Marcus Garvey, MP, or: More MPs from the colonies, 1885-1960

This scenario straddles the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but includes a bit more of the latter, so I'm putting it here. The 1885 date is chosen because it was the year of Lal Mohun Ghose's first, unsuccessful run for Parliament, which is, as far as I know, the first time a colonial subject ran for election.

Although Britain had no designated parliamentary seats representing the colonies during this (or any other) period, there was nothing to stop colonial British subjects from running in a British constituency, and if they could convince enough people to vote for them, they were eligible to be elected. This happened three times of which I'm aware, with all the successful candidates being Indian Parsis:

  • Dadabhai Naoroji: ran unsuccessfully as a Liberal for Holborn in 1886, was elected in Finsbury Central in 1892 with a majority of five, and was defeated for re-election in 1895. Some of his speeches during the 1886 election campaign can be found here;
  • Mancherjee Bhownaggree, elected in Bethnal Green Northeast as a Conservative in 1895, re-elected in 1900, defeated in 1906;
  • Shapurji Saklatvala, elected as a Communist-Labour candidate in Battersea North in 1922, defeated in 1923, elected again in 1924 as a Communist without Labour endorsement, defeated for re-election in 1929, and attempted unsuccessful comebacks in a 1930 by-election and the 1931 general election.
After Saklatvala's 1929 defeat, the next nonwhite members of Parliament were elected in 1987, and by that time, of course, the British colonial empire had faded to a few relics.

So how do we get some more? Ideally, I'd like it to be expected that every Parliament would have five or six colonial members, and for the successful candidates to include West Indians, Malays and Africans as well as Indians.

Race prejudice is a problem, but as shown by the above three, not an insuperable one. Granted, Indian Parsis are probably among the colonial subjects that British voters would have found least alien - they were pretty solidly middle-class and educated - and Africans would have a harder time. A West Indian, though, might manage well enough - there was a growing nonwhite intelligentsia, and many of them were sufficiently British in their education and manner to have a chance of connecting with the voters. And once enough Indians and Barbadians had been elected, even an African might not seem so much of a step.

Successful candidates would also have to live in the UK for long periods and become involved in party organizations there, but this also isn't a problem - plenty of colonial subjects did reside in Britain as students, businessmen and professionals. It's easy to see some of these becoming party workers, building connections and eventually standing as candidates - as Naoroji, Bhownaggree and Saklatvala in fact did.

Maybe what we need is an organized effort to elect candidates from the colonies - say, an influential group in India that sponsors Indians in British parliamentary constituencies, and which provides support (financial or otherwise) to one of the national parties in exchange for access to the political system. In effect, this would be a colonial branch of whatever party it supports. Presumably, those who join such organizations would be the ones who want greater integration into the empire, or to fight for their rights as British subjects, as opposed to seeking home rule or independence, although Naoroji is a counterexample.

Assuming this could be pulled off, and every Parliament had a few colonial subjects in it, what would be the effect? Would this be accepted as a natural consequence of having an empire? Would there be more impetus for home rule in the colonies in order to keep the British and colonial political spheres separate, or would there be more of a movement to integrate the empire? Is there a chance that any of the proposals for an imperial parliament might take off?

 
Intriguing. When I saw your name I assumed it might have been a tie in with your African timeline but this makes for an interesting scenario in an of itself.

I suspect that Indian Home Rule will be discussed earlier, although this might raise eyebrows amongn the Irish Nationlists.
 
Last edited:
There would be different ways to go about this I think. The non white representation issue will be hard to work with, but it may be easier to get settler representation.

For one, there were many returnees from the colonies, back either on behalf of their new interests, or because they made good and wishes to return home to enjoy their prestige/wealth amongst their family. For example, the original Julius Vogel return to his home city of London as the Agent General of the NZ government, then later stayed on for personal and financial reasons. There must have been many similar cases and I would be slightly surprised that none stood or were elected to Westminster.

Vogel and various other theorists were prominent in London and colonial circles, on the matter of Imperial Federation, but I think that concept seems to be in the too hard basket, without some sort of enlightened dictator.

I wonder if it would be possible to incorporate representation as part of various constitutional tinkerings in the Colonies, starting with the British North America Act, then the discussions in Australasia etc. Perhaps the Qubecois demand representation in Westminster as part of the negotiations?
 
I suspect that Indian Home Rule will be discussed earlier, although this might raise eyebrows among the Irish Nationlists.

