- 1 -

INTRODUCTION

My research project is titled A most eminent Edwardian: the patriotism and politics of Reginald Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher, 1852-1930

Reginald Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher, was a figure little known to the wider British public during his lifetime and his name has faded further from view in the years since his death in 1930. If he is identified it is usually as a prominent courtier during the reign of Edward VII. Yet Esher was one of the most influential statesmen in the British empire in the early 20th century, using his considerable political power to mould national defence policy and the constitutional debate over the powers of the House of Lords. One reason why this was often not recognised, either by contemporaries or later observers, is that after 1902 Esher never held a formal government position or office, refusing those Cabinet positions that were offered to him as well as turning down an invitation to become the Viceroy of India.

After meeting Esher one contemporary wrote: ‘He seemed to me a creature of pure intellect, a perfect mechanism, a motor actuated by a brain, but otherwise quite empty’.[1] This assessment differs little from the picture that emerges from the majority of both academic and popular studies of Britain in the early twentieth century. The crucial influence of Lord Esher on national defence and constitutional debates in early 20th century British politics has been widely acknowledged by historians. Esher’s voluminous papers provide ready evidence of his active participation in major affairs of state as well as documenting his unrivalled access to everyone of importance from the king and prime minister down. Nevertheless, an acceptance of Esher’s caricature has meant that few historians have been curious about his motivations, failing to consider, for example, why a man involved for a decade at the heart of both army and naval reforms later became so active in the propagation of the anti-war views of Norman Angell. Even Esher’s biographers, Peter Fraser,Lord Esher: A Political Biography (1973); James Lees-Milne, The Enigmatic Edwardian: The Life of Reginald 2nd Viscount Esher (1986) and William Kuhn (in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography), give little space either to speculation about the apparent ambivalence in Esher’s actions or to reflection on his political ideology, preferring instead to focus on accounts of his involvement with the many major events and developments of the period.[2]

No historian has attempted a detailed investigation of Esher’s motivations and objectives nor questioned whether they were linked by any coherent ideology. Many writers have been content to describe Esher as an éminence grise, with little further analysis of why his persuasive skills were so successful. By a close and methodical study of the importance of ‘friendship’ in late 19th and early 20th century politics my thesis will endeavour to determine how and why Esher accumulated and leveraged such extensive political power without holding any official government position, apart from a period as the Permanent Secretary to the Office of Works (1895-1902). It also will challenge the view that Esher was more important for what he persuaded others to do rather than for his own actions and beliefs. The key to this analysis is an understanding of how he established and exploited the personal and political networks that were the foundation of his influence. Any complete answer to this question inevitably will involve at least a partial biographical study of Esher. This will take, however, the form of a ‘life and times’ approach rather than an explicitly narrative account of Esher’s life. The intended course will attempt to explicitly align the individual themes (i.e. the chapters of the thesis) with addressing the how and why of Esher’s political power. It encompasses those social networks most crucial to Esher’s accrual of influence, and which represent the political issues where his impact was most enduring, as well as the motivations and personal ideology that defined him.

This approach is consistent with a theoretcal framework that uses Social Network Analysis tools to enhance the comprehension of Esher’s ‘networking’ ability. There will be no attempt to embark on a full quantitative analysis of his extensive relationship networks but employing this methodology provides a valuable heuristic for understanding Esher’s success as the quintessential ‘social networker’. Despite the obvious logic of such an approach there are potential pitfalls: not least is the need to identify in advance the thematic areas of research when, in theory, these only can be conclusively identified ex post after a full overview of Esher’s interlocking social ties is completed.

An improved understanding of Esher’s effectiveness may answer why a succession of prime ministers, as well as other cabinet members, acquiesced to, and even actively abetted, his activities – activities that at times could be seen as unconstitutional. This places Esher in the wider context of Edwardian high politics and gives a new perspective on the ‘anti-democratic’ theme that can be identified in political discourse during this era. As a consequence, the thesis will give insight into the wider impact on early 20th century British politics of other extra-parliamentary statesmen, including Milner and Curzon, as well as leading military and naval figures such as Fisher and Kitchener.

The main, and very substantial, collection of Esher’s private papers is held at the Churchill Archive Centre in Cambridge but his correspondence can also be found in the archival deposits of many of the leading figures of his time, such as Balfour. Other previously neglected sources include an uncatalogued collection of Esher’s papers held by the Imperial War Museum and the journal of the Society of Islanders, The Islander, with much of the editorial content written by Esher.

