The Candidates of the Liberal Unionist Party, 1886–1912

The Candidates of the Liberal Unionist Party,1886–1912*parh_246 142..157

W E S L E Y F E R R I S

Historians have hitherto based discussion of the electoral performance of the Liberal UnionistParty on incomplete data regarding the candidates of the party, as published sources, includingF.W.S. Craig’s British Parliamentary Election Results, 1885–1918, the standard reference work,include a number of cases where the party label of a Unionist candidate (either LiberalUnionist or Conservative) is uncertain or incorrect. Utilising a wide range of primary andsecondary sources, this article resolves a number of these cases, and thus creates the mostaccurate list of Liberal Unionist candidates available. The creation of this list allows foraccurate analysis of the party’s history, and the article makes some preliminary observationsbased on the data presented. Among these observations are that the Liberal Unionistscomprised a consistent percentage of the overall Unionist Party in the house of commons,that the number of seats contested by Liberal Unionists remained steady through the January1910 election, and that existing interpretations of the electoral pact between the LiberalUnionists and Conservatives may be flawed.

Keywords: Liberal Unionist; Conservative; electoral pact; constituency; candidates; Unionistalliance; election results; members of parliament; F.W.S. Craig

1

In the historiography of British politics from the Third Reform Act to the First WorldWar, the Liberal Unionist Party has played only a minor role. Most discussion of theparty has taken place in the context of examinations of other parties or issues.1 Other

* The author wishes to thank Dr Stephen Heathorn for his comments on this article, and for hissupervision of the dissertation from which the article is drawn.

1 On the relationship to the Liberal Party, see James Moore, The Transformation of Urban Liberalism: PartyPolitics and Urban Governance in Late Nineteenth-Century England (Aldershot, 2006); Patricia Lynch, The LiberalParty in Rural England, 1885–1910: Radicalism and Community (Oxford, 2003). On the relationship to theConservative Party, see Richard Shannon, The Age of Salisbury, 1881–1902: Unionism and Empire (1996); PeterMarsh, The Discipline of Popular Government: Lord Salisbury’s Domestic Statecraft, 1881–1902 (Hassocks, 1978);John France, ‘Salisbury and the Unionist Alliance’, in Salisbury: The Man and his Policies, ed. Robert Blakeand Hugh Cecil (Basingstoke, 1987); Ian Cawood, ‘Joseph Chamberlain, the Conservative Party, and theLeamington Spa Candidature Dispute of 1895’, HR, lxxix (2006), 554–77. On the relationship to UlsterUnionism, see Alvin Jackson, The Ulster Party: Irish Unionists in the House of Commons, 1884–1911 (Oxford,1989). On the relationship to home rule, see W.C. Lubenow, Parliamentary Politics and the Home Rule Crisis:The British House of Commons in 1886 (Oxford, 1988). On the relationship to tariff reform, see E.H.H.Green, The Crisis of Conservatism: The Politics, Economics and Ideology of the British Conservative Party, 1880–1914 (1995).

Parliamentary History, Vol. 30, pt. 2 (2011), pp. 142–157

© The Parliamentary History Yearbook Trust 2011

than biographical treatments of leading Liberal Unionists,2 there have been relatively fewscholarly examinations of the party on its own.3 This relative neglect has extended todiscussion of the electoral performance of the party, and the identification of itscandidates. Many modern sources simply conflate the Liberal Unionists and Conserva-tives when it comes to electoral statistics, implying that the former did not havesignificant independence from the latter.4 F.W.S. Craig, in his definitive compilation,British Parliamentary Election Results, 1885–1918, attempted to identify every LiberalUnionist candidate, but concluded that in a number of cases ‘there could be no definitiveanswer’ and simply accepted the label contained in the Conservative annual publication,the Constitutional Year Book, with an asterisk following the designation of any candidatewhose allegiance was uncertain.5 However, certainty over who stood as Liberal Unionistsis a vital component of any discussion of the party’s history. Crucially, the developmentof an accurate list of party candidates would allow, for the first time, detailed analysis ofthe electoral performance of the party, especially in the more-neglected period after1895. It would also facilitate investigation of the shifting balance within the Unionistalliance between the Liberal Unionist and Conservative Parties, particularly regardingwhich party contested which constituencies. Such a list, then, is essential to any under-standing of the operation of the electoral pact between the two parties. Finally, thecreation of a definitive list of Liberal Unionist candidates also has the indirect effect ofdevising the most accurate record of Conservative candidates over the same period.Thusthe development of a list of all Liberal Unionist candidates is an important milestone, notonly in rendering a more accurate understanding of the Liberal Unionist Party, but alsoin understanding the evolution of Unionist politics generally in the late-Victorian andEdwardian periods. Prior efforts to develop lists of Liberal Unionist candidates, however,have been undertaken in the context of general efforts at compiling electoral statisticsand results and, faced with a lack of evidence and convinced that the difference betweena Liberal Unionist and Conservative candidacy was minimal, have resulted in a numberof inaccuracies. Nevertheless, through a concerted focus on the Liberal Unionist Party,and incorporating a variety of under-utilised primary sources, it has been possible tocompile the most accurate list of Liberal Unionist candidates available, as outlined below.6

2 The most recent, and best, biography of Joseph Chamberlain is Peter Marsh, Joseph Chamberlain:Entrepreneur in Politics (New Haven, 1994).The 8th duke of Devonshire, conversely, has received less attentionfrom historians. Other than the Victorian tombstone biography by Bernard Holland, only Patrick Jackson andT.A. Jenkins have focused on Devonshire’s political activities. See Bernard Holland, The Life of Spencer Compton,Eighth Duke of Devonshire (2 vols, 1911); Patrick Jackson, The Last of the Whigs: A Political Biography of LordHartington, Later Eighth Duke of Devonshire (1833–1908) (1994);T.A. Jenkins, ‘Hartington, Chamberlain and theUnionist Alliance, 1886–1895’, Parliamentary History, xi (1992), 108–38.

