The March of Time - 20th Century History

[Karelian]

Art. V -- His Majesty the Emperor Menelek, King of Kings of Ethiopia, grants His Britannic Majesty’s Government and the Government of the Soudan the right to construct a railway through Abyssinian territory to connect the Soudan with Uganda.

A route for the railway will be settled by mutual agreement between the two High Contracting Parties.

The present Treaty shall come into force as soon as its ratification by His Britannic Majesty shall have been notified to the Emperor of Ethiopia.

In faith of which His Majesty Menelek II, King of Kings of Ethiopia, in his own name, and Lieutenant-Colonel John Lane Harrington, on behalf of His Majesty King Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Sea, Emperor of India, have signed the present Treaty, in duplicate, written in the English and Amharic languages, identically, both texts being official, and have thereto affixed their seals.

Done at Adis Ababa, the 15th day of Many, 1902.

(L.S.) JOHN LANE HARRINGTON, Lieutenant-Colonel

Harrington was just the type of bold and confident imperialist that Joseph Chamberlain liked to work with. Much to the dismay of Lansdowne, who wanted to ponder the general outlook of British foreign policy, Chamberlain cared a lot about how things currently looked like from the viewpoint of the common British voter.

Yes, yes, Mr. Delcassé and Mr. Camille Barrère kept talking, but events in Yunnan and Siam were clearly showing that the French clearly had conflicting colonial ambitions with Britain. Maxse, Strachey and Saunders and the rest of the press barons would have a field day in case the French would secure a railway monopoly in Ethiopia!

Chamberlain talked to Lansdowne, and Lansdowne talked to Harrington. Using the British creditors of the Compagnie Impériale des Chemins de fer d'Éthiopie as middlemen, Harrington met with Leonce Lagarde in Paris in early December 1903.

Initially they seemed to find a common way ahead. The French would control the line to the point it was currently built. The future part of the line would be operated jointly, just like the Baghdad Railway, and Djibouti would become a free port for international trade with Ethiopia. This would prevent King Menelik from playing the two powers against one another.

And to keep both sides honest, they would jointly guarantee the independence of Ethiopia.

Lord Cromer was keenly following the news from Egypt, and soon chimed in - he wanted to include Italy to the bargain. He knew the proposals the Italians had made to Sir James Rennell Rodd, his former second-in-command, who was currently posted to the British Embassy in Rome.
Rennell Rodd had reported that Giacomo Agnesa, head of the colonial section of the Italian foreign service, had approached him with a set of preliminary recommendations for a joint Anglo-Italian policy in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa, with the impression that HM's Government would be willing to negotiate "as Sir Harrington conveyed to us."

Not showing any visible confusion, Rennell Rodd had played along. The final agreement from these discussions was that both sides should publicly be committed to maintaining Ethiopian independence. But, Agnesa had argued, they should also make sure that "any unnamed other power" should not be allowed to jeopardize Italian and British interests in case of a collapse of Ethiopia.

A plan for a joint anti-French policy with Italy the week before, a proposal for cooperation with the French a week later. Harrington liked to bet and plan for several possible outcomes at the same time.

By January 1904 Harrington preferred the first option. He told Lord Cromer that he was willing to do his utmost to defeat the French railway plans. Cromer replied that a railway in Ethiopia would not be worth risking a conflict over.

At the same time governor Lagarde told to the French colonial lobby in Paris that a condominium over the Djibouti railway would negate exclusive French dominance over the food producing hinterland of Ethiopia which he considered essential to the development of the adjacent colony of Djibouti - which he had himself established and led earlier on.

Lagarte knew that the French government had committed public funding to the company, and he urged the Ethiopians to proceed to finish the line without British interference. Meanwhile Joseph Chamberlain had just managed to rally his government to sign the Baghdad Railway deal despite the press war against it, and now could not afford to appear making a similar appeasing move with another competing colonial power right before the looming general election.

 

[Karelian]

By early 1904 the Quai d'Orsay and the Foreign Office were watching with growing despair how a personal power struggle between two men was drawing London and Paris to opposide sides in the question of Ethiopian railways.

Camille Barrère, the French Ambassador to Great Britain, and Lord Cromer in Egypt were both doing their best to secure an agreement. Cromer was appalled that Harrington had used his former contact Rennell Rodd in Rome to conspire with Agnesa, pointing out that they had de facto talked about a military commitment to resist potential French occupation of Ethiopia.

Cromer had clear views regarding the British policy towards Ethiopia. Italians were weaker. Thus they were the preferable option to work with. Fashoda had shown that talking tough with Paris was risky.: "to even hint remotely at the use of force... one has to ask oneself what is the maintenance of British influence in Abyssinia worth? It is worth a diplomatic effort, but it is certainly not worth a war with a first class power."

By now King Menelik made his own move. He issued Ethiopian guidelines for the railway in May 1904, mirroring views of Harrington, who was derailing the French railway project with grim determination. Having already secured a written permission for a competing British railway line, he wanted to make sure that the French could not steal the march from the British like they had done in Indochina and Yunnan.

Back in London, Ambassador Barrère pointed out that British territories already surrounded Ethiopia, and that a railway built largely with funding of the French treasury, was merely a civilizing factor in Ethiopian affairs. At this point Lansdowne stated that HM's Government could not "allow a single Power to retain absolute control of the 'neck of the funnel' of the Ethiopian railway."

And furthermore, Lansdowne concluded, the railway was only one piece of the Ethiopian puzzle, which clearly required a joint agreement between the local colonial powers - an idea of Lord Cromer. From his point of view from Egypt, an agreement with Rome could not be made “without assuming-at all events in appearance and probably in fact--an unfriendly attitude toward France. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to an arrangement with France only, to the exclusion of Italy."

Lansdowne agreed He wrote to Cromer that it would be a mistake to arrange Ethiopian affairs "over or behind the backs of the French." A tripartite settlement would be preferential. Unfortunately for Lansdowne, Sir Harrington would not have it.

 

[Karelian]

While the Foreign Office talked, Harrington kept himself busy. On 11th of April, 1905, Menelik summoned the agents of the British railway creditors to the imperial palace, along with all European diplomatic representatives. The King of Kings of Ethiopia issued a royal ultimatum: The railway would have to be internationalized, or Ethiopia would build the second section itself.

When Sir Harrington spoke next, supporting the scheme, and then accusing the French plan with the attempt of subverting Ethiopian independence, he was physically assaulted by infurious Mr. Lagarde. [1]

Elgin confided to Lord Spencer; “We are not making much progress in Abyssinia-I mistrust Harrington, but the French cannot expect us to ride roughshod over Menelek in order to get them their precious railway."

Lord Spencer finally decided to put Mr. Harrington in line. He concluded that British interests in Abyssinia would be best represented by a different representative.

"Tall, thin, with a good figure, always faultlessly dressed, austere but attractive” - Sir George Russell Clerk certainly looked and acted the part of an old-school British diplomat. He had arrived to Ethiopia in 1903 to discover that his new superior Harrington had not only managed to insult King Menelik, but was also in the midst of a diplomatic feud with both the French and Italian Ambassadors, Léonce Lagarde and Frederico Ciccodicola.

Clerk had three tasks: he should persuade the elderly King Menelik to finally name a heir, to stop the international arms trade emanating from Djibouti, and to finally conclude the southern frontier treaty with Ethiopia. (Unofficially he was also tasked to stop Harrington from doing further damage and to report directly to Elgin himself.)

Elgin had taken the lead in the matter by initiating Informal tripartite negotiations between Barrère, the Italian Ambassador, and British representatives in May 1904.

Barrère tried to bake the railway, spheres of influence, and recognition of Ethiopian independence into a single tripartite agreement. Declassé, always asking a lot early on so that he would have room to back down later, proposed that the tripartite agreement should also include "economic zones" of interest.

The Italians made clear that they looked for a land connection between the Italian Somaliland and their Eritrean holdings. Elgin and Lord Cromer despaired. Italy and France clearly viewed the disintegration of the African empire as a "highly probable contingency", and planned accordingly.

To assure Ethiopian existence as a useful buffer between French and British spheres of interests, Lord Cromer devised a counter-draft: equal treatment for Great Britain and Italy on the line and in Djibouti, a paper concession for the British to build the third section of the railroad from Addis Ababa to the Nile, and the right to negotiate with Ethiopia another railway from British Somaliland, if the British so chose. Delcassé accepted.

The advantage of Cromer's plan that it would cost the British taxpayer nothing, while the concessions for British railroads would keep the French committed to uphold their part of the bargain.

But while the British part of the agreement was acceptable for the French government, the Italian was not. Delcassé stated that the Italian demand for a sovereign territorial link between Italy's East African colonies would cut France off from Addis Ababa (not to mention that it would also block direct territorial expansion in a case of a collapse of Ethiopia.)

He insisted on pushing to the connecting strip west of the Ethiopian capital into the potential British sphere. To this the Italians replied by demanding the right to construct their own railways and insisting on sovereignty for a connecting strip between colonies of Eritrea and Benadir. Knowing that Germany was expressing renewed interest towards the region, Rome dragged the negotiations on with the aim of securing further concessions.

This was the situation in autumn 1905, when the events at the Balkans and Scandinavia turned the attention of European diplomacy away from Ethiopia.

1. This happened in OTL - but in OTL the Entente had just been signed. Here things are still business as usual.

 

[Karelian]

tl;dr - ambitious local diplomats drag the negotiations over the ownership of C.F.E. Djibouti railway and the future of Ethiopia onwards, just as in OTL. In TTL the compromises the Powers have made elsewhere have increased nationalistic opposition at home, and thus limited the chances for the type of diplomatic cooperation. Also note that the OTL tripartite treaty wasn't yet signed at this point of time either.

 

[Xenophonte]

This was the situation in autumn 1905, when the events at the Balkans and Scandinavia turned the attention of European diplomacy away from Ethiopia.

Well, that the Balkans troubles 'd have this effect on the European Powers 'd be foreseeable but not so much about Scandinavia... Looking forward to the next chapter...

 

[Driftless]

A diplomatic can-o-worms, or a can-o-snakes?

 

[Karelian]

Well, that the Balkans troubles 'd have this effect on the European Powers 'd be foreseeable but not so much about Scandinavia... Looking forward to the next chapter...

It is the first war in Europe outside of the Balkans since 1876, and is fought directly next to the major commercial shipping routes of northern Europe.

 

[Karelian]

In December 1905 Harrington presented a harsh memorandum to Emperor Menelik: “L’Abyssinie ne peut maintenir son indépendance qu’à la seule condition qu’elle mette de l’ordre dans ses affaires intérieures.” As a solution, he called for employment of European advisors in the Ethiopian administration and courts.[1]

The Lion of Judah was aware that the Ethiopians could only claim sovereignty in the eyes of Europe by installing a ‘government of the European type’. He began to organize a cabinet of nine ministers, who would each take responsibility for certain parts of the administration. To that list he also included a man who would be king.

Who would it be?

The realm needed a ruler, or another Zemene Mesafint would begin as soon as he died. And the foreign conquerors were apparently just waiting for that to happen like carrion birds. The ones in his court whom he had befriended had warned him about this, and now the French and the British were reportedly negotiating among themselves how to split his realm like they had done for the rest of Africa. He could not allow that.

The ancestral customs dictated that a new King of Kings should preferably be a son from the same family. That would mean Taye Gulilat, the unworthy grandson of his uncle. So no, he would follow the other established tradition and name his own heir.

His daughters were out of the question as well, even though his daughter Zewditu had an influential husband and a lot of ambition of her own. The elder nobility would never submit to his daughters, Menelik thought, and would merely squabble among themselves. His grandson Wosan was sickly and malfigured. Lij Iyasu, his youngest grandson, was still a mere child. None of them would do.

But a large, divided dynasty was both a curse and a blessing.

He had a suitable candidate right at hand. Son of a daughter of Sahle Selassie of Shewa, he was of his dynasty. A man who had appeared to his court as a mere boy had grown into a trustworthy companion. He was just like King himself - a warrior and a diplomat. Whether it had been the task of commanding the center of his army at the battle of Adowa or dealing with the foreigners, he had never left him down.

Besides, Clerk, the more courteous of the British delegates, would keep reminding him about this issue until he made a public declaration.

By late 1906 Menelik II announced to the foreign legates that he had created a government with nine ministers and their respective ministers. The Lion of the Tribe of Judah hath prevailed. King of Kings of Ethiopia, Slave of Christ and Virgin Mary, Elect of God, had organized his rule to resemble that of the European empires. The list of ministers he proclaimed represented a constellation of notable and trustworthy allies, and among them one man stood out. His new designated heir, general Ras Mekonnen Wolde Mikael, Shum of Harar.[2]

1. Earlier than OTL, since the negotiations with France are lagging.
2.. Who has obviously avoided the typhus that killed him in 1906 in OTL.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Oh, the Italians will be overjoyed.

 

[Orcbuster]

we'll see if typhus takes him this time as well.

Edit: nvm

 

[Karelian]

Oh, the Italians will be overjoyed.

Ras Makonnen was the initial go-to-option for Menelik II in OTL. And yes, the Italians are going to take this personally.

 

[Karelian]

"Your money or your life!"

Bread, sugar and tea.
Few things moved the public as much as the daily prices of the everyday goods. These mundane-looking issues became the source of a political earthquake in British politics largely because The Rt Hon Joseph Chamberlain decided they were a new popular issue worth to fight for. Some sort of discussions of commercial policy were more or less unavoidable during a period popular distress caused by the economic stagnation and trade depression that had set in in 1901.

But it was Chamberlain who fanned these small sparks into a roaring wildfire. Why?

His caucus was discontent as the decline of trade was hurting Birmingham and the surrounding parts of England. The staggering costs of the Boer War had made the government look bad in the eyes of the public, while also tarnishing the British prestige abroad. The public appetite for imperialism seemed to be on the vane, much to the chagrin of Chamberlain, one of its most ardent proponents.

At the same time the recent Colonial Conference (held in June 1902 and called by Mr. Chamberlain himself) had shown that even potential allies and serious proponents of closer Imperial ties, like Deakin of Australia, had expressed dissent towards the seemingly timid way the Colonial Office had been running the show lately in the Pacific region.

And it was true - the foreign policy situation was murky, and so far Chamberlain had little to show for his grand plans of salvaging the international status of British prestige and British interests.

Domestic issues were also causing trouble. The Education Bill had not been a success among the vitally important nonconformist voters, and this has hurt Chamberlain personally, because he viewed himself as a social reformer.

As the dominating political figure to provoke and direct the discussions, he eagerly pushed protectionism and free trade to the center of British political arena.

As soon as he new inhabitant of Number 10 had formed his government, he showed how determined he was to fight for the political views he had expressed earlier. The Brussels Sugar Convention, held in March 1902, had already received stark criticism from Chamberlain, who had held a blistering speech against the current state of British foreign trade in May. Now, as the new Prime Minister, he immediately set the tone of British domestic politics for the following years.

The final push towards his new political direction came from Canada. On August 31st, 1902, when Mr. Chamberlain had been in office for less then a month, he received a visitor at Highbury, his home near Birmingham.

The Canadian minister of finance announced that the position of Mr. Chamberlain at the Conference just a few weeks before had led to some discussions. The Canadian government was now prepared to grant British exports more generous treatment - in return for the much-desired exemption of Canadian grain from the Corn Duty.

This would be a radical change of course. Turning "whole-hogger" in favour of imperial protectionism and against international free trade would split the party. Mr. Ritchie and the Duke of Devonshire would cross the floor, taking an unknown number (57 Unionists, as it turned out) of MPs with them.

But in return Chamberlain would energize his support base and have a chance to fight on with all the advantages of a new and attractive issue. The temptation proved to be too great, and Joseph Chamberlain opted to ride out to battle.

 

[Karelian]

From the start of his term, Chamberlain was thus pressing ahead with a protectionist agenda with full steam. He lost some old allies by doing so, including one of his oldest brothers-in-arms, the Conservative leader, Lord President of the Council, Duke of Devonshire. But his government still had majority, and Chamberlain gradually managed to convince the remaining party of his vision.

Balfour, for example, regretted the loss of party unity, but nevertheless viewed fiscal reform as necessary, although personally he had no passions for either camp and he merely cared about the survival of the party. Chamberlain, while admitting that Balfour was right in his criticism that he had indeed alarmed the public and that the opposition was now trying to paint the government as taxers of food, merely felt that he had to persuade the masses and educate them about his views first. [1]

He started his campaign with a spectacle. The Bingley Hall speech of December 1902[2] was one for the history books. He had attracted a 10,000-strong crowd, and his message shocked Britain.

In short: Free trade as it was was a rigged game, and the British taxpayers were paying the bill. Chamberlain laid out a philippic: “Agriculture as the greatest of all trades and industries...has been practically destroyed, sugar has gone, silk is gone, iron is threatened, wool is threatened, cotton will go. How long are you going to stand it?!”

His speech culminated to a memorable scene: the new Prime Minister stood up, holding up two loaves, one baked with ingredients with "free trade" prices and other with "tariff reform" prices. He jokingly asked the audience to determine which one was larger.

Turning a complex domestic and foreign policy issue into a debate about the size of bread loaves was a move that led to fierce press debates about the actual sizes of the loaves in question, but it also helped to contextualize the issue among the voters.

The Unionist Victory at the Khaki Election had, in the mind of Chamberlain, proven that he could mobilize the country behind a catchy imperialist slogan and thus implement his political vision.

While the colonies had rejected his vision of a Council of the Empire at the recent conference, he had secured a resolution in favour of some form of Imperial Preference. His new government had made it known that total exemptions or reductions of current future duties would grant preferential treatment to colonial agricultural products and manufacturers.

Chamberlain made it to be known that he very much wanted to make this the main issue of the next General Election. Afterwards another Colonial Conference would be called, and there the colonies would give England mutually beneficial terms in return of Imperial Preference. Also, a tax on food would be necessary. But the common people had no reason to worry at all, for they would be compensated by old-age pensions, extra wages and other social reforms.

He was committed for dissolution right off the bat, but settled for a plan to call for new elections after two months of campaigning [3]. The Fiscal Fight had begun.

1. In OTL PM Balfour allowed Chamberlain to become a pioneer of this issue, vaguely promising him support later on if public interest Chamberlain promised would materialize. Here he opts to stay on board instead of jumping ship but has no strong feelings, one way or the other.
2. He is roughly a year early from his OTL speech.
3. As he wanted to do in OTL after picking up the idea and departing from the party line. Here, as the PM, he is free to implement his preferred electoral strategy.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

The knight saddles his horse, puts on his armor and picks up his lance.

This time, the windmill is sure to fall.

 

[Karelian]

The knight saddles his horse, puts on his armor and picks up his lance.

This time, the windmill is sure to fall.

Ah, how the cartoonists loved him.
Also, special thanks for @SenatorChickpea for the help he has provided with this topic.
Furthermore: If anyone else has any kind of expertise about British elections between 1900 and 1907, by all means PM me.

 

[Karelian]

After announcing his plans for the next election in public, PM Chamberlain informed his cabinet that in order to get Berlin to back down in the Canadian wheat issue, Britain had to stand fast against any and all German threats of retaliatory protectionist tariffs by immediately responding with similar measures.

This stance took Chamberlain well beyond what the Unionist alliance, Civil Service, the press and many members of his own Cabinet were willing to tolerate.

An organized resistance funded by powerful commercial and financial interests started to sponsor Unionist “free-traders” who were determined to resist his policies to the end. The government majority of 134 from the Khaki elections had taken a major hit with the departure of these 57 free-traders, led by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir John Gorst, and Major Seeley.

Chamberlain proceeded to utilize his party machinery connections, creating a secret group of 12 men with the purpose of clearing the parliament of free-trade Unionists, making sure that the remaining Unionist MPs supported him.

Just like their Unionist colleagues, the free traders in the Conservative Party balked at the thought of immediate implementation of protectionist measures.

Ultimately Balfour managed to get his ducks in a row. He talked about the temporary and retaliatory nature of the proposed measures, rationalizing the moves Chamberlain saw as stepping stones towards protectionism in a completely different manner than the Prime Minister himself.

Ultimately the financial realities trumped all other arguments. Balfour, who would have preferred to wait for referendum before implementing such legislation, was ultimately able to reach a compromise by calling for reductions that aimed to balance the costs for the average household.

The final list of fiscal policy changes was set to 3/2 - ratio:

• Two-shilling duty on foreign wheat, imperially preferential duty on flour
• 5% tariffs on foreign meat (except bacon) and dairy products
• 10% duty on foreign manufactured goods
• Reduction of three-fourths of the duty on tea
• Reduction of half of the duty of sugar, coffee and cocoa[1]

From Glasgow to London Guildhall and from October 1903 to January 1904, Chamberlain toured the country. By now the Conservative press was eating from his hand, and most of the younger Unionist M.P.s had been converted into fully committed whole-hoggers, with Bonar Law rising to a position of one of his major apostles. The mood at his rallies was jubilant and defiant.

But a campaign that had begun as a call for Zollverein for the sake of unity of the British Empire had changed on the trail. His message begun to focus more and more to domestic issues, and the future of British society at large:
“Plenty of employment and contented people go together, and there is no way of securing plenty of employment except by creating new markets and developing the old ones. It is only in such developments that I see any solution to the social problem with which we are surrounded."

One day, the 10 million overseas subject population of the United Kingdom would grow to match the 40 million-strong population at home, Chamberlain declared. What would prevent them from breaking away from the Empire as independent nations?

What would continue the affectionate, intimate and close bonds to the mother country? Trade and commerce were the salvation of the Empire against the threat of disintegration, but that required Great Britain to favour its colonies through the Imperial Preference. The greatest common obligation of Britain and her colonies was imperial defence, and their greatest mutual interest was imperial trade. The two were one and the same, for “protection of imperial trade is only another name for imperial defence.”

But as Chamberlain kept waving the flag and talking about imperial issues, Herbert Asquith kept talking about the cost of the daily bread.

1: The OTL Balfour compromise proposal from 1906. I reasoned this is the limit of what Balfour would be willing to offer to Chamberlain without outright splitting his party.

 

[LordCalner]

Well done Karelian!

 

[Karelian]

The fiscal challenge posed by Chamberlain energized the Liberal Party like no other issue before it. The disagreements about Home Rule and foreign policy were suddenly secondary - at least for the time being - when compared to the holy creed of free trade.

The Prime Minister found himself hounded by Herbert Asquith, who went to his own grand tour by visiting every locality Chamberlain had held a public event half a week after the Prime Minister did. His message was adamantly clear, and had only one main topic: food.

Everywhere he went, Asquith had only one main topic: bread.
Chamberlain would raise the cost of the “dear loaf” with his policies.

In addition to his simple maxim, Asquith also provided a more detailed argument. Several million pounds worth of extra spending that Chamberlain was promising as compensation would require considerable tariffs.

Preferential tariffs would reorient trade towards colonial markets, thus decreasing revenues from other sources. Chamberlain retorted that the whole cost of the tariffs could be split up to proportionate decreases in the cost of other articles that would become tariff-free.

This two-man show got personal really quickly. Chamberlain dismissed Asquith as a lawyer with no business experience. Asquith mocked Chamberlain as a businessman with no knowledge of economics, and was certain to point out every intellectual error or factual error Chamberlain had made in his arguments.

All arithmetic arguments aside, Prime Minister Joseph Chamberlain simply refused to see that the people did not wish a tax on food. At the end of the day the average voter did not care about the imperial system bound together by trade connections enough when he had to weigh it against the daily cost of bread.

But he had such grand plans for the future of British society. Lacking funds to realize them immediately, Chamberlain sought economic benefits from the only source he had deemed worthy of his efforts.

He was in a rush. The large crowds at this rallies and the praise from the Conservative press blinded his previously so accurate political vision. The populist mass appeal he had hoped for seemed to be there again. The whole country was talking about him. Adamantly confident of his political skills to the last moment, Joseph Chamberlain refused to let his dazzling idea go.

Duke of Devonshire summarized the crux of the matter: millions of people in Britain were depending on current free trade prices to survive. The lean years of 1840s were still in living memory, and the Liberal campaign machine rolled out to attack the government with a slogan that resonated well among the voters. Chamberlain drove full steam ahead to meet them at the polls.

 

[Karelian]

Britain went to the polls in the situation where the political journalists and the Conservative press in general loved Joseph Chamberlain and expressed keen interest towards his ideas. But when compared to the Liberal main theme, the cost of food, his message failed to convince the common voters enough.

Diverse groups from trade unionists to businessmen working in the struggling export industries could have potentially been converted to the Whole-Hogger credo, but in practice a radically new course was deemed too controversial. Joe had correctly noticed that people were yearning for a change - but the vision proposed by Joseph Chamberlain in February 1904 was not what the majority of them searched for.

Attempts to gain support by threatening the public with the dangers of Liberal-imposed "Home Rule all round" and reduction of military strength were more of a tactic to sow dissent to the ranks of the Liberal Imperialists and the Radical wing of the party.

Chamberlain had dodged many political pitfalls along his way to this general election. He had created new splits among both the Liberal Unionist and Conservative ranks while doing so, but had regardless rallied the remaining majority around a common political goal. He had done a great deal to distance the government from at least part of the blame from the long and bitter "Joe's War" fought against the Boers. He had vetoed the High Commissioner Lord Alfred Milner's proposal of importing Chinese coolies for the South African gold mines, and had done everything in his power to secure the widest possible interpretation of “Local Option” in the Education Act of 1902.[1]

And yet the outcome had never been in doubt.

Two decades of Tory rule had been enough for the nonparty voters looking for something new. Imperial questions and achievements of foreign policy emphasized by Chamberlain himself and the Unionists in general were naturally appealing for many middle-class voters - but ultimately less important than the daily cost of bread.

Chamberlain had managed to unify the Whole-Hoggers among Conservatives and Liberal Unionists - but he soon found out that opposition to his policies had been enough to force the different factions of the Liberal Party to together against him. No matter how much the Liberal Imperialists would agree with the type of jingoist imperialism Chamberlain represented in British foreign policy, they were still unified with the rest of their party on free trade.

The Liberal victory in the 1904 United Kingdom general election was clear. With a majority of 42* seats, they were in a familiar Liberal position: they had gained the mandate to govern, but would have to rely upon the Irish Parliamentary Party for support.[2] Many others would have balked from this challenge, but the Liberal leadership was jubilant. Finally their journey in the political wilderness was over.

The Liberals, led by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman - that slandering, defeatist, unpatriotic, anti-imperialist pro-Boer - were now facing a task of forming the new government. Chamberlain was unfazed. His radical campaign had merely been a bit too short - this time. John Bull would need to be convinced further, but would come around at the end.

The party he led to the opposition had less representatives than before the election - but at the same time it had been effectively purged from the Liberal Unionist free traders, and was now fully committed to the idea of Imperial Preference. The Liberals would soon prove themselves totally unsuited to conduct foreign policy or solve the pivotal social questions of the day. His vision would be proven right. It was only a question of time.

And besides, it was all fine and dandy to control the Commons - but Chamberlain would make sure that legislation that conflicted with his views would get a harsh rejection from the House of Lords. Things were firmly under control.

1: Chamberlain was aware of the public mood and vetoed the idea of using the Chinese coolies in OTL, and it was only put into effect after he left the Colonial Office in 1903. TTL he avoids this debacle. His opponents used his OTL accident and hospitalization to remove the Local Option from the OTL Education Act of 1902, so the loss of Non-Conformist vote is also less severe than OTL.
2: Feel free to correct me here for a more likely number. My view on the matter:
Two decades of Toryism was too much for the British electorate in 1906 in OTL, and they'd want to give the Liberals a chance in 1904 TTL as well.
A more unified government, earlier election, less disastrous record in foreign policy and lack of CB interim administration means that the historical landslide is avoided - but the Liberals still clearly win. @SenatorChickpea and @ShortsBelfast helped me to estimate the outcome, and I wish to thank them both for their ideas and feedback. If anyone else is familiar with the finer details of the British electoral system, I'd happily fine-tune the actual results. Here are the historical results for comparison:

 

[Ombra]

I love this TL so much.

And just in case we needed more corroborating evidence that fin de siecle is eerily similar to the present: not only does the bread loaves stunt look like something out of a contemporary, "the wells are poisoned" election campaign, but the newspapers' reactions basically look like memers shitposting on social media. Incredible.