The Popular Will: Reformism, Radicalism, Republicanism & Unionism in Britain 1815-1960

[President Conor]

V, XXIX: "For Shame!"

Chamberlain exited the public view during the ten days emergency period. Stricken with grief at the death of his friend, Henry Drummond-Wolff, he sought answers to rectify the excesses of the previous days.

President-Regent Stanley, therefore, was the most public figure during this time. He visited Norwich, held an audience with Cardinal Manning, attended Drummond-Wolff's funeral, and a memorial held in Manchester for the dead of the March Massacre. His health was deteriorating, and he was visibly ill but kept plodding along. He also visited Chamberlain at Highbury Hall and demanded answers from the Prime Minister.

Funeral of Henry Drummond-Wolff​

Chamberlain was forced to question his strategy, which had cost the lives of many innocent men, women, and children. The Union leaders summoned the Premiers of Mercia and England, his son Austen and John Gorst, to provide their responses to the violence. He also summoned Munro, the Head of the Directorate, to explain. The team of Unionist heavyweights all agreed that this was not the intention of the project they had built to restore national unity and vowed to crush the Teal threat finally.

Firstly, they dismissed the Governor of England and the Commissioner of the English and Mercian State Police. After testimony emerged of the involvement of several English and Mercian legislators in the violence, the resignation of 36 state legislators, who were dubbed the "Gang of St George" by the press. Henry Matthews was restored to his position of Home Secretary, vowing to crack down on violence from both sides of the political spectrum.

Finally, a new draft of the Anti-Socialist Laws was produced, more moderate on peaceful organisations within the SDF but harder on irregular bands of terrorists on the left and right - although officially, the organization would remain prohibited. Senator Ruskin was released, along with many who had been placed under house arrest in the aftermath of Drummond-Wolff's assassination. Moderation was the order of the day.

Equally, a purge of the Directorate to remove the most extreme elements was conducted on the President-Regent's orders. The Mercian and English Police were taken under its direct control. Jeremiah Colman was appointed Governor of England with the backing of Premier Gorst, and Chamberlain attempted to appoint Jesse Collings as Governor of Mercia. Still, the latter's relationship with Chamberlain had already been damaged.

Moderates were appointed to key cabinet positions, increasing the influence of the Conservative Party, abhorred by the violence and excesses of radical Unionism in the Government. Men like Senator Cecil, who decried the events two weeks prior, held more authority. Three hundred Teal Guards were detained, and a Parliamentary inquiry was established to examine the failings.

Chamberlain and the President-Regent's relationship had been strained, but in the public eye, many moderates were impressed with the dynamic action of the Unionists to control the masses. Chamberlain returned to public view as the emergency period passed and promised a robust police presence to deter violence and confirmed elections would go ahead in the coming weeks. Austen Chamberlain removed the Unionist whip from a further 15 legislators in Mercia and expelled them from the party.

The expelled legislators stayed firm in believing they acted in the patriotic interest. Across the country, groups agreed that their actions were justified. An element of society, the Legitimist Church, English nationalists, Conservative monarchists, Teal Guards, and ultranationalist Unionist politicians, glorified the events as the "Second Glorious Revolution," a patriotic warning shot to those challenging the English place as the metropole. While they were relatively contained within Mercia and England, other hotspots in Glasgow, Belfast, and Liverpool were home to significant Orange Party organisations.

Critics directed a particular controversy towards Alfred Milner, whom many people in the country hated. They attributed the frenzy whipped up in the leadup to and aftermath of the assassination to Milner's polemics and editorials. Chamberlain defended Milner and advised him to step down from his role as Editor-in-Chief of The Union and instead work for the Colonial Office in South Africa on behalf of Cecil Rhodes, the Prime Minister of the Cape.

Alfred Milner, former Editor-in-Chief of the Union​

Around the country, men and women recoiled as newspapers in the Capital and Northern and Celtic states reported on the aftermath and new testimony of the excesses uncovered. Newspapers investigated every element and discovered that many perpetrators were still free men, and no charges had been applied.

Meanwhile, Annie Besant's weekly periodical from the Beehive staff, titled The Sunday Republic, reported that police constabularies rounding up known 'agitators,' as they referred to them in reports, and leaving the cell doors open for local Teal guards to execute them.

One local Catholic priest was killed in this manner in Liverpool, weeks after intervening in a trade conflict between Catholic workers and Protestant owners in favour of the workers in his parish. Catholic policemen and public officials were given an hour 'advanced warning' to go home and lock their doors on the evening of the attack.

A nationwide mourning occurred after the massacres, with public demonstrations and vigils in all the major cities, and as Parliament returned, they saw a confident and passionate liberal leader. It just was not the actual leader. Henry Campbell-Bannerman asserted himself into the debate with an impassioned rebuke of the Government's handling, calling it proof of the "paranoia and ineptitude of a tired ministry with the most horrendous of consequences." Still, he is most remembered for ending the speech by crying out, "For shame!" The Speaker of the House suspended him for the rest of the session after failing to adhere to Parliamentary conduct.

Campbell-Bannerman's story was relayed across the Union, propelling him into the public consciousness. The true-hearted, old Constitutional Era aristocrat advocated for sweeping reforms to stop anything like this from occurring again. He had broad support from much of the left, including the SDF, after he insisted that "Parliament should enforce one act on political parties and associations, the Political Associations Act... the organisation in question supports and engages with the work of Parliament and is therefore legally sound. Nevertheless, more pressingly, the right to one's association is fundamental and inalienable in this view. I see only one party threatening the constitution, the men opposite." Harcourt's interventions weren't nearly as stirring.

Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, future Leader of the LDP & President-Regent ​

The LDP mobilised and won support from people concerned by the country's direction, especially in academia and the middle class. Progressive Unionists, including Collings, began to move their support from Chamberlain to the LDP and bring new ideas about social and constitutional reform.

State-level figures like Herbert Gladstone played a massive role publicly supporting severe action against assassinations and reckless violence. Cities that saw the most minor violence tended to have the highest support for action. As part of the drive for national unity and reconciliation after the massacres, State legislatures reconvened, giving prominent state-level LDP politicians, like Gladstone and the newly-released former Metropolitan Chancellor Thomas Farrer, a similar platform to attack the response to the atrocities. In Scotland, the violence galvanised Irish Catholic support behind the SNDP and against Victor Bruce after a series of letters revealed his complicity in sectarian violence in Glasgow two nights after Drummond-Wolff's assassination.

