help. London, 1879.
A Speech by W . Farrer Ecroyd, M.P., Delivered in the T ow n H all,
Oldham. London, 1881.
Eden, F. Morton. T h ere is No G od but Free Trade, and Cobden Is His
Prophet. London, 1886.
Edgecome, James (ed,). Fair T rad e M anual; the British Trader's Vade
Mecum. Five editions, London, 1891-95.
Ely, Richard T . Problems of Today. New York, i8S8,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
157
Eversley, George John Shaw-Lefevre, 1st Baron, T a riff Makers: T h eir
Aims and Methods. London, 1909.
"Fair Play." One-sided Free Trade, London, 1881.
Farrer, T , H. Free T rad e versus Fair Trade, London, 1882,
R etaliation and Com m ercial Federation. London, 1892.
T h e State in Its Relation to T rad e, London, 1883.
■
T h e Sugar Convention and B ill. London, 1889.
Fay, C. R . Great Britain from Adam Smith to the Present Day. London,
1928.
Federation of Canada and Australia with Great Britain and Ireland,
T h e. Privately printed, Cam bridge, 1884.
Fielden, John C. Free T rad e versus Reciprocity. l.ondon. iSSt,
Fielding, Thom as. T h e Si.x P's. Manchester, 1887.
Financial R eform Association. Authorities for Free T rad e and Direct
T axation . Liverpool, 1882.
Report o f the Proceedings at the Annual Meeting. Liverpool,
1889.
■
Findlater, John. Free T rade, Protection, and Fair T rade. London, 1882.
Fishbourne, E. G. T h e Injustice of Free T rad e Policy. London. 1881.
Fishbourne, E. H. A n Answer to Mr. T . H. Farrer and the Cobden Club,
Preface by E. G. Fishbourne. London, no date.
Forbes, Alexander. Is Free T rad e Sound Policy for Great Britain?
Aberdeen, 1882.
Foreign Export Bounties and Free T rad e in Sugar: Report of a M eeting
H eld at the Mansion House, London, on May 28, 1880. Manchester,
1880.
Free T rad e and P olitical Economy. London, 1881,
Fuchs, C. J. T h e Trade Policy o f G reat Britain and Her Colonies. L on ­
don, 1905.
G.J.M., See M.. G .H .
Gairdner, Charles, Foreign Trade. Glasgow, 1882,
G ardiner, A. G. L ife of Sir W illiam Harcourt. London, 1923. Vol. II.
Garvin, J. L . L ife of Joseph Cham berlain. Vol. II, London, 1933.
Gastrell, W. S. H. O u r T rad e in the W orld in Relation to Foreign Com ­
petition. London, 1897.
Gibson, T . M ilner. Report of the Proceedings at the Dinner of the
Cobden C iiib 28 June 1873. London, 1873.
G ill, Richard. Free T rade. Edinburgli, 1887.
Gladstone, W . E. Speeche.s Delivered . . . at Leed.s, October 7th and
8th, 1881. London, 1881.
Goschen, G. J, T h e Condition and Prospects of T rade. London. 1885.
Cow ing, Richard. Richard Cobden and the Jubilee o f Free T rade.
London, 1896,
Graham, A. Douglas. T h e L ife of Sir Samuel W alker Griffith. Brisbane,
’ 939-
1 58
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Grant-Dufl, M. E. A Reply to Mr. Cowen’s Speecji. London, 1880.
Greatly, Spencer, O ur Commercial Policy. London, 1881.
Grey, Henry George, gd Earl Grey. Free Trade with France. London,
1881.
Guerrier, H. J. Philosophy of Cheap, London, 1885.
Guyot, Yves. T h e French Corn Laws. London (Cobden Club), 1888.
H., M. Socialism or Protectionism: Which Is It to Be? London, 1894.
Halcvy, Eli. A History of the English People in 1895-1905. London,
1929.
Hanbury, W. B. B, See Bateman.
Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates. 1881-95,
Hardinge, Sir A. T h e Fourth Earl of Carnarvon. London, 1925.
Haywood, G. R. Direct Taxation, and How It May Be Applied. Liver­
pool, 1883.
Hayworth, Lawrence. Glimpses at the Origin, Mission, and Destiny of
Man. London, 1866.
Herkless, W , R. T he Economics of Fair Trade. Glasgow, 1882.
Hirst, F. W . From Adam Smith to Philip Snowden, London, 1925.
Gladstone as Financier and Economist. London, 1931.
(ed.). Free Trade and Other Fundamental Doctrines of the Man­
chester School. London, 1903.
Hirst, r , W., and others. Liberalism and the Empire. London, 1900.
Hoffman, R, J, S. Great Britain and the Anglo-German Trade Rivalry,
1875-1914. Philadelphia, 1933.
Holland, Bernard. T h e Life of the Eighth Duke of Devonshire. Lon­
don, 1911.
Hooper, F. I. B. Mr, Mongredien Answered. London, 1880,
Howard, James. T h e Science of Trade. Luton, 1887.
Hoyle, William, T h e Depression of Trade; Its Cause and Cure. Lon­
don, 1885.
Jamieson, G. A. T h e Present Agricultural and Financial Depression,
Edinburgh, 1885.
Jebb, R, T h e Imperial Conference, a vols., London, 1911.
Jeyes, S. H., and F. D. How. T he Life of Sir Howard Vincent, London,
igi2.
Jones, Major. Practical Questions for Producers and Consumers. New­
castle-upon-Tyne, i88o.
King, P. S. Our Trade with France under the Cobden Treaty. London,
1881.
Knowles, L. C. A. T h e Industrial and Commercial Revolutions in Great
Britain during the Nineteenth Century. London, 1921.
Kuklos (J. Harris?), Political Economy, Essays and Reviews. London,
1876.
Lalande, M, A. L ’Agriculture anglaisc et le libre-tchange. Paris, 1885.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
159
Leadam , I. S. T h e Farmer’s Grievances and H ow to Rem edy Them .
London, 1880.
W hat Protection Does for the Farmer. London, 1881; 5th ed., L on ­
don, 1893,
Levi, Leone. History of British Commerce. London, 1880.
Am erican Tariffs: a Letter. 1879.
•— '— -T h e "C heap Loaf.” London, 1890.
Fair T rad e for Greater Britain. London, 1896.
Lister, S. Cum liffe. 1st Baron Masham. Fair T rad e versus Free T rade.
London, 1892.
Fallacies of One-sided Free T rade. 1879.
Free T rad e in Corn and Protection to Labour. Bradford, iS g i.
M r. Forster and Free T rad e. 1879.
*■
L ord Masham and the Cobden Club: the Challenge. 1895.
L ord Masham and the Yorkshire Post: the Challenge. 1895.
Lloyd, S. S. T h e Fair T rad e Policy. London, 1882.
Lofft, R . E. T h e G reat Experim ent: M ock Free T rad e. Bury St. Ed­
mund's, 1894.
London T rad es' Council. Conference . . . in Favour of Free T rad e
and Condem natory of Foreign Bounties. London, t888.
*7th A nnual Report. London, 1887.
agtli Annual Report. London. 1889.
Lucas, C . P. Introduction to an Historical Geography of the British
Colonies. London, 1887.
Lucas, Reginald. Lord Glenesk and the M orning Post. London, 1910.
Lucy, Henry W . A Diary of the Salisbury Parliam ent 1886-1892. L on ­
don, 1892,
M., G . J. T h e British Juggernath. London, 1884,
M. H. See H., M.
McEwan, Alexander. T h e Need for Protection. London, 1880.
MacFie, R. A . Cries in a Crisis for Statesmanship. London, 1881.
R oyal Commissioners on the Depression in T rade. Edinburgh,
1885. ^
_
M allet, Sir Louis. Reciprocity. London, 1879,
Manchester Man, A (R. Burns?). H alf a Pair of Scissors: W hat Is O ur
So-called Free Trade, London, 1885.
T h e Present and Long-continued Stagnation of T rade, Manches­
ter, 1869.
M artineau, James. Sugar. 6th ed., London, 1932.
Masham, Lord, see Lister, S. Cunliffe.
Mason, Stephen. Agricultural and Industrial Depression, Glasgow
1885.
^ '
England under Free Trade. London, 1881.
■
Fair T rad e Unmasked. London, 1887.
i6o
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Medley, G. W , Pamphlets and Addresses. London, i Sgg.
Men of the West. Plymouth, 1877.
M ichell, Sir Lewis. T h e L ife and T im es of the R ight Hon, Cecil John
Rhodes, 1853-1902. 2 vols., London, ig io .
M iller, Edward. Free Trade? Protection? or Encouragement? London,
1888.
Milnes, Alfred. Foreign Cattle as Food Sufiply: Recent Attem pts at Pro­
tective Restrictions. I.ondon, 1891,
M itchell, W . H. "i'iie Case for tJie U nited Empire T rad e I.eague. L on ­
don, 1892.
Fiscal Reform in R elation to the W ool Industry. London, 1903,
M olfait, Warneford. Land and W ork, London, 1888.
Molesworth, G uilford L. Imperialism and Free T rad e. London, 1886.
Moles worth-Hepworth, E. N . British Free T rad e versus the W orld ’s
Protection. London, 1884,
M ongredien, Augustus. Free T rad e and English Commerce. London,
1879.
■T rad e Depression, Recent and Present. London, 18S5.
M onnier, Jacques le. La Politique dcs tarifs prcferentiels dans I’erapire
britannique. Paris, 1913,
Morris, Alfred. E ngland’s Progresss in Prosperity. London, 1881,
Murdoch, Waiter. A lfred Deakin. London, 1923.
Nationa! Fair T rad e League. Im port and Export Statistics. London,
1882.
Manifesto, London, 1881.
N ational Protection Com m only Called Reciprocity . . . in reply to
Sir Louis Mallet. London, 1879.
Neale, John A. A n Enquiry into the Principles of Free Trade. London,
1884.
.
Nelson, Henry L. O u r Unjust T a riff Law. Boston, 1884.
N ew Political Economy, T h e; or, the Bashful M aiden and the Silver
Cream Jug. London, 18S2.
Noble, John. Free T rade, Redjirocity, and the Revivers. London, 1869.
N ational Finance. London, 1875,
O ur Exports and Imports. London, 1870,
T h e Possibility of Entirely Repealing A ll Duties of Custom and
Excise, London, 1869.
Offin, T . W , Protection versus Free T rade. Chelmsford, 1885.
Page, W illiam . Commerce and Industry. 2 Vols., London, ig ig .
Pasmore, L. N. S. Letter to John B ull on Fair Trade. Exeter, 1886,
Phillips, Henry D. Fair T rad e or Free Trade? W ailington, 1885.
Plait-Higgins, Frederick. 'I’hc Rise and Decline of the Free T rad e M ove­
ment. Manchester, 1906.
Playfair, Sir Lyon. T h e Tariffs of the U nited States in R elation to Prec
Trade, London, i8go.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
161
Poinsard. Leon. Libre echange et protection. Paris, 1893.
Pope, J. Buckingham . T h e Curse of Cobden. Edinburgh, 1885,
Porter, R obert P. Bread-Winners Abroad. N ew York, 1885.
Free T ra d e Folly. New York, 1886.
Protection and Free T rad e T od ay. Boston, 1884.
Practical M ethod for the Constitutional U nion o f the U nited Kingdom
and the Nine Parliam entary Colonies, A. London, 1880.
Price, L. L. Short History of English Commerce and Industry. London,
Igoo.
Rabbeno, Ugo. T h e Am erican Commercial Policy. London, tSgg.
Rathbone, Eleanor. W illiam Rathbone. A Memoir. London, 1905.
Raw lley, Ratan C. T h e Silk Industry and Trade, London, 1919.
Reid, George H. Five Free T rad e Essays. Melbourne, 1875.
R elton Riggs, the Protectionist, London, no date.
Roberts, Eilis H, Government Revenue, Boston, i88j.
Robert, James. Free T rad e a G igantic Mistake. London, iR6g.
Root, J. W , T rad e Relations of the Britisli Em pne. Liverpool, 1903,
Ross, O. C. D. T h e Depression in Agriculture and Trade: Its Cause and
Its Rem edy. London, 1885.