The following paper focuses on the political importance of social networks in late-Victorian and Edwardian Britain – a vital factor in understanding the extent of Lord Esher’s influence during the latter part of this period. It examines why ‘power’ was often not synonymous with ‘place’ as well as considering the various locations and settings for political discourse. The paper provides an insight towards understanding the prominence of British imperial statesman outside the forum of parliamentary politics and questions the true level of democratic government in Britain before the First World War.

‘The old story – Power and Place are not often synonymous’: the influence of social and political networks in Edwardian Britain

The importance of social networks, based on kinship, friendship or other shared experiences, has become an increasingly common theme in political history, from a global as well as national perspective.[3] The majority of these studies, however, do not fully engage with the implications of such a conceptual approach. This paper will examine how it is possible to advance beyond the metaphor of the network and employ the methodological tools developed for Social Network Analysis to understand the extent of how political power without responsibility could be attained in Edwardian Britain. It will show the value of using the concept of social capital to explain the process by which an extensive network of friendships could be translated into significant political sway. This study also will provide insights into the wider circles of influence operating in late 19th and early 20th century British politics, and why certain statesmen outside Parliament had such a significant impact, by looking at the specific example of Reginald Brett, 2nd Viscount Esher, the éminence grise of Edwardian high politics. In early 20th century Britain a successful Parliamentary career was generally seen as the surest path to power for any ambitious politician. Yet the decade before 1914 witnessed the growing influence on public debate of statesmen outside Parliament, such as the imperial ‘proconsuls’, George Curzon and Alfred Milner, and the former prime minister, Lord Rosebery. As well as indicating the widespread disquiet with the partisan nature of party politics the prominence of these men showed how the strength of social networks remained a critical factor in the accumulation of political power.

II

Commenting on his decision in the autumn of 1903 to turn down the opportunity to become the next Secretary of State for War, Lord Esher observed it was ‘the old story – Power and Place are not often synonymous.’[4] In using this phrase Esher emphasised his belief that he would achieve greater success in implementing his scheme for the reform of the British army by retaining his influence as an independent statesman than by assuming the administrative responsibilities of the head of the War Office. This duly proved to be the case as not only did Esher resist the entreaties of his friends, the king, Edward VII, and the prime minister, Arthur Balfour, to accept ministerial office but he also persuaded them to establish a three-man committee under his chairmanship to reform the administration of the army and which would report directly to the prime minister. With Esher’s active guidance the ‘triumvirate’ comprising the Committee for the Reconstitution of the War Office reached their conclusions with a rapidity that astonished contemporaries and led to the introduction of a series of wide-ranging reforms that transformed the high command of the British army.[5]

At first glance Esher’s retort that the Secretaryship of State was ‘a position which adds nothing to that which I occupy’ appears surprising for a man who at that time held neither a government place nor official post.[6] Perhaps wisely he realised that the strength of his friendships with the king and prime minister would be liable to suffer if he accepted a place in the Cabinet. Even more startling, however, is that the offer was even made. There was one clear and obvious handicap that appeared to disqualify Esher from consideration, as he himself probably assumed: Esher was neither a supporter of the government nor a member of the Unionist party. There was a widespread assumption that British convention stipulated Cabinet positions should be filled by members of the governing party.[7] Balfour’s offer was unprecedented and, if Esher had accepted, someone outside the governing party would have held one of the major offices of State for the first time since the Reform Act of 1832.[8]

Esher’s views that influence and power were not always aligned with the splendour of a position were expressed again, five years later. In November 1908, the Secretary of State for India, the recently ennobled Lord Morley, invited Esher to become the new Viceroy of India. Morley and Esher were old acquaintances, their friendship dating back to the early 1880s when Morley had been editor of the Pall Mall Gazette and Esher a young Liberal MP, dabbling in journalism. As a man famed for his exquisite manners, Esher duly noted his gratitude for the honour he was being paid, but then made clear he had no intention of accepting the offer. Morley may not have been too surprised by the response as by this time Esher had a record of declining public offices.[9] What is more revealing, however, are the reasons why Esher turned Morley down with barely a second thought. As he wrote two days later in his journal: ‘I am confident that in going to India I should be throwing away the substance of power for the shadow. […] Besides, every day questions arise, of vital importance to our country, when I can have my say, and can sway a decision. India would be for me (it sounds vain, but it isn’t) parochial.’[10]