3 The most recent examinations of the Liberal Unionist Party include Jenkins, ‘Hartington, Chamberlainand the Unionist Alliance’;T.A. Jenkins, ‘The Funding of the Liberal Unionist Party and the Honours System’,EHR, cv (1990), 920–38; Catriona Burness, ‘Strange Associations’: The Irish Question and the Making of ScottishUnionism, 1886–1918 (East Linton, 2003); Victoria Barbary, ‘ “From Platform to Polling Booth”: PoliticalLeadership and Popular Politics in Bolton and Bury, 1868–1906’, University of Cambridge PhD, 2007.

4 See, e.g., British Electoral Facts, 1832–2006, ed. Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher (Aldershot, 2007),13–19.

5 F.W.S. Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results, 1885–1918 (1974), p. xvii. Notably, Craig’s British ElectoralFacts, 1832–1987 (5th edn,Aldershot, 1987) combines Liberal Unionists and Conservatives throughout.

6 This research was undertaken as part of the author’s dissertation on the Liberal Unionist Party. See WesleyFerris, ‘The Liberal Unionist Party, 1886–1912’, McMaster University PhD, 2008.

143The Candidates of the Liberal Unionist Party, 1886–1912


2

A lack of reliable evidence has been a significant impediment to identifyingeach Liberal Unionist candidate. As there is no central party archive for the LiberalUnionists, there are no party records listing seats contested and MPs elected.7 Con-temporary published sources are also problematic. Newspapers cannot be relied uponfor accurate party labels. Even in the 1886 general election, The Times identified onecandidate variously as a Conservative and a Liberal Unionist.8 Particularly after the1895 general election, and in light of the increasingly close relationship between theLiberal Unionists and Conservatives, candidates came to be identified in the press as‘Unionists’ alone. A prominent contemporary source of election data was the Consti-tutional Year Book, an annual reference work published by the Conservative Party.However, the party labels used in the Constitutional Year Book cannot be acceptedunreservedly. For several cases, primary source material demonstrated that the partylabel in the work was inaccurate. Moreover, the party labels used did not necessarilycorrespond with official Conservative Party lists of MPs and candidates, as Craigassumed. In 1893, Sir Edward Watkins was claimed by Conservative chief whip, AretasAkers-Douglas as a Conservative, despite the fact that he had been listed as a LiberalUnionist in the Constitutional Year Book.9 Finally, in rare cases the classification ofcandidates could change between different editions of the Constitutional Year Book. Inthe 1891 edition, J. Leighton was listed as an independent Liberal Unionist at the1890 by-election in North St Pancras, but later editions listed him simply as anindependent.10

Other obstacles to accurate identification of Liberal Unionist candidates also exist.Fusion between local Liberal Unionist and Conservative Associations after 1895 madeit difficult to identify to which wing of the Unionist alliance certain candidatesbelonged. From 1906 onwards, there was also increased interchange of candidatesbetween the two parties, as former Conservative candidates stood as Liberal Unionists,or vice versa. This was often dictated by local circumstances. For instance, the earl ofKerry unsuccessfully contested Westmorland, Appleby as a Conservative candidate atthe 1906 general election, but when his brother-in-law,Victor Cavendish, succeeded asduke of Devonshire in 1908, Kerry replaced him as Liberal Unionist MP for WesternDerbyshire.11 Another case was Charles McArthur, who had sat as the Liberal UnionistMP for Liverpool, Exchange from 1897 to 1906. At a 1907 by-election and again atthe January 1910 general election, McArthur stood as a Conservative for Liverpool,

7 A partial exception is the 1886 general election. See below, note 13.8 The candidate was P. Westerna, in South Monaghan. The Times, 9, 15 July 1886.9 Centre for Kentish Studies, 1stViscount Chilston Papers, CLp3, ff. 236–8:Akers-Douglas to A.H. Gardner,

3 Mar. 1893.10 On the efforts of Lord Wolmer, the Liberal Unionist whip, to dissuade Leighton from standing in 1890,

see The Times, 1 Mar. 1890. Leighton has been considered to be an Independent Liberal Unionist for the 1890by-election in the Appendix, and as an Independent in subsequent elections. See also Ferris, ‘Liberal UnionistParty’, 209–10.

11 On Kerry’s candidature for Westmorland,Appleby, see A.K. Connell, ‘Blue Sky over North Westmorland:Appleby’s Liberal Decade’, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society,3rd ser., vi (2006), 205–6.

144 Wesley Ferris


Kirkdale. In this case, the change of allegiance was due to the fusion of the LiverpoolLiberal Unionist and Conservative organisations in 1907.12

However, there is a number of sources, some of which have not previously beenused regarding candidacies, which do allow for a more thorough and accurate iden-tification of Liberal Unionist candidates. In the Austen Chamberlain Papers there is adocument produced by the Liberal Unionist Association in early 1887 discussing theformation and activities of the party organisation in 1886, and it includes a list ofLiberal Unionist candidates at the 1886 general election.13 Memoranda, a monthlynewsletter published by the central party organisation, carried lists of successful LiberalUnionist candidates for the 1900 and two 1910 general elections.14 In the W.L. BoylePapers, there is a complete list of attendees at a dinner on 10 July 1901 for LiberalUnionist MPs and candidates at the previous general election.15 In addition, the papersof Liberal Unionist politicians and local organisations were helpful in resolving par-ticular cases, and the papers of the West of Scotland and East and North of ScotlandLiberal Unionist Associations were especially useful in identifying Liberal Unionistcandidates in Scotland.16 Finally, both ‘Strange Associations’: The Irish Question and theMaking of Scottish Unionism, 1886–1918 by Catriona Burness and The Radical Thread:Political Change in Scotland by Catriona M.M. Macdonald contained informationregarding specific cases.17

