Happy birthday, Mumby!
Thank you. I feel weirdly old now that I'm 19. Anyway, don't take away attention from Roem's fine TL!
"Use Your Loaf!"
- Thread starter Lord Roem
- Start date
- Status
Thank you. I feel weirdly old now that I'm 19. Anyway, don't take away attention from Roem's fine TL!
Thank you. I feel weirdly old now that I'm 19. Anyway, don't take away attention from Roem's fine TL!
Don't worry, your 20th birthday will feel much older
Thank you. I feel weirdly old now that I'm 19. Anyway, don't take away attention from Roem's fine TL!
Don't worry, your 20th birthday will feel much older
Wait til you hit your 30s
Thank you. I feel weirdly old now that I'm 19. Anyway, don't take away attention from Roem's fine TL!
Don't worry, your 20th birthday will feel much older
Wait til you hit your 30s
On the other hand, once you get to your 40s, you'll be OK with it again.
Chapter XII
“The pluck of Lord Nelson on board of the Victory and genius of Bismarck devising a plan
The humour of Fielding (which sounds contradictory) with coolness of Paget about to trepan”
-------------------------------
Taken at the signing of the New Reinsurance Treaty on 3rd November 1888, this photograph shows Prince Andrey Lieven with Chancellor Bismarck at Charlottenburg.
“An understanding had developed within the Bourgeois establishment that the monarchists no longer posed a serious threat to the Republic. In a speech at Le Havre in 1883, Jules Ferry had stated that “the Royalist threat no longer exists, it is buried in two tombs” in reference to the death of the heirless Legitimist pretender, the Comte de Chambord the fact that Napoleon III’s son, the Prince Imperial, had been killed by the Zulus whilst serving in the British Army. Although Ferry continued to warn of the threat from a potential coalition of the right, the constitutional convention that any government had to count on the majority support of a republican majority, which allowed a view to persist that the Republic’s security was assured in the absence of any vocal opposition. In part, this was aided by a policy of political decentralisation that had been set-up following the fall of the Second Empire. Although conservatives warned of the example of the Paris Commune, republican sweeps in the municipal elections of the '70s and '80s proved that most civic leaders were not the Deep Red Revolutionaries that they were assumed to be. In his first speech as President, de Freycinet praised the example set by the Mayors, holding a grand dinner for 12,000 of them to celebrate their efforts. The gala was so large that it had to be hosted in tents, which occupied almost four acres of the Tuileries Gardens. Despite this, Mayors occupied the bottom rung of a hierarchy that led from village council to the Élysée, with the potential for a handful of radicals to make their way up the ladder, bypassing the weary commentators fixated purely on the composition of Parliament.”
-From “A New History of France” by Thomas Gildea, Cambridge University Press 1988
“The first edition of "L'Action nationale" launched with little fanfare, being just one of a hundred reactionary newspapers that existed, Mayfly-like, in the heated climate of Third Republic Paris. The opening editorial, written by Barrès , did little to make the publication notable in any way, and without the financial assistance of Rochefort-Luçay, it seems unlikely that the journal would have lasted beyond the inaugural year. In spite of this, the Marquis’ steadfastness served Maurras well, and by the end of 1888, "L'Action"had begun to break even, aided by the aforementioned unpopularity of the Moderate Republicans in the following both the “Wilson Scandal” and the anger from many conservatives, who had lost their Caesar with the death of General Boulanger.
"L’Action nationale" had an overtly revanchist tone that sat well to the right of Rochefort-Luçay’s more mainstream paper, “L'Intransigeant", which had started out aligned to the centre-left before moving rightwards during the height of Boulangermania. Maurras had little time to appeal to this lower-middle class demographic, focusing almost entirely upon the intelligentsia. Although his first editorials represent an interesting contrast with later publications, given their focus upon upholding principles of decentralisation (forgetting, obviously, the the Carpets and Bourbons deserve the most credit for turning a dozen feuding Duchies into a viable nation state) this is still one of his 'trois idees politiques' that were stated almost a decade before the titular pamphlet was published. The first years of “L’Actions nationale” arguably represent Maurras’ most creative period, with a depth of searing criticism that his later polemics would not quite reach.”
-From ‘The Politics of Newspaper Ownership in the French Third Republic’ in “Studies in Nineteenth Century Politics” by Martial Lamontagne, La Follette University of Wisconsin-Madison 2002
“The traditional relationship between Chancellor and King-Emperor of Prussia was inverted during Bismarck's generation-long tenure. Generally, it was always he who held the upper hand with regards to foreign policy. Whilst William I was not a shrinking violet as far as domestic matters were concerned, he could quite easily be bullied, cajoled or browbeaten into submission by the Chancellery. In opposing both the war against Austria as well as Bismarck’s political campaigns against the Catholics, he had annoyed Bismarck. When such disagreements occurred, William rarely voiced them openly, but on the handful of times when he did, the Chancellor was ferocious, unleashing a trident of tears, rages and threats of resignation. The Kaiser found this intolerable, prompting his famous aphorism that “It is hard being Emperor under Bismarck.” This was not purely self-deprecation, he was prompted on another occasion to note that “The Chancellor is simply more important than I am.”
Bismarck’s dominance of Berlin’s political life, both as a political manager and a figure of national unification, was to delay the transformation of the Prussian Crown into an Imperial one by at least thirty years. William I was a patrician and hugely respected monarch, but he had been in his mid-seventies when the Reich was proclaimed and never quite moved out of his previous mindset as King of Prussia. His ferocious whiskers and gravitas masked a insular nature and he rarely made public appearance or journeyed outside his old territory even after being proclaimed Emperor at Versailles in 1871. Although the most powerful monarch in Continental Europe, he retained the thrifty habits of his youth, eschewing the installation of install hot water in his Berlin palace on the grounds of cost, drawing lines on whisky bottles to prevent court servants from surreptitious tippling and refusing to pay for new uniforms for the Gardes du Corps unless they had been darned at least three times. He even refrained from installing rubber tires on the Imperial State-Coach, viewing them as an unnecessary extravagance. As Emperor, William considered himself to be the representative for Prussian simplicity, going against Bismarck’s desires for a grand portrayal of Imperial might. Even after his death the Dowager Crown Princess, Auguste-Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg, lost her husband’s spendthrift indulgences on dresses, jewellery and dieting advice, which in many ways can be seen as the first example of a “media monarchy” within the European Courts.”
-From “Bismarck” by Jules Haversham, Loughton 2002
“Notwithstanding the customary Prussian scepticism for free-trade, the rise of the Social Democrats had naturally led to growing demands amongst the Reich’s elite for colonial acquisitions, who viewed them as a useful foil against the problems associated with economic recession and popular calls for political liberalisation. Although moderates in the government had vetoed any monetary assistance to the struggling trading company in Samoa in 1880, by the end of the decade, a number of National Liberals, including the future Chancellor Helmut von Gerlach, had joined the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft (German Colonial Society) which aggressively promoted the Imperialist cause. As a means of consolidating his position, the Chancellor associated himself with this movement prior to the elections of 1884, and had, against his natural inclinations, entangled himself in the wranglings over the new territory of Lüderitzbucht in South West Africa. This caused a minor political dust-up with Whitehall when Cecil Rhodes expressed his anger at the new Portuguese-German Axis. Relations warmed only after the Chancellor swiftly despatched his son, who was acquainted with a number of senior figures including Lord Rosebery, to defuse the situation. An early source of disgruntlement between the two industrial powers in Europe was narrowly avoided, although it would be the best part of a decade before the issue was entirely resolved.
After successfully defending the conservative majority in the Reichstag, colonial ambitions hardly factored into Bismarck's final decade of leadership, preferring instead to focus on domestic means of ensuring a stable continuation of power. A month after settling the new Reinsurance Treaty with Russia, a wealthy young adventurer visited his office in Berlin, rolling out a map of Central Africa and started excitedly talking about the excellent potential for exploiting the diamond mines there. The Chancellor looked at him for a moment before responding, much to the aristocrat’s consternation, that “my map of Africa lies in Europe. Here is Russia and here is France with Germany in the middle; that is my map of Africa.” For the next decade, it was this view that would dominate Berlin’s foreign policy, especially as London moved away from continental isolationism.
