Empire and The Great Power Struggle - Vol IV
Change & Conflict in the 20thC
Chapter I – The Balfour Ministry
Or...“The questionable genius of Arthur Balfour”
There is a view of history espoused within some quarters that states that every episode that occurred within British history was ultimately another successful step along the way to the glorious Imperial future. This view states that while the actual episode itself may have been less than successful, or contrary even to what one might expect from a British gentleman, something positive always came to the fore. So that while Cromwell’s reign is not in itself to be considered a success, what with the genocide, persecution and regicide, it did lay a foundation of modern Britain and the establishment of Parliamentary power in preeminence to Royal power. If this is truly the case then, Arthur James Balfour must be looked upon as a man of extreme importance and immense, if unintentional, genius.
The 1st Earl of Balfour, is a man whom has much been maligned by history, Winston Churchill once saying of him "The difference between Balfour and Asquith is that Arthur is wicked and moral, while Asquith is good and immoral". There are many personal reasons for history’s dislike of the Conservative MP, the man was pilloried for his manner, personality and self-obsession, all documented in exquisite detail. We however, should not choose to focus upon his distasteful personality when we study his time in high office. We should instead look to his tenure as Prime Minister for what it wrought, intentionally or otherwise and for the important reasons pertaining to the future of the Empire that “Whig View” [1] would embrace.
The first was continued re-engagement with the world, as while the country had already moved away from it’s questionable policy of “splendid isolation” under Lord Salisbury, ratifying the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the new First Lord of the Treasury took an unprecedented step. It was, and remains, a somewhat controversial policy, for while he oversaw the monumental event that was the creation of the Entente Cordiale, how much credit or blame he should take is only a moderately interesting aside. The process of coming to an understanding with those across the channel was a complicated and drawn out affair, and your point of view as to if it is credit or blame that should be apportioned will largely come down to your feelings for our Gallic cousins in being either a Francophobe or a Francophile. The one thing that can be reliably assured is that this dramatic change in Imperial foreign policy, reversing a millenia of rivalry, was a milestone along the journey to The Great War. While it may be argued with equal effect as a either a cause or an effect of the journey, its significance should not be diminished.
The other was his government’s reaction to the recently concluded Boer war, what surprised so many was the man’s staunch defence of the conduct of the war. It was a surprise to many that a man, so uninvolved in the wars prosecution, would so vehemently defend it as it could not possibly harm him, or so it was assumed. The source of Belfour’s determination was soon discovered, it was the fact that Nobel Enterprises, a company specialising in the production of cordite, had made an astonishing 908% of extra profit during the war. Most damning of all, however, was that one of the principal shareholders was none other than Gerald Balfour, the Prime Minister’s brother. The furore culminated in three Royal commissions [2] as Belfour hoped to kick the matter into the ‘long grass’.
The man’s procrastination did little to help either his own position or that of his party, his brother had to resign from his posting as President of the Board of Trade and the Conservative party started to slip in popularity from its height during the khaki election. It came as some relief to Belfour that his new appointee to his brother’s old post, Joseph Chamberlain, proposed a plan to both help pay the costs of the war and more importantly, some cynics would advise, win votes. Chamberlain had slowly come to the conclusion that if the Empire was to survive in the future against the expected dominance of the United States, Germany and Russia, it would have to be consolidated into a single entity. He organised positive feelings toward this aim at the Imperial Conference, while the dominions did not agree to his idea for an Imperial Council, they did agree and, perhaps more pertinently passed a resolution in favour of, Imperial Preference. The simple idea was that trade with the ‘colonies’ would be allowed to continue with little or no tariffs, but that ‘foreign’ imports would be priced at a disadvantaged by a slight raise in tariffs. The major financial benefit of the scheme, following the refilling of the Exchequer’s coffers post war, was to be a system of old-age pensions and other social improvements.