Utilising these sources, it has been possible to compile a complete list of constituenciescontested by Liberal Unionists from 1886 to 1912.The basic assumption in creating thislist was to accept the party label for English, Scottish and Welsh constituencies given inCraig’s British Parliamentary Election Results, 1885–1918, and for Irish constituencies inBrian M. Walker’s Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland, 1801–1922, except in caseswhere evidence contradicted the assigned label.18 In certain situations covered by Craig’swork, the evidence confirmed a party label that he had denoted as uncertain. In other

12 P.J. Waller, Democracy and Sectarianism: A Political and Social History of Liverpool, 1868–1939 (Liverpool,1981), 154.

13 Birmingham University Library, Austen Chamberlain Papers, AC2/1/1: Liberal Unionist Association, Originand Progress, 1886, 17–23.

14 Memoranda, viii (Oct.–Nov. 1900), 185–7; xviii (Feb. 1910), 145–8; xix (Jan. 1911), 6–11.15 Norfolk RO,W.L. Boyle Papers, MC497/1: seating plan, Liberal Unionist Association dinner for MPs and

candidates, 10 July 1901. Boyle was the Liberal Unionist candidate for Mid-Norfolk at each general electionfrom 1900, and was successful in the two 1910 elections.

16 For the papers of the two Liberal Unionist regional associations for Scotland, see National Libraryof Scotland, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association Papers, Acc. 10424/17–22. Other sourcesthat assisted in resolving particular cases include the Joseph Chamberlain Papers (Birmingham UniversityLibrary), the 9th duke of Devonshire Papers (Chatsworth House), the papers of the Mid-DevonLiberal Unionist Association (Ugbrooke Park), and the 1st Viscount Chilston Papers (Centre for KentishStudies).

17 Burness, ‘Strange Associations’; Catriona M.M. Macdonald, The Radical Thread: Political Change in Scotland:Paisley Politics, 1885–1924 (East Linton, 2000).

18 Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results; Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland, 1801–1922, ed. BrianM.Walker (Dublin, 1978). John Vincent and Michael Stenton’s edition of McCalmont’s Parliamentary Poll Bookwas also consulted, but it was found to be less reliable than Craig’s work. Vincent and Stenton combinedLiberal Unionists and Conservatives for the 1910 general elections, and contained certain obvious errors, suchas listing Austen Chamberlain as a Conservative in 1900 and for his 1902 by-election caused by hisappointment as postmaster-general. See McCalmont’s Parliamentary Poll Book: British Election Results, 1832–1918,ed. John Vincent and Michael Stenton (8th edn, Brighton, 1971).



cases, the party label itself was found to be inaccurate.19 The most significant adjustmentfrom Craig’s work is with a set of Unionist candidates who stood in 1906 or afterwards.For the two elections of 1910, these candidates had been claimed as Conservatives by theConstitutionalYear Book, while Memoranda had identified them as Liberal Unionists. Craighad concluded that ‘it is apparent that the Liberal Unionists claimed as their candidatesall their members irrespective of their actual local sponsorship’, and labelled them as‘C*’.20 However, there is evidence to suggest that these MPs were, in fact, LiberalUnionists. One of them, Arthur Strauss, the former Liberal Unionist MP for Cornwall,Camborne, stated earlier in his 1906 election address for North Paddington that he stoodas a Liberal Unionist.21 The papers of the Mid-Devon Liberal Unionist Association alsoclearly indicate that E.F. Morrison-Bell, another of this set of candidates, was sent downto the constituency on the eve of the 1906 general election by John Boraston, the LiberalUnionist chief agent, to stand as a Liberal Unionist.22 The Conservatives themselvesrecognized Morrison-Bell as a Liberal Unionist; J.S. Sanders noted to Akers-Douglas justafter the December 1910 general election that Morrison-Bell’s victory represented again for the Liberal Unionists.23 As such, these candidates have been identified as LiberalUnionists.24

Several particular cases warrant further mention. Brian Walker lists Edward Carson asa Unionist at every election from 1892 to December 1910, in contrast to F.S.L. Lyons,who labelled Carson as a Liberal Unionist.25 In the Appendix below, Carson is labelled‘LU*’ in the 1892 general election, as a significant cause for Conservative objections tohis candidacy was his Liberal heritage, but in subsequent elections he is labelled ‘U’.26

George Kemp was elected as a Liberal Unionist for Lancashire, Heywood at the 1895general election, and held the seat until his retirement at the 1906 general election,though in the interim he had crossed to the Liberals over the issue of free trade. Kempwas also listed as present at the 1901 dinner for Liberal Unionist MPs and candidates, andhistorians have generally considered him to be a Liberal Unionist.27 However, accordingto The Times, Kemp became a Conservative in 1896 as a result of joining the CarltonClub, and was listed as a Conservative at the 1900 general election.28 As such, Kemp’sparty label for 1900 has been given as ‘C*’.The particular party allegiance of Sir EdwardWatkin has been a matter of some dispute, as it appears his primary interest in sitting inparliament was to advance his railway interests, and Craig lists him as a Liberal Unionist

19 In two cases, as discussed below, the new label has an element of uncertainty.20 Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results, p. xvii.21 The Times, 17 Jan. 1906. Strauss would be elected for the constituency in both of the 1910 general

elections.22 Ugbrooke Park, 9th Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Papers, B27: Boraston to Lord Clifford, 30 Dec. 1905.23 Centre for Kentish Studies, 1st Viscount Chilston Papers, C478/10: J.S. Sanders to Akers-Douglas, nd.24 This involved shifted shifting nine, 11 and 14 candidacies in the 1906, Jan. 1910 and Dec. 1910 general

elections respectively from the Conservatives to the Liberal Unionists. The changes for 1906 were for thosecandidates identified as Liberal Unionists in either of the 1910 elections, and identified as Conservatives in1906 by Craig.