That's one of the possible outcomes - "give the Indians more responsible government so they won't keep coming to London and running for our seats." Another one, of course, is to prohibit anyone from the colonies from running for Parliament, but that would mean defining them as something other than British subjects, and if they aren't British subjects, what are they? A third possibility is to regard the situation as the best of all possible worlds - "we're a great and cosmopolitan empire, the best and brightest of the colonies are free to come here and join our legislature - and the fact that they have to come to Britain and get Englishmen to vote for them means that only the right class of colonials will be elected." The fact that there will only be a few colonial representatives at any given time might make the third attitude the natural one.

Regardless, the continuing presence of MPs from the colonies debating imperial policy and pushing colonial issues to the forefront would be bound to have an impact. Maybe more progress toward individual social equality in the colonies even if not home rule?

There would be different ways to go about this I think. The non white representation issue will be hard to work with, but it may be easier to get settler representation.

Settler representation was old hat. In the days of the rotten boroughs, West Indian sugar planters controlled about 20 parliamentary seats. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few Canadians or Australians even post-Reform Act, although the impetus to move to the UK and run for Parliament might go away once the settler colonies got responsible government and control their own affairs.

I want the non-settlers, and especially the non-Indian non-settlers. (More Indians would be easy - just transfer about 160 votes from William John Evelyn to Lal Mohun Ghose in Deptford in 1885.) The feeling I get - and I could be wrong about this - is that Indians got somewhat more respect from the British rank and file than other colonial subjects, because they were anciently civilized rather than "savages." I'd guess that the same might apply to Cypriots or Maltese, who were kinda-sorta white by the standards of the day. I'm not sure how nonwhite West Indians were regarded, but there were certainly plenty of them who went to London to study or work, and the London constituencies seem to be the ones most willing to vote for candidates from the colonies.

I think that colonial branches of the Conservative, Liberal and eventually Labour parties, which would provide prominent people in the colonies with connections and an entry to political life upon moving to Britain, are the key. What could make this happen?

Vogel and various other theorists were prominent in London and colonial circles, on the matter of Imperial Federation, but I think that concept seems to be in the too hard basket, without some sort of enlightened dictator.

I wonder if it would be possible to incorporate representation as part of various constitutional tinkerings in the Colonies, starting with the British North America Act, then the discussions in Australasia etc. Perhaps the Qubecois demand representation in Westminster as part of the negotiations?

The thing is, it's hard to have both responsible government and colonial representation at Westminster. That would lead to the Midlothian Question on a huge scale - "if you have your own parliament, what are you doing mucking around in ours?" The more progress there is toward home rule, the less willing Britain will be to allow representation in London - and what the Quebecois and Australasians wanted was home rule.
 
If you consider Canada a colony, there's another example. Edward Blake, Irish Nationalist MP for South Longford from 1892 to 1907, was born in Canada and served as Liberal Premier of Ontario (1871-2), served in the Federal Liberal cabinet (1874-8), and was leader of the Liberal party (1880-7).

Blake's career points to another aspect of colonial representation - not everyone who would enter the British parliament would necessarily be pro-imperialist, and those that are not might have a vehicle to do so via the Irish Nationalists (i.e. IN opposition to the Boer War, etc.).
 
Blake's career points to another aspect of colonial representation - not everyone who would enter the British parliament would necessarily be pro-imperialist, and those that are not might have a vehicle to do so via the Irish Nationalists (i.e. IN opposition to the Boer War, etc.).

Two of the three Indians elected in OTL were anti-imperialists - Naoroji (who had been prime minister of one of the princely states and was a founding member of the Indian National Congress at the time he sat in Parliament) opposed British policies in India, and Saklatvala was a Communist. Bhownaggree was pro-British and opposed Indian home rule, but did support social equality for Indians.

I doubt that many hard-core anti-imperialists would sit in Parliament, because standing for election involves a degree of buying into the system, but there could be quite a few moderately anti-imperialist MPs like Naoroji, as well as integrationists like Bhownaggree and possibly a few federalists. The anti-imperial MPs could easily form alliances of mutual support with the Irish nationalists and pro-home-rule factions in other parties (Naoroji did support Irish home rule), and could become part of a bloc that supported reforming the empire.

Instead of MP, how about PM?

1) OTL's Bonar Law
2) Churchill at one point suggested Jan Smuts could succeed him

Smuts would be interesting - white, to be sure, but of non-British ancestry. I don't know how realistic a possibility that would be by the 1940s, though, given that South Africa had responsible government and the Afrikaner population's loyalties were in question (although those of Smuts himself weren't). I doubt a majority could have been found to appoint him PM even in wartime.

I suppose an Indian PM is also out of the question. A junior minister from India or another colony might not be, though - maybe as Secretary of State for the Colonies, similar to the post Blaise Diagne held in the French government during the 1930s or Houphouët-Boigny during the Fourth Republic. I suspect very interesting things would happen if Naoroji got that job, but his period of political activity was probably too early.
 
Top