It should be noted that while the cabinet were in favour of this outline, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Thomson Ritchie, heavily influenced by major economists such as Sir William Ashley, was much opposed, so much so that Chamberlain declined the chance to tour South Africa and instead stayed at home to ensure cabinet support. [3] Consequently Ritchie delivered a budget on the 23rd April 1903, which he was opposed to and shortly thereafter resigned from the cabinet, it was a mark of the increasing popularity of Chamberlain that he was able to acquire the prestigious post of Chancellor for himself and convince Belfour to bring his son, Austen Chamberlain, into the Board of Trade. [4]
October of 1904 saw the Russian fleet doing it’s, contemptible, best to sink British fishing trawlers off Dogger Bank, and enflame a nation to war. Only the commendable work of the foreign secretary, Lord Lansdowne, allowed for the Russian fleet to continue on its fateful and unhappy voyage to the Pacific. While the country was gripped with the excitement of ships and war the new chancellor struck down the the colonial secretary’s policy of Chinese workers for the mines of South Africa, by famously asking “why should we import the Chinese when we have poor in England clamouring for work?” [5]
The Election of 1905 is somewhat ironic for numerous reasons, not least of which was that the most popular political leader of the day, ended up on the losing side. In the short timeframe since Chamberlain had taken control of the Exchequer the issue of free trade versus Imperial preference had come to ahead, while the policy had threatened to endanger, not just the Conservative’s coalition with their Liberal Unionist partners, but the integrity of the party itself. It will amaze almost no-one to find out that while there was much excitement in and around Westminster on the position of free trade, the fevered machinations of political class was quite out of touch with the voting populace. For the Liberal party the political issue was seen as a boon, firstly because the majority of Liberal Unionists left the government’s benches as soon as Parliament was dissolved allowing the two Liberal parties to be subsumed into one again and secondly because it gave the party the ideal ammunition, or so it was thought, to sink the unpopular Belfour.
It was quite unnerving to Henry Campbell-Bannerman, then leader of the Liberal party, when in the first stages of the general election his much vaunted ‘free trade broadside’ fell short of its target. The ‘quiet revolution’ [6] in the attitude of Great Britain’s electorate toward trade policy had begun almost as soon as the 1903 budget had been announced, as while many would grumble about the price of an ‘Imperial Loaf’ they had become quite attached to the embryonic wealthfare state that Chamberlain had introduced. Thus one of the biggest ironies of the campaign became the Liberal’s ignoring their flagship trade policy entirely and directly attacking Balfour and his brother personally. This lead to the pushing forward of the ever popular Chamberlain as the De facto Leader of the Conservative party [7] , having only become a member in the very recent past. Such came the incredulous result of the ballot, with the Conservative party and its very popular ‘leader’ being defeated by a newly conjoined Liberal party that was quietly backtracking upon the catalyst of its reunification.
The 1st Earl of Balfour, is a man whom has much been maligned by history, Winston Churchill once saying of him "The difference between Balfour and Asquith is that Arthur is wicked and moral, while Asquith is good and immoral". There are many personal reasons for history’s dislike of the Conservative MP, the man was pilloried for his manner, personality and self-obsession, all documented in exquisite detail. We however, should not choose to focus upon his distasteful personality when we study his time in high office. We should instead look to his tenure as Prime Minister for what it wrought, intentionally or otherwise and for the important reasons pertaining to the future of the Empire that “Whig View” [1] would embrace.
The first was continued re-engagement with the world, as while the country had already moved away from it’s questionable policy of “splendid isolation” under Lord Salisbury, ratifying the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, the new First Lord of the Treasury took an unprecedented step. It was, and remains, a somewhat controversial policy, for while he oversaw the monumental event that was the creation of the Entente Cordiale, how much credit or blame he should take is only a moderately interesting aside. The process of coming to an understanding with those across the channel was a complicated and drawn out affair, and your point of view as to if it is credit or blame that should be apportioned will largely come down to your feelings for our Gallic cousins in being either a Francophobe or a Francophile. The one thing that can be reliably assured is that this dramatic change in Imperial foreign policy, reversing a millenia of rivalry, was a milestone along the journey to The Great War. While it may be argued with equal effect as a either a cause or an effect of the journey, its significance should not be diminished.
The other was his government’s reaction to the recently concluded Boer war, what surprised so many was the man’s staunch defence of the conduct of the war. It was a surprise to many that a man, so uninvolved in the wars prosecution, would so vehemently defend it as it could not possibly harm him, or so it was assumed. The source of Belfour’s determination was soon discovered, it was the fact that Nobel Enterprises, a company specialising in the production of cordite, had made an astonishing 908% of extra profit during the war. Most damning of all, however, was that one of the principal shareholders was none other than Gerald Balfour, the Prime Minister’s brother. The furore culminated in three Royal commissions [2] as Belfour hoped to kick the matter into the ‘long grass’.