Rowley, Henry, and H . J. Pctcifer. Free T rad e versus Fair T rad e: a
Public Debate. Sheffield, 1885.
R oyal Commission on the Depression in T rad e and Industry. Final R e ­
port. London, 1887,
S., S, L, T h e Great Bread Riots; or, W hat Became o l Fair T rade. Bristol,
1885.
Salmon, C. S, Depression in the West Indies: Free T rad e the O nly Rem ­
edy. London, 1884.
Sanderlin, W alter S. "T h e Fair T rad e M ovement,’’ Unpublished dis­
sertation, Johns Hopkins University.
Saunders, E. M. (ed.). L ife and Letters of Sir Charles T u p p er. London,
1916.
Shipowner, A. Free T rad e and T rad es’ Unionism, London, 1S81.
Skelton, O, D. L ife and Tim es of Sir Alexander T illo ch Galt. T oronto,
1920.
Slagg, J, Free T rad e and Tariffs. 1881.
Smith, A rthur M . I ’he Creed of a Political Economist. London
1887.
W a n ted ; A Vindication o f P ro lcctio n . London, 1883.
Stebbins, G. B. T h e Am erican Proiectionist'.s Manual, Detroit, 1883.
Sullivan, Sir Edward. Free T rad e Bubbles. London, 1883.
Protection to N ative Industry. London, 1870.
Sumner, W illiam G. Protectionism. New York, 1885.
Tabor, W. C. Free T rade. Shrewsbury, 1887.
T aylor, A lice M aria, Countess of Becttve. T h e British W oolen T rade.
London, 1881.
i6a
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Thompson, C. Halford, Commercial Treaties and Foreign Competi­
tion. London, 1881.
Thrupp, G. A. Free Trade and Competition. London. 1886.
Trum bull, M. M. The American Lesson of the Free Trade Struggle in
England, Chicago, 1884.
Earl Grey on Reciprocity and Civil Service Reform. Chicago, 1893.
Free Trade Struggle in England. Chicago, 1892,
Tupper, Sir Charles. Recollections of Sixty Years. London, 1914.
Tyler, J. E. T h e Struggle for Imperial Unity. London, 1938.
“ Union Jack.” A Manifesto. Liverpool, 1885.
Walsh, G. N. Fair Trade: Its Purport and T ru e Character. Sheffield,
1883.
Watson. J. Forbes. T h e Imperial Museum for India and the Colonies,
London, 1876.
Webb, Sidney, and Beatrice Webb. T h e History of Trade Unionism.
London, 1920.
Webster, Robert G. England's Colonial Granary. London, 1881.
Wells, David A. Freer Trade Essential to Future National Prosperity
and Development. New York, 1882.
A Primer for Tariff Reform. London (Cobden Club), 1885.
Revenue of the United Stales. London (Cobden Club), 1870.
Wessiau, O. E. Free Trade and Protection, London, 1883.
Whitmore, C. A. Constructive Conservatism. London, 1881,
Williamson, A. British Industries and Foreign Competition. London,
1894.
Free Trade and Depressed Trade. Edinburgh, 1887.
Willoughby, F. S. T h e Depression in Trade; T rue Fair Trade Proposals.
London, 1885.
T h e Real Question of the Day. London, t88i.
Wilmot, Sir John Eardley. Free Trade or Fair Trade? London, 1882.
Workmen's Association for the Defense of British Industry. T h e Com­
petition of Foreigners, with the Tow n and Country Workers of the
United Kingdom in the Home Markets, London, 1887.
Wray, G. Depression of Trade and the French Treaty. London, 1870.
Young, G. M. Victorian England; Portrait of an Age, London. 1936.
Zebel, Sydney Henry. Fair Trade; an English Reaction to the Break­
down of the Cobden Treaty System. Chicago, 1940.
INDEX
Agricultural Econom ist, 147
A griculturalists, see Farmers
Agriculture, 147
Anglo-French T rea ty Com m ittee, 26
A nti-bounty m ovem ent, by planters and
refiners, 39-46: "countervailing duties,”
the rallyin g cry, 39; relations w ith Fair
T rad e, 41; leadership o£ West India
Com m ittee [q.v.), 43; International
Conference, 44; organized lab or’s part
in, 46-51: lab or’s stand in regard to
Fair T rad e League, 52-57; Conserva
tives negotiatin g w ith foreign powers,
71: em ergence of preferential-tariffs
question in connection w ith, 99
Arch, Joseph, 145
A rm it, R . H., iG, 33
Asquith, H . H., 6Gn
Associated Cham bers of A gricu ltu re, see
Central and Associated Cham bers of
A gricu ltu re
Associated Cham bers of Com m erce, to,
19. 2-J. 29. 78- 83
Association of the "R evivers” o f British
Industry, 5-7
Australian Colonies, 96,100, 122, 123, 124,
laG, 137
Borthw ick, Sir Algernon, 33. 48, 147
B ounties, sugar, see Anti-bounty m ove­
m ent
Bow ell, M ackenzie, IS4
B rabourne, Lord. 147
B radford, cradle of Fair T rade, i t ;
chronicle and mail, 11, 22
Bradlaugh, Charles, 21
Brassey, Lord, ii8
B right, John, 3, 53, 58, 64, 70, 145. 146
B ristol T rad es’ C ouncil, 31
B ritish and C olonial A nti-Bounty Asso­
ciation, 43, 44
British and Irish Free T rad e Association,
136, 13611
B ritish Association, 29
British Cham bers of Commerce, 111
Brilish Empire, 21, 22, 23, 88
B ritish Em pire League, Im perial Federa­
tion League revived under name of,
120
British Sugar Refiners, 47
British U nion, 101, 133, 134
Broadhurst, Henry, 30, 31, 37, 48, 54/1
B urn, R ichard, 4, 6
Burns, John, 37
Baden-Pow ell, George, 64TI
Batem an, Lord, g; quoted, lo; organiza­
tion form ed by, 15, 20
Bective, A. M, T a ylo r, Countess of, t i
Beet sugar imports, 46U
Belgium , m ost-favored-nation treaties o f
Germ any and, 78, 107, 111, 113; com ­
m ercial treaties of G erm any and, 119,
123, 124, 127
B ell, Sir F. D illon , 93, too, lo i
B ibliography, 153-62
B ingham , J. E., 130, 137U
Birm ingham branch of Fair T rad e
League, 135
B irm ingham R eciprocity League, 16
