The period of Conservative dominance between 1885-1905 would not have
happened without Lord Salisbury. Assess the validity of this view.
The years 1885-1905 saw a remarkable period of dominance for the
Conservative Party, from the crushing blow they dealt to the Liberals by winning
317 seats in 1886 compared to the Liberals’ 191 seats, to the famous “khaki
election” of 1900, where the Boer War contributed largely to Salisbury’s
Conservative-Unionist coalition gaining an astonishing 402 seats. Although the
Liberals were fractured and divided in this period, running through 4 leaders
(Gladstone, Rosebery, Harcourt and Campbell-Bannerman), the Conservatives
remained firmly under the direction of Lord Salisbury until his resignation in
1903. Whilst it would be fair to argue that the leadership of Lord Salisbury
contributed to the Conservative dominance by providing a firm and steady hand
and boosting their electoral fortunes, or that the Conservatives harnessed
national pride and organisation to keep themselves in power, it would be most
credible to argue that their dominance was largely a response by the electorate to
the failures of the Liberal Party.
It would be credible to argue that Lord Salisbury’s leadership was an important
factor which allowed the Conservatives to remain coherent and succeed in
elections. Perhaps most importantly, Salisbury displayed his shrewdness by
exploiting to the large towns which were gripped by Villa Toryism (suburbs
which voted Conservative due to a belief in hierarchy and respectability); he
accomplished this by attaching a redistribution scheme to Gladstone’s 1884
Reform Act, which allowed the redrawing of boundaries where boroughs with
under 50,000 people lost one of their two members. This meant that the
Conservatives could make use of the suburbs and wider boroughs of formerly
radical cities, allowing them to win 2/5 seats in Leeds, 3/5 in Sheffield and 35
seats in London in 1885 (compared to 0 in 1865). Furthermore, Salisbury’s
leadership held the different threads of the Conservative Party together,
particularly his handling of Randolph Churchill, who acted as a radical maverick
figure as Salisbury’s Chancellor, abandoning the party line in favour of his own
policies – notably his 1886 Dartford Speech, which promised compulsory
national insurance, smallholdings for agricultural labourers and improved public
health. As Churchill threatened resignation in 1886 over a controversial Budget,
Salisbury simply spent several days weighing his options and considering how
much support he could gather within the cabinet before simply accepting
Churchill’s resignation and replacing him with Goschen, highlighting Salisbury’s
ability to keep the peace within the party itself rather than giving into clashing
personalities. Therefore, Salisbury’s leadership can certainly be viewed as a vital
happened without Lord Salisbury. Assess the validity of this view.
The years 1885-1905 saw a remarkable period of dominance for the
Conservative Party, from the crushing blow they dealt to the Liberals by winning
317 seats in 1886 compared to the Liberals’ 191 seats, to the famous “khaki
election” of 1900, where the Boer War contributed largely to Salisbury’s
Conservative-Unionist coalition gaining an astonishing 402 seats. Although the
Liberals were fractured and divided in this period, running through 4 leaders
(Gladstone, Rosebery, Harcourt and Campbell-Bannerman), the Conservatives
remained firmly under the direction of Lord Salisbury until his resignation in
1903. Whilst it would be fair to argue that the leadership of Lord Salisbury
contributed to the Conservative dominance by providing a firm and steady hand
and boosting their electoral fortunes, or that the Conservatives harnessed
national pride and organisation to keep themselves in power, it would be most
credible to argue that their dominance was largely a response by the electorate to
the failures of the Liberal Party.
It would be credible to argue that Lord Salisbury’s leadership was an important
factor which allowed the Conservatives to remain coherent and succeed in
elections. Perhaps most importantly, Salisbury displayed his shrewdness by
exploiting to the large towns which were gripped by Villa Toryism (suburbs
which voted Conservative due to a belief in hierarchy and respectability); he
accomplished this by attaching a redistribution scheme to Gladstone’s 1884
Reform Act, which allowed the redrawing of boundaries where boroughs with
under 50,000 people lost one of their two members. This meant that the
Conservatives could make use of the suburbs and wider boroughs of formerly
radical cities, allowing them to win 2/5 seats in Leeds, 3/5 in Sheffield and 35
seats in London in 1885 (compared to 0 in 1865). Furthermore, Salisbury’s
leadership held the different threads of the Conservative Party together,
particularly his handling of Randolph Churchill, who acted as a radical maverick
figure as Salisbury’s Chancellor, abandoning the party line in favour of his own
policies – notably his 1886 Dartford Speech, which promised compulsory
national insurance, smallholdings for agricultural labourers and improved public
health. As Churchill threatened resignation in 1886 over a controversial Budget,
Salisbury simply spent several days weighing his options and considering how
much support he could gather within the cabinet before simply accepting
Churchill’s resignation and replacing him with Goschen, highlighting Salisbury’s
ability to keep the peace within the party itself rather than giving into clashing
personalities. Therefore, Salisbury’s leadership can certainly be viewed as a vital
