Pax Britannica Aeterna

[Mustard]

PAX BRITANNICA AETERNA

Hello, and welcome to my new timeline.

You: Wait, I thought you already started a timeline?

Yes, but it wasn’t exactly ‘good’ nor plausible, so I am starting anew, working towards the same objective, but with an earlier POD. Also, there are several other TLs as well which are working on a British superpower post-1945 (including this one, which I strongly suggest you read), and they will probably to do a better job than I would, so it would probably be better for me to work from another POD.

You: So you’re still going to try and maintain Britain’s superpower status?

Indeed I am! Hopefully with more success this time.

 

[Mustard]

On July the 11th 1902, Lord Salisbury announced his retirement as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, after 13 years and 252 days in the position. Initially, most people anticipated Arthur Balfour, who would almost certainly succeed Salisbury as leader of the Conservatives, to also succeed Salisbury as Prime Minister. After all, Balfour was already First Lord of the Treasury, meaning he resided at Number Ten Downing Street, so he seemed a natural choice.

However, amongst Conservative and Liberal Unionist backbenches, there were murmurs of Joseph Chamberlain, leader of the Liberal Unionists, taking up the position instead. When Chamberlain himself heard these rumours, he was more than willing to transform them into reality. So, when Conservative and Liberal Unionist Members of Parliament met at the Carlton Club on the day of Salisbury’s resignation, contemplating who would receive what job in a Balfour Cabinet, Chamberlain rose to give a speech.

Above: Joseph Chamberlain

The speech shocked many of the assembled MPs – Chamberlain announced that he would not serve under Balfour, and instead advised that Salisbury should recommend to King Edward VII that he should form the next Government, rather than Balfour. Balfour, who was amongst those present, was horrified by this. If Balfour rejected Chamberlain’s demand and became Prime Minister, the Liberal Unionists would most likely withdraw from the Unionist Government and, although the Conservatives held a Parliamentary majority without them, it would make life rather difficult for Balfour.

Eventually, Balfour, after consulting his allies, conceded defeat. Salisbury, who was preparing for his audience with the King, was surprised when he was informed that Balfour could not form a Government, and instead he should advise Edward VII to call for Chamberlain. Although Salisbury wished to help his nephew, he recognised, like Balfour, that it would create no end of difficulties if the Liberal Unionists withdrew from the Cabinet. So, when Salisbury arrived at Buckingham Palace and tendered his resignation, he recommended to the King that Chamberlain should be called to form a Government.

So, Edward VII sent for Chamberlain, who duly kissed hands and accepted the King’s invitation to form a Government. In order to maintain unity within the Unionist Government, Prime Minister Chamberlain ensured that the Conservatives, who were still the largest party in the government by far, had multiple senior positions in the Cabinet, while Balfour, who had indeed succeeded Salisbury as leader of the Conservatives, retained his position as First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the House of Commons.

Here is a list of Chamberlain’s Cabinet:

· Joseph Chamberlain – Prime Minister

· Arthur Balfour – First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the House of Commons

· Charles Thomson Ritchie – Chancellor of the Exchequer

· Lord Lansdowne – Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs

· Aretas Akers-Douglas – Secretary of State for the Home Department

· Lord Onslow – Secretary of State for the Colonies

· Lord Halsbury – Lord Chancellor

· The Duke of Devonshire – Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords

· St John Brodrick – Secretary of State for War

· Lord George Hamilton – Secretary of State for India

· Lord Selborne – First Lord of the Admiralty

· Andrew Bonar Law – President of the Board of Trade

· Lord Balfour of Burleigh – Secretary for Scotland

· George Wyndham – Chief Secretary for Ireland

· Walter Hume Long – President of the Local Government Board

· Robert William Hanbury – President of the Board of Agriculture

· Lord Londonderry – President of the Board of Education

· Lord Ashbourne – Lord Chancellor of Ireland

· Lord Windsor – First Commissioner of Public Works

· Austen Chamberlain – Postmaster-General

 

[SenatorChickpea]

This is a much better POD for a stronger Britain, but a successful Imperial Federation is astonishingly unlikely in the long term- the Dominions all have different strategic priorities from the Metropole, and the gulf will inevitably get wider.
That's not touching the impossibility of keeping the subcontinent subordinate to Britain- as well as the fact that when India goes, Africa and the East Asian holdings will follow as a matter of economic reality.
But a different set of policy priorities in the early twentieth century, backed by both major parties could certainly gain the Pax Brittannica another couple of decades.

The big problem will be alliances- Imperial Federation will probably go hand in hand with Anglosaxonism which will be good for relations with America but terrible in the long run for the Irish, the Boers, the Quebecois... and those are just the white subjects in the colonies and Dominions.
If the British cooperate too much with the Japanese, it'll drive the Canadians and Australians away from the UK. If they don't, they'll end up with economic and strategic commitments in East Asia that they can't afford.
Despite the short term gains in avoiding World War One, if they back the Germans then they lose Europe to a continental hegemon and sacrifice the entire foundations of British diplomacy for five centuries. Not to mention they risk a huge number of colonial fronts with France and Russia.
If they back the French and Russians, they get on side with the only powers who can potentially threaten the Raj, but then you have the bloody commitment to a European war.

It'll be tricky.
One thing I'd strongly advise if you want to create a plausible timeline: Accept that Britain was already beginning to slip behind its rivals. If you try to make them top dog for the twentieth century, you'll give yourself an ulcer.

But I wish you luck, and I'll be curious how you intend to square the various circles. If nothing else, you've set yourself a good intellectual challenge.

 

[Thomas1195]

First, the Tories were already discredited by widespread poverty and by the fact that 40% of drafted male adults were unfit for service.

Next, the biggest problem is that the Tories would be very likely to be flayed in the 1906 General Election if Chamberlain tried to push for Imperial Preference.

Another issue was that while Chamberlainites were reformers, the Whigs and the vast majority of the Tories were not. He is not going to get away with things like People's Budget.

I myself would prefer a 1918 POD, but you should keep going on with your TL.

 

[Mustard]

After the new Cabinet ministers were sworn into the Privy Council, Chamberlain’s Government began introducing new policies for the United Kingdom. By the time Salisbury retired, the British Empire’s position in Africa had been largely consolidated – the Boer War had seen South Africa united under British rule, while the Empire had defeated the Mahdists in Sudan and Cecil Rhodes had established Rhodesia. Overall, therefore, the situation in Africa was stable, and the British Empire was in a strong position.

So, the Government turned its attention towards another subject – trade. Chamberlain firmly believed in the use of tariffs on imported goods, as well as the idea of Imperial Preference – that the colonies and dominions of the Empire should have free trade amongst each other, while imposing tariffs on goods from outside the Empire. While Chamberlain attracted support for these measures from certain parts of the Government, they were opposed by not only a significant amount of Conservatives, but also certain MPs in Chamberlain’s Liberal Unionists. There was also a rift within the Cabinet on the matter – the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Charles Thomas Ritchie, opposed tariffs and favoured free trade, while Chamberlain’s supporters endorsed the Prime Minister’s ideas. From the backbenches, a group of Conservatives known as Hughligans, led by Lord Hugh Cecil, vigorously opposed tariffs, and included MPs such as Winston Churchill, who was elected MP for Oldham in 1900.

Above: Lord Hugh Cecil

Chamberlain knew that difficulties would be created if pro-free trade Conservative MPs chose to defect to the Opposition as a result of Imperial Preference, so Chamberlain announced at a meeting of the Carlton Club that he would first consult with the Prime Ministers of the Dominions before going ahead with the new tariff system. So, a Colonial Conference was scheduled for May 1903, with Chamberlain, Wilfrid Laurier of Canada, Edmund Barton of Australia and Richard Seddon of New Zealand in attendance.

At the Colonial Conference, Chamberlain pitched his ideas for tariffs on non-Imperial goods and a system of Imperial Preference. The idea encountered widespread support from the Prime Ministers, bar one – Laurier. The Canadian Prime Minister believed that Imperial Preference would be opposed in Quebec, which was an integral part of Liberal support, and so agreeing to Imperial Preference would cost the Liberals support there. Consequently, Chamberlain was unable to go ahead with his tariff proposals. Nonetheless, the four Prime Ministers did issue a declaration recommending that trade between the Dominions and the UK should increase – yet this was far from the fully-fledged Imperial Preference that Chamberlain had hoped for. Yet Chamberlain’s plans did not end there, as he soon received another opportunity to implement Imperial Preference.

After returning to Canada, Laurier found that Robert Borden, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Conservatives were bitterly opposed to Laurier’s decision to reject Imperial Preference. Borden declared that the Prime Minister was creating a rift between Canada and the British Empire, a view shared not only by his Conservative MPs but also multiple English-speaking Liberal MPs, who believed that Laurier was prioritising the Quebecois over them. Eventually, under pressure from Borden, Laurier called a snap election in November 1903 to settle the issue of Imperial Preference.

During the election, Borden and the Conservatives declared that Imperial Preference was crucial to maintaining Canada’s links to the UK, and that voting for the Liberals would be voting for American influence. Eventually, polling day arrived and the Canadian ridings began to declare their results – it was clear that Borden and the Conservatives had achieved a majority, securing the support of the Maritime Provinces and British Columbia, who both wished to maintain their links to the Empire. Meanwhile, Manitoba and what would become Alberta and Saskatchewan voted for the Liberals, as they wanted greater trade with the US. Yet the most surprising result came from Quebec, which swung to the Conservatives, partly due to French Canadians' fear of American influence. Once it was clear that the Conservatives now held a majority in the House of Commons, Laurier resigned as Prime Minister, and the Canadian Governor-General invited Borden to form a Government.

Above: Robert Borden

Shortly after becoming Prime Minister, Borden sent a telegram to London, informing Chamberlain that he would support Imperial Preference. This delighted Chamberlain, who immediately set about organising a new Colonial Conference in February 1904. The leaders in attendance were Chamberlain, Seddon, Borden and the new Australian Prime Minister, Alfred Deakin. The Prime Ministers were unanimous in their support for Imperial Preference, and announced that the UK and the Dominions would work towards organising a free trade agreement amongst themselves, while also introducing tariffs on goods from outside the Empire. The leaders then subsequently returned to their respective nations to secure their Parliaments’ support for Imperial Preference. Chamberlain was delighted by the outcome – yet he first had to face Parliament in a vote on Imperial Preference.

 

[Mustard]

Any thoughts on this entry? Is it plausible?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

It is getting there and is on much sounder foundations than the previous version. To maintain a general level of support even after the inevitable change of government in 1906-07, Campbell-Bannerman's prior exit could help; he was very much an old-school Liberal.

 

[Donald Reaver]

Looking good so far.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

A word of warning with the Dominions: while they were in favor of Imperial Preference, they also distrusted Chamberlain's visions of Imperial Federation. At the conferences in 1897 and 1902, his pet schemes were voted down.
Now, Imperial Preference (as opposed to Federation) is something they can work with him on because it serves their interests- but even conservatives in the Dominions will be deeply wary of any hint that Chamberlain wants to undermine their ability to make their own decisions. So there will be pushback on anything like a customs union.
At this time the Dominions were perfectly happy to pressure Britain to fund their navies or give them tariff preferences, while also resenting policies set in London as interference.
It's hypocritical, but people tend to be.

To get a sense of the emerging political character of the Dominions at this time, I'd look up Richard Jebb's classic study of colonial nationalism. Jebb was a journalist of the period- he believed in Federation, but also wrote the best guide to why the Dominions already had separate modes of government (and theories of governing) than the Metropole.

In summary: Prime Minister Chamberlain is the only way to get serious movement towards a closer Empire, but because this fact is publicly known he is also an obstacle in the way of that dream.
Given this is a timeline with a goal in mind (a longer lasting Britain as a world power,) but you also want plausibility- I wouldn't plan on getting the full Federation. I honestly think that ship had probably sailed with Canada's confederation in 1867. I also don't think Chamberlain will be able to accomplish too much more than a preference scheme in his time in office.
But laying the foundations for closer diplomatic and economic links that later leaders might build on (say, in a time of crisis or perhaps more probably in the aftermath of one?)- that I think is quite plausible.