Blood. Frederick, 16, 30
Board o f T rad e, 4 m , 42, 44, 46
Cable, T h e, 150, ig i
Caird, James, 14471
Canada, too, 126; autonomy in tariff
matters; N ational Policy, 13, 102, 116;
part taken in B ritish reform m ove­
m ent, 1311., 107, 119: request for re­
peal o f Belgian and Germ an treaties,
78, 107, 113; influence in London
Cham ber of Commerce, gan: contro­
versy over im perial preference v. closer
econom ic ties with U.S., 102 ff.; effects
of the M cK inley T a riff and the C a ­
nadian Reciprocity election, 105 f.;
V incen t’s tour in behalf of United E m ­
pire T rad e L eague program , 112 f.; o f­
fer to reduce duties, 114, ii8 ; deter­
m ined to b u ild up own industries, 116;
grow ing b elief in preferential customs
104
INDEX
Canada (C ontinued)
agreem ents between the colonies, 119;
benefit given to B ritish products, lao,
>a6
C an adian C om m ercial U n ion League,
102, 105
Cape C olony, 96, 97. 111, 120, 126
CIiaiiiberlaiTi, Joseph, 59, 65, 66, 69, 70,
78, 122, laG; events precedin g his later
tariff reform m ovem ent, t. 15a; quoted,
49, 64, 82, 145; facin g in new d ire c­
tions: relations w ith Salisbury im ­
proved, 75
C ham bers of A g ricu ltu re, 110, 145, 147,
148, 149 f.. J52
C ham bers of C om m erce, see under Asso­
ciated; B ritish: Im p erial: London;
M anchester
Cham bers o f C om m erce of the Em pire,
78, 87; Congress, 92 f,, 114 ff.
C ham p ion, H . H., q uoted, go
C h ap lin , H enry, 64, 66n, 148, 149
C hronicle and M ail (Bradford), excerpts,
II, aa
C h u rch ill, L ord R a n d o lp h , 61, 62, 64, 65,
66, 68
Clarke, Sir Edw ard, 43, 64
C levelan d, G rover, 84
C obden, R ich a rd , 53, 77
C obden C lu b, 26, 45. 54, 59, 6a, 6471, 66n,
80, 84, 115; form ed, 4
C obdenites, 95, 130; Salisbury’s op inion
o f, 58, 72, 74, 79; effect o f M cK in ley
T a riff, 76 L; policy saved, 80; in M an ­
chester C ham ber, 133
Cobden T re a ty w ith France, a, 4, 6, 18
C olon ial C onference, first, 87, 93, 95, 96­
101, 107, 123
Colonies, early B ritish attitudes tow ard,
85; m ovem ent in b eh alf of preferential
tariffs, 86-128; geography of, 86; ac­
quisitions d u rin g the eighties: loyalty,
87: pow er o f n egotiatin g com m ercial
treaties, too; pressure for tariff reform ,
1887-gt, 9y-io8; answ ered by form a­
tion of U nited E m p ire T ra d e L eague
(q.v.), 108-18; no longer w illin g to play
role o f granary: determ ined to b u ild
up ow n industries, ti6 : dependence
upon tariffs for revenue, 117; pressure
from 1892-95, 118-28; at lib erty to con ­
fer w ithou t actin g through m other
country, t24; im patien ce over B rita in ’s
com placency: clanger o f th eir loss by
the E m pire, 125; see also Im perialism :
Preferential tariffs; also under names,
e.g., C anada; Q ueensland
C om m ercial federation w ithin the E m ­
pire, pressure of colonies for, 67, 95­
108, 118-28; U n ited E m pire T ra d e
L ea gu e as B rita in ’s answer, 108-18
Com m ercial treaties w ith foreign co u n ­
tries, pow er of colonies to negotiate,
too; see also B elgium ; France; G er­
m any
Conservative Protectionist Association,
16, 20
Conservatives, precarious alliance w ith
L ib era l Unionists, i , 45, 65, 70 f., 72,
74, 92, 97, 104, 111, 148; attitu d e to­
w ard interem pire trade, 15, 96, 103;
d rift tow ard tariff reform from i8 8 i86, 25, 58-65: consideration o f sugarboLinty question, 44; dependence upon
m andate frorrr the p u b lic, 62, 78, 79,
111, 113: alignm ents shattered by Irish
question: G overnm en t’s precarious p o ­
sition, 65; censorship on protectionist
agitation , 65-74: abandon conventional
doctrine of free trade, 71; position
eased by disruption o f G ladstoneP arnel! alliance, 74; censorship lifted,
74-81; L ib era l Unionists, preparations
for m erger w ith, 82; again push fiscal
reform into b ackground, 82-84; C a ­
n adian party, 106. n g ; see also Salis­
b u ry, l.o rd
C onservative W o rk in g M en ’s Associa­
tions, 5, 55
C o u n terva ilin g duties, rallyin g cry of
sugar industry, 39 ff,
C ropley, R ichard , 152
Cross, J. K., 59, 63
Cross, Sir R . A., 6s
Custom s U n ion, 97, 124, 128
Daily C hronicle, 36
Daily New s, 36
Daily Telegraph (Sheffield), 75, 129
D eaktn, A lfred , g8, 99, tot
Denison, G eorge, 107, 119
Depression, the G reat, i , 9; R o yal C o m ­
missions’ reports on, 41, 6g, 141, 149;
causes nam ed by C ham bers of C o m ­
merce, 6772; trade, a fter 1892, 81; C a ­
n adian, 102; agricu ltu ral, 143, 148
D ifferential tariffs, see P referential tariffs
D ilke, Sir Charles, 15, 116
D obell, R ichard R „ 14. 104
D om inion B oard o f 'I’rade of C anada, 14
INDEX
Dow ner, Sir John, 98
D uncan, James, 40, 43)1
D unraven, L ord, son, 63, 64, 68, 71, 90,
94. 95>
President o£ Fair T rad e
League, 61; Under-Secretary for the
Colonies, 6a; resignation as U nder­
secretary, 66
E ardley-W ilm ot, Sir John, 33, 90, 94
East End Fair T ra d e League, 37
Easton, T . O., 430
Eaton, H. W „ 4
Econom ist, la, 25, 39
Ecroyd, W . Farrer, 23, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33,
41, 48, 59. 60, 63, 64, go, 106, 131. i37n;
position and activities, 17 f.; leads first
Fair T rad e meetings, a i, 22: quoted,
88
Edgecome, James T ., 32, 131, 146. 147,
1510; a charter mem ber of Fair T rad e
grou p , 19; interests and activities, 20 f.