Belfast had been the centre of much political deadlock after the death of its first Premier, Thomas Bateson. While sectarian violence was comparatively and surprisingly low, there was deep-level collusion between ALO councillors and armed gangs during the violence. During March, a radical wing of the ALO, led by state legislator Edward Carson, advocated for removing residency for all Catholics and SDF members in the Orange State.

Sir Thomas Russell led a liberal faction that supported the continuation of Bateson's conciliatory pragmatism towards non-Orangemen in the State. Although the Russellite and Carsonite groups were considered Monarchists and Orangemen, they eventually drifted apart. Russell called for harsh recriminations for the members involved in the massacres. Unionist Party leaders pressured Russell to become the leader of the ALO, which he did, becoming Premier of the Orange State in April 1892. Following the state election, Russell broke away from the ALO. He founded the Unionist Party of the Orange State (UPOS), with the ALO, now led by Carson, becoming the primary opposition.

Sir Thomas Russell, Second Premier of the Orange State​

The March Massacres had two lasting effects on Unionism and the political ideology of the Union as a whole. Firstly, a split within Unionism began to occur in three ways; the hardline, Teal Guard-supporting groups centred around the expelled legislators, the Carsonite wing of the ALO, and Legitimist Churches; the moderate centrist group around Chamberlain now involving a more prominent element of former Tories like Senator Cecil; and the Progressives, who saw the March Massacres as a sign of Chamberlain's over-centralisation of the Unionist project.

Secondly, the robust response of the Unionists prevented further violence in the rest of 1892, which is no mean feat. While Chamberlain arguably shares his share of the guilt, the Government's response jettisoned the extremist elements within the Unionist Party and ended the senseless persecution of moderate Socialists. Despite the upcoming nervous days ahead, internal violence peaked in 1892, and massacres in the style of March would not be repeated. That, in itself, is an achievement for Joseph Chamberlain. The response would enhance his reputation, arguably winning the Unionists the 1892 election.

 

[President Conor]

V, XXX: The Organic Body of the Nation

For the previous three years since the establishment of the new regime, France had been in a state of frenzied action, in sharp contrast to the disappointment and inertia of the Third Republic. "A mutilated and disrespected angel floated aimlessly into the dark until the arrival of Grand Constable," said one newspaper on the third anniversary of the coup that brought him to power. “Now, she soars into the heavens.” The transition from Republic to State was formalized with the new constitution, but crafting France into Boulanger's mold was only beginning. Its ideology would be pivotal to its survival.

Boulanger was not a natural political leader but was vested with immense political power; he was initially forced to adapt on the fly. Measures to nationalise industries, introduce price controls, and mediate labour disputes were initially popular, but corruption, inflation, and murmurings of labour disquiet undermined the initial ideology of the state. The Panic of 1890 forced the Great Constable to reevaluate his position and the direction of the regime. An ideological guide would steer the state and allow Boulanger to establish a vision and destination for France domestically and internationally.

The economic woes and inflation that destabilised Britain and the US during this time were equally felt in France, and the French Government desired ideological, rather than practical, solutions to unify France during economic turbulence. Among those competing for Boulanger’s attention were legislators Édouard Drumont and Paul Déroulède, who opened the newspaper Action Française, garnering support from the core of Boulangist supporters.

Édouard Drumont, Co-editor of Action Française​

The paper advocated a rejection of parliamentarianism, republicanism, and anti-clericalism. It began to talk about the "Two Befores," before the 1792 revolution and before the 1871 establishment of the Third Republic, as the destination for progress on France's domestic policy. Drumont mainly saw these "three evils brought about by the two befores" as stemming from a departure from France in 1789 away from a decentralized Christian country and towards what he called "the Anglo-Jewish conspiracy across the continent to isolate and undermine France."

While up to 25,000 citizens left France during the initial days of the seizure of power, Action Française painted France as rife with Republican fifth columnists waiting for l'Etat Française to fail and restore the Republic. The old Republican order, liberalism, pluralism, anti-clericalism, and its consequences; military weakness, diplomatic impotence, and managed decline needed to be removed from the country through pious determination to restore Catholic values, a rejection of political liberty, and military revival.

The methods of achieving this, Drumont and Déroulède proposed, was a further purge of secular influence on governmental administration, excluding non-Catholics from positions of authority, forced adoption of French as a national language, and the forced removal of "christ-killing" Jews from French public life.

Drumont and Déroulède's advocacy for this platform attracted the Parisian working class that formed the shock troops for Boulangism. Demands for greater intervention against the "worldwide conspiracy against France" grew. This was furthered by the news that the Panama Canal Company, a relic of the Third Republic that had accumulated masses of debt, had collapsed. The role of Jewish bankers in the collapse, and their profit from speculation on the company, convinced Drumont, especially, of a worldwide plot from the Jews to undermine France. The right of Boulangism demanded the end of Jewish control of the French banking sector and economy.

Boulanger responded by announcing a series of decrees to purge most non-Catholics from government positions and encourage French industrialists to conduct similar purges to purify the country. It also generated a new citizenship law, denying civil rights to Jews, foreign-born residents, secularists, and former Republican administrators unless they adopted a religious oath to the state. Boulangist supporters referred to this oath as the "Constitution civile des non-clergés" or Civil Constitution of the Non-Clergy, a reference to the anti-clerical constitution imposed on priests during the French Revolution. The Catholic Church was granted sole organisational authority for education, ending secular schooling in France. All Jewish schools were closed, and a law to prevent the public display of religious signage contrary to the Roman Catholic Church was passed.

The state also pursued economic goals to remove official Jewish influence from the wider economy. Jewish-owned conglomerates, such as the Rothchild Bank and the Dreyfus industrial empire, had their assets stripped. However, they were reasonably compensated to prevent an asset-seizure panic in the global financial markets and continue confidence in the banking sector. Boulanger and Dillon assured the Jewish and non-Catholic community that remained and integrated that France would hold no grudges after the initial steps had been taken. Some chose to remain, including many Jews in the army. Boulanger intervened personally in forcing recruits to deliver the Civic Oath to Jewish and Protestant soldiers, many of whom he had worked with during his service. Boulangists wanted France to be an outwardly Catholic country, but Boulanger himself wanted it to be a country respecting others, so long as they respected France.

Concurrently, Finance Minister Rochefort insisted to Boulanger that France would need to boost its population to serve the industries required to maintain great power status. Therefore, Boulanger approved a plan to encourage French citizens abroad (unconnected to the Third Republic) to return to the country alongside hundreds of thousands of migrant workers from Eastern Europe.