-From “For Blood and Iron: Anglo-German Relations 1871-1943” by Julia Villiers, MIPS Press 2009
“The importance of the renewal of the Reinsurance Treaty has been overstated. However, it is not hard to understand why, given the circumstances that led to the rapprochement of the Continental Alliance in 1888. Relations between Germany and Russia had become strained throughout the late-1870s, not helped by an increasingly chauvinist press based in Moscow. Anti-German sentiments had grown increasingly vocal ever since the Serbo-Bulgarian conflict of 1885, which had dissolved the Dreikaiserbund and also led to a perception amongst the Slavophiles in the Tsar’s Court that Germany had a “divide and rule” attitude to the Balkans. German anger was more economic than ideological, mainly concerned with opposition to any financing of the Russian railway-building program. The actual terms of the clandestine pact, which enforced neutrality with the proviso that Russia did not attack Austria, nor Germany France, was seen by senior figures as being too convoluted, with both Caprivi and Friedrich von Holstein feeling that it only served to complicate matters. Prior to his assassination, even the Crown Prince William made it clear to Bismarck that he considered the treaty of only secondary importance to his personal relationship with Alexander III.
Yet it was the secrecy of the Treaty that ultimately saved it from cancellation. Alexander’s foreign minister, Nikolay Girs, was moved to the Treasury in September and replaced by Andrey Lieven. Lieven, a Baltic nobleman, was keen to renegotiate the substance of the matter rather than risk losing it entirely. The Tsar’s Germanophobia has been prone to hyperbole by many historians, but both Bismarck and Frederick III were well aware of the shift against the Westernisers in Petersburg and were keen to ensure that the war scare with France following the Strassburg Tragedy did not escalate into a general European conflict. To his credit, Alexander III was also acutely aware of the problems that would be associated with a further decline in foreign relations and instructed Lieven to consult with Berlin at the earliest convenience. Shortly afterwards, the newly installed foreign minister made his first visit abroad, arriving in Berlin in early November. Lieven and Bismarck, much the surprise of Prince Heinrich, immediately found common ground with regards to renegotiation, with Lieven reporting in his diary that “the Chancellor seems as irritated by the zealots within his own Parliament as I do with the High Pochvennichestvo” (the ultra-nativists that represented the most ardent Slavophiles.) Matters were concluded far quicker than the original Treaty had been, with Lieven agreeing to extend the expiration date by a further three years after the originally agreed date of 1890 and to end overtures towards Paris. Bismarck meanwhile agreed to further tolerate Russian ambitions towards the Bosphorus.”
-From “The Three Empires: Russia, Germany , Austria-Hungary and the Making of Europe” by Paul Davies, Brent 1960
“Several years of poor harvests and the Emir’s forced population transfers had contributed to a rebellious attitude within the Northern Provinces of Afghanistan by the summer of 1888. Having already subdued one family member, Sardar Ayub Khan, for control of Kandahar and Herat in 1881, it was of little surprise to Abdur Rahman when another cousin, Mohammad Is'hak, did likewise. The Emir was typically candid when he heard the news, noting his oft-repeated qip that “only a harem deserve a bed of roses.” Rahman left Kabul at the head of his newly modernised army on September 18th, reaching the Oxus six weeks later, before moving east towards the mountainous hinterland. However, the late start to the campaign had presented an advantage to Is’hak’s forces, who refused to be drawn into open battle in the valleys of the Hindu Kush. The Emir’s forces were harried continuously from this point, prompting Rahman to winter in the city of Baghlan.
Any student of this period would be well-served by reading Matthew Arnold’s 1853 poem, "Sohrab and Rustum", particularly the imagery associated with the Afghan wilderness,
-From “Shadowboxing Giants: A Study of Anglo-Russian Antagonism in Central Asia” by Edward Holst, North Star Press 1973
“The 1888 Presidential Election was held on Tuesday 6th November, pitting the incumbent Grover Cleveland against his Republican challenger John Sherman in one of the closest fights in history. The President faced only token opposition at the Democratic Convention in Chicago's newly-rebuilt "Wigwam” Centre, with most excitement coming from the nomination of the Vice-Presidential candidate to replace Thomas A. Hendricks, who had died in office early in the term. Illinois native and Pensions Commissioner John C. Black was eventually selected as Cleveland’s running mate.
The Republican Convention in Cincinnati was more fractured, with former Indiana Senator Benjamin Harrison challenging the favourite, John Sherman of Ohio. Although Sherman led on the first ballot, his advantage was whittled away during subsequent rounds, aided by alleged “vote buying” by the former Governor of Michigan, Russell Alger. A subsequent outcry from a number of Southern delegates reversed this, allowing Sherman to regain his lead, triumphing on the sixth ballot. The Vice-Presidential vote was less controversial, with former Secretary of the Treasury Walter Q. Gresham comfortably nominated.
Just as with the previous election, the result was very close, with Cleveland squeaking ahead in the nationwide results by 50,000 votes. The Republicans had prepared their candidate well, and Sherman’s strong reputation as an anti-Monopoly campaigner was sufficient in defeating the Democratic Tammany Hall Machine in New York. Despite his numerical victory amongst the electorate, the loss of New York state swung the Electoral College in favour of the Sherman-Gresham ticket, who triumphed 239 to 162.”
-From “American History from Grant to Munsey” by William Keble, Merlin 2004
“By the mid-1880s, the Meiji Regime was in a state of flux. Liberals looked towards Britain, whilst the Prussian-inspired nationalists such as Katsura Tarō took the view that military strength had to take absolute precedence over economic development. In February, he met with Yamagata Aritomo, then serving as Home Secretary, in order to discuss matters relating to the future of the armed forces given the Emperor’s demands for fiscal prudence. Katsura naturally adopted the view that the overall strength of the army was a guarantor of national unity. Only two years before, the Generals Miura and Soga had been relieved of their command, in the face of unprecedented attacks by the militarists, leading to army reform that was dictated by the efforts of the so-called “Kodama Committee,” dominated by Katsura, with Major Meckel advising his actions as they directly affected the infantry. In May 1885, army garrisons had been reorganised into brigades consisting of two infantry regiments, which were further expanded into seven integrated divisions by the summer of 1888. The establishment of such a system allowed for the Imperial Army to conduct itself autonomously whilst overseas, thereby allowing regime to extend Japan’s influence onto the Asian mainland whilst forgoing the communication difficulties that had plagued earlier attempts.
In order to improve troop morale, which had been the victim of explosive growth in draft avoidance for the entire decade, rising from approximately 3.5% to nearly 10% between 1880 to 1887, Katsura had the law tightened in June 1888, which narrowed the range of exemptions for agricultural work, meaning that all males between seventeen and forty were liable for military service. Indeed, Meiji Japan entered the era of Constitutional Government, in a way that allowed the General to forcibly purge the entire Getsuyokai (Monday Club). That month, he proposed all army study groups be merged under one umbrella that allowed for Kodama and his allies within the officer corps to quit the Getsuyokai. Well over five-hundred complied. In an audacious move, he even lobbied the Minister for Foreign Affairs to move his rival, Major-General Horie Yoshisuke, into the reserves and sent as a military attaché to London. By November, six of the seven divisional commanders within the army addressed a letter to the Minister for War, Ōyama Iwao, insisting the Getsuyokai be merged with the overall army society, the Kaikosha. By happenstance, Katsura happened to be Patron of this organisation, and thereby seemed to be close to assuming overall ideological control of the entire Army. However, he had moved too fast to remove all threats to his position. An unofficial “Getsuyokai-in-Exile” was covertly formed under Tani Tateki, who used his position within in the House of Peers to demand a more conservatively-minded defence policy, placing wealth creation above expansionism.”
-From “Meiji to Shikibun: Japan and the Quest for Modernity” by Helga McGregor-Moore, Loughton 1974
“The pluck of Lord Nelson on board of the Victory and genius of Bismarck devising a plan
The humour of Fielding (which sounds contradictory) with coolness of Paget about to trepan”
-------------------------------
Taken at the signing of the New Reinsurance Treaty on 3rd November 1888, this photograph shows Prince Andrey Lieven with Chancellor Bismarck at Charlottenburg.
“An understanding had developed within the Bourgeois establishment that the monarchists no longer posed a serious threat to the Republic. In a speech at Le Havre in 1883, Jules Ferry had stated that “the Royalist threat no longer exists, it is buried in two tombs” in reference to the death of the heirless Legitimist pretender, the Comte de Chambord the fact that Napoleon III’s son, the Prince Imperial, had been killed by the Zulus whilst serving in the British Army. Although Ferry continued to warn of the threat from a potential coalition of the right, the constitutional convention that any government had to count on the majority support of a republican majority, which allowed a view to persist that the Republic’s security was assured in the absence of any vocal opposition. In part, this was aided by a policy of political decentralisation that had been set-up following the fall of the Second Empire. Although conservatives warned of the example of the Paris Commune, republican sweeps in the municipal elections of the '70s and '80s proved that most civic leaders were not the Deep Red Revolutionaries that they were assumed to be. In his first speech as President, de Freycinet praised the example set by the Mayors, holding a grand dinner for 12,000 of them to celebrate their efforts. The gala was so large that it had to be hosted in tents, which occupied almost four acres of the Tuileries Gardens. Despite this, Mayors occupied the bottom rung of a hierarchy that led from village council to the Élysée, with the potential for a handful of radicals to make their way up the ladder, bypassing the weary commentators fixated purely on the composition of Parliament.”