Em pire, expansion during the tiincties,
83; d u rin g the eighties. 87; cause of
m ajor revolution in im perial policy,
85: see Im perialism
Em pire C lu b , 86
Em pire geography, 86 f.
Evans, D avid, 550, 152
E xam iner and Tim es (Manchester), e x ­
cerpt, 131
Fair Trade, 140; editors, tgw, 64, i j j ;
excerpts, 38, 74, 7811. 90, 106, 133, 134 f.,
138, 147; its type: length o f life, 131
Fair T ra d e C lu b, 139
Fair T ra d e League, N ational, form ation
of: an expression of its times, 17; how
it started: founders. 17-28; points
agreed upon by founders, a i, 2a, 27;
subscribers; am ounts contributed, 23,
26, 27> ' 37ti, 139: Manifesto, 27, 8g, 90;
Presidents, 27n, 61; Executive C om ­
m ittee, 27n; reception by press, 28:
questionable methods used, 29, 30 If.;
dishonored, 29: attem pts to win w ork­
ers' support, 29-39; principal agents,
31; affinity w ith N ational League, 32;
ouem pts 10 pack T rades' Union C o n ­
gress, 34-36: workers' anti-bounty
m ovem ent in relation to, 52-57; close
partnership w ith W orkm en’s A.ssociation, 55 f.; protectioni.sm’s varied fo r­
tunes under Conservatives, 1881-95,
58-84 (see Conservatives); m ilitant p re­
election activities, 6411: parliam en tar­
165
ians friendly to, 65: m ovem ent trans­
form ed from a question of protection
to one involving a m ajor revolution
in im perial policy, 85 If.; divided ac­
cents on protection and on Em pire, 88­
9 5 > 108; success in London Cham ber
of Commerce, g t; relations with Im ­
perial Federation League, 94, 108:
encouraged by support o f coloitiaf
delegates to Conference of 1887, 101;
dissolved after form ation of U nited
Em pire T ra d e League, 110, 139; signs
that efforts not altogether fruitless, 127:
.spread of, in provinces, 129-37; e.xpenditures m arking grow th and decline,
131; activities ill Sheffield, 129; in M an­
chester, 132-35: in Birm ingham , 135;
N ational Fair T rad e fund, trust deed,
13711; tu in iiig point in history of, 137;
decline, >38-39; activities of members
after dissolution of, 139: educated
farmers to sec effects o f Am erican im ­
ports, 146; I.ow tbei's move a reviving
of, with agriciiluiral bias, 152; see also
Protection; I'a riff reform
Farmers, support of tariff reform m ove­
m ent, 1, 6, 12. 84. 136,143-52: urge p ro­
tection against im perial as well as for­
eign products, go; demands from large
landowners, 144; Earl o f W inchilsea’s
activities in behalf of, 150-52
Farmers’ A lliance, 29, Gi, 144
Farrer, Sir Thom as, 4a, 46, 63, 80, 107:
quoted, 4m
Fenton, I homas W ., 19, 22
Financial Reform Almanac, excerpt. 85
Financial Reform er, 20; excerpt, 12
I'iscal Reform I.eague, 7
Fitzherbert, W illiam , 98
Flem ing, Sandtord, 124
Fletcher, Benjam in, 130
Foreign Tim es, 8, 139
Forster, W . E., 91, 94
Foster, George, 119: quoted, 125
Fowler, W illiam , 63, 84
France, C a M en Treaty w ith, 2, 4, 6, 18;
retaliation dem anded against, 3; effect
of imports from, on silk industry, i8;
tariff increases proposed: effects, 24­
26: New Zealand's desire to offer con­
cessions to, 100
Fraser's Magazine, excerpt, 9
Free trade, early protests against, 2-g,
139; leaders; prosperity accom panying,
2; commercial federation on the basis,
i66
IN D EX
Free trade {Continued)
o f free trade w ith in th e E m p ire, 67,
95-128; Conservatives abandon conven ­
tional doctrine of, 71; free-trade vic­
tory at Congress o f Cham bers o f C om ­
m erce of the E m pire, 115; B ritish re­
fusal to depart from policy of, 116;
industrial bias of early protests against,
139; reform m ovem ents, see F air T r a d e
1-eague; Protection; T a riff reform
Fronde, J. A., 103
G a lt, Sir A lexand er, 13, 23, 25, 26, 88, 90,
gan, 93, 109; q u oted , 13 f„ 15, 105
G eography, interest intensified, 86 f.