Victor Henri Rochefort, Finance Minister of France​

A resettlement program was agreed upon with Austria to facilitate the migration of prisoners of war from the Balkan War of Independence held in Austria to be deported to France to become workers. Ten thousand were moved as part of the scheme, mainly to underpopulated areas in the west. A similar deal with Russia saw citizens in the Far East, and the Volga forcibly evacuated from Russia and moved to France. These migrants were also forcibly converted to Catholicism. These workers, managed by an emerging middle-class of state planners, conducted a program of improvements to military defenses across the borders of France. They were also brought in to work in armaments factories. France spent 7% of its national budget on recruiting and equipping new soldiers in 1890 and 1891, increasing the army's size to well over 1,000,000 men by the beginning of 1892. New bridges, canals, railways, and public works improved the condition of France and refreshed creaking infrastructure.

Culturally, Boulanger's supporters fostered a personality cult around the leader. His face was printed on all currency, portraits and murals were erected across the country, and songs and poems were written to glorify the leader. Hundreds of streets, town halls, and villages were named after the leader. The revolutionary motto of "liberty, equality, and fraternity" replaced "honour, nation, and patriotism." Schoolchildren were taught that the Constable "came from the heavens to save France from extinction." They were encouraged to report dissent from anyone, including teachers and their parents, to the authorities as the "ultimate act of patriotic duty."

Elsewhere, Pierre de Coubertin, a leading proponent of athletics in France, was commissioned to organise a sporting festival, watched on by the Constable, known as Fête de la Etat, or Festival of the State, which occupied the whole of Paris in August 1891. A national recital of an oath to the Constable was conducted at the end of the festival, with 6,000 schoolchildren pledging their "blood, honour, and lives" to the French State. Blue, white, and red colours were draped in every town, and ironically, a Jacobin obsession with patriotism and nationalism gripped the country.

All these actions were an attempt by the Boulangists to foster a sense of national unity and create an outgroup from the former Republicans, Jews, and Secularists. While policies like these fostered economic growth, a feeling of purpose to the French nation, and loyalty to the leader, dissent from groups was severely punished as political leaders created fear of a fifth column ready to undermine the state.

The state ideology gained a name in January 1892, when Drumont referred to the growing sense of "Organicism" in France: the feeling that France was a country where individual liberty was jettisoned for the organic growth of the state. In the Boulangist doctrine, France was a living thing that had been mutilated, and the entirety of the nation was working together to heal it. "Only relentless pursuit and vigilance against the saboteurs of France will suffice in the healing of the organic body of the nation," Drumont wrote.

The fear of this fifth column of saboteurs undermining the organic development of the state among the workers of Paris increased with a series of attacks on the country throughout late 1891 and early 1892. Four interlinked organisations were responsible for the chaos: the Basque State Security Office (Euskal Estatuko Segurtasun Bulegoa, or EESB), the Catalan State Security Office (Oficina de Seguretat de l'Estat Català, or OSEC), the International Workingman's Association, and the French Resistance Organisation (Organisation de la Résistance française, or ORF).

Clashes between the French Border Police and the EESB and OSEC had been ongoing for two years due to the FDE administering the Basque and Catalan lands. Both organisations were controlled by nationalist-internationalists, who sought the integration of the cultural regions of the Basque Country and Catalonia across the border of Spain and into France.

An underground campaign from both groups supported the resistance against the Boulanger regime. Repeated incursions into FDE territory by members of the French Army to capture conspirators were treated as hostile acts in Madrid, as was the continued arming of the Kingdom of Spain, somehow still occupying the top left of the peninsular. While the FDE had undergone a moderation period since the propaganda of the deed days, it still supported raids that would undermine France's will to arm the Nationalists.

The latter two groups were supported to varying degrees by the FDE but completely detached from it. While the International Workingman's Association was initially a significant element in the Spanish Revolution, the Pactist Coalition looked to distance itself from the extreme violence of Anarchism. However, the violent doctrine still had supporters in France and other countries.

After similar actions by the British group Socialist Action, the British Government was clear that links between Anarcho-terrorist groups and the FDE were not to be tolerated. As of late-1891, the group's links to the FDE were officially severed as the Federation was proclaimed a "counter-revolutionary organisation," but privately, members of the Federal Congress still financially supported the group and cantons, who enforced justice, shied away from prosecuting IWA men, especially those linked to the FRE-AIT. The ORF, however, was explicitly supported by the Spanish Government. Founded by exiles in Belgium, the ORF was a rallying point between all anti-Boulanger groups worldwide who left the country after the coup. It was a broad church movement containing moderate Republicans, anti-Possibilist socialists, conservative Republicans, and Internationalists.

The resistance had an office in Madrid and was funded by the Commission of National Defense to draw France's focus away from Spain and towards internal threats. The ORF was strongest in Belgium, where many Republicans fled in the aftermath of the collapse of the Republic. A growing immigrant population of 125,000 people, mostly centered in Wallonia, rallied against the Boulangists and attracted significant local support too. Socialism grew in Belgium, and plenty of willing volunteers were beginning to cause trouble for the French State.

The assassination of a number of high-profile officials in January 1892, including the President of the Bank of France, three Legislative deputies, and two top senior civil servants, were blamed on the ORF. The ORF was protected by the frosty relationship between King Leopold of Belgium and Constable Boulanger, meaning they were free to conduct political campaigns within Walloon borders. The IWA added to the tension with a further bomb planted at the first Rugby Cup final organised in Paris in February, which killed 20.

Chancellor Dillon responded by drafting a set of laws that would criminalise the advocacy of a crime by any French national abroad or at home. It also criminalised anyone who was indirectly or directly involved in the ORF, IWA, or any organisation sponsored by "enemies of France," including the FDE. Finally, it outlawed antimilitaristic propaganda or advocacy against the French Army or the French State. The three decrees were cheered on by readers of Action Française.

A few days after the decrees were proclaimed, Dillon announced a reorganisation of the security forces to enforce the new laws properly. The Deuxième Bureau de l'État Française, or Deuxième Bureau, was charged with pursuing enemies of France within and beyond its borders. When the next session of the Legislative Assembly arrived, lawmakers passed the laws with commanding majorities.

The Bureau immediately got to work and to justify its existence more than anything, it attempted to round up conspirators to present a human face to the forces conspiring to bring down France. This pursuit took them well beyond Metropolitan France's borders.

A secret raid in Belgium on March 23, 1892, combined with the kidnapping of several of the more radical-left members of the ORF leadership, brought thirty leaders in front of the criminal court on charges of crimes against the state. This group included two foreign nationals, Alexander Cohen, an American, and Eduardo Benot, a former Commissioner of the FDE, who had been securing funds for the group in Spain and had arrived in Brussels to deliver financial aid. After a short trial known as the Trial of the Thirty, lasting just three days, all 30 were found guilty and executed.