25 Election Results in Ireland, ed. Walker, 406.26 H. Montgomery Hyde, Carson (1953), 88–90, 92–4.27 See, e.g., Richard A. Rempel, Unionists Divided: Arthur Balfour, Joseph Chamberlain and the Unionist Free

Traders (Newton Abbot, 1972), 225.28 The Times, 15 Feb. 1896.

146 Wesley Ferris


in 1886 and an independent Liberal in 1892.29 However, Boraston noted that Watkin hadreceived Liberal Unionist whips after the 1892 election, and thus he has been listed asa Liberal Unionist for that election.30 Finally, the Russellite candidates who stood forseats in Ulster from 1902 to 1906 have not been considered to be Liberal Unionists.31

3

Having devised a complete list of Liberal Unionist candidates from 1886 to 1912, it isnow possible to summarize the electoral performance of the party, and draw sometentative conclusions. Table 1 gives information on the electoral performance of theLiberal Unionist and Conservative parties at each general election during the former’sparty existence.The overall trend regarding elected Liberal Unionists is in line with priorconclusions: a sharp decline in the 1892 election, and a subsequent recovery that,nevertheless, failed to reach the high-water mark of 1886.32

However, when comparing the number of Liberal Unionist MPs to the overallperformance of the Unionist alliance, a somewhat different picture appears. As high-lighted in Table 2, throughout the entire history of the party, the Liberal Unionistcomponent of the Unionist alliance was remarkably steady, varying by less than 5%.Indeed, from 1895 onwards, the variance was a mere 2.1%.This indicates that the LiberalUnionist caucus in the house of commons was not in decline in relation to theirConservative allies after 1900, as has been previously indicated.33

Tables 1 and 2, meanwhile, also provide data on the number of Liberal Unionist andConservative candidates at each general election. In this regard, the history of the LiberalUnionist Party can be broken down into three phases. In the first phase, from 1886 to1895, the number of seats contested by the Liberal Unionists declined by almost a third,from 160 to 111.The decline is particularly sharp considering that the Unionist allianceas a whole contested more seats in 1892 and 1895 than it did in 1886. Thus over thisperiod, the number of seats contested by Liberal Unionists, as a proportion of theUnionist total, declined from 28.6% to 18.8%, or by over a third.The second phase, from1895 to the January 1910 election, saw a remarkable stability in the number of seatscontested by Liberal Unionists. Finally, the last election in the party’s history saw anothersignificant decline in the number of seats contested, which was only partially related toa decline in the number of seats contested by Unionists overall.The most notable aspect

29 Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results, 123.30 Birmingham University Library, Joseph Chamberlain Papers, JC6/6/1E/5: John Boraston to Devonshire,

1 Mar. 1895. On Watkin, see also Lubenow, Parliamentary Politics and the Home Rule Crisis, 344; David Hodgkins,The Second Railway King: The Life and Times of Sir Edward Watkin, 1819–1901 (Cardiff, 2002), 629.

31 The candidates supported by T.W. Russell who contested by-elections in Ulster from 1902 to 1905 andthe 1906 general election were independent Unionists who stood against official Unionists from both wingsof the Unionist alliance. See Alvin Jackson, ‘Irish Unionism and the Russellite Threat, 1894–1906’, IrishHistorical Studies, xxv (1987), 376–404; Jackson, The Ulster Party, 266–75.The Russellite candidates subsequentlyjoined the reconstituted Ulster Liberal Association after the 1906 general election. J.R.B. McMinn, ‘Liberalismin North Antrim, 1900–1914’, Irish Historical Studies, xxiii (1982), 23.

32 Shannon, The Age of Salisbury, 263–4; France, ‘Salisbury and the Unionist Alliance’, 225–6.33 John Ramsden, ‘The Organisation of the Conservative and Unionist Party in Britain, 1910–1930’,

Oxford University PhD, 1974, p. 13.



Tab

le1:

The

Lib

eral

Uni

onist

and

Con

serv

ativ

ePa

rties

atG

ener

alE

lecti

ons,

1886

toD

ec.

1910

Gen

eral

elec

tion

Part

yN

umbe

rof

cand

idat

esN

umbe

rel

ecte

dN

umbe

run

oppo

sed

Vote

sre

ceiv

edVo

tes

rece

ived

as%

ofna

tiona

lto

tal

1886

1LU

160

7728

416,

391

14.0

C40

331

790

1,10

4,49

537

.118

922

LU13

748

746

8,72

910

.2C

472

267

341,

691,

282

36.8

1895

LU11

171

1735

8,67

29.

3C

478

340

115

1,53

8,19

439

.819

00LU

101

6727

300,

685

8.5

C46

733

513

61,

467,

273

41.6

1906

LU10

027

241

0,16

17.

3C

458

130

112,

012,

782

35.8

Jan.

1910

LU10

143

449

2,47

37.

4C

494

230

152,

611,

934

39.2

Dec

.191

0LU

7549

1129

8,60

65.