G erm an y, tariffs, 11; sugar from , 46/1;
B elgia n and G erm an com m ercial trea t­
ies, 78, 107, 1 1 1, 113, 119, 123, 1*4,
127; em ergence as in d u strial rival, 140
G ilfard , Sir H ardinge, 6a
G iffen, Sir R obert, 40, 46
G ladstone, W illia m E w art, 2, 4, 15, 47,
48, 59, 61, 62, 69, 71, 92; q u oted , 24,
45, 58, 63. 73, 76; d isruption of alliance
w ith P arnell, 74; wins 1892 election,
80; depression d u rin g prem iership, 81;
opposition to im p erial preference, 127
G ore-B row n, H arold,
G oschen, G. J., 63, 65, 70, 94, 106; quoted,
89
G ran ville, Lord, 43
G rey, L ord , 80
G riffith, Sir Sam uel, 109, 114, 122; p ref­
eren tial tariffs suggestion, 87, 96, 97:
quoted, 100
G u errier, H . J,, 5511, 152
H a m ilto n , Lord C lau d e, 44
H am ilton , I.ord G eorge, 62
H arcou rt, Sir W illiam , 64, 79, 84
H arlow e, d elegate to T ra d e rs’ U n ion
Congress of 1881, 35. 36
H arris, W , J., 26, 33, 64, 147, 152
M artington, L ord , 18, 64, 65, 75, 14471;
q u oted , 70
H atten, W . H ., 22
H awkes, H enry, 32, 135
H ealey, E dw ard C harles, 19, 22, 26, 27,
33. >37”
H eaton, R a lp h , 135
H ib b ert. H . T ., 133
H icks-Beach, Sir M ichael, 95
H ill, A , Staveley, 6, 7, 71, 73, n o
H oare, Sir H enry, 33, 13771
H ofm eyr, Jan, 101, io6, 109, 134; prop os­
als re im perial p referen tial tariffs, 87,
98, 99, U g , 120, 122
H o lla n d , Sir H enry, C olon ial Secretary,
97; qu oted , 99, 100
H om e R u le, 65, 74, 84
H ow ard , James, 144, 145
H ow ell, G eorge, 31, 32
H u d h a rt, James. 1 iG
H u n t, James, 136
H u n t. R „ 33. 34
Huskisson, W illia m , a
H yde, J. M.. 8, 21
Im p erial C ham bers o f Com m erce, 14;
Congress, 87, 9271, 114 ff,
Im perial Federalion, 103, 106
Im p erial Federation League, 87, 90, 94 f,,
96, 104, 105, 107, 108, 119, 127; C a­
n ad ian branch, loa, 105, 106, i i g ; re­
vived u n der nam e of B ritish E m pire
L eagu e
Im perial Institute, 93
Im perialism , identification o f tariff r e ­
form w ith , ig , 85-128; extravagan t c o ­
lo n ia l expansion d u rin g the nineties,
83; chan gin g character of a cause o f
decline in fiscal reform , 84; how it
transform ed Fair T ra d e from a q u es­
tion of protection to one in volvin g a
m ajor revolu tion in im perial policy,
85 ff.; cause of intensified interest in
geograph y, 86; Fair I r a d e ’s accent on
tariffs and on E m pire, 88-95; pressure
from the colonies, 1887-91, 95-108;
from 1892-95, 118-28; U n ited Em pire
T ra d e L eague, io8-i8, 123, 125, 127;
see also Colonies: P referential tariffs
Im p erial tariffs, see P referen tial tariffs
In d ian and C olon ial E xh ib ition , 87, 93
In dustry, exten t of tariff-reform a ctivi­
ties, 1 If., 139-42; towns and industries
most needing protection, 6
Intercolonial Conference, 123
In tern ational Sugar Conference, 43, 44­
46
_
In trod u ction to . . . Geography o f the
B ritish Colonies (Lucas), 86
Irish N atio n al L eague, 69
Irish question, influence of, 44, 62, 65, 66,
74, 84, 85, 147
Jackson, W . V ., 13671
Jennings, Louis, 64, 67, 113
Jennings, Sir P atrick, lo O T i
Jersey, L ord , 124, 126, 14471
INDEX
Journal, Cham ber of Commerce, 91, gz,
114
K elly, Thom as, 31, 3s, 37, 38. 47, 48, 49
Kenny, Patrick. 31, 33, 37
K im ber, H., 44H
K im berley, Earl of, i44n
JLabilliere, F. P. dc, 91
L abor, efforts of political parties to gain
support of, 4, 5 f.; efforts ot Fair T rad e
group. 29-39; tariff argum ents used,
29; organized labor's support ot a n ti­
bounty m ovem ent, 46-51; funds sup­
plied by sugar capitalists, 50; where
anti-bounty m ovem ent stood in regard
to Fair T rad e, 52-57; attem pts to hide
protectionism , 53; trade-union m ove­
m ent entering new phase, 56; com bina­
tion w ith capital in Sheffield. 130
Labour Standard, 48
Land and L abour Defense Association,
7 *. 136
Landowners, 144: see Farmers
Leche, J. H urleston, 143
Lays o f federa/ion, 87
L eng, Sir W illiam , 75, 129
Liberals, support ot free trade, 5, 6, 15,
30; antagonism to discussion of tariffs,
38, 44, 45, 60: attitu d e toward Fair
T raders, 58, 61. 63, 64: breach between
L ib eral Unionists and, 75; i8ga elec­
tion victory. 80, 118; C anadian, 106;
un yielding attitu d e toward imperial
preference, 126, 127
L iberal Unionists, Conservatives' p re­
carious alliance w ith, 1, 46, 65. 70 f.,
72. 74, 92, 97, 104, 111, 148: break w ith
Liberals, 75: preparations for merger
w ith Conservatives, 82
L in d , W illiam , 33, 35, 36, 37
List. Friedrich. 19
Lister, S. C u nliffe (Lord Masham), 11, 16,
22, 23, 29, 30, 56, 70, 71, 114, 15a: p o ­
sition and activities, i8; financial con­
tributions, 21, 23, 27, 56, 1370; aids
Edgecome's publications, 21; quoted,
76
Lloyd, Sampson S., 22, 26, 27. 32, 33, 48,
64, 1370, 152; interests; activities, 19;
first President, Fair T rad e League, 2711
London Cham ber o f Commerce, 86, 90,
to i; origin of, 14; Fair Traders' success
in. g i, 92; Congress o f Im perial C h am ­
bers called by, 114
167
London T rad es Council, 31, 52, 54; at­
