In the evening Mr. Balfour declared himself in favour of a retaliatory tariff as a means of commercial bargaining with other nations, but said that a tax on food was not within the limits of practical politics. When the debate was resumed the next morning, Mr. Chaplin withdrew his rider, on the ground that it might look like a resolution hostile to the Prime Minister; and Sir John Gorst said that Mr. Balfour"s statement was so far satisfactory that he should make no motion. Thus the sharp differences of opinion that seethed in the Conference were calmed on the surface, and the original resolution was adopted unanimously, only a couple of staunch free traders abstaining from the vote. If ever an English political organisation had a chance to determine the policy of the party it was on this occasion, and a decisive majority was undoubtedly on Mr. Chaplin"s side. Yet this Conference which had often voted for fair trade when the ministers would have none of it, shrank from saying what it thought when the ministers were undecided. A stronger proof could hardly be found that the National Union is powerless to direct the policy of the party.
[Sidenote: The Organisation Breaks Down after 1903.]
Although the popular character of the National Union was unreal, as regards both administrative machinery and the formulation of political opinion, the system worked well so long as the Conservatives were in the ascendent, and Captain Middleton remained in control. But he had concentrated the whole management so completely in his own hands that the machinery could not run smoothly of itself after he retired in 1903.
His successor, instead of consulting the officers of the Union, proceeded as if the Central Office was all-powerful, and thus lost touch with the Union and the local a.s.sociations. Moreover, the sub-agents in some of the divisions were not wisely chosen, and caused friction rather than harmony in the party. Complaints became loud, and found expression at the meeting of the Conference at Newcastle in November, 1905, where a resolution was adopted "that in the opinion of this Conference the management of the Central Conservative a.s.sociation in London is defective, and needs revising; and for this purpose a popularly elected committee should be appointed to cooperate with the Conservative Whips."
The princ.i.p.al agent thereupon resigned; and the resolution of the Conference, followed by the disastrous defeat at the general election in the January following, led to another reorganisation of the party in 1906.
When a ministry that has been in power is beaten at the polls, much of the blame is always laid at the door of the party organisation, and a cry is raised for its reform upon a more democratic basis. The movement on this occasion is interesting enough to merit a little study, because it furnishes the latest ill.u.s.tration of the way a demand for popular control within the party is constantly cropping up in England, and of the obstacles that it meets. As in earlier cases, the party machinery was not so largely responsible as some people a.s.serted. Still it had fallen out of repair. Besides the dislocation at headquarters, the local a.s.sociations had been neglected in many places; many Tory members of Parliament having come to feel that the country was normally Conservative, and that their own seats were safe, had done little or nothing to keep the local organisations in working order; while for a time some a.s.sociations had not dared to meet, knowing that any discussion would bring to light sharp differences of opinion on the question of fiscal policy.
[Sidenote: Changes of 1906.]
The election of January, 1906, was no sooner over than the whips and the officers of the National Union set to work to overhaul the party machinery. In the first place they created an advisory committee of seven persons, charged, indeed, with no executive powers, but with the duty of advising the whip, and thus keeping the leaders in touch with the currents of opinion in the party. The committee consisted of the chief whip, three persons selected by him, and three chosen by the National Union.[566:1] In the second place they transferred a number of functions from the Central Office to the Union, together with a staff of clerks to carry them out, and a grant of money from the funds to defray the expense; the most important function so transferred being the entire supervision of local organisations, the supply of speakers over the country, and the publication of party literature, the last two of these having been hitherto only to a very small extent in the hands of the Union. They worked out also a plan for changes in the organisation of the National Union itself, which were discussed and adopted at a special conference in London.
[Sidenote: The Conference in July.]
The Conference met on July 27; and after a unanimous vote in favour of the fiscal policy of the party leaders had been pa.s.sed, an attack was made upon the Central Office in the form of a motion that it ought to be brought under more effective popular control. The supporters of the motion pointed out that in the new advisory committee the representatives of the National Union were in a minority; that the committee had authority merely to tender advice; and that even this function did not extend to party finance, to the recommendation of candidates for Parliament, or to patronage of any kind. They repeated the charge, familiar even before the days of Lord Randolph Churchill, that the party was a democracy managed by aristocratic methods, that the leaders ought to trust it more and suspect it less, and that the Central Office had not its confidence. In short the demand was the old one for a more popular control of the party machinery. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood, the chief whip, met it by stating frankly that the finances were a delicate and confidential matter, which must be in the hands of one man; and--referring to the new advisory body of seven--he said that it would be disastrous to have the party managed by a committee. The party could stand many things, but in his judgment it could not stand a caucus.