7C

476

224

612,

121,

563

40.5

Not

esIn

depe

nden

tca

ndid

acie

sas

soci

ated

with

eith

erpa

rty

are

not

incl

uded

inth

eab

ove

tota

ls.K

ey:C

=C

onse

rvat

ive;

LU=

Libe

ral

Uni

onist

1.T

his

incl

udes

thre

eco

nstit

uenc

ies

inw

hich

both

Libe

ral

Uni

onist

and

Con

serv

ativ

eca

ndid

ates

stoo

d(D

evon

,To

rqua

y;E

ssex

,R

omfo

rd;

and

Ham

pshi

re,P

eter

sfiel

d).

2.T

his

incl

udes

one

cons

titue

ncy

inw

hich

both

Libe

ral

Uni

onist

and

Con

serv

ativ

eca

ndid

ates

stoo

d(D

ublin

Uni

vers

ity).

Sour

ces:

F.W

.S.C

raig

,Brit

ishPa

rliam

enta

ryE

lecti

onR

esul

ts,18

85–1

918

(197

4);P

arlia

men

tary

Ele

ction

Res

ults

inIr

elan

d,18

01–1

922,

ed.B

rian

M.W

alke

r(D

ublin

,197

8),a

sam

ende

dby

the

App

endi

x.

148 Wesley Ferris


of these figures are those of the second phase. It has been generally assumed amonghistorians that the year 1895, and the formation of the Unionist coalition government,constituted an important landmark in the Liberal Unionist Party, inaugurating a periodof decline. Reflective of this is Gordon L. Goodman’s comment that ‘at this point [1895]interest in the Liberal Unionists as a political entity fades’.34 However, these figuressuggest that the year 1895 signalled the start of an era of stability, not decline, in theLiberal Unionist Party.At least in terms of their ability to put candidates in the field, andhave them accepted by their Conservative allies, the formation of the Unionist govern-ment seemed to have no significant impact. Indeed, it is only with the December 1910election that one sees, for the first time, a decrease in the number of candidates that, itcould be suggested, was reflective of a broader decline of the party that may, in turn, havesignalled the imminence of fusion with the Conservatives.

The completion of a list of all Liberal Unionist candidates also allows the identifica-tion of those constituencies that were only contested by Liberal Unionists over theparty’s history. As Table 3 indicates, there were 39 constituencies that were contested byLiberal Unionists but never Conservatives between 1886 and 1912.

The geographical pattern of these seats is largely what would be expected – themajor concentrations are in Birmingham and the west midlands, the west country, andScotland, though it is interesting to note that the Scottish seats were largely urban, incontrast to the case in England where, Birmingham notwithstanding, most seats wererural. There are also several isolated seats whose presence can be explained by stronglocal influence, such as the Rothschilds in Buckingham, Aylesbury, the Cavendishes inWest Derbyshire, and the Peases in Darlington. Also, of the 39 seats, 13 were won byLiberal Unionists at every election in this period, of which seven were located inChamberlain’s ‘Duchy’.35 However, the unexpected significance of Table 3 relates to theoperation of the electoral pact between the Liberal Unionists and the Conservatives,

34 Gordon L. Goodman, ‘The Liberal Unionist Party, 1886–1895’, University of Chicago PhD, 1956, p. 188.35 In addition to these 13 seats, West Edinburgh was won by Liberal Unionist candidates at every general

election, but was lost at an 1888 by-election.This contest was won by T.R. Buchanan, who had formerly heldthe seat as a Liberal Unionist but had left the party and resigned his seat to stand in the by-election as a Liberal.

Table 2: Electoral Data on Liberal Unionists, 1886 to Dec. 1910

Generalelection

LU candidates as %of total UK seats

LU candidates as % of UKseats contested by Unionists

Elected LUs as %of Unionist total

1886 23.9 28.6 19.51892 20.4 22.5 15.21895 16.6 18.8 17.31900 15.1 17.8 16.71906 14.9 17.9 17.2Jan. 1910 15.1 17.0 15.8Dec. 1910 11.2 13.6 17.9

Sources: F.W.S. Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results, 1885–1918 (1974); Parliamentary ElectionResults in Ireland, 1801–1922, ed. Brian M. Walker (Dublin, 1978), as amended by the Appendix.



Table 3: Constituencies Contested Exclusively by Liberal Unionists, 1886 to 1912

Type ConstituencyNumber of

contestsTimes

contested Times won

EnglishCounty

Buckinghamshire, Aylesbury 8 8 8Cornwall, Bodmin 8 8 5Cornwall, Camborne 8 8 1Cornwall, St Austell 10 5 0Cornwall, St Ives 8 8 5Derbyshire, Western 10 10 10Devon, Tavistock 7 7 3Devon, Totnes 7 7 7Herefordshire, Ross 8 8 7Norfolk, Mid 8 8 4Shropshire, Ludlow 8 8 8Somerset, Eastern 7 7 6Staffordshire, Handsworth 7 7 7Staffordshire, Western 8 8 7Worcestershire, Eastern 9 9 9Yorkshire (WR), Shipley 8 4 2

MetropolitanBorough

St Pancras, South 8 8 7

ProvincialBorough

Birmingham, Bordesley 7 7 7Birmingham, Central 8 8 8Birmingham, North 8 8 8Birmingham, South 9 9 9Birmingham, West 8 8 8Darlington 8 8 5Great Grimsby 9 9 6

ScottishCounty

Lanarkshire, Partick 8 8 5Peeblesshire and Selkirkshire 7 7 4

Scottish Burgh Dundee 11 9 0Edinburgh, West 10 10 9Glasgow, Camlachie 7 7 6Glasgow, Tradeston 8 8 5Hawick District 9 8 0Inverness District 8 8 4St Andrews District 8 8 6