Eduardo Benot, former Commissioner of the FDE executed by the French​

Immediately, the US Embassy protested to the Great Chancellery, but when the Diplomatic Minister to France, Whitelaw Reid, learned of the attack he sought condemnation of the executions. President Harrison summoned the French Ambassador to the US for an explanation, but he refused. Against the act of rage against the unlawful killings, President Harrison expelled the French diplomatic mission entirely.

In the Democratic Federation, the act was regarded as an act of war and insisted that the French State apologise. France did not consider the FDE a country, so refused. Belgium also responded critically to the arrests, and the Belgian Government broke off relations with its southern neighbour. Condemnation came from Germany, Italy, and Britain.

The Chancellery used the arrests as proof that a plot to overthrow the regime was afoot and needed to be stopped. In an address, Boulanger said, "The criminal state in Spain must be held accountable, and its allies must be isolated and brought to justice for the crimes acted against the French nation. Support for the French outside the territory of the French State must be upheld."

Drumont and Déroulède's paper excitedly hailed the beginning of a "New French Imperial Age" and advocated for the unification of all French-speaking European lands. Maps in schools were replaced to show France as including all of Wallonia, the Basque Country, and Catalonia, as well as the French-Swiss cantons, Savoy, and the West Bank of the Rhine. The proposition of France's 'natural borders' again became prominent. "The Frenchmen shall have his morning coffee in Brussels, his lunch in Paris, and his evening meal in Barcelona," said one editorial in a French journal, "or it shall perish." Notwithstanding the speed of the trains making this nearly impossible, it was a scary thought for the FDE and Belgium, not to mention the accord powers.

Alongside the Bureau's suppression of opposition, the army played an increasingly visible role in politics and civic life. In the aftermath of the assassinations, the Army and Police conducted joint-security patrols. Dillon transferred the administration of justice against "enemies of the state" to military tribunals. A further 1,500 were apprehended after the Trial of the Thirty and either transported to French colonies overseas, imprisoned, or executed. A purge of Government administration, the police, and local politicians were conducted, resulting in the expulsion of a further 200 from Metropolitan France in March alone.

Boulanger had waited for a moment to strike and found it in March 1892. A 25,000-man initial invasion force on France's Spanish border was amassed under cover of policing the border more effectively. A Northern Army of 15,000 was amassed on France's northern border with Belgium to 'effectively police the aided escape of terrorists,' essentially closing the border. France also declared a trade embargo on Belgium, and in Africa, it created invasion plans for the Congo Free State. War hawks within the French Government encouraged such moves, putting Foreign Ministries across Europe on edge.

French success in military campaigns against Belgium and the FDE would be conditional on the support of its few European allies. Dillon traveled to Vienna and St Petersburg throughout the summer of 1892 to ensure that Austria and Russia would not oppose the intervention. Both gave guarantees of their neutrality in the event of a conflict and their support in the event of an invasion by an Accord Power on any territory controlled by France, including its colonies. Therefore, the summer of 1892 is known as the formal foundation of the Triple Alliance, bringing together Austria, France, and Russia into a diplomatic concert against the Accord Powers.

 

[Godhand Void]

Great chapter! France is probably getting fucked.

 

[President Conor]

Great chapter! France is probably getting fucked.

Yeah 😂

 

[President Conor]

V, XXXI: The Second Portuguese Ultimatum

Boulanger's ambitious plan to establish French dominance over Western Europe involved a complex network of alliances and strategic maneuvers. It united various factions, including declining empires, exiled governments, landless authorities, and colonies without metropoles. By April 1892, documented evidence shed light on France's long-term objectives for the decade and its negotiations with Imperial allies Austria and Russia.

France's primary goals were threefold: reestablishing its natural borders along the left bank of the Rhine, reclaiming its position as the preeminent power in Europe, and delivering a decisive blow to the Prussians. French military officials extensively studied the feasibility of an offensive in the northern regions bordering Belgium, extending towards the Rhine. This led to the development of Plan XII, a comprehensive strategy designed to prepare for occupying territories deemed integral to the French State. These encompassed areas inhabited by French speakers, alongside a buffer zone spanning from the left bank of the Rhine in the east to Brussels in the north, Barcelona in the south, and the Pyrenees in the southeast.

To realize these objectives, France made enticing promises to various nations. It pledged support for the restoration of the Kingdom of Spain, contingent upon Spain permitting France to occupy Catalonia. Furthermore, France envisioned the fragmentation of Italy, giving rise to an Italian Confederation under the presidency of the Papal States, subject to joint Austro-French suzerainty.

Germany, too, found itself targeted for disestablishment in the French plan. France aimed to occupy territories on the left bank of the Rhine, while Austria would absorb Bavaria and the German Catholic states. Prussia and the numerous smaller kingdoms would be left with the remaining territories. To garner British support, Boulanger even contemplated offering the Kingdom of Hanover to Britain as a refuge for monarchists.

Austria concurred with France's proposal to create a separate Catholic and Protestant Germany, isolating Prussia. However, Austria's focus primarily centered on South and East Europe. In collaboration with Russia, Austria aimed to eliminate the Balkan Kingdom and divide it between themselves along religious lines. Austria sought to acquire Dalmatia, Slavonia, and Bosnia, while Russia set its sights on Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania. While Russia would benefit more from this arrangement, Austria would establish a foothold in the Balkans and neutralize potential Balkan threats. A successful alliance of this nature would ensure French hegemony in Western Europe, Russian dominance in Eastern Europe, and Austrian control over Central Europe, effectively challenging Anglo-British influence.

Regarding colonial ambitions, France sought to overcome its exclusion from the Suez Canal, establish a robust sphere of influence in the Ottoman lands, and prevent Germany and Britain from profiting from the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. France also aimed to dismantle Belgium and the Netherlands, paving the way for the seizure of their colonies to expand French influence in Africa and Asia.

Constable Boulanger on the back of a cigarette packet, 1891​

Russia and Austria willingly acquiesced to France's dominance in the colonial realm, as they were promised their mercantile territories in the event of a successful colonial war against the FDE. Austria stood to gain a colony in the Mediterranean, while Russia secured a share of British India, likely within the Afghan Kingdom.

Completing Boulanger's comprehensive strategy were France's colonial aspirations in Africa. While France had previously refrained from actively pursuing further territories in Southern Africa, deeming British positions too strong, Boulanger believed that British advances could be thwarted by bolstering regional powers surrounding British-held Southern Africa. In late February 1892, Boulanger convened a summit in Paris, where he welcomed President Paul Kruger of one of the Boer Republics and Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. The purpose was to discuss the delicate balance of power in the region and present each participant with a favorable proposition. The Boer Republics were promised military support to defend themselves against British encroachment. At the same time, Pedro II was enticed to restore Portuguese exiles to a revived Kingdom of Portugal, a return to the era before the tumultuous revolutions.