-From “A New History of France” by Thomas Gildea, Cambridge University Press 1988
“The first edition of "L'Action nationale" launched with little fanfare, being just one of a hundred reactionary newspapers that existed, Mayfly-like, in the heated climate of Third Republic Paris. The opening editorial, written by Barrès , did little to make the publication notable in any way, and without the financial assistance of Rochefort-Luçay, it seems unlikely that the journal would have lasted beyond the inaugural year. In spite of this, the Marquis’ steadfastness served Maurras well, and by the end of 1888, "L'Action"had begun to break even, aided by the aforementioned unpopularity of the Moderate Republicans in the following both the “Wilson Scandal” and the anger from many conservatives, who had lost their Caesar with the death of General Boulanger.
"L’Action nationale" had an overtly revanchist tone that sat well to the right of Rochefort-Luçay’s more mainstream paper, “L'Intransigeant", which had started out aligned to the centre-left before moving rightwards during the height of Boulangermania. Maurras had little time to appeal to this lower-middle class demographic, focusing almost entirely upon the intelligentsia. Although his first editorials represent an interesting contrast with later publications, given their focus upon upholding principles of decentralisation (forgetting, obviously, the the Carpets and Bourbons deserve the most credit for turning a dozen feuding Duchies into a viable nation state) this is still one of his 'trois idees politiques' that were stated almost a decade before the titular pamphlet was published. The first years of “L’Actions nationale” arguably represent Maurras’ most creative period, with a depth of searing criticism that his later polemics would not quite reach.”
-From ‘The Politics of Newspaper Ownership in the French Third Republic’ in “Studies in Nineteenth Century Politics” by Martial Lamontagne, La Follette University of Wisconsin-Madison 2002
“The traditional relationship between Chancellor and King-Emperor of Prussia was inverted during Bismarck's generation-long tenure. Generally, it was always he who held the upper hand with regards to foreign policy. Whilst William I was not a shrinking violet as far as domestic matters were concerned, he could quite easily be bullied, cajoled or browbeaten into submission by the Chancellery. In opposing both the war against Austria as well as Bismarck’s political campaigns against the Catholics, he had annoyed Bismarck. When such disagreements occurred, William rarely voiced them openly, but on the handful of times when he did, the Chancellor was ferocious, unleashing a trident of tears, rages and threats of resignation. The Kaiser found this intolerable, prompting his famous aphorism that “It is hard being Emperor under Bismarck.” This was not purely self-deprecation, he was prompted on another occasion to note that “The Chancellor is simply more important than I am.”
Bismarck’s dominance of Berlin’s political life, both as a political manager and a figure of national unification, was to delay the transformation of the Prussian Crown into an Imperial one by at least thirty years. William I was a patrician and hugely respected monarch, but he had been in his mid-seventies when the Reich was proclaimed and never quite moved out of his previous mindset as King of Prussia. His ferocious whiskers and gravitas masked a insular nature and he rarely made public appearance or journeyed outside his old territory even after being proclaimed Emperor at Versailles in 1871. Although the most powerful monarch in Continental Europe, he retained the thrifty habits of his youth, eschewing the installation of install hot water in his Berlin palace on the grounds of cost, drawing lines on whisky bottles to prevent court servants from surreptitious tippling and refusing to pay for new uniforms for the Gardes du Corps unless they had been darned at least three times. He even refrained from installing rubber tires on the Imperial State-Coach, viewing them as an unnecessary extravagance. As Emperor, William considered himself to be the representative for Prussian simplicity, going against Bismarck’s desires for a grand portrayal of Imperial might. Even after his death the Dowager Crown Princess, Auguste-Viktoria of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg, lost her husband’s spendthrift indulgences on dresses, jewellery and dieting advice, which in many ways can be seen as the first example of a “media monarchy” within the European Courts.”
-From “Bismarck” by Jules Haversham, Loughton 2002
“Notwithstanding the customary Prussian scepticism for free-trade, the rise of the Social Democrats had naturally led to growing demands amongst the Reich’s elite for colonial acquisitions, who viewed them as a useful foil against the problems associated with economic recession and popular calls for political liberalisation. Although moderates in the government had vetoed any monetary assistance to the struggling trading company in Samoa in 1880, by the end of the decade, a number of National Liberals, including the future Chancellor Helmut von Gerlach, had joined the Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft (German Colonial Society) which aggressively promoted the Imperialist cause. As a means of consolidating his position, the Chancellor associated himself with this movement prior to the elections of 1884, and had, against his natural inclinations, entangled himself in the wranglings over the new territory of Lüderitzbucht in South West Africa. This caused a minor political dust-up with Whitehall when Cecil Rhodes expressed his anger at the new Portuguese-German Axis. Relations warmed only after the Chancellor swiftly despatched his son, who was acquainted with a number of senior figures including Lord Rosebery, to defuse the situation. An early source of disgruntlement between the two industrial powers in Europe was narrowly avoided, although it would be the best part of a decade before the issue was entirely resolved.
After successfully defending the conservative majority in the Reichstag, colonial ambitions hardly factored into Bismarck's final decade of leadership, preferring instead to focus on domestic means of ensuring a stable continuation of power. A month after settling the new Reinsurance Treaty with Russia, a wealthy young adventurer visited his office in Berlin, rolling out a map of Central Africa and started excitedly talking about the excellent potential for exploiting the diamond mines there. The Chancellor looked at him for a moment before responding, much to the aristocrat’s consternation, that “my map of Africa lies in Europe. Here is Russia and here is France with Germany in the middle; that is my map of Africa.” For the next decade, it was this view that would dominate Berlin’s foreign policy, especially as London moved away from continental isolationism.
-From “For Blood and Iron: Anglo-German Relations 1871-1943” by Julia Villiers, MIPS Press 2009
“The importance of the renewal of the Reinsurance Treaty has been overstated. However, it is not hard to understand why, given the circumstances that led to the rapprochement of the Continental Alliance in 1888. Relations between Germany and Russia had become strained throughout the late-1870s, not helped by an increasingly chauvinist press based in Moscow. Anti-German sentiments had grown increasingly vocal ever since the Serbo-Bulgarian conflict of 1885, which had dissolved the Dreikaiserbund and also led to a perception amongst the Slavophiles in the Tsar’s Court that Germany had a “divide and rule” attitude to the Balkans. German anger was more economic than ideological, mainly concerned with opposition to any financing of the Russian railway-building program. The actual terms of the clandestine pact, which enforced neutrality with the proviso that Russia did not attack Austria, nor Germany France, was seen by senior figures as being too convoluted, with both Caprivi and Friedrich von Holstein feeling that it only served to complicate matters. Prior to his assassination, even the Crown Prince William made it clear to Bismarck that he considered the treaty of only secondary importance to his personal relationship with Alexander III.
Yet it was the secrecy of the Treaty that ultimately saved it from cancellation. Alexander’s foreign minister, Nikolay Girs, was moved to the Treasury in September and replaced by Andrey Lieven. Lieven, a Baltic nobleman, was keen to renegotiate the substance of the matter rather than risk losing it entirely. The Tsar’s Germanophobia has been prone to hyperbole by many historians, but both Bismarck and Frederick III were well aware of the shift against the Westernisers in Petersburg and were keen to ensure that the war scare with France following the Strassburg Tragedy did not escalate into a general European conflict. To his credit, Alexander III was also acutely aware of the problems that would be associated with a further decline in foreign relations and instructed Lieven to consult with Berlin at the earliest convenience. Shortly afterwards, the newly installed foreign minister made his first visit abroad, arriving in Berlin in early November. Lieven and Bismarck, much the surprise of Prince Heinrich, immediately found common ground with regards to renegotiation, with Lieven reporting in his diary that “the Chancellor seems as irritated by the zealots within his own Parliament as I do with the High Pochvennichestvo” (the ultra-nativists that represented the most ardent Slavophiles.) Matters were concluded far quicker than the original Treaty had been, with Lieven agreeing to extend the expiration date by a further three years after the originally agreed date of 1890 and to end overtures towards Paris. Bismarck meanwhile agreed to further tolerate Russian ambitions towards the Bosphorus.”