University London University 8 8 8

Irish Borough Dublin, Dublin Harbour 8 1 0

Irish County Londonderry, South 7 7 7Longford, South 9 1 0Tyrone, South 7 7 6Wexford, South 8 1 0


150 Wesley Ferris


which included provisions that seats contested by either a Liberal Unionist or Con-servative in 1886 would generally be contested by candidates of the same party atsubsequent elections. Historians have, hitherto, focused on the electoral pact whendiscussing the electoral performance of the two parties of the Unionist alliance, espe-cially regarding the success, or lack thereof, of Liberal Unionist candidates.36 However,a comparison of these seats to those contested at the December 1910 general electionsuggests that this focus is somewhat misplaced. Of the 75 seats contested by the LiberalUnionists at that election, 39 had never been contested by Conservatives since theformation of the Unionist alliance.37 The corollary of this, of course, is that 36 seats hadbeen previously contested by a Conservative candidate since 1886. This indicates thatthere was a significant number of seats transferred from Conservative to Liberal Union-ist candidates over the course of the Unionist alliance. Thus the overall decline in thenumber of Liberal Unionist seats contested, as shown in Tables 1 and 2, is only a partialexplanation of the course of the electoral aspect of the Unionist alliance. Instead, theevidence cited above suggests that the gradual decline in the number of Liberal Union-ist candidates masks an interchange in seats between the Liberal Unionists and Con-servatives that is far greater than the terms of the electoral pact alone would suggest.38

Table 4, meanwhile, sheds light on another aspect of the electoral pact between theLiberal Unionists and Conservatives. Historians have assumed that the pact was mostadvantageous to the Conservative Party.The pact, it is suggested, limited Liberal Union-ists to only those seats that Conservatives themselves were unlikely to win, which meant

36 Shannon, The Age of Salisbury, 263–4; France, ‘Salisbury and the Unionist Alliance’, 224–6; VernonBogdanor, ‘Electoral Pacts in Britain since 1886’, in Electoral Politics, ed. Dennis Kavanagh (Oxford, 1992),175–6. For the terms of the electoral pact, see copies in Centre for Kentish Studies, 1st Viscount ChilstonPapers, O.10: resolutions, nd; Chatsworth House, 8th duke of Devonshire Papers, 340.2205A: resolutions, nd.

37 Of the 39 seats in Table 3, Hawick Burghs was uncontested in the Dec. 1910 general election. However,Carmarthen District was contested by a Liberal Unionist in Dec. 1910 and at all prior contests, but is notincluded in Table 3 because it was contested by a Conservative at a Jan. 1912 by-election.

38 Preliminary analysis of the types of seats that changed between parties can be found in Ferris, ‘LiberalUnionist Party’, ch. 3.

Table 4: Success Rates of Liberal Unionist and Conservative Candidates at General Elections, 1886 to Dec.1910

Generalelection

% of LU candidateswho were successful

% of Conservative candidateswho were successful

Difference in favour ofConservative candidates

1886 48.1 78.7 +30.61892 35.0 56.6 +21.61895 64.0 71.1 +7.11900 66.3 71.7 +5.41906 27.0 28.4 +1.4Jan. 1910 42.6 46.6 +4.0Dec. 1910 65.3 47.1 -18.2




that any expansion of the Liberal Unionist Party would have to come in seats where theLiberal Party tended to be strongest.Thus the inability of the Liberal Unionists to matchtheir high-water mark of the 1886 election in subsequent elections was the result of onlybeing able to contest those seats in which the Liberal Party was strongest, as the bestopportunities for gains were reserved for Conservatives.39

However, the figures in Table 4 shed some doubt on these observations. Certainly thefigures for the 1886 election demonstrate that Liberal Unionist candidates were far lesslikely to be successful than were Conservative candidates, reinforcing W.C. Lubenow’sobservations regarding the operation of the electoral pact at that election.40 However, thefigures for subsequent elections paint a somewhat different picture. Particularly from1895 onwards, Liberal Unionist candidates were much more likely to be successful thanthey had been at prior general elections, and their rate of success was almost the sameas that of Conservative candidates.Thus while the number of seats contested by LiberalUnionists declined significantly from 1886 to 1895, the chances of Liberal Unionistswinning those seats that remained increased. This suggests that most of the seatstransferred from Liberal Unionist to Conservative candidates were neither safe LiberalUnionist seats nor those with vulnerable Liberal incumbents. Instead, most such seatswere those in which the Liberal candidate was stronger, an observation reinforced by thefact that the Conservative success rate in subsequent elections, especially in 1895 and1900, never matched the 78.7% of 1886. In the long run, then, the electoral pact did notoperate to ensure that the Liberal Unionists were left with only those seats in which theLiberals were strongest. Indeed, these figures suggest that over time, the weakest LiberalUnionist seats were the most likely to be contested by Conservatives at subsequentelections.

The creation of a complete list of Liberal Unionist candidates also allows, for the firsttime, detailed analysis of their background.41 Such analysis can shed light on a numberof questions regarding the characteristics of Liberal Unionist candidates and how theyevolved over time. One particularly relevant question is the extent to which suchcandidates had a Liberal heritage, thus contributing to debates over how ‘Liberal’ theLiberal Unionist Party was. Table 5 lists those Liberal Unionist candidates at everygeneral election who had previously contested an election as a Liberal.The overall trendis of a definite and steady decline.