In North Africa, France aimed to position itself as the Ottoman Empire's protector, ensuring its territories' security and administration. Secretly, Boulanger guaranteed major European banks, including British institutions like Barings, that their influence over the Ottoman public debt would remain intact, unbeknownst to the British public or the Union Government. Senator Baring, a Unionist, withheld his knowledge of French war plans from the government and even facilitated a loan for the French government to acquire new military equipment.

On April 15th, 1892, an incident occurred that provided Boulanger with the desired casus belli against the FDE. A bomb exploded at a French border crossing in the Basque Country, providing the pretext for Boulanger's subsequent actions. Within three days, the Southern Army, comprising 25,000 soldiers, invaded the Basque States and Catalonia, taking the FDE's leadership by surprise despite intelligence indicating a potential invasion force approaching via sea through the remaining territories of the Kingdom of Spain in Galicia. While the French Navy landed at Ferrol, providing additional support to the Royal Spanish Army, French forces swiftly penetrated the porous border.

Two days later, the remnants of the Spanish Navy in Ferrol and a French naval fleet led by the Turenne initiated a blockade of Oporto in Portugal. The Amiral Duperré, another French vessel, sailed to the outskirts of Lisbon and bombarded the capital. French emissaries disembarked and demanded that the Portuguese Republic either dissolve itself or face occupation by French troops.

José Relvas, serving as the interim President of the Portuguese Republic, found himself in a dire predicament. Portugal would face annihilation if it resisted the French invasion, as its army and navy were ill-equipped to withstand the enemy forces. Relvas had two options: accept occupation by France or seek refuge within the FDE. Resisting the latter option, Relvas grew suspicious of the internationalist FDE and remained determined to preserve Portugal's independence. Unfortunately for him, freedom swiftly became an untenable choice.

Amiral Duperré, ship in the French Army​

The captain of the Amiral Duperré granted the Portuguese government a three-hour ultimatum to accept or reject the French ultimatum. Unable to decide within the allotted time, Relvas faced the harsh reality of a French landing mission. News reached Lisbon that an invasion from the north had been underway for most of the day, indicating that war was inevitable regardless of Relvas' choice. Historians have criticized Relvas for his indecision, but it is inconceivable to contemplate the consequences of initiating a fight when one's army and navy are outmatched. This fateful decision came to be sarcastically referred to as the "Second Portuguese Ultimatum."

Events unfolded rapidly in the following days, with Britain, Germany, Italy, and the United States condemning the invasion. The FDE mobilized militias to resist the French army, but their efforts proved insufficient against Boulanger's disciplined and formidable French forces. Like a knife through butter, the French military pierced the Federation's defenses, overwhelming the Volunteers with superior training and cohesion. Within a week, they occupied the Basque Lands and Catalonia, creating a crucial land corridor linking France and the Kingdom of Spain. French and Royal Spanish forces gained significant territory along the Portuguese coast, eventually capturing Lisbon with little resistance.

The Portuguese Nationalist Republicans were in disarray following the capitulation, leaving room for the Internationalists to seize the initiative. In the absence of leadership, the Internationalists, with their preference for intervention from the FDE, requested the assistance of the Volunteers of the Republic in suppressing the French invasion. Pactists worked to reestablish the Free City of Porto and established communes, welcoming the Volunteers of the Republic into Portuguese territory to aid in the resistance against the French invaders. Although the Internationalists in Porto prevented the Spanish Nationalists and the French from establishing a land bridge between their Portuguese and Spanish territories, the superiority of their naval forces allowed the Atlantic supply routes to remain open.

Jose Relvas, President of Portugal ​

By April 24th, the Volunteers' valiant efforts had halted the southward advance of the French forces. Still, the Kingdom of Spain had expanded its territorial holdings to an unprecedented extent since the liberation of Madrid. Frustratingly for Boulanger, the stalemate continued as the Portuguese Internationalists appealed to the Federal Congress in Madrid, seeking the acceptance of Portuguese independent cantons into the Federation. Following a unanimous vote in Congress and subsequent approvals in Cantonal legislatures, the entry of Portuguese cantons into the Federation was sanctioned. Recognizing that the Democratic Federation of Spain was no longer solely a Spanish entity, the Federal Congress approved a Universal Law, officially renaming it the Democratic Federation of Iberia (FDI).

 

[President Conor]

V, XXXII: Left-Organicism
France became politically and socially charged at the dawn of Constable Boulanger's rule. As Boulanger pushed his agenda abroad, the French government remained silent, refusing to acknowledge their involvement in the intervention. Publicly, they claimed that their army units were deployed solely to enforce the borders and protect against potential attacks. The Accord Powers, too, displayed a nervous and restrained reaction, which only bolstered Boulanger's confidence in his endeavors.

The military campaign in Portugal reached a stalemate towards the end of April, with neither side gaining ground. On the home front, French newspapers scapegoated German and British saboteurs, fueling anti-German and anti-British sentiment. A shooting incident involving a French diplomat in Berlin further escalated tensions. Chancellor Dillon announced a complete boycott of all German goods until the perpetrator was handed over to France. When Germany refused to comply, the announcement triggered a wave of riots across France. Workers vented their anger by burning shops with German-sounding names and overwriting street signs.

Simultaneously, the Chancellery initiated a crackdown on prominent Franco-German families, issuing arrest warrants to investigate their connections to what they deemed 'Anti-State Activities.' To buy the loyalty of French workers, Boulanger worked with several on the left of the Boulangist movement to produce a comprehensive social reform package. The reforms, including subsidized healthcare, old age pensions, an eight-hour workday, and expanded education provisions, garnered support from various factions within the Boulangist movement. Patriotic workers and the army favoured the reforms, while restorationists, Bonapartists, and the economic elite opposed them. More than ever, it was evident that each demographic saw Boulanger as the key to a different version of France tailored to their respective ideals.

Yet, as Boulanger delved deeper into their rule, they began to realize the importance of maintaining the support of specific groups more than even his own government. Once powerful factions, like the economic elite and restorationists, found their influence waning with Boulanger's direct control over the economy. With major infrastructure under public ownership and industry directed by the Chancellery through production quotas, remilitarization, and price controls, the wealthy elites became increasingly subject to the state's control. Similarly, the Bonapartists were placated by the similarities between Boulanger's autocratic model and the French State's constitution.

Legislative Assembly meets in 1892​

Amidst these shifts in influence, a prominent figure named Charles Maurras emerged within a new faction called the left-organicists. Maurras advocated for a France purged of what he referred to as "Anti-France" elements: Protestants, Freemasons, Jews, and foreigners. He proposed the creation of two classes within the population: the French and the "Metis," which would exclude these groups. Maurras envisioned a radical social policy replacing the aristocracy with a machine of working people and the army, united by a federation of local communities guided by the Constable and a coherent political machine. This philosophy, dubbed "left-organicism," gained traction and became increasingly influential within the country. Maurras's writings resonated with many followers, synthesizing nationalist and antisemitic sentiments from figures like Drumont and Déroulède with a Possibilist position.

As Maurras's popularity surged, Chancellor Dillon and the government grew concerned about the rising influence of the left-organicists. The meetings between Boulanger, Drumont, Maurras, and more controversial figures like Georges Sorel intensified the Chancellery's nervousness. Though primarily focused on military matters, Boulanger was keen on securing the home front for future conquests. Maurras, for his part, advocated for a public healthcare system, improvements to public education, and a constitutional rewrite to grant the people a more prominent role in decision-making, undermining the parliamentary rule that Dillon represented.

Simultaneously, a grassroots movement emerged, uniting workers and farmers in their support for Boulanger and their disdain for parliamentary politics. They adopted the color purple as a symbol of opposition to the existing political order and called for the abolition of the Legislative Assembly. Dissatisfaction with Chancellor Dillon and the parliamentary system continued to grow, further eroding his support base.

The rise of the Boulangist Government and its Conservative majority had instilled concerns among the ruling elites about the shifting balance of power in favor of the working class. Chancellor Dillon and his allies were increasingly apprehensive and believed they needed to regain control over the legislative agenda. Their plan involved reducing the Constable's influence and assigning him to focus solely on foreign policy and the military under the guidance of the Generals.

However, as Boulanger's confidence grew during his reign, he became increasingly frustrated with his government's slow pace and approach. Minor reforms had been implemented, but Dillon and the Chancellery seemed to have lost momentum. Boulanger recognized the need for a renewed enthusiasm to propel Boulangist France's work forward. The left-organicists captured this sentiment, putting Dillon and the conservatives on the defensive. They now had to find a way to respond effectively.

Within respectable circles, discussions emerged about declaring the French Third Empire, with Boulanger or another figure as Emperor. The proponents of this idea sought to capitalize on nationalist fervor and create a grand patriotic celebration that would unite the nation. They believed such a declaration would solidify their position and counter the anti-Legislative Assembly sentiment among the working class. Their plan aimed to relegate Boulanger to a ceremonial role, allowing the legislature to control the government on behalf of the Emperor.



Previously, Boulanger had rejected this proposal, and when approached again, he remained hostile. In June 1892, Chancellor Dillon formally presented a proposal to Boulanger for a law to hold a referendum on declaring him Emperor. The Constable angrily dismissed the idea, considering it mere demagoguery. As the month progressed, the rift between Boulanger and Dillon deepened. During the recess of the Legislative Assembly, Boulanger contemplated dissolving the assembly and appointing a new government. Upon learning of this, the Chancellery authorized additional police units to safeguard their buildings and those of the Legislative Assembly. After the snub, the right of Boulangism drifted and embraced restoration.

Meanwhile, a significant shift occurred on the left side of French politics. After the French invasion of the FDI, public debates between two former newspaper editors, Peter Kropotkin and Georges Sorel, an anarchist and Marxist, respectively, captivated the intellectual core of Paris. Boulanger had granted intellectual elites considerable freedom to engage in philosophical discussions and debates, fostering an atmosphere of scholarly exchange. Sorel, a Marxist, had recently settled in Paris, while Kropotkin had chosen to live in Valencia. Kropotkin authored two books in the FDI, examining the impact of cooperative societies on farming and urban areas under collective ownership. He denounced the war effort and the Boulanger regime as "reactionary imperialism."

In response, Sorel defended the progress achieved under the French State in his book “Thoughts on the French State since 1889.” Although critical of the Chancellery and the Legislative Assembly, Sorel praised Boulanger for his decisive actions in defense of France's borders. Sorel, who was not initially a Boulangist, underwent an ideological transformation after being injured in an anarchist bombing in Paris. This event fueled his disdain for Spain and strengthened his affinity for France. Sorel now argued that the revolution that brought Boulanger to power was essentially a workers' revolution akin to the French Revolution.

Georges Sorel​

He predicted the emergence of a second revolution, a fusion of Jacobinism, nationalism, and Marxism, which would establish workers' communes across the country, supported by workers, soldiers, and peasants. Sorel believed that the purple-clad enthusiasts, symbolic of the sans-culottes, should form the National Guard and establish a Federation of the National Guard throughout France, reminiscent of the Paris Commune, to provide order and counterbalance the army. He believed such a revolution was imminent and said, “1889 will be followed by 1892 as 1789 was followed by 1792.”

These ideas culminated in Sorel's book, released on May Day, 1892, in which he outlined his vision for the second coming of the French workers. The book gained traction among the left-organicists who saw in Sorel's ideas a synthesis of their own aspirations and the Boulanger regime. Rumors circulated that Sorel might join the staff of the right-wing nationalist newspaper Action Française, further strengthening his support among the left-organicists.

As Boulanger continued to be seen reading Sorel's book, tensions within his government reached new heights. Workers, inspired by the left-organicist vision, felt empowered and emboldened. Disagreements emerged between workers and the restorationists within the government, further fueling workers' sense of control. Boulanger, cognizant of the shifting dynamics, responded to workers' demands more readily, further cementing his position as the opposition to the restorationists.

The power struggle within France's political landscape intensified. Pro- and anti-constitutionalist factions clashed in the streets, while pro-Boulanger and restorationist forces battled for control. The Society of the Friends of the Constitution, a restorationist group, worked tirelessly to undermine Boulanger's government and push for the return of the monarchy. Their goals starkly contrasted the vision of the left-organicists and the revolutionary spirit that Sorel and his followers envisioned.

The Legislative Assembly faced a critical moment with allegiances drawn and entrenched divisions. On May 19th, 1892, a vote of confidence in the Chancellery was held securing support for the Government in the Legislative Assembly, boosting the restorationist plans. Boulanger, realizing the dire situation, made a decisive move. He threatened to dismiss the Legislative Assembly, appoint a caretaker administration, and assume full executive power if the restorationists didn’t back down. They did so, calling for unity in the assembly on May 24th. This threat quelled the tension for now, but the streets of Paris and the halls of government braced for the impending clash as the battle for the soul of France promised to burn with an intensity not seen since the death throws of the Republic.

 

[President Conor]

V, XXXIII: Navigating the French Invasion

The French invasion of Spain put the Powers of Accord on edge. There was significant deliberation about how best to proceed in Britain, Germany, and Italy, the major European powers in the alliance. Although the Powers of Accord found it convenient to recognize the FDI, they hesitated to commit troops to defend its independence. The successful efforts of the Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War had left diplomats in Berlin, Rome, and London with the impression that a continental war could be avoided, as the FDI seemed fully capable of defending itself.

London was particularly panic-stricken in the aftermath of the Spanish crisis, with instances of hoarding and panic buying plaguing the capital. A well-publicised address from President-Regent Stanley prevented outright anarchy in the capital but did little to allay the fears of ordinary Britons worried about the realities of war. Stanley worried for the state of Britain, but by this time, the great old man was slowing down and facing declining health. He nevertheless used his sway in foreign affairs to attempt to patch together a detente to quell worries domestically of conflict on the continent. Chamberlain, still humbled by the events of March, did less to intervene in this policy as he would have done in the past, mainly due to the Conservative elements of the Unionist Party significantly clipping his wings after the embarrassment of the March Massacres. In 1892, Chamberlain was at his weakest and was, for the first time, not the primary ideological force within the party.

However, the invasion instilled panic among the general populace. It shifted the focus away from previously significant political issues, such as the aftermath of March, towards a renewed unity centered on foreign policy. To all, it seemed Britain could not fight a continental war with France at the present time and would not wish to do so - in the slump after the Panic of 1890, businesses felt that a war would destroy the fragile recovery in the economy.

The internal instability within France was of greater concern: the expelling of British and German citizens caused great angst in London and Berlin about the ability of the two powers to negotiate with the French Government to come to a solution diplomatically. Moreover, Foreign Secretary Cecil summed up this anxiety when he visited Paris to discuss the Iberian conflict with the French, saying, “When I landed in Paris, I was conflicted, should I visit the Constable, or should I visit the Grand Chancellery? Both appear to have drifted down parallel but separate streams.”

President-Regent Stanley opted for the direct approach and made the step of organising a visit with Senator Cecil to the residence of Constable Boulanger in late May after the haphazard truce between the Chancellery and the French Head of State. It was surprising the visit was accepted, as Boulanger and Dillon refused a visit from a German delegation to Versailles a few days prior.

Ailing but strong-willed, Stanley and Cecil hammered out a decent compromise between the powers, alleviating the tensions during the visit. The President-Regent secured a one-month ceasefire and the withdrawal of French troops from Portugal. However, the French remained in Catalonia and the Basque region, and Portuguese troops replaced the French in occupied areas along the west coast of Iberia.

Officially, the Portuguese-controlled territory was ruled by the Council of National Defence of the restored Republic of Portugal. Boulanger personally guaranteed that the French would not overthrow the FDI and even made movements towards some formal recognition in exchange for the FDI renouncing some of its claims over Portugal and Galicia. British diplomats concurrently negotiated recognition of Brazilian claims to Portugal’s African lands and recognised the Kingdom of Spain in Equatoria, removing any threat to British holdings in Africa.

The Foreign Office kept their allies in the FDI aware of the discussions in France. While they weren’t thrilled to concede parts of their territory, the time bought allowed the haphazard reorganisation of the FDE into the FDI to crystalise over the rest of 1892, an extremely important development. Volunteers were recruited, private arms manufacturers were brought to Madrid from Britain and Germany to equip the military force, and equipment was funneled to Spain to enforce the deal between Stanley and Boulanger.

While the British and Germans were pleased with the outcome of the talks, they were keen not to rest on their laurels and allow France to use the cooling of tensions to renew their efforts. Equally, the most senior diplomat in the FDI, remarkably still Manuel Ruiz Zorrilla, opened negotiations with Brazil for the first time since the integration of Portugal. The FDI Government renounced any claim to former colonies and recognised the Empire of Brazil. Chancellor Dillon was unconcerned, believing Brazil was merely a regional power.

Manuel Ruiz Zorrilla, the FDI's most senior foreign diplomat​

Similarly, the agreement between Brazil-Nova Lusitânia and the Union of Great Britain allowed London to force a wedge between the French and Imperial Brazil. Britain formally opened relations with the Empire of Brazil in August 1892, opening an embassy in Rio and bringing the Empire into its sphere of influence - another crucial aspect. In the spirit of peace, Brazil had been handed a better offer from the British than the French.

However, these actions by Stanley and Cecil faced criticism. Germany, in particular, felt snubbed and isolated by the British, and the Kaiser was reportedly incensed at what he perceived as a betrayal. This wasn’t so much of a concern as his reputation dictated that he was incensed at everything. The German Chancellery didn’t necessarily contest the decision but felt justifiably sidelined. Similarly, the Italians sought a great role in negotiations, given their own historical aversion to the revolutionary FDI. The Harrison administration, wary of Brazil as a challenger to its hegemony on South American foreign policy, was concerned with the close relations between the two countries.

After the 1892 election, a state visit from President-Regent Stanley to Berlin and Rome in August 1892 would smooth relations with its European allies, while the latter’s concerns were dismissed in London, as one thing was certain: come 1893, the White House would have a new resident, and the leading candidates, Walter Gresham and Grover Cleveland, seemed at the time more hospitable to a peaceful European continent to avoid the United States entanglement in European affairs.

 

[President Conor]

V, XXIV: From Chaos to Action

The agreement between Britain and France received a hostile reception domestically, but Boulanger played the political game superbly to reflect any blame. The Chancellery managed Foreign Policy, so Dillon was the public face of the deal. As the sun began to set over the sprawling city of Paris, its golden rays cast a warm glow on the bustling streets below. The air crackled with anticipation, an electric atmosphere that permeated the hearts of both the supporters and opponents of the agreement. The echoing footsteps of passionate demonstrators reverberated through the cobbled lanes, blending with the rhythmic chants that echoed against the elegant facades of historical buildings. In the heart of the city, a political meeting unfolded at the Old England department store in the heart of Paris. An unusual venue for a political meeting, granted, its grand hall was nonetheless packed to the brim with fervent attendees looking to give a piece of their mind to one of France's most powerful men. The scent of perfume mingled with the lingering aroma of freshly brewed coffee, creating a heady blend that filled the air. The murmurs of debate and animated conversations swirled around the room, punctuated by the occasional burst of applause or vehement disagreement.