The man’s procrastination did little to help either his own position or that of his party, his brother had to resign from his posting as President of the Board of Trade and the Conservative party started to slip in popularity from its height during the khaki election. It came as some relief to Belfour that his new appointee to his brother’s old post, Joseph Chamberlain, proposed a plan to both help pay the costs of the war and more importantly, some cynics would advise, win votes. Chamberlain had slowly come to the conclusion that if the Empire was to survive in the future against the expected dominance of the United States, Germany and Russia, it would have to be consolidated into a single entity. He organised positive feelings toward this aim at the Imperial Conference, while the dominions did not agree to his idea for an Imperial Council, they did agree and, perhaps more pertinently passed a resolution in favour of, Imperial Preference. The simple idea was that trade with the ‘colonies’ would be allowed to continue with little or no tariffs, but that ‘foreign’ imports would be priced at a disadvantaged by a slight raise in tariffs. The major financial benefit of the scheme, following the refilling of the Exchequer’s coffers post war, was to be a system of old-age pensions and other social improvements.
It should be noted that while the cabinet were in favour of this outline, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Thomson Ritchie, heavily influenced by major economists such as Sir William Ashley, was much opposed, so much so that Chamberlain declined the chance to tour South Africa and instead stayed at home to ensure cabinet support. [3] Consequently Ritchie delivered a budget on the 23rd April 1903, which he was opposed to and shortly thereafter resigned from the cabinet, it was a mark of the increasing popularity of Chamberlain that he was able to acquire the prestigious post of Chancellor for himself and convince Belfour to bring his son, Austen Chamberlain, into the Board of Trade. [4]
October of 1904 saw the Russian fleet doing it’s, contemptible, best to sink British fishing trawlers off Dogger Bank, and enflame a nation to war. Only the commendable work of the foreign secretary, Lord Lansdowne, allowed for the Russian fleet to continue on its fateful and unhappy voyage to the Pacific. While the country was gripped with the excitement of ships and war the new chancellor struck down the the colonial secretary’s policy of Chinese workers for the mines of South Africa, by famously asking “why should we import the Chinese when we have poor in England clamouring for work?” [5]
The Election of 1905 is somewhat ironic for numerous reasons, not least of which was that the most popular political leader of the day, ended up on the losing side. In the short timeframe since Chamberlain had taken control of the Exchequer the issue of free trade versus Imperial preference had come to ahead, while the policy had threatened to endanger, not just the Conservative’s coalition with their Liberal Unionist partners, but the integrity of the party itself. It will amaze almost no-one to find out that while there was much excitement in and around Westminster on the position of free trade, the fevered machinations of political class was quite out of touch with the voting populace. For the Liberal party the political issue was seen as a boon, firstly because the majority of Liberal Unionists left the government’s benches as soon as Parliament was dissolved allowing the two Liberal parties to be subsumed into one again and secondly because it gave the party the ideal ammunition, or so it was thought, to sink the unpopular Belfour.
It was quite unnerving to Henry Campbell-Bannerman, then leader of the Liberal party, when in the first stages of the general election his much vaunted ‘free trade broadside’ fell short of its target. The ‘quiet revolution’ [6] in the attitude of Great Britain’s electorate toward trade policy had begun almost as soon as the 1903 budget had been announced, as while many would grumble about the price of an ‘Imperial Loaf’ they had become quite attached to the embryonic wealthfare state that Chamberlain had introduced. Thus one of the biggest ironies of the campaign became the Liberal’s ignoring their flagship trade policy entirely and directly attacking Balfour and his brother personally. This lead to the pushing forward of the ever popular Chamberlain as the De facto Leader of the Conservative party [7] , having only become a member in the very recent past. Such came the incredulous result of the ballot, with the Conservative party and its very popular ‘leader’ being defeated by a newly conjoined Liberal party that was quietly backtracking upon the catalyst of its reunification.
Liberal: 402 Seats (+219)
Conservative: 168 Seats (-232)
Irish Parliamentary: 82 Seats (+5)
Labour: 12 Seats (+10)
Conservative: 168 Seats (-232)
Irish Parliamentary: 82 Seats (+5)
Labour: 12 Seats (+10)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] An interesting concept, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history, which is most often applied pejoratively to histories that present the past as the inexorable march of progress towards enlightenment. Maybe here we would call it a Progress Wank
[2] This is where our butterfly starts, the company made no such profit and Balfour's brother had nothing to do with them, so two Royal Commissions become three and history is changed.
[3] A slight butterfly here, but one that has very large consequences
[4] As Joseph steps up a notch, he will keep his political career, and Austen is promoted right on cue
[5] Another butterfly with Chamberlain still in the government… interesting times
[6] This is possible I think, the reason that Imperial Preference was unpopular was because of the price rise that would come, but once they are on the receiving end of wealthfare... I think that it would become more popular. IOTL Ritchie got the cabinet to change its mind so the people never got their 'wealthfare'
[7] Yes Chamberlain is the Leader of the Conservatives
Last edited:
