Victorian Liberalism - Parliament, Party, and the Art of Politics in Britain, 1855–1859. By Angus Hawkins. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1987. Pp. xiv + 416. $38.50. - Britain and the Crimea, 1855–56: Problems of War and Peace. By J. B. Conacher. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987. Pp. xii + 289. $39.95. - Liberal Anglican Politics: Whiggery, Religion and Reform. By Richard Brent. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Pp. xii + 340. $65.00. - Gladstone, Whiggery, and the Liberal Party, 1874–1886. By T. A. Jenkins. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Pp. viii + 328. $69.00. - Parliamentary Politics and the Home Rule Crisis: The British House of Commons in 1886. By W. C. Lubenow. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Pp. viii + 389. $75.00. - England's “Prussian Minister”: Edwin Chadwick and the Politics of Government Growth, 1832–1854. By Anthony Brundage. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1988. Pp. viii + 208. $22.50.

Gladstone’s dramatic commitment of the liberal party to a policy of home rule for Ireland in 1886 was followed by the Grand Old Man’s two attempts at turning his policy into legislation. The first home rule bill, that of 1886, was defeated in the house of commons and then in a general election: the second, that of 1893, was overwhelmed in the house of lords and then dropped by Gladstone’s fourth government. Though the Gladstonian commitment remained and the liberal party continued to be a home rule party — and though the pros and cons of the union of 1800 remained the major structural feature of British party politics — it was not until 1912 that the liberals did anything further about their major Irish policy. For most of the period 1893-1912 they were, of course, impotent in opposition and consequently in no position to take the initiative on home rule. In 1906, however, they won a landslide victory over their unionist opponents and it is striking that this electoral victory and the great impulse it gave to one of the most dynamic governments in the whole history of British liberalism was not followed, as had the last two liberal victories under Gladstone, by the introduction of a third home rule bill. Had the liberal landslide of 1906 been put behind another home rule measure the whole history of the matter would certainly have been radically different. The house of lords would have been easily overwhelmed; the great advance in constitutional reform for Ireland would have been carried in a spirit of liberal reform rather than of political surrender; the development of Sinn Fein would have been frustrated or at least diverted. But the liberal victory of 1906 was not so used. Home rule was postponed and sidetracked and was taken up again only when the liberal party once more desperately needed Irish votes in the budget election which followed the rejection of Lloyd George’s financial measures by the lords in November 1909. The home rule banner was hoisted afresh by Asquith, the prime minister, in his Albert Hall speechof 10 December 1909 and the third home rule bill appeared in due course in 1912 in direct — and significant — succession to the budget and the parliament act for both of which the Asquith government needed Irish support in the commons.

Download Full-text

Neville Chamberlain, 1869 - 1940

Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society ◽

10.1098/rsbm.1941.0030 ◽

1941 ◽

Vol 3 (10) ◽

pp. 731-734

Keyword(s):

British Politics ◽

Home Rule ◽

House Of Commons ◽

Financial Loss ◽

Liberal Party ◽

The Bahamas ◽

Two Generations ◽

The University ◽

Short Time

There were, in two generations, three Chamberlains in the first rank of British politics. Joseph, the greatest of them in personality and in the special gifts that qualify for the highest success in public life, would almost certainly have succeeded Gladstone in the leadership of the Liberal party had they not separated in 1886 on the question of Home Rule for Ireland. O f his two sons, Austen was educated for a public career and Neville for business. Austen twice, of deliberate choice, declined a course that might and probably would have led to the Premiership. It was to the younger son Neville that the great prize came, though he had no Parliamentary ambitions during the larger part of his life, and did not enter the House of Commons till he was within a few months of fifty. He did not go to the university as Austen had done but, on leaving Rugby, returned to his home in Birmingham and, after a short time at Mason College, entered an accountants’ office. In 1890 his father bought land in the Bahamas for the cultivation of sisal which, he was advised, would produce the best quality of hemp. Neville went out at the age of twenty-one to take charge of the estate. He lived plain and worked hard for seven years and then had to admit failure. The soil was too thin and, after heavy financial loss, the enterprise was abandoned.

Download Full-text