Old England department store, site of public displays of disapproval of Chancellor Dillon's policies.​

At the podium, Chancellor Dillon, the public face of the deal, stood tall, his voice resolute as he addressed the crowd. But as he delved into his speech, hecklers emerged from the crowd, their voices like discordant notes in an otherwise harmonious symphony. The room erupted into a cacophony of boos, jeers, and shouted accusations, drowning out Dillon's words. It was a storm of disapproval, a tempest of anger that threatened to consume the very foundations of the gathering. Outside, the city pulsated with life and dissent. From the narrow alleys to the grand boulevards, waves of protesters surged forward, their voices blending into a unified roar of defiance. Banners fluttered in the breeze, their vibrant colours contrasting with the grey skies, while the rhythmic pounding of drums echoed through the streets, adding a primal cadence to the clamor of discontent.

In the midst of the chaos, returning French soldiers paraded through the Parisian neighbourhoods, greeted with adoration and admiration. Their uniforms adorned with medals, they marched in perfect formation, their synchronized steps resonating with the pounding hearts of onlookers. Cheers erupted from the crowd, mingling with the pealing of church bells, as if the entire city had joined in a symphony of celebration. Yet, amidst the jubilation, there was also a darker undercurrent. Politicians, the architects of the agreement, found themselves subjected to a torrent of vitriol and scorn. Rotten fruit sailed through the air, splattering against carriages, while heckles pierced the evening air like venomous darts. In one particularly shocking incident in Toulouse, the sight of a dead goat's head hurled at a deputy's carriage left an indelible mark on the collective memory.

Throughout France, sympathy aligned with Boulanger and the State, casting a shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of the Grand Chancellery and the Legislative Assembly. The very essence of revolution seemed to pulse through the streets, as if the spirit of change had taken hold of the nation's soul, fueling the fervor of the masses. In these tumultuous times, every sight, sound, and scent seemed to carry profound meaning, etching itself deeply into the collective consciousness of the French people. It was a time of fervent hope, simmering discontent, and a palpable yearning for a new dawn. The stage was set for the imminent clash of ideologies, where the destiny of a nation hung in the balance.

Caricature of Chancellor Dillon, 1892​

While truces were the order of the day, between the right and left within Boulangism and between France and the Powers of Accord, each was fragile and diplomats across Europe were sure that the peace would only be a temporary state of affairs. Even Senator Cecil wrote to an aid upon the completion of the memorandum that, "The tide of peace that has swept the continent is conciliatory for the people of Britain and Europe, but provides no relief to the anxiety of ambassadors, diplomats, and those who follow the affairs of its governments. Britain must prepare for a general conflagration in Western Europe - two sides: the Government in Madrid and Paris, will never peacefully co-exist so long as they represent a mortal threat to each other. A strong Iberian counterweight to French domination of Western Europe must be maintained, regardless of the ideology of such a state. While we have seen little of the type of Government existing in the Peninsular since the period of conflict between 1776-1815, we must protect our strategic interest without delay. The peace has given us time to prepare, rather than time to reflect."

For Britain, the complication of the upcoming election threatened to dampen these efforts, so Cecil called for a secret meeting between senior figures in the Unionist Party and opposition, excluding the SDF, of course. This meeting sought to make the grandees of the LDP in Parliament aware of the growing threat internally in France and to peace in Europe generally. Both sides agreed that strengthening British military capability in line with the Highbury Hall agreement must be the aim of protecting its colonial holdings and the balance of power in Europe. In exchange, the pacifist LDP received guarantees that Britain would not be subsumed in a war of aggression by its continental allies, and wouldn't be subsumed into an alliance that would drag it into a great power conflict between France, Italy, and Germany, nor would it defend the interests of its holdings in the Balkans from Austria and Russia beyond providing military aid to the United Kingdoms of the Balkans. This policy would later be dubbed by scholars "Splendid Isolation," and would represent British foreign policy for much of the next six years until it became untenable.

Within France, the division between the Restorationists and Left-Organicists was reaching a point of no return, with the Ligue des Patriotes splitting at the seams between its shakily assembled left and right factions. This division extended its reach even into the offices of Action Française, as the arrival of Georges Sorel in early June 1892 further fuelled the already simmering tensions. Sorel's reputation preceded him, and certain members of the staff, most notably Charles Maurras, were infatuated with the charisma of the revolutionary. Senior figures in the publication, including Paul Déroulède, were less won over by his charm. "He is a self-obsessed bore and I wish him to be relieved of his post at the journal," Déroulède said, "but I fear if I ask this, I will be lynched by the younger, more impressionable members of staff."

Déroulède was not overestimating the passion felt by the opposition movement towards Sorel. Many began to refer to the "Young" and "Old" wings of the Boulangist movement: the youthful, radical, and economically left represented by Sorel and Maurras, and its reactionary, conservative, and religious right represented by Déroulède. While the old wing controlled the key apparatus of government, the youth wing held sway over the masses, and began to chart a separate course. Both were fiercely anti-parliamentarian and pro-Boulanger, but differed in the methods in which they believed were right to return France to the correct path. The National Guard and Workers sided with Sorel and Maurras, in favour of an overthrow of the elitist Grand Chancellery and its replacement by a radical revolutionary state that would return the wealth of France back to the people. Legislators, pro-Boulanger military officers, and the middle-class tended to favour the more moderate aims, to place executive power solely in the hands of Boulanger.

Seeking to capitalise on the popularity of a movement, as yet with no defined program or goals, Sorel convinced Maurras to throw his weight, and the weight of Action Française, behind the building of institutions that would support the movement. On July 18th 1892, Action Française called for the transformation of the Labour Committees into fully-fledged unions, confederated into the Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT). The call led to the resignation of Déroulède and Drumont as the editors of the paper, to replaced by Sorel and Maurras. The next day marked a pivotal moment as Trade Unionists signed the Lyon Declaration, forging an alliance between leading members of Labour Committees, supported by the National Guard, and the committees of returning soldiers. This historic agreement created a cohesive coordinating body. Simultaneously, senior figures from the National Guard joined forces to establish the Federation of the National Guard, their Central Committee seamlessly integrating into the broader network orchestrated by Auguste Keufer, who assumed the mantle of the first President of the CGT.

Georges Sorel​

Two weeks later, Boulanger met with Kaufer, publicly supported the CGT, and decreed the legal formation of trade unions, a sign of the growing unofficial collaboration between the Constable and the workers. Still in permanent session, the Legislative Assembly passed a motion of disapproval against Boulanger's recognition of the CGT. This measure was supported by many members of the left-organicists, losing the much support from the working-class and driving a wedge between the political movement and its supporters. This allowed Sorel's faction to win the loyalty of the working-class