tem pt to b rin g it into anti-bounty
cam paign. 48, 49-51
Lom e, M arquis of, 92, 93
Low ther, James, 58, 64. 71, 81, 83, n o ,
118, 114. 123, 144, 147. 152: quoted,
148
Lubbock, Sir Nevile. 33, 41, 42. 43H, 48,
49, 63, 117; propositions approved by
C olonial Conference. 99
Lucas, C. P.. 86
Lucas, Reginald, 8on
Macdonald, Sir John, 14, 94. 95, 120; N a ­
tional Policy, 13, log; election victory,
106
M ac Fie, R . A., 23
M ’llw ra ith , Thom as, 122, 123
M aclver, David, 17, 22. 23, 26, 27, 60, 86,
143: interests; a founder of Fair T rad e
f.eague, 19
M cKinley T a riff, British reaction to, 56,
75 ff., 84, 105
M cLean, John, 48
M cM illan, W .. 93
M addocks, S. W ., 33. 35, 36
M ahoney, J. W., 30
M allet, Sir Louis, 39
Manchester, Fair Traders assault on
Cham ber of Commerce. 132-35
M anchester Unfon. 133
M anifesto o f N ational Fair T rad e
League, 27, 89, go
Manners, Lord John, 5
M anningham M ills, 18, 30, 76
Manufactures, see Industry
M artineau, George, 40, 41, 48
Masham, L ord, see Sister, S., Cunliffe
Medley, G . W ., 115, 116
Merchandise Marks Act, 45
M errim an, ] . X ., tt6
M itchell, H enry. 23
Monetary Gazette, 20, 2 i, 32
M onk, C. J., 24
Morley, John, 69, 80
M orning Post, 33, 34, 36, 48
M orris, A lfred , 133, 134, 146
M ost-favored-nation treaties, Am erican
and British interpretations, 42; sec also
Tariffs
M undella, A . J „ 6, 9, 61; quoted, 58, 75
Muntz, P. A., 17, 63, 110, 135
N ational A gricultural U nion, 150
N ational and P atriotic League for the
Protection o f British Interests, 16
i68
INDEX
N ational A n ti-B o u n ty L eagu e, 43, 49
N atio n al Fair T r a d e L eagu e, see Fair
T r a d e L eague, N ational
N atio n al In d u strial D efense Association,
16
N atio n al L eagu e, form ation, 32; affinity
w ith F a ir T ra d e League, 33; end of, 36
N atio n al P olicy of protective tariffs, Ca
n ad ian, 13, loa, 116
N atio n al Society for the D efense of B ritish
Industries, 16
N ation al System of P olitical Econom y,
T h e (List), tg
N cw d egate, C. N ., 6, 7
N ew South W ales, 100, 125J1
N ew Zealand, too, ti6 , rsgn , isQ
N in eteen th Century, excerpt, g
N orth cote, Sir Stafford, 2, 60, 62
O nslow , L ord, 44
O ran ge Free State, 12571
P a ll M a ll Gazette, excerpt, 25
Parkes, Sir H enry, 121
P arn ell, Charles Stew art, 62, 74
Patriot, T h e, 76
Peacock, W . C., 50
Peters, Sam uel, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 47,
48, 49
P ettifer, H . J., 48, 55, 56
Pirn, B edford, 8, 9, gg, 37
Planters, W est Indian, an ti-b ou n ty m ove­
m ent (q .v), 39-57, 71, 99; see also WestIndia C om m ittee
P layfair, Sir L yon, 76, 80, n o
Policy of Self-H elp, T h e (Ecroyd), j8, 29
P oynter, S, W ., 135, 136
P referen tial tariffs, iden tification of im ­
perialism w ith , 13, 85; lin k w ith pro
tectionist activity, 78; proposed at C o ­
lon ial C onference of 1887, 87, 96 ff.;
pressure from the colonies, 1887-91,
95-108; ivhy colonics m ore favorably
disposed tow ard, than B ritain , 96: pres­
sure from the colonies in 1892-95, 118­
28; C an a d a ’s bargain offer to B ritain ,
ii8 ; her reductions on B ritish p rod ­
ucts, 120, 126; evidence of the advance
o f the idea, 125: request for, sent to
C ham berlain , 152
Priest, W illia m , 30, 135
Prim rose League, 67
Protection, m ovem ent for; groups first
su p porting, 1; abandonm en t o f early
system in favor of free trade, 2; start o f
the great fon vard m ovem ent, 8; spread
a fter 1877, g-15; im portance o f C a n ­
ad a ’s p a rt in, 14 (see Canada); grow th
o f protectionist societies, 15-17; d is­
tinction betw een n eu tralization and,
41; v h y anti-b ou n ty workers hid fact
that they were protectionists, 53; varied
fortunes u nder Conservatives, 1881-95,
58-84 {sec Conservatives); protectionists
m ake m ost o f op p o rtu n ity w h ile G la d ­
stone in office, 61, 6471; lin k ed w ith d e ­
m and fo r im p erial tariff preference,
78; Salisbury at last becomes cham pion
o f, 79; passed into hands o f farm ers,
84; Fair T ra d e transform ed from , into
question in v o lvin g revolu tion in im ­
p erial policy, 85 ff.; exen t to w hich
backed by fanners, 136, 143-52: by in ­
dustrialists, 139 42; see also A n ti­
bou nty m ovem ent; Fair T ra d e League;
P referen tial tariffs; T a riff reform
Q ueensland, 96, 97, 1 1 1, 122. 12571
R a n k in , J., i to
R eade, C. S., q uoted, 14G
R ecip rocity Free T r a d e Association, 8, 15
R ecip rocity w ith the U.S., 103 L, 105 £,
Refiners, sugar; an ti-b ou n ty m ovem ent
(q-^-h 39-57. 71. 99
R eid , R o bert, i s s , 123
R even u e duties, 2, 117
"R ev ive rs" of B ritish Industry, 5-7
Rhodes, C ecil J „ 109, 120, 12 1 f.; letters
ad vocating im perial preferences, text,
■20,121
•
Rhodesia, 122
R itch ie, C. P., 48, 59, 66n
R ig g, Sibson S „ 133
R ip o n , L ord, 121, i s s , 126, 127, 128
Roberts, James, 6
R obin son, John, gg
Rogers, T h o ro ld , 86
Rose, G eorge, 16
Rosebery, L ord , 94, 95, 107, 127
R o yal C>olonial Society, 86, 90