In 1886, over two-thirds of the party’s candidates had previously stood as Liberals.Thisfell to just over half by 1892, and continued a steady decline to a low point of 12% inthe final election the party contested. This would appear to correspond with those

39 Shannon, The Age of Salisbury, 263; France,‘Salisbury and the Unionist Alliance’, 225–6; Ian Cawood,‘TheUnionist “Compact” in West Midland Politics, 1891–1895’, Midland History, xxx (2005), 98. In contrast, PeterMarsh has suggested that the Liberal Unionists struck a good bargain, gaining essential Conservative supportin their constituencies in exchange for only the vaguest declarations that Liberal Unionist voters shouldsupport Conservatives elsewhere: see Marsh, The Discipline of Popular Government, 111.

40 Lubenow, Parliamentary Politics and the Home Rule Crisis, 301–2.41 There have been several analyses of the voting patterns and characteristics of Liberal Unionist MPs,

though some of the data in such studies may require revision in light of the findings of the research presentedhere. See Michael Rush,‘The Members of Parliament’, in The House of Commons in the Twentieth Century: Essaysby the Members of the Study of Parliament Group, ed. S.A. Walkland (Oxford, 1979), 108–9; John D. Fair, ‘PartyVoting Behaviour in the British House of Commons, 1886–1918’, Parliamentary History, v (1986), 65–82;Lubenow, Parliamentary Politics and the Home Rule Crisis.

152 Wesley Ferris


historians who have concluded that the Liberal Unionists became increasingly indistin-guishable from the Conservatives from the 1890s onwards.42 However, the figures inTable 5 tell only a portion of the story. Liberal Unionist candidates might have a Liberalheritage that did not include formally standing for the party, but which might includeprominent roles in local Liberal organisations or unsuccessfully contesting nominations.Thus, for example, of the candidates who first stood for the party from 1887 to 1892,Alexander Cross had been president of the Glasgow Central Liberal Association, JohnSugden had been a prominent member of the local Liberal Association in Colne Valley,E.B. Willyams had stood unsuccessfully against William Bickford-Smith for the Liberalnomination for Cornwall,Truro in 1885, and T.B. Bolitho had been president of the StIves Liberal Association.43 Hence any thorough analysis of the Liberal heritage of LiberalUnionist candidates must move beyond an analysis of past Liberal candidacies, andexamine in detail the background of each candidate.

42 In addition to Goodman (see above, note 34), Roy Douglas has suggested that by the 1890s the LiberalUnionists ‘were Conservatives for all practical purposes’, while Anthony Seldon has argued that the Conser-vatives had absorbed the Liberal Unionists by the end of the 19th century: see Roy Douglas, The History of theLiberal Party, 1895–1970 (1971), 4; Anthony Seldon, ‘Conservative Century,’ in Conservative Century: TheConservative Party since 1900, ed.Anthony Seldon and Stuart Ball (Oxford, 1994), 64. Such a decline would alsobe related to the passage of time and the advancing ages of those Liberal candidates who had stood prior to1886.

43 Cross was elected for Glasgow, Camlachie in 1892, Sugden was the unsuccessful candidate for Yorkshire(WR), Colne Valley in 1892, Willyams was the unsuccessful candidate for Cornwall, St Austell at an 1887by-election and Bolitho was elected for Cornwall, St Ives at an 1887 by-election. See John F. McCaffrey, ‘TheOrigins of Liberal Unionism in the West of Scotland’, Scottish Historical Review, l (1971), 56; David Clark, ColneValley: Radicalism to Socialism, the Portrait of a Northern Constituency in the Formative Years of the Labour Party,1890–1910 (1981), 20; Peter Hayden, ‘Culture, Creed and Conflict: Methodism and Politics in Cornwall, c.1832–1979’, University of Liverpool PhD, 1982, p. 189; Brian Williams Rodden, ‘Anatomy of the 1886 Schismin the British Liberal Party:A Study of the Ninety-Four Liberal Members of Parliament whoVoted Against theFirst Home Rule Bill’, Rutgers University PhD, 1968, p. 620.

Table 5: Liberal Unionist Candidates at General Elections with Prior Experience as Liberal Candidates,1886 to Dec. 1910

General election LU candidates with Liberal experience % of total LU candidates

1886 110 68.71892 71 (1)1 51.81895 46 (1) 41.41900 25 24.81906 15 (1) 15.0Jan. 1910 13 (3) 12.9Dec. 1910 9 (3) 12.0

Note1. Value in brackets is the number of Liberal Unionist candidates who previously stood as Liberalcandidates at the 1886 general election or later.Sources: F.W.S. Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results, 1885–1918 (1974); F.W.S. Craig, BritishParliamentary Election Results, 1832–1885 (1977); Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland, 1801–1922, ed. Brian M. Walker (Dublin, 1978), as amended by the Appendix.



4

The creation of the most precise list possible of Liberal Unionist candidates from 1886to 1912 allows for detailed and accurate analysis of a number of different aspects of theparty’s history, much of which, as suggested above, undermines common assumptionsregarding the electoral performance of the party and its relationship with the Con-servatives. At the same time, the creation of this list will facilitate further research onthe Liberal Unionists, and may address some of the questions raised in the precedingsection. In particular, the discussion on Tables 3 and 4 challenges received wisdom onthe operation of the electoral pact, in that there may have been a greater exchange ofseats between Liberal Unionists and Conservatives than previously had been assumed,and that over time, the seats in which the Liberals were strongest tended to shift fromLiberal Unionist to Conservative candidacies. By utilising the complete list of LiberalUnionist candidates, it is now possible to examine accurately the pattern of Unionistcontests in each seat, and also identify unique local cases that may illuminate some ofthe broader trends suggested above.44 In addition, the candidate list would allow for theexamination of the characteristics of every Liberal Unionist candidate, and to chartbroader trends from these data. As the discussion of Table 5 suggests, such an exami-nation would be best served by a detailed and thorough analysis of the biographicaldetails of each candidate. In this regard, the work of Brian Williams Rodden on thoseLiberals who voted against the First Home Rule Bill, and their actions and fate at the1886 general election, may prove to be a useful model.45 Thus the creation of the listof Liberal Unionist candidates is but one element in improving our understanding ofthe party, as it can form the basis of further investigations of different aspects of theoperation of the Liberal Unionist Party, and its place in, and influence on, late-Victorian and Edwardian politics.