 

[Thomas1195]

It is getting there and is on much sounder foundations than the previous version. To maintain a general level of support even after the inevitable change of government in 1906-07, Campbell-Bannerman's prior exit could help; he was very much an old-school Liberal.

Having Asquith and Lloyd George elevated would be even more disastrous. It was Asquith's attack that broke Chamberlain's arguments by exposing their deficiencies and self-contradictions, thus destabilized his campaign.

Also, by 1902, HCB was the firm leader, and Liberals had been united over free trade (or free food). Worse, Chamberlain's proposal did not exclude food.

And IOTL, Charles Thomson Ritchie vehemently opposed Tariff Reform.

 

[Mustard]

After the Colonial Conference declared that Imperial Preference would be official policy of the Empire, Chamberlain informed the Cabinet that he first had to secure the support of Parliament to introduce the necessary tariffs. Initially, the members of the Cabinet were wary of such a vote, while Charles Thomson Ritchie believed that the plans for tariffs should be abandoned. Nonetheless, Chamberlain was determined to go ahead, and soon enough the Government whips were sent about to secure the support of backbenchers.

In March 1904, Chamberlain put forward his proposals for Imperial Preference before both houses of Parliament. In the House of Lords, the Bill which would implement tariffs was easily passed. However, in the House of Commons, the Hughligans and the Liberals both voted against Imperial Preference, causing the Bill to be voted down. It was a grave humiliation for Chamberlain, who had previously been confident of victory. Yet the defeat of the Bill did not dissuade the Prime Minister from abandoning Imperial Preference. Instead, after the Speaker announced the Commons’ verdict, Chamberlain rose and declared:

‘This House has made its verdict, yet the Other Place has made a contradictory one. Consequently, Parliament is deadlocked on the issue, and I cannot foresee the issue being resolved simply through another vote in Parliament. Instead, I shall put Imperial Preference to the people in a national plebiscite – it shall be the voters who determine the fate of the agreement made at the Colonial Conference.’

This would be the first plebiscite held in British history, and it encountered cross-party support – Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Liberal leader, and the Liberal frontbench were confident that free trade would encounter sufficient support amongst the electorate. So, motions were put in place for a plebiscite to be held on the issue of tariff reform, which would be held in May 1904.

In that time, politicians who both favoured Imperial Preference and opposed it went across the country making their case. Chamberlain, who was always considered to be a charismatic politician, personally headed the campaign for tariffs, arguing in favour of Imperial Preference to protect British industry. Meanwhile, Campbell-Bannerman and the Liberals reminded voters that they were essentially choosing between ‘big loaf and little loaf’. Yet, throughout the campaign, both groups recognised that the majority of Britons were undecided on the issue, and neither the tariff supporters nor the free traders gained an advantage during the campaign. Consequently, both Chamberlain and Campbell-Bannerman were uncertain of the result all the way up to polling day.

Eventually, results began to be declared across the country, and soon it was clear that Chamberlain and Imperial Preference had won the day.

The result came as a shock to many, not least the Liberals, who believed that the British people ultimately favoured free trade. In the aftermath of the vote, Campbell-Bannerman resigned as Liberal leader and was succeeded by former Prime Minister Lord Rosebery. Meanwhile, Chamberlain’s control over the Government was solidified by the outcome of the plebiscite. Winston Churchill and other Hughligans, who had been contemplating defecting to the Liberals, decided to remain in the Conservative camp, as the plebiscite had effectively made the trade debate a non-issue.

Meanwhile, in the Dominions, tariff reform was accepted by the individual Parliaments, and so Imperial Preference came into effect.

 

[Mustard]

Next time, we'll look at the international stage, and how the European alliances are emerging.

 

[Some Bloke]

So we're looking at economic rather than political integration.

 

[Mustard]

So we're looking at economic rather than political integration.

That may be the case. Or it may not. I don't want to reveal much.

 

[Some Bloke]

Reinviorating the Committee on Imperial Defence might help as well,
for encouraging a sense of common purpose if nothing else.

 

[abrotherc]

Looking forward to see where this is going

 

[Mustard]

While Imperial Preference was the major domestic issue for Chamberlain’s Government, there were also major foreign policy issues which the UK had to face at the same time – namely, military alliances and agreements. In the final year of Salisbury’s premiership, the UK had signed the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which established an alliance between the British and Japanese Empires. However, as the 20th century dawned, it became more imperative for the UK to secure allies in Europe.

Chamberlain favoured securing an alliance with Germany, which was met with a mixed reception from the Cabinet – after all, was Germany not attempting to challenge British dominance at sea? Nonetheless, Chamberlain insisted that an Anglo-German alliance was in the UK’s best interest, and he would make sure that the Royal Navy’s dominance at sea would be assured in any agreement between the UK and Germany. So, in 1903, the British Ambassador to Germany, Sir Frank Lascelles, received a telegram from the Prime Minister giving him permission start negotiations between the UK and Germany on a potential alliance.

Above: Frank Lascelles

Meanwhile, the German Government was somewhat relieved when Lascelles announced that the UK wished to secure an agreement with Germany, as it would prevent an encirclement of Germany. Although Kaiser Wilhelm II was an erratic man who was sceptical of his uncle, Edward VII, German ministers insisted that an agreement with the UK would ultimately benefit both parties involved. So, negotiations began between the British and German Governments.

Eventually, in April 1904, an agreement was established between the British and German Empires, signed between Lascelles and the German foreign minister, Oswald Freiherr von Richthofen.

Although the agreement was not an alliance, it did resolve multiple disputes between the two Empires – for example, Germany agreed to cease its naval build-up, thereby securing the Royal Navy’s dominance at sea. With the main sticking point in Anglo-German Relations removed, the two countries began working more closely together on the international stage.

***

The year after the Anglo-German Agreement, another major event occurred on the European stage. On July the 24th 1905, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany suddenly, and out of the blue, announced that they had both signed the Treaty of Bjorko, which established a military alliance between the two countries.

This new alliance shook the foundations of the previously established agreements in Europe. For Russia, it went directly against its existing alliance with France. For Germany, it went directly against its existing alliance with Austria-Hungary. Both monarchs had seen fierce resistance from their advisors over the treaty, yet the two nonetheless went ahead with the agreement.

In St. Petersburg, the French Ambassador angrily demanded why the Russians had signed the treaty without consulting France previously. When the Russian Government’s response arrived, the French Ambassador deemed it to be unsatisfactory, and so sent a telegram to Paris, informing the French Government that the Franco-Russian Alliance was effectively dead. So, within a month, the French Parliament voted to terminate its alliance with Russia, and look for new allies.

Meanwhile, a similar dispute was occurring between Germany and Austria-Hungary. The Balkans was fiercely contested between Russia and Austria-Hungary, and so the Austrians believed that the Treaty of Bjorko was a breach of the existing alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary. Like in St. Petersburg, the Austrian Ambassador in Berlin found that the German Government’s response was unsatisfactory.

***

Within a couple of years, the fabric of the European alliances had drastically changed. The UK and Germany, although not allied, had resolved their differences and were now willing to co-operate on the international stage. Meanwhile, Russia and Germany had established a formal alliance, at the expense of their previous alliances with France and Austria-Hungary respectively. Yet the creation of new alliances in Europe was far from done, as, if a new Anglo-German-Russian bloc was to be created, the UK still needed to resolve its differences with Russia. Meanwhile, France and Austria-Hungary were slowly drifting together after losing their previous alliances.

 

[Mustard]

Next time, we'll be returning to the UK for the 1906 general election.

 

[ThatRomanFanatic]

Shit boi someone's going down in WW1 and it ain't the Germans-
*Sees treaty of Bjorko*
Shit boi, someone's going down in WW1 and it ain't the Russians.

 

[Some Bloke]

What happens with Irish Home Rule?