-From “The Three Empires: Russia, Germany , Austria-Hungary and the Making of Europe” by Paul Davies, Brent 1960
“Several years of poor harvests and the Emir’s forced population transfers had contributed to a rebellious attitude within the Northern Provinces of Afghanistan by the summer of 1888. Having already subdued one family member, Sardar Ayub Khan, for control of Kandahar and Herat in 1881, it was of little surprise to Abdur Rahman when another cousin, Mohammad Is'hak, did likewise. The Emir was typically candid when he heard the news, noting his oft-repeated qip that “only a harem deserve a bed of roses.” Rahman left Kabul at the head of his newly modernised army on September 18th, reaching the Oxus six weeks later, before moving east towards the mountainous hinterland. However, the late start to the campaign had presented an advantage to Is’hak’s forces, who refused to be drawn into open battle in the valleys of the Hindu Kush. The Emir’s forces were harried continuously from this point, prompting Rahman to winter in the city of Baghlan.
Any student of this period would be well-served by reading Matthew Arnold’s 1853 poem, "Sohrab and Rustum", particularly the imagery associated with the Afghan wilderness,
“My father, whom the robber Afghans vex,
And clip his borders short, and drive his herds,
And he has none to guard his weak old age.
There would I go, and hang my armour up”
The Emir was an urbane and well-educated man, but he may not have been as acquainted with Arnold’s verse as he perhaps should have been. On November 3rd, whilst worshiping in a village that had assumed to be pacified barely three miles from his headquarters, Rahman’s guard were assaulted by a band of guerrillas associated with his rival. Sensing the danger, the Emir, accompanied by two horsemen, forded the Kunduz River in the direction of the city. Although a strong rider, the current proved too strong and threw Rahman from his horse into the freezing torrent. His body was found three days later, almost ten miles downstream. Although his sixteen year old son Habibullah was immediately acknowledged as Emir, the conservative elements in the court were quick to mobilise against his reforming tendencies, much to the concern of Lord Preston in Delhi.” And clip his borders short, and drive his herds,
And he has none to guard his weak old age.
There would I go, and hang my armour up”
-From “Shadowboxing Giants: A Study of Anglo-Russian Antagonism in Central Asia” by Edward Holst, North Star Press 1973
“The 1888 Presidential Election was held on Tuesday 6th November, pitting the incumbent Grover Cleveland against his Republican challenger John Sherman in one of the closest fights in history. The President faced only token opposition at the Democratic Convention in Chicago's newly-rebuilt "Wigwam” Centre, with most excitement coming from the nomination of the Vice-Presidential candidate to replace Thomas A. Hendricks, who had died in office early in the term. Illinois native and Pensions Commissioner John C. Black was eventually selected as Cleveland’s running mate.
The Republican Convention in Cincinnati was more fractured, with former Indiana Senator Benjamin Harrison challenging the favourite, John Sherman of Ohio. Although Sherman led on the first ballot, his advantage was whittled away during subsequent rounds, aided by alleged “vote buying” by the former Governor of Michigan, Russell Alger. A subsequent outcry from a number of Southern delegates reversed this, allowing Sherman to regain his lead, triumphing on the sixth ballot. The Vice-Presidential vote was less controversial, with former Secretary of the Treasury Walter Q. Gresham comfortably nominated.
Just as with the previous election, the result was very close, with Cleveland squeaking ahead in the nationwide results by 50,000 votes. The Republicans had prepared their candidate well, and Sherman’s strong reputation as an anti-Monopoly campaigner was sufficient in defeating the Democratic Tammany Hall Machine in New York. Despite his numerical victory amongst the electorate, the loss of New York state swung the Electoral College in favour of the Sherman-Gresham ticket, who triumphed 239 to 162.”
-From “American History from Grant to Munsey” by William Keble, Merlin 2004
“By the mid-1880s, the Meiji Regime was in a state of flux. Liberals looked towards Britain, whilst the Prussian-inspired nationalists such as Katsura Tarō took the view that military strength had to take absolute precedence over economic development. In February, he met with Yamagata Aritomo, then serving as Home Secretary, in order to discuss matters relating to the future of the armed forces given the Emperor’s demands for fiscal prudence. Katsura naturally adopted the view that the overall strength of the army was a guarantor of national unity. Only two years before, the Generals Miura and Soga had been relieved of their command, in the face of unprecedented attacks by the militarists, leading to army reform that was dictated by the efforts of the so-called “Kodama Committee,” dominated by Katsura, with Major Meckel advising his actions as they directly affected the infantry. In May 1885, army garrisons had been reorganised into brigades consisting of two infantry regiments, which were further expanded into seven integrated divisions by the summer of 1888. The establishment of such a system allowed for the Imperial Army to conduct itself autonomously whilst overseas, thereby allowing regime to extend Japan’s influence onto the Asian mainland whilst forgoing the communication difficulties that had plagued earlier attempts.
In order to improve troop morale, which had been the victim of explosive growth in draft avoidance for the entire decade, rising from approximately 3.5% to nearly 10% between 1880 to 1887, Katsura had the law tightened in June 1888, which narrowed the range of exemptions for agricultural work, meaning that all males between seventeen and forty were liable for military service. Indeed, Meiji Japan entered the era of Constitutional Government, in a way that allowed the General to forcibly purge the entire Getsuyokai (Monday Club). That month, he proposed all army study groups be merged under one umbrella that allowed for Kodama and his allies within the officer corps to quit the Getsuyokai. Well over five-hundred complied. In an audacious move, he even lobbied the Minister for Foreign Affairs to move his rival, Major-General Horie Yoshisuke, into the reserves and sent as a military attaché to London. By November, six of the seven divisional commanders within the army addressed a letter to the Minister for War, Ōyama Iwao, insisting the Getsuyokai be merged with the overall army society, the Kaikosha. By happenstance, Katsura happened to be Patron of this organisation, and thereby seemed to be close to assuming overall ideological control of the entire Army. However, he had moved too fast to remove all threats to his position. An unofficial “Getsuyokai-in-Exile” was covertly formed under Tani Tateki, who used his position within in the House of Peers to demand a more conservatively-minded defence policy, placing wealth creation above expansionism.”
-From “Meiji to Shikibun: Japan and the Quest for Modernity” by Helga McGregor-Moore, Loughton 1974
Last edited:
It seems that the international stage is slowly coming together, France's political scene looks to be a quiet, peaceful and well-mannered event as Bismark is able to stay in his position of power a bit longer. I can see how his tactics wouldn't really work on Kaiser Wilhelm II: The Wilhelming who probably just accepted the threats of resignation IOTL. Not knowing much about Japan, but I am also going to say that Taro was able to crush that small piece of resistance IOTL which means that we could see movements towards a more British-style of Japanese politics or at least an attempt to reach it.
Germany is sticking with Russia has large affects on the European continent and I have the feeling that we won't be seeing the last of this rekindled cooperation at any point soon, we may see Joe trying to get Britain in on this action, judging by the political links that Bismark's son has and the potential for things to go sideways. Great update, Roem, I am looking forward to more as always.
Germany is sticking with Russia has large affects on the European continent and I have the feeling that we won't be seeing the last of this rekindled cooperation at any point soon, we may see Joe trying to get Britain in on this action, judging by the political links that Bismark's son has and the potential for things to go sideways. Great update, Roem, I am looking forward to more as always.
I understand, going on the rest of the extract, that Bismarck is saying Europe is more important but I don't quite understand the map thing.
This is actually a statement that Bismarck coined in OTL. I would like to think that he did so whilst spinning on his heel, gesticulating at a wall sized tapestry on the wall behind his desk, but he was always slightly more sober than that.
His perception is pretty much the same here, albeit with a slightly earlier acquisition of Southern Namibia. There isn't much point bothering with taking over a few thousand square miles or scrubland when you have two rival powers sandwiching you in between the threat of an alliance.
Last edited:
Astonishingly well done, but I think I found a couple of clinkers.
2.5 acres = 9.1 sq ft per diner. That's not enough; not for table space, seat, and aisles, much less all the service spaces in the dining areas.
The Wigwam was demolished in 1871,
The second reference should also be to "Katsura", no?
Also -
That is a particularly obtrusive misuse of "exponential", which has no coherent meaning as used. A quantity may grow exponentially; a ratio cannot. "Explosive" would be better. Yeah, this is grammatical Puritanism - but your text in general really does come across as professional historical writing, and a defect like this is like a big zit on a pretty girl's nose. Think of me as the copy editor this wouldn't get past.
2.5 acres = 9.1 sq ft per diner. That's not enough; not for table space, seat, and aisles, much less all the service spaces in the dining areas.
The Wigwam was demolished in 1871,
The second reference should also be to "Katsura", no?
Also -
That is a particularly obtrusive misuse of "exponential", which has no coherent meaning as used. A quantity may grow exponentially; a ratio cannot. "Explosive" would be better. Yeah, this is grammatical Puritanism - but your text in general really does come across as professional historical writing, and a defect like this is like a big zit on a pretty girl's nose. Think of me as the copy editor this wouldn't get past.
First of all, I really appreciate this and I am very pleased that you are enjoying this.
I admit that I find the dining statistics rather odd. At the Exposition Universelle in OTL 1900, President Loubet hosted a dinner for 25,000 Mayors (France has a LOT of them) which apparently took over only four acres, so I just halved the area for this fictional meal (although the idea was very common.) I wonder if, in that case, my sources were wrong and actually meant hectares although that itself seems to swing the pendulum the wrong way.
I'll up it to 3.5 acres and hope that sounds more plausible.
Aye, it was. I think I was confused because OTL's 1890 Convention was held in a structure called the Wigwam, but it was only a temporary structure (an early attempt at prefab by the sounds of it.) I'll have a cop-out and just prefix it with 'New' and hope that no-one else notices.
This is't pedantic at all, although I'm flattered that you think that my writing is "professional," I'm purely a hobbyist when it comes to this. Both issues, obviously, changed.
As it happens, Arnold's verse is a real one. He seems to be a rather underrated poet these days, so I hope this is a decent moment in the sun for him.
Last edited:
Chapter XIII
“Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee"
-------------------------------
“Hartington’s rise to the Liberal leadership marked the culmination of Chamberlain's steady reclamation of respectability in the eyes of the public. With the departure of Gladstone and Trevelyan from the front bench, the party was now almost entirely reliant on leadership from a decreasing circle of elder statesmen. With cadres of members motivated by various competing interests, many Liberal Clubs found themselves increasingly distant from the Westminster scene. A number opted to follow the example set by the irate members in Manchester, allying themselves with the Radicals Association. Chamberlain visited the city in the summer of 1888, meeting with local representatives as a means of bridging the so-called ‘Whig-Chamberlainite’ split.
To his surprise, Chamberlain found that the Home Rule debate had prompted a reconciliation of the warring factions. Sir Henry Roscoe, the only Liberal to have been returned at the last General Election, had privately met with the head of the Manchester branch of the RA as soon as the news of Trevelyan's resignation had been made public. The establishment of the “Manchester Radical Liberal Club” had followed soon afterwards, with Jacob Bright given the offer of candidature at the earliest available by-election. For a politician so inexorably linked to Birmingham, it is curious to think that the first formalised wing of Chamberlain's party was actually constituted in a city a hundred miles to the north-west. The RLC did not operate in a vacuum for long, with a merger taking place in Sheffield two months later, followed shortly afterwards by organisations in Liverpool, the Midlands and Bristol.
To Chamberlain, the development was a positive one, especially by the example shown in Merseyside. He had seen the Liberal inability to break the Tory hegemony there in 1885 as a personal failure and was supremely gratified when the Radical-Liberal ‘Unity’ candidate ran a surprisingly close second to Lord Claud Hamilton at the West Derby by-election on 10th August. A ‘Home Rule’ Liberal, running with the vocal support of John Morley, barely scraped five hundred votes, briefly silencing those who had objected to the abandonment of the campaign. Vindicated by this approach, Chamberlain resurrected his embryonic support for Tariff Reform, although he chose to omit from the second edition of the Radical Manifesto that followed at the end of the year.”
-From “The Chamberlain Dynasty” by J. E. Powell, Cambridge University Press 1955
“The precise position of the ‘Home Rulers’ after the events of April 1888 remains a matter of scholarly debate. It certainly provided sufficient column inches to inspire Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Bey of Unita” with a portrayal of a nation divided between a feuding army and navy. John Morley’s withdrawal from the Liberal Party was not followed by a mass exodus from other dissatisfied members, although various cartoons from the Tory press were keen to caricature Hartington as a downtrodden Punch and Judy man, manipulating Chamberlain and Goschen to an audience of Radical and Unionist schoolchildren. Very few Liberal activists held much hope that the crisis within the party had been sated for any longer than a matter of months. The Radical demands for “Home Rule All Round” alienated both sides of the debate. For a while, the old rumours that Chamberlain would leave the Liberal caucus to establish his own organisation focused on his Birmingham machinery once again became the talk of the Commons. These discussions would prove unfounded, but Chamberlain’s taste for conflict showed that a restructuring of the party system remained at the forefront of his mind, as show in this revealing letter to his brother Arthur from 15th November;
The Radical assumptions at this time were not clear. Enoch Powell has written extensively to the contrary, but there is little sign that Chamberlain had resolved to either hold his ground until the election campaign or to challenge for the leadership during the Christmas recess. The latter would have been uncharacteristic, but waiting too long was also a threat to his unquestioned position as leader of a third of the Liberal Party. His deputy, Sir Charles Dilke, had still not entirely forgiven him for his ambivalent stance during the Crawford Scandal two years prior. With a new Prime Minister, “it would be entirely probable” Dilke noted “to consider the possibility of three radical parties, but I have no intention of being Sir Charles Crassus whilst Randolph Pompey and Julius Chamberlain break the spurs of Sulla Salisbury...”
The reconciliation of the Liberal Radicals was aided by the re-drafting of the Radical Program at the end of the year, although Dilke still rued the lack of influence he had over the areas of the manifesto that discussed the issues surrounding trade. Chamberlain’s Protectionism was still nascent by this point, but it is typical of the man that, just as the Liberals were licking the self-inflicted wounds wrought by Home Rule, he determined to begin preparations for yet another split over what Dilke’s long-hoped for “British Zollverein.”"
-From “The Formation of the Modern Party System in British Politics” by Jacob Nix, Colophon Books, 1981
“Salisbury took little pleasure for the sundering of the Liberal Party. Despite the perceived unity on the Conservative benches when the Home Rule vote had taken place, Henry Matthews felt minded to inform the Prime Minister that upwards of a fifth of the Conservative Party in Commons had expressed sympathy with the concept of a ‘Home Council of Ireland’ that a number of moderate Liberals had suggested during the debate. Matthews himself had noted the great detachment of the average Irish voter from “the Castle” at Dublin, feeling that the Viceroyalty by which most of the country was governed served to limit the normalisation of the economy outside the Pale. Salisbury’s views on Ireland had mellowed since assuming the Premiership for a second time and as the memory of Phoenix Park and the assassination of Rosebery faded, conciliation had been the dominant principle of the Conservative Party. Salisbury saw it as a means of addressing and remedying Irish grievances to the extent of eroding the calls for political devolution. Although this policy of constructive Unionism - summed up by many as “killing Home Rule with kindness” - was to bring many benefits to Ireland, the Home Rule debate had opened Salisbury’s eyes to a need for a total rethink of the policy by the end of the summer.
In 1888, the American journalist W. H. Hurlbert published a critique of British policy towards the Province, which soon became a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic. Salisbury was singled out for much of the criticism, especially with regards to his government’s renewal of the Protection of Person and Property (or “Coercion”) Act. The Premier did not show any external sign of being stung by the criticism, noting that the original legislation had been introduced by Gladstone, but Hurlbert’s lurid portrayal of a nation under siege proved damaging. Hurlbert’s report was far more balanced than many at the time, but it portrayed Salisbury as treading an unhelpful middle ground between reform and direct rule, adding to a popular view in the London media as him being a serial ditherer. In September, he was forced to sack the Earl of Carnarvon as Lord Lieutenant when the latter expressed sympathies for the Home Rulers. To Herbert, the incident confirmed his view that the Tory Party had adopted dogmatism in place of pragmatism and he chose to sit on the Liberal benches in the House of Lords until his death two years later. The flight of the Prime Minister’s political representative to the province came as shock to Salisbury, the appointment of Balfour shortly afterwards being seen by the press as a panicked attempt to shore up Conservative unity by appointing Carnarvon's political antithesis to his position.
The British Medical Journal report of mid-October shows the inevitable result of the stresses of office on the Prime Minister’s health;By the time Salisbury returned from Italy at the start of November, it was obvious that his intention was to resign. At the time, his felt that his health was far more precarious than it actually was. In a letter to Balfour sent a few days before his planned return, he explicitly stated that it would quite possibly be his last. “I hold no intention of wasting away like Canning, splitting the party in the process. If I am to die, it will not come to the detriment of English Toryism.” Upon his return, The Queen received Salisbury at Hatfield. His choice of successor surprised many.”