Appendix

Below is a list of all constituencies in which at least one party label for a Unionistcandidate at a general election has been adjusted in light of evidence, with a separatechart for by-elections. In entries in which the party label has been revised, the first labelis the corrected version, and the label in brackets is that which appears in Craig orWalker, as appropriate. In entries in which the party label has not been revised, only thelabel as it appears in Craig or Walker, as appropriate, is given, without brackets. Note thatfor Irish constituencies, Unionist candidates other than Liberal Unionists are labelled as‘U’, in line with the methodology used by Walker.

44 E.g., see Ferris, ‘Liberal Unionist Party’, ch. 3.45 Rodden, ‘Anatomy of the 1886 Schism in the British Liberal Party’.

154 Wesley Ferris


Key:LU Liberal UnionistC ConservativeU UnionistL LiberalInd. IndependentNone No Unionist candidate at the given election/ Separates two or more Unionist candidates at the same election* Following a party label, indicates a degree of uncertainty regarding the party

affiliation

General Elections

English Counties

1886 1892 1895 1900 1906Jan.1910

Dec.1910

Bedfordshire, Luton C LU LU LU (C*) LU (C*) LU CCornwall, Camborne LU LU (LU*) LU (LU*) LU (LU*) LU LU LUDerbyshire, Southern LU None C C C LU (C*) LU (C*)Devon, Ashburton LU C C C LU (C*) LU (C*) LU (C*)Devon, Barnstaple LU LU LU LU LU (C*) LU C*Essex, Maldon C C C C C LU (C*) LU (C*)Hertfordshire, Hitchin C C C C C LU (C*) LU (C*)Hertfordshire, Watford C C C C C LU (C*) LU (C*)Lancashire, Clitheroe None LU (LU*) None None Ind. C C CLancashire, Heywood C LU LU C* (LU) LU C CLancashire, Leigh C C C C LU (C*) C CLancashire, Newton C C C C C LU LU (C*)Lancashire, North

LonsdaleC C LU LU LU (C*) LU (C*) LU (C*)

Leicestershire,Loughborough

C C C LU (C*) C C C

Staffordshire, Lichfield LU LU LU LU (C*) LU LU C*Surrey, Chertsey C C C C C LU (C*) LU (C*)Surrey, Guildford C C C C C LU (C*) LU (C*)Sussex, Lewes C C C C C C LU (C*)Wiltshire, Cricklade LU LU LU C LU (C*) LU LU

Metropolitan Boroughs

1886 1892 1895 1900 1906Jan.1910

Dec.1910

Paddington, North C C C C LU (C*)/Ind. C LU (C*) LU (C*)



English Boroughs

1886 1892 1895 1900 1906Jan.1910

Dec.1910

Cambridge C C C C LU (C*) LU (C*) LU (C*)Cheltenham C C C C C LU (C*) LU (C*)Hythe LU LU (Ind. L) C C C C CPenryn and

FalmouthC C C C C LU (C*) LU (C*)

Walsall None C C C C LU (C*) LU (C*)

Welsh Boroughs

1886 1892 1895 1900 1906Jan.1910

Dec.1910

Cardiff District LU LU C C LU (C*) C CCarmarthen District LU LU LU LU LU (C*) LU None

Scottish Counties

1886 1892 1895 1900 1906Jan.1910

Dec.1910

Aberdeenshire,Eastern

C (C*) C* LU LU LU LU C*

Banffshire LU Ind. C C LU (LU*) C C NoneEdinburghshire None C LU LU (LU*) C C CFife, Western None LU LU (LU*) C* C C NoneLanarkshire,

GovanC C LU C (C*) C (C*) C C

Lanarkshire,North-Western

C C C LU (C*) C C LU

156 Wesley Ferris


Scottish Burghs

1886 1892 1895 1900 1906Jan.1910

Dec.1910

Dumfries District C LU C (C*) C (C*) C C* CEdinburgh, East LU LU LU LU (LU*) LU LU C*Glasgow, Blackfriars and

HutchesontownLU C LU (LU*) C C C C

Kirkcaldy District LU C* C LU (LU*) C C NoneLeith District None LU C (C*) LU (LU*) LU LU LUPaisley LU C (C*) C C LU C C*

Irish Constituencies

1886 1892 1895 1900 1906Jan.1910

Dec.1910

Antrim, North U U U U U LU (U) LU (U)Down, South LU LU LU None LU (U) U ULondonderry,

SouthLU LU LU LU LU LU (U) LU (U)

Newry U (LU) U U None None U NoneTyrone, South LU LU LU LU/Ind. U LU (U) LU (U) LU (U)

Universities

1886 1892 1895 1900 1906Jan.1910

Dec.1910

Dublin University(two seats)

U/U U/LU* (U)/U U/U U/LU U/U U/U U/U

By-Elections

Constituency Date Candidate Designation

St Pancras, North 4 Mar. 1890 J. Leighton Ind. LU (Ind.)Cornwall, Camborne 8 Apr. 1903 A. Strauss LU (LU*)Bute 3 Mar. 1905 E.T. Salveson LU (LU*)Devon, Ashburton 17 Jan. 1908 E.F. Morrison-Bell LU (C*)Sussex, Lewes 17 June 1910 W.R. Campion LU (C*)



Documents

The Candidates of the Liberal Unionist Party, 1886–1912