WI: Joseph Chamberlain did not go into politics?

[pipisme]

Instead he continues in his career as an industrialist, so he does not become a major figure in late 19th and early 20th century British politics. Or he was
born a girl. Other men would be Mayor of Birmingham, President of the Board of Trade. President of the Local Government Board, and Colonial Secretary instead of him and his absence from politics would have significant implications.

The first Irish Home Rule Bill was defeated by 343 votes to 313 votes, on its second reading in the House of Commons in June 1886. 93 Liberals voted against it. In the absence of Chamberlain the bill would probably not have been defeated. Just changing 16 votes from against to for would mean that it would pass. But it would still be rejected by the House of Lords. Gladstone called a general election for July 1886, because of the defeat of the Home Rule Bill. I don't think he would if the Lords rejected it.

The Liberal Party would have stayed in power for probably another four to five years until 1890 or 1891, when the swing of the political spectrum would likely bring a Conservative government. Would the Whigs, led by the Marquis of Hartington, still leave the Liberal Party? Would there be a Liberal Unionist Party?

Without Chamberlain as Colonial Secretary, how would change that British policy in South Africa?

 

[Johnny Canuck]

Interesting idea. On 1886, I'm not sure that Chamberlain's absence would change the ultimate outcome. The vast majority of Liberal defectors on Home Rule were from the Whig side of the party, and even among Radical defectors his was not the only voice - in the key meeting before the vote on the Bill, it was the letter from John Bright, not anything Chamberlain said, which was decisive. No more than a handful of MPs directly followed Chamberlain, and given most of them were from Birmingham, if Chamberlain does not go into politics and the caucus machine there isn't created, some of them might not even be MPs.

There would definitely be a Liberal Unionist party without Chamberlain - the leadership and funding in the initial years came from Hartington and his followers. It was only in Birmingham where Chamberlain's voice was decisive, and it took several years for him to even secure that. A Liberal Unionist party without Chamberlain, though, is one that is able to get along better with the Conservatives in the 1886 to 1895 period (though not perfectly well - there would be disputes in other areas of LU strength like Scotland). Indeed, one possibility is that Hartington might have been more inclined to take over the premiership when Churchill flounces in December 1886 as he wouldn't have to worry about such an act sending Chamberlain back to the Liberals. Of course, Salisbury may have been less likely to make the offer in the first place, given that Hartington may have been more likely to accept it.

 

[pipisme]

Thank you for your comments. The absence of Joseph Chamberlain would have less affect on British politics than I thought it would. Salisbury would not resign as Prime Minister in favour of Hartington when Randolph Churchill resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer in December 1886. He didn't resign in OTL Liberal Unionists were not included in the government until 1895.

A likely replacement for Chamberlain as Colonial Secretary in 1895 would be 5th Marquess of Lansdowne. He was Secretary of State for War from July 1895 to November 1900 in OTL. He had also served as Governor-General of Canada and Viceroy. He was also a Liberal Unionist. How would his South African policy differ from Chamberlain's?

Joseph Chamberlain's sons Austen and Neville were born before he went into poliitics. Assuming they were still born, it is unlikely that Austen would have a political career, and perhaps not Neville.