In the febrile political atmosphere of the period these may appear to be episodes of only fleeting importance yet in many ways they also encapsulate the essential themes underlying the realities and praxis of politics in late-Victorian and Edwardian Britain. They highlight how appointments to the most powerful positions in the British Empire were determined by a handful of men, outside the purview of Parliament, as well as illustrating the persuasive impact of longstanding friendships. Even more significantly, it raises the question of both the source and the extent of this ‘substance of power’ that Esher valued so highly. Indeed, it was the common acknowledgement of the influence Esher exercised over the King and leading politicians from both parties that encouraged Morley and Asquith to offer Esher the viceroyalty. Unlike previous Indian Viceroys Esher did not come from an aristocratic background of landed wealth. He inherited his viscountcy from his father, a successful lawyer and briefly Solicitor-General in Disraeli’s first administration, who was raised to the peerage after 14 years as Master of the Rolls. Once he ceased to be an MP in 1885 Esher never again held a formal government position, his only official appointment being Permanent Secretary to the Office of Works between 1895 and 1902. After his father’s death in 1899 Esher sat on the cross-benches in the House of Lords. A reluctant public speaker, his involvement in Parliamentary proceedings was negligible.[11] It is true that he remained a member of the Committee of Imperial Defence, a role he had held as recognition of his crucial contribution to army reform under both Unionist and Liberal administrations, but it provides little explanation for the influence of this ‘enigmatic Edwardian’.[12]

Any attempt to understand how and why Esher believed he wielded the ‘substance of power’ at the highest levels of government must look in greater depth at the social and political networks in which he thrived. In doing this, we can gain insights not only into how Esher accumulated such extensive influence but also into what his example illustrates about the location of political power in Edwardian Britain. It challenges assumptions about the primacy of Parliament in the governance of the country and the rise of ‘democratic’ politics.

III

The relevance of social networks to an understanding of the politics was not lost on contemporary commentators. In the introduction to the 1914 edition of his popular work on the constitution, The Governance of England, Sidney Low wrote that, ‘In the unrestrained intimacy of domesticity, sport and travel, on the golf-course, and in visits to the same pleasure resorts, the men who direct the great dominating interests, commerce, politics, the law, finance, the press, are brought very close together. […] These considerations apply to all parties; for the great interests, the family connections, the society friendships, cut across the party lines.’[13] Low had a rather jaundiced view of Parliament, believing it had lost much of its theoretical powers and that the two efficient factors in the British political system were the Cabinet and the electorate. He went further in seeing this system as a ‘limited Democracy’ with the increased power of an ‘Inner Cabinet’ reflecting the dominance of a small governing class: a class whose coherence was reinforced by strong social bonds. According to Low, ‘The governing cliques can govern because they see one another daily: they are always calling on each other, or lunching, or dining, or attending receptions together; they have been at the same schools and colleges; they have shot together, hunted together, yachted together; they stay at the same country houses, when they leave the dozen or so of streets and squares in London in which they all live; and about half of them are more or less closely connected by the ties of blood or marriage.’[14]

Low was not alone in connecting political influence with the social intercourse of Society. In the course of an exhaustive, two volume survey of the English constitution, A. Lawrence Lowell, broadly concurred with Low’s conclusions, claiming that in the first decade of the twentieth century ‘the connection of fashionable society with politics’ was greater than it had ever been.[15] Lowell took care to emphasise that Society in England was not solely an aristocratic phenomenon but that it was a ‘national institution’. As he described Society: ‘It is not a collection of separate groups in different places, but a single body with ramifications all over the country, and a central meeting ground in London during the season. Unlike the other classes in the community, which are local, society is universal. […] Such a constitution gives to society great solidity and great influence, without the narrowness and rigidity that attends a purely hereditary caste.’[16]

Historians of the late-Victorian and Edwardian era have not ignored these contemporary views on the intertwining of political and social networks. Indeed, from one perspective, exponents of the more traditional form of ‘high political’ scholarship, who are concerned, as Maurice Cowling said, with ‘the politicians who mattered’, implicitly acknowledge this connection.[17] Biographies of statesmen, as well as lesser political figures, from the early twentieth century are legion and many of these are primarily concerned with intrigues and political gambits among a narrow élite. This is not dissimilar from studies that focus on specific periods of political upheaval such as A. B. Cooke and John Vincent’s The Governing Passion, which recounts in great detail the high political manoeuvring during the Home Rule crisis of 1885-86, and Peter Stansky’s account of the struggle for the leadership of the Liberal party in the 1890s, Ambitions and Strategies.[18] Also, if we are to follow Sidney Low and accept that the ‘Sovereign of England is not only the head of the Empire but is also the head of Society’ then this may give credence to those royal biographers who have accentuated the political influence of the monarch.[19] Simon Heffer’s book in 1998, Power and Place: The Political Consequences of King Edward VII, is a prime example of this type of work.[20] Yet these studies, which focus on personalities rather than institutions, while acknowledging the existence of social and political networks rarely question how they were created or consider their relevance.