Policy must, he said, be initiated by the leaders; no leader and no whip would submit to anything else. Although the demand for greater popular control had been greeted with applause, it was evident that the prevailing sentiment of the meeting was with the chief whip, and the motion was finally withdrawn; not, however, without an intimation that it would be renewed in the near future.
[Sidenote: The New Rules of 1906.]
The special Conference then went on to debate and adopt the new set of rules, the most important change involved being the enlargement of the Central Council by the direct representation thereon of the counties and boroughs, the former in the proportion of one member for every fifty thousand voters, the latter in that of one for every twenty-five thousand. This, it was thought, would make the body more truly representative, by freeing it both from the control of a small group of men, and from the tendency of every annual Conference to choose persons whose names were known in the part of the country where the Conference happened to meet.[567:1] The only other change of importance related to the provincial divisions. These were made more elastic by a provision that any one or more counties might be erected into a separate division.
Their internal organisation was also remodelled; and the arrangement for furnishing sub-agents of the Central Office as their secretaries, free of charge, was abolished, partly because it had ceased to work smoothly, and partly because many members of the Union felt that it kept them in leading strings.[568:1] The discussion of the divisional councils brought up an interesting question. By the rules of the National Union honorary members had already a right to attend the Conference without votes;[568:2] and by the new rules they were given full membership in the councils of the provincial divisions. When strenuous objection was made to this as undemocratic, a delegate replied that if money was the root of all evil, it was also the source of all power; and that in order to get money it was necessary to do something for the men who gave it. The clause was the subject of the only vote at the Conference close enough to require a count, and the new provision was adopted by 148 to 103. In other respects the existing rules, though much changed in detail, were not altered in their essential features.[568:3]
[Sidenote: Their Probable Effect.]
The new arrangements have increased the functions of the National Union, while the enlargement of the Council will, no doubt, change its method of work, and may possibly make it more useful as an organ for interpreting the feelings of the party. But it is highly improbable that these things will cause any substantial change in the relation of the organisation to the leaders in Parliament. There are still several means of controlling the Union, and preventing it from getting out of hand.
One of these is furnished by the party war chest, or campaign fund, over which Lord Randolph Churchill tried in vain to get a large share of control. It is disbursed by the Central Office, and its distribution holds many const.i.tuencies in a state of more or less dependence.
Then again, even in the last reorganisation, the recommendation of candidates for Parliament to places seeking for them has been retained under the exclusive control of the Central Office, instead of being allowed to pa.s.s into the hands of the National Union; and this is in itself no small source of power. As a further security against capture of the Union, the practice was established in 1889 of changing the chairman of the Council every year, so that no one could acquire influence enough to be dangerous. Moreover, fidelity upon the Council has often brought its reward in the form of a seat in Parliament, or of a baronetcy. So far these various precautions have been effective. Since 1884 no one has attempted to get control of the Union for his personal advantage. Certainly the capture of the organisation has been made more difficult than it was formerly, but it would be rash to predict that it is altogether impossible. Nor would it be safe to say that the Union will never embarra.s.s the leaders by laying down a definite course of policy and insisting that the leaders should adopt it; this, however, never has happened, and there appears no more reason to expect it in the future than in the past.
The National Unions both in England and Scotland[569:1] have very important functions, which they perform with great efficiency; but they are really electioneering bodies. Their work is to promote local organisation, to arouse interest, to propagate Conservative doctrines, and this they do exceedingly well by means of departments for the publication of party literature and for providing lecturers. The English Union has established also a political library in London, which collects a large amount of information, including the speeches and records of all the leading men in public life. But as organs for the popular control of the party, for formulating opinion, and for ascertaining and giving effect to the wishes of the rank and file, these bodies are mere pretences. Both the National Liberal Federation and the National Union of Conservative a.s.sociations have been sources of anxiety to the party leaders, but for the time, at least, both have been made harmless. The process in each case has not been the same, although the results are not unlike. Both are shams, but with this difference that the Conservative organisation is a transparent, and the Liberal an opaque, sham.
FOOTNOTES:
[535:1] The reports of the first three Conferences are found only in the ma.n.u.script minutes of proceedings. Reports of the fourth to the ninth Conference inclusive were printed. Since that time only the reports of the Council and the programmes for the Conferences have been published.