R o ya l Com m ission on A g ricu ltu ra l D e ­
pression, 149
R o y a l Com m ission on the Depression in
T r a d e and Industry, 41, 63, 141
R u tla n d , D uke of, 12, 33, 36, 58, 60, 61,
143, 147
St. James’s Gazette, 107, 110, 148
Salisbury, L ord , 46, 50, 53, 66, 71, 74, 75,
112, 118, 120, 124: scornful o f Cobde-
INDEX
nite orthodoxy, 58, 72, 74, 79; quoted,
60, 64, 67. 70, 71, 72, 77, i l l , 151; a t­
titude toward protection, 60, 6a. 64,
7 1 , 7a. 77 ff-, 8a ff.; insistence upon
m andate from the public, 6a, 78, 79,
111, 113: precarious position of his
G overnm ent, 65, 6g, 7a; at last cham ­
pions protectionism , 79: defeat by L ib ­
erals, 80: attitude toward problem s of
im perialism . 95, 97, 104; see also Con­
servatives
Sam uel. Sir Saul, gs
Sangster, John, 8. 143
Scottish U niou of Conservative Associa­
tions, 67
Seam ens Am algam ated Protective So­
ciety, 37
Select Com m ittee on Sugar. 39, 43
Service, James, 98, 109; quoted, 100
Shaw-Lefevre, G eorge John, 63
Sheffield, reactions to M cKinley T a riff,
75, 76; branch o f Fair T ra d e League
in, tag
Shipton, George, 48, 49-51, 52; quoted,
54
Sm ith, Adam . 7
Sm ith. G oldw in, 102
Sm ith, W . H., 670, 94, 113
Society for the Defense of British Indus­
try. 55«. 136
South A frica, 120-22, ia6
South A frican Customs U nion, 121, 12571
Standard (London), 59
Stanhope, Edward, 44T1
Stanley o f Alderley, Lord, 137, 143
Star (London), excerpt, 39, 50, 51
87
Stokes, C . W „ 16
Sugar, im ports ot cane and beet sugar,
46n
Sugar industry, organized groups and in ­
terests, 39 ff.; see also Anti-bounty
movement
Sugar Refiners Com m ittee, 40
T a riff reform , supporters of w hat became
essential points o f Cham berlain's later
policy, 1; identification o f im periaiism
w ith, 13, 78; im portance o f Canada’s
part in, 14 (see Canada); arguments
for, in attem pts to win workers, 29 f.;
w hy tariffs must be demanded in name
of free trade, not protection, 53; C on ­
servative P arty’s varied attitudes, 188195 t 56-84 (see Conservatives); protec-
169
lionists make most o f op pon u n ity
w hile G ladstone in office, 6 i, 6.pi; im ­
perialism and, 85-128; Intercolonial
Conference at O ttaw a an im portant
chapter in the history of, 12O; retarded
by conflicts between groups dem and­
ing protection, 139; extent to which
backed by industrialists, 139-42; by
farmers, 143-52; see also A nti-bouniy
m ovem ent; Fair T rad e League; Prefeyential tariffs; Protection
T ariffs, for revenue, a, 117: U nited States
tariffs and their effects, 1 1, 56, 75 ff., 84,
105; Belgian and Germ an mostfavored-nation treaties, 78, 107, 111,
113; 119. 123, 124, 127
Telegraph (Sheffield), 75
T ille y , Sir S. L., 14, 101
Tim es, 9, 20, 38, 61, 114; excerpts, 3, 24,
7.5. 7^. 77. 65, 88, DO, 128. 131, 138;
L ord Bateman's letter to. quoted, 10;
reports from colonial correspondent,
105. loC, 112, 119
'I'ippcr, Lawrence, 6Sn, 152
T ories, see Conservatives
T orrin gto n , Viscount, 13711
T rad es’ Councils, support of anti-bounty
movem ent, 52
T rad es’ Union Congress. 29, 30, 32, 34,
38, 47, 52. 6 i; attem pt of Fair Traders
to pack meetings, 35 f.; basis ot p a y ­
m ent to delegates, 51
T radc-union m ovem ent, see under Labor
T reherne, M, P, for Coventry, 4
T u p p er, Sir Charles, 14, 90, 9211. 93, 94,
104, 109. 117 118: his rejected am end­
m ent. text, 115
Unionist Party, 82, 84
U nited Em pire T rad e League, 87, 90,
108-18, 123, 125; beginning: aim , 108 f.;
joined by Fair T rad e members, 110,
139: prom inent officials, 111, 120; a g i­
tation undertaken by, 111: Gladstone's
refusal to receive deputation from. 127
U nited States, worsted trade depressed
by tariff In, n ; proposed U.S.-W est
Indian commercial treaty, 42, 46; M c­
K in ley T ariff: B ritish reaction, 56.
75 ft.. 84, 105; Canada's desire to bring
about closer economic ties w ith, 102 ff.;
sources of prosperity in E ngland and.
iiS ti; E ngland’s farmers educated to
see dam aging effects of imports from,
146
170
INDEX
V ictoria, 116, is z
V in cen t, H ow ard, Syn, 103, 105, 114, 123,
125, 152: M .P. from Sheffield, 55, 68; in ­
fluence over W ork m en ’s Association an
em barrassm ent 10 Conservatives, 55 f.;
activities in b eh a lf o f Fair T ra d e, 68­
82 passim; launched U n ited E m pire
T r a d e L eagu e, 87, 108 IT.: C an adian
tour, 112, 113
W est In d ia C om m ittee, chairm an, 33: in ­
fluence; groups com posing, 40 E.; ac­
tivities on b eh a lf of sugar interests,
42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 99
W est Indies, sugar p la n ters’ anti-bou n ty
m ovem ent, 39 ff.
W est o f E ngland protectionist groups. 72,
135. 136
W ign iton , T , 33, 37
W im an, Erastus, 105
W inchilsea, Earl of, 150; q u oted , 151
W orkin gm en, see L abor
W orkm en ’s Association fo r the D efense
of B ritish Industry, 55, 136
W ork m en ’s N atio n al Association for the
A b o litio n o f Foreign Sugar B ounties,
47, 48. 49
W ynd h am , Percy, 137
Yates, R . P., 135
Y o u n g , Sir Frederick, 23, 33, 88, 90, 94