-From “Salisbury: A Life” by Abraham Roberts, MIPS Press 1994
“William Henry Smith was summoned to the Palace as soon as Victoria returned to London. Although he was not surprised at the appointment, having been informed by letter of Salisbury’s intentions, it was still something that he found incredulous. “Why me?” he wrote to his eldest daughter, Mabel at the time. “It is not as though I have much to provide that I have not done already, it is damn fool for the party to anoint me at a time that demands a statesman [...] We have Socialism by one door and Mister Chamberlain by the other, with little more than a by-your-leave between them.”
Smith’s rise to leadership was viewed with equal measures of surprise and shock throughout Westminster. Although an acknowledged Commons presence and one of the most experienced Ministers in the entire Conservative Party, both friend, foe and press had considered him to have been a fading star. Salisbury himself had assumed that Smith would have sought retirement after the next election and as late as the summer had been seeking out possible replacements at the Treasury. Yet illness and stress had prompted a reconsideration of the Chancellor’s suitability. He recorded in his memoirs some years later that the choice had been one done as a means of offering the public as stark a difference as possible. Unlike the aristocratic Salisbury, Smith’s background was as a businessman, who had nurtured the family firm into one of the largest chain of newsagents in the country. Although a dour and austere man in public, he offered a marked contrast with both his predecessor as leader of the Tory Party, and the future Duke of Devonshire on the Liberal side. Salisbury also noted that the appointment of an MP as Prime Minister was also likely to play well amongst the artisan voter, who had been defecting in droves since Chamberlain and Collings had embarked upon the second phase of the and reform campaign the previous year. The view was not shared by many, with even the Telegraph lamenting that “Worthy though he is, it remains to be see if Mr Smith can even carry the support of his party, let alone the nation...”
An unenthusiastic response by the general public was not one mirrored by the satirists, who found the appointment a wonderful excuse to dust off the old cliches. Smith’s appointment as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1877, despite holding no experience of the Navy, allegedly provided the inspiration for the character of Sir Joseph Porter in Gilbert and Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore, which opened the following year. On a number of occasions, even Disraeli referred to his protege as ‘Pinafore Smith.’ Although Gilbert publicly denied the similarities, it proved impossible to shake off. Punch’s cartoon from October 1888 shows Smith rowing alongside Salisbury, who lumbers through the turbulence in a swimming costume. The soon-to-be Prime Minister attempts to keep himself out of the spray, splattered by the two waves marked “The Irish Question” and “Land Reform”. “Hurrah!” Smith cries out, “Another six strokes and we will have done it!” as they approach a buoy marked “Adjournment.”
Yet from a such an uninspiring beginning, Smith’s fortunes began to improve. Whilst he will never attain the same position in the Pantheon as his successor has, Premiers as diverse as Isaac Foot and Duff Cooper have seen fit to single him out for praise. In many respects, Salisbury’s promotion of Smith can be seen as a watershed for the Conservative Party, who in so doing began to realise that the threat of Radicalism and Socialism was best combated by the leader, just as much as by leadership.”
-From “The Victorian Prime Ministers” by T. B. Hunt, Macmillan Publishing 2001
Randolph Churchill fumed at luncheon with Drummond-Wolff the day after the appointment of Smith as Prime Minister. Mid-way through, he cast his cutlery to the table and shouted that “at a stroke, Cecil has destroyed all hope we had of pressing our advantage over Old Cavendish and Older Gladstone. We have cast aside all narrative for what? The mediocre leadership of a Penny Dreadful salesman...” Smith had been keen to offer Churchill promotion in the new Cabinet as a means of preventing a resurgence of the Fourth Party, but the Leader of the House refused to even countenance the possibility. Lunch over, Churchill walked out of Saint Stephen’s Gate and left the capital, effectively barricading himself at Blenheim as the new Cabinet was formed without him. Four days after the appointment, he penned a letter to the new Prime Minister;Churchill’s resignation was a underpinned by view that the Conservatives were not governing effectively. His view was, Home Rule or not, any Liberal victory at the next election would pose a direct threat to the Union, a view borne out by the second paragraph;It was a Quixotic letter. It is doubtful if even Churchill wanted to go so far down the line of resignation, his son Winston wrote that both of them wept as it was couriered away. Even if it had been Randolph’s intention to leave the Cabinet in such a flamboyant fashion, it is debatable why he did so at a time when promotion to the Chancellorship seemed so likely. Yet Churchill’s skills and career would lead him elsewhere. It seems likely that he was already aware that the position that Smith would take upon the the major issues of state would be ones he would find impossible to support.”
-From ‘Lord Randolph Churchill and Home Rule’ in “The Journal of Celtic Studies” by Theo Briggs-Jamison, University of Bangor 1988
“Prince Albert Victor first met Princess Hélène of Orléans at a Christmas Ball hosted by the Duke of Rutland in 1888. To his expressed annoyance, the Tsesarevich Nicholas had also been invited, and the Prince endured the entire evening by watching Hélène compete with Alix of Hesse for the favour of the dashing heir to the Russian throne. On the most base level, there was no comparison. Nicholas stood a head higher that the shy and awkward Albert, cutting a dash through any social occasion. Neither Alix nor Hélène gave much attention to the second in line to the throne. This was not something that Albert seemed to pay much attention to, as he had instantly fallen in love with Hélène, the daughter of Prince Philippe, the exiled Count of Paris and Orléanist pretender to the throne. Similarly, Nicholas eventually became enamoured with Alix, resulting in ample fodder for the European gossip mill. By the time Albert Victor and Hélène met again, a combination of now mutual attraction, Victoria’s disapproval and the Act of Settlement, the new Prime Minister would find his domestic agenda derailed.”
-From “Victoria’s Heirs” by Courtney Rudd-Lomax, Pavilion 1993
“Stick close to your desks and never go to sea,
And you all may be rulers of the Queen's Navee"
-------------------------------
Following his surprise rise to the Premiership, William Henry Smith is often seen as as "forgotten Prime Minister" of the 19th Century, sandwiched between colossi such as Gladstone, Salisbury and Chamberlain. However, recent studies detailing his management of internal unity and consolidation of the Conservative Party's social reforms have done much to renew his legacy. Certainly, Mr Cooper has considered him an idol for new members of the PC to emulate.
“Hartington’s rise to the Liberal leadership marked the culmination of Chamberlain's steady reclamation of respectability in the eyes of the public. With the departure of Gladstone and Trevelyan from the front bench, the party was now almost entirely reliant on leadership from a decreasing circle of elder statesmen. With cadres of members motivated by various competing interests, many Liberal Clubs found themselves increasingly distant from the Westminster scene. A number opted to follow the example set by the irate members in Manchester, allying themselves with the Radicals Association. Chamberlain visited the city in the summer of 1888, meeting with local representatives as a means of bridging the so-called ‘Whig-Chamberlainite’ split.
To his surprise, Chamberlain found that the Home Rule debate had prompted a reconciliation of the warring factions. Sir Henry Roscoe, the only Liberal to have been returned at the last General Election, had privately met with the head of the Manchester branch of the RA as soon as the news of Trevelyan's resignation had been made public. The establishment of the “Manchester Radical Liberal Club” had followed soon afterwards, with Jacob Bright given the offer of candidature at the earliest available by-election. For a politician so inexorably linked to Birmingham, it is curious to think that the first formalised wing of Chamberlain's party was actually constituted in a city a hundred miles to the north-west. The RLC did not operate in a vacuum for long, with a merger taking place in Sheffield two months later, followed shortly afterwards by organisations in Liverpool, the Midlands and Bristol.
To Chamberlain, the development was a positive one, especially by the example shown in Merseyside. He had seen the Liberal inability to break the Tory hegemony there in 1885 as a personal failure and was supremely gratified when the Radical-Liberal ‘Unity’ candidate ran a surprisingly close second to Lord Claud Hamilton at the West Derby by-election on 10th August. A ‘Home Rule’ Liberal, running with the vocal support of John Morley, barely scraped five hundred votes, briefly silencing those who had objected to the abandonment of the campaign. Vindicated by this approach, Chamberlain resurrected his embryonic support for Tariff Reform, although he chose to omit from the second edition of the Radical Manifesto that followed at the end of the year.”
-From “The Chamberlain Dynasty” by J. E. Powell, Cambridge University Press 1955
“The precise position of the ‘Home Rulers’ after the events of April 1888 remains a matter of scholarly debate. It certainly provided sufficient column inches to inspire Gilbert and Sullivan’s “The Bey of Unita” with a portrayal of a nation divided between a feuding army and navy. John Morley’s withdrawal from the Liberal Party was not followed by a mass exodus from other dissatisfied members, although various cartoons from the Tory press were keen to caricature Hartington as a downtrodden Punch and Judy man, manipulating Chamberlain and Goschen to an audience of Radical and Unionist schoolchildren. Very few Liberal activists held much hope that the crisis within the party had been sated for any longer than a matter of months. The Radical demands for “Home Rule All Round” alienated both sides of the debate. For a while, the old rumours that Chamberlain would leave the Liberal caucus to establish his own organisation focused on his Birmingham machinery once again became the talk of the Commons. These discussions would prove unfounded, but Chamberlain’s taste for conflict showed that a restructuring of the party system remained at the forefront of his mind, as show in this revealing letter to his brother Arthur from 15th November;
“The immediate result of any assumption of the leadership would be considerable unpopularity and a temporary estrangement from the Radical Party. There is little backbone in politics and the great majority of the present Parliamentary apparatus are content to swallow the pill and stick to the machine like limpets. Of the old Cabinet, the only person who I felt would follow me was Trevelyan. I have no intention of working with the Tories, but Hartington is just as opposed to my own radicalism as he is to Leith’s Irish plans. I should very much like to be left alone for a while.”
The reconciliation of the Liberal Radicals was aided by the re-drafting of the Radical Program at the end of the year, although Dilke still rued the lack of influence he had over the areas of the manifesto that discussed the issues surrounding trade. Chamberlain’s Protectionism was still nascent by this point, but it is typical of the man that, just as the Liberals were licking the self-inflicted wounds wrought by Home Rule, he determined to begin preparations for yet another split over what Dilke’s long-hoped for “British Zollverein.”"
-From “The Formation of the Modern Party System in British Politics” by Jacob Nix, Colophon Books, 1981
“Salisbury took little pleasure for the sundering of the Liberal Party. Despite the perceived unity on the Conservative benches when the Home Rule vote had taken place, Henry Matthews felt minded to inform the Prime Minister that upwards of a fifth of the Conservative Party in Commons had expressed sympathy with the concept of a ‘Home Council of Ireland’ that a number of moderate Liberals had suggested during the debate. Matthews himself had noted the great detachment of the average Irish voter from “the Castle” at Dublin, feeling that the Viceroyalty by which most of the country was governed served to limit the normalisation of the economy outside the Pale. Salisbury’s views on Ireland had mellowed since assuming the Premiership for a second time and as the memory of Phoenix Park and the assassination of Rosebery faded, conciliation had been the dominant principle of the Conservative Party. Salisbury saw it as a means of addressing and remedying Irish grievances to the extent of eroding the calls for political devolution. Although this policy of constructive Unionism - summed up by many as “killing Home Rule with kindness” - was to bring many benefits to Ireland, the Home Rule debate had opened Salisbury’s eyes to a need for a total rethink of the policy by the end of the summer.
In 1888, the American journalist W. H. Hurlbert published a critique of British policy towards the Province, which soon became a bestseller on both sides of the Atlantic. Salisbury was singled out for much of the criticism, especially with regards to his government’s renewal of the Protection of Person and Property (or “Coercion”) Act. The Premier did not show any external sign of being stung by the criticism, noting that the original legislation had been introduced by Gladstone, but Hurlbert’s lurid portrayal of a nation under siege proved damaging. Hurlbert’s report was far more balanced than many at the time, but it portrayed Salisbury as treading an unhelpful middle ground between reform and direct rule, adding to a popular view in the London media as him being a serial ditherer. In September, he was forced to sack the Earl of Carnarvon as Lord Lieutenant when the latter expressed sympathies for the Home Rulers. To Herbert, the incident confirmed his view that the Tory Party had adopted dogmatism in place of pragmatism and he chose to sit on the Liberal benches in the House of Lords until his death two years later. The flight of the Prime Minister’s political representative to the province came as shock to Salisbury, the appointment of Balfour shortly afterwards being seen by the press as a panicked attempt to shore up Conservative unity by appointing Carnarvon's political antithesis to his position.
The British Medical Journal report of mid-October shows the inevitable result of the stresses of office on the Prime Minister’s health;
“We are saddened to learn that Lord Salisbury remains stricken from his recent attack of influenza. The fever ceased on Monday, and on the following day Lord Salisbury was able to attend the Cabinet Council. Convalescence has proceeded in a satisfactory manner, and, acting on medical advice, Lord Salisbury left London for Beaulieu, his place near Nice, on Thursday morning. The Houses of Parliament are maintaining their evil reputation in regard to influenza. It will be remembered that in the earliest of these recent visitations the epidemic spread with great rapidity among members of both Houses, and among the officers of Parliament. This year, before the epidemic had attracted much attention in London generally, many members of Parliament suffered sharp attacks, among them being Mr. Stanhope and other members of the Cabinet and Front Benches.”
-From “Salisbury: A Life” by Abraham Roberts, MIPS Press 1994
“William Henry Smith was summoned to the Palace as soon as Victoria returned to London. Although he was not surprised at the appointment, having been informed by letter of Salisbury’s intentions, it was still something that he found incredulous. “Why me?” he wrote to his eldest daughter, Mabel at the time. “It is not as though I have much to provide that I have not done already, it is damn fool for the party to anoint me at a time that demands a statesman [...] We have Socialism by one door and Mister Chamberlain by the other, with little more than a by-your-leave between them.”
Smith’s rise to leadership was viewed with equal measures of surprise and shock throughout Westminster. Although an acknowledged Commons presence and one of the most experienced Ministers in the entire Conservative Party, both friend, foe and press had considered him to have been a fading star. Salisbury himself had assumed that Smith would have sought retirement after the next election and as late as the summer had been seeking out possible replacements at the Treasury. Yet illness and stress had prompted a reconsideration of the Chancellor’s suitability. He recorded in his memoirs some years later that the choice had been one done as a means of offering the public as stark a difference as possible. Unlike the aristocratic Salisbury, Smith’s background was as a businessman, who had nurtured the family firm into one of the largest chain of newsagents in the country. Although a dour and austere man in public, he offered a marked contrast with both his predecessor as leader of the Tory Party, and the future Duke of Devonshire on the Liberal side. Salisbury also noted that the appointment of an MP as Prime Minister was also likely to play well amongst the artisan voter, who had been defecting in droves since Chamberlain and Collings had embarked upon the second phase of the and reform campaign the previous year. The view was not shared by many, with even the Telegraph lamenting that “Worthy though he is, it remains to be see if Mr Smith can even carry the support of his party, let alone the nation...”
An unenthusiastic response by the general public was not one mirrored by the satirists, who found the appointment a wonderful excuse to dust off the old cliches. Smith’s appointment as First Lord of the Admiralty in 1877, despite holding no experience of the Navy, allegedly provided the inspiration for the character of Sir Joseph Porter in Gilbert and Sullivan’s HMS Pinafore, which opened the following year. On a number of occasions, even Disraeli referred to his protege as ‘Pinafore Smith.’ Although Gilbert publicly denied the similarities, it proved impossible to shake off. Punch’s cartoon from October 1888 shows Smith rowing alongside Salisbury, who lumbers through the turbulence in a swimming costume. The soon-to-be Prime Minister attempts to keep himself out of the spray, splattered by the two waves marked “The Irish Question” and “Land Reform”. “Hurrah!” Smith cries out, “Another six strokes and we will have done it!” as they approach a buoy marked “Adjournment.”
Yet from a such an uninspiring beginning, Smith’s fortunes began to improve. Whilst he will never attain the same position in the Pantheon as his successor has, Premiers as diverse as Isaac Foot and Duff Cooper have seen fit to single him out for praise. In many respects, Salisbury’s promotion of Smith can be seen as a watershed for the Conservative Party, who in so doing began to realise that the threat of Radicalism and Socialism was best combated by the leader, just as much as by leadership.”
-From “The Victorian Prime Ministers” by T. B. Hunt, Macmillan Publishing 2001
Randolph Churchill fumed at luncheon with Drummond-Wolff the day after the appointment of Smith as Prime Minister. Mid-way through, he cast his cutlery to the table and shouted that “at a stroke, Cecil has destroyed all hope we had of pressing our advantage over Old Cavendish and Older Gladstone. We have cast aside all narrative for what? The mediocre leadership of a Penny Dreadful salesman...” Smith had been keen to offer Churchill promotion in the new Cabinet as a means of preventing a resurgence of the Fourth Party, but the Leader of the House refused to even countenance the possibility. Lunch over, Churchill walked out of Saint Stephen’s Gate and left the capital, effectively barricading himself at Blenheim as the new Cabinet was formed without him. Four days after the appointment, he penned a letter to the new Prime Minister;
“...it is via the incorrigibility of your predecessor that, in an hour of need such as this, he has insisted that the Conservative Party fall into the hands of a man so linked with the failures and malaise of the past three years. We flail at the present moment in time, as the Tsar nibbles at India and the Portuguese at Mashonaland. I have, to the best of my ability, sought to ensure that the economic situation does not compromise our security, our ambition or our National Efficiency, but I see it as a crusade that I can better lead from the freedom afforded by leaving the Cabinet Table...”
“The primary objective of good government is to preserve the Union. It is to preserve it not just for a term, nor a session, but for perpetuity. The maintenance of our Union is not something that should be done for the purpose of men, but for the duty of administration and Constitution. Gladstone and Morley sit chastised for now, but with the exception of poor and forgotten Goschen, the Liberal Party is still the one of repeal and revolution. It is the party of Ireland, Scotland and Wales against the English. So long as our party risks falling for whatever political or foreign crisis that avails us, I see the inevitable result of the Earl of Leith seeking to redo what we have attempted to undo. It is not a state of affairs that I can be content with any longer...”
-From ‘Lord Randolph Churchill and Home Rule’ in “The Journal of Celtic Studies” by Theo Briggs-Jamison, University of Bangor 1988
“Prince Albert Victor first met Princess Hélène of Orléans at a Christmas Ball hosted by the Duke of Rutland in 1888. To his expressed annoyance, the Tsesarevich Nicholas had also been invited, and the Prince endured the entire evening by watching Hélène compete with Alix of Hesse for the favour of the dashing heir to the Russian throne. On the most base level, there was no comparison. Nicholas stood a head higher that the shy and awkward Albert, cutting a dash through any social occasion. Neither Alix nor Hélène gave much attention to the second in line to the throne. This was not something that Albert seemed to pay much attention to, as he had instantly fallen in love with Hélène, the daughter of Prince Philippe, the exiled Count of Paris and Orléanist pretender to the throne. Similarly, Nicholas eventually became enamoured with Alix, resulting in ample fodder for the European gossip mill. By the time Albert Victor and Hélène met again, a combination of now mutual attraction, Victoria’s disapproval and the Act of Settlement, the new Prime Minister would find his domestic agenda derailed.”
-From “Victoria’s Heirs” by Courtney Rudd-Lomax, Pavilion 1993
Last edited:
A rather disappointing end (not in the writing but for the person) for a career such as Salisbury's but needed to get events moving, I imagine Smith is playing the unifier who had the qualification of not being good at his job but in getting the party another victory, not helped by Randy resigning (what you've written about him and Winston crying when the letter was sent sounds flamboyant enough for a Churchill) and this new problem emerging.
You mention the PC's under Duff Cooper which I can only assume means Progressive Conservative which will be an interesting part of the Chamberlain aftermath, Isaac Foot is another interesting butterfly, it's all going very well and I am learning a lot about the time period, especially the parts about both the lack of actual enthusiasm about Home Rule in the Liberals and the groundswell of support in the Conservatives which is rather ironic later on IOTL. Top form as usual.
You mention the PC's under Duff Cooper which I can only assume means Progressive Conservative which will be an interesting part of the Chamberlain aftermath, Isaac Foot is another interesting butterfly, it's all going very well and I am learning a lot about the time period, especially the parts about both the lack of actual enthusiasm about Home Rule in the Liberals and the groundswell of support in the Conservatives which is rather ironic later on IOTL. Top form as usual.
Thande
Donor
Just caught up to date with this. Excellent work.
As with FABR, at first glance it may seem arbitrary that various people get assassinated; but when you look at what happened in OTL, it seems more like OTL is the aberration because of how many assassination attempts failed. A bit like how fifty years later, even Hitler himself noticed how odd it was that he was escaping so many assassination attempts and decided it meant he was living a charmed life.
On the matter of WH Smith, I wonder what his contemporaries would say if they knew that a hundred-odd years later, in terms of general public name recognition (the name itself, not the person) he would outclass all his colleagues by about ten times over. In particular when the political big guns of the late Victorian period post-Gladstone are unknown to the man in the street. It'd be like going to the year 2125 and finding that somebody like Owen Paterson or Bob Ainsworth's name is immediately recognised but only historians and political wonks know who Tony Blair was.
As with FABR, at first glance it may seem arbitrary that various people get assassinated; but when you look at what happened in OTL, it seems more like OTL is the aberration because of how many assassination attempts failed. A bit like how fifty years later, even Hitler himself noticed how odd it was that he was escaping so many assassination attempts and decided it meant he was living a charmed life.
On the matter of WH Smith, I wonder what his contemporaries would say if they knew that a hundred-odd years later, in terms of general public name recognition (the name itself, not the person) he would outclass all his colleagues by about ten times over. In particular when the political big guns of the late Victorian period post-Gladstone are unknown to the man in the street. It'd be like going to the year 2125 and finding that somebody like Owen Paterson or Bob Ainsworth's name is immediately recognised but only historians and political wonks know who Tony Blair was.
There are few writers on this forum who could write so interestingly about a premiership that was anything but. It's always refreshing to see some all-too-plausible mediocrity in TLs, where the tendency has always been (understandably) to make 'every man a Churchill' and as such an exciting period to write about.
Your description of the Punch cartoon really tickled me - I think it may be your best yet.
Your description of the Punch cartoon really tickled me - I think it may be your best yet.
Interesting. I would like to see what happened if Helene and Albert married. Although it seems the latter died young anyway, but I guess you can butterfly that as it was apparently the flu.
As ever, any comments are appreciated, I am delighted that you are enjoying it.
It didn't really do much for Smith that he died relatively young, but as Thande says below, I would struggle to think of any 19th Century politician that has the same name recognition as the Newsagent King. I think that this timeline has been a little hard on Salisbury to be honest, but I don't think that it is beyond the realm of possibility for him to go into retirement in the Lords.
Saying that, I doubt that he is going to be out of the picture for good. Salisbury was never especially prone to illness, but he did have an almost fatal bout of 'flu in OTL 1897 that almost prompted his resignation as Premier. He certainly spent a good few weeks recuperating in Italy, which nearly prompted Viscount Cross to resign in disgust.
I feel that Home Rule has a tendency to be rather glossed over. Even as a movement, it was a label that tended to be applied to people without any care for their actual ideology. In the mainstream, it could apply to everyone from Henry Labouchère - who would have been happy to wave Ireland into independence - to Chamberlain, who wanted National Councils for everyone. The Tories were less divided, but there were a lot who wanted something to be done about the issue and even Salisbury at times felt that he was forced to go against his own moderation for the sake of party politics.
I entirely agree. I think I have had two assassinations thus far (Billy and Rosebery) but given the standards of 19th Century Anarchists, I don't think that is entirely bad going. Given how poor quality clockwork explosives were at the time, there is a reason why the two assassins here decided to use pistols. That said, I do want an excuse to put my oddly specific knowledge of Black Repartition and the other Russian revolutionary groups into action fairly soon.
Of course, Alexander II had at least five escapes before The People's Freedom finally had their way.
I entirely agree with this. I have really benefited from having access to JSTOR and the LSE Library for most of this, because there is so much that I simply wouldn't be able to find in terms of information otherwise. There's a few decent biographies of Smith I have managed to come across and I do feel that he is an interesting enough figure to write about, but he was fundamentally an administrator rather than a politician. As you say, he is only remembered for two things in the present; bookshops and Pinafore. If nothing else, I am happy to help redress the balance.
Well, I am trying to avoid making this a Joe Sue, but as you can obviously see, he is going to be remembered as one of the great Prime Ministers by OTL 1956. I don't think that is a bad thing in and out of itself, but there is a lot of fun in seeing how entertaining you can make a beige Premiership. As I said, I do want to see if I can give Salisbury one last hurrah, but that is for a future update.
I do get a little sad that 'Punch' is the only satirical magazine that people seem to be aware of, given that it had a genuine bias for most of the time it was being published, there is a tendency to ignore the fact that the "Weekly Freeman" and "Illustrated London News" had just as many serious cartoonists contributing for them. I will see how many of them I can get access to for future artwork.
An interesting couple certainly. I wonder if Colin Firth would be any good at playing the Duke of York...
Last edited:
- Status