[535:2] In the original const.i.tution it was to meet every third year in London, but this was changed in 1868. It will be observed that the Conference corresponds to the Council of the National Liberal Federation; and the Council, although a much smaller body, to the General Committee of the Federation.
[537:1] _Cf._ Statement made at first Conference, 1868, and Rep. of the Council at the Conference of 1875.
[537:2] _Cf._ Leaflet No. 1, 1876.
[537:3] Ma.n.u.script minutes, p. 57.
[537:4] Rep. of the Conference of 1873.
[537:5] Rep. of the Council for 1871. He held the post of princ.i.p.al agent through the general election of 1874 which his efforts helped much to win. In 1881 he took the position again, and at that time was made a vice-chairman of the Council so as to bring the Union into cooperation with the whips" office. (Rep. of the Council for 1881.)
[539:1] Punch made the expression the subject of a cartoon.
[539:2] Curiously enough he suggested one principle which has only recently been taken up seriously by Conservative leaders. Among the three great objects of the party he placed the upholding of the empire, and in speaking of this he said that when self-government was given to the colonies, it ought to have been with provisions for an imperial tariff, common defence, and some representative council in London.
[539:3] Rep. of Conference of 1878. But many of the local a.s.sociations may have been branches with less than one hundred members, and therefore not admissible under the rules.
[539:4] The need of a reorganisation of the party on a more popular basis was afterward urged by Mr. Gorst and Sir Henry Drummond Wolff in an article ent.i.tled "The State of the Opposition," _Fortnightly Review_, November, 1882.
[540:1] _E.g._, by Dr. Evans. Rep. of Conference of 1878.
[540:2] "Lord Randolph Churchill," I., 69.
[541:1] The best accounts of the Fourth Party are to be found in Winston Churchill"s "Life of Lord Randolph Churchill," I., Ch. iii., and in three articles by Harold E. Gorst ent.i.tled "The Story of the Fourth Party" in the _Nineteenth Century_ for November, and December, 1902 and January, 1903, afterward republished as a book. These accounts are written by the sons of two of the members of the group, and may be taken to express the views of those two members.
[544:1] These words are taken from the ma.n.u.script report of the Conference in the records of the National Union. The language is more brief, and differs in unimportant details from that quoted in Winston Churchill"s life of Lord Randolph.
[545:1] A motion was also carried unanimously requesting the Council to consider a method of electing its members, such that the a.s.sociations might be represented upon it by delegates.
[547:1] These two letters do not appear in the report of the Council, but are quoted by Mr. Winston Churchill.
[548:1] Winston Churchill, "Lord Randolph Churchill," I., 318.
[549:1] "It appears to us that these objects may be defined to be the same as those for which the a.s.sociations themselves are working. The chief object for which the a.s.sociations exist is to keep alive and extend Conservative convictions, and so to increase the number of Conservative voters. This is done by acting on opinion through various channels; by the establishment of clubs, by holding meetings, by securing the a.s.sistance of speakers and lecturers, and by the circulation of printed matter in defence of Conservative opinions, by collecting the facts required for the use of Conservative speakers and writers, and by the invigoration of the local press.
"In all these efforts it is the function of the Council of the National Union to aid, stimulate and guide the a.s.sociations it represents.
"Much valuable work may also be done through the a.s.sociations, by watching the registration and, at election time, by providing volunteer canva.s.sers and volunteer conveyance."
This letter and the reply to it are printed in full in Winston Churchill"s "Lord Randolph Churchill," I., App. II.
[550:1] Here follows a rehearsal of the functions Lord Salisbury had ascribed to the Council, which are p.r.o.nounced to have been clear, definite, and satisfactory. The a.s.surance with which they are a.s.sumed to mean something quite different from what his Lordship must have intended is one of the marvellous things about the affair.
[552:1] Maclean"s own account of the matter is given in his "Recollections of Westminster and India," 68-79.
[552:2] The terms were briefly as follows:--
1. The two bodies to occupy the same offices.
2. The Union to attend to the formation and maintenance of local a.s.sociations. The agents of the Central Committee to a.s.sist in this and report to the Union through the princ.i.p.al agent.
3. Parliamentary elections, the recommendation of candidates, and questions of general policy, to be outside the province of the Union.
4. The Union to publish literature as it may desire, and to provide speakers.
5. The Council to help the party leaders to organise public meetings, and circulate pamphlets.
6. The Central Committee to allot a sum of money to be paid annually to the Union.
7. The chief whip and the princ.i.p.al agent to have seats on the Council, and the chief whip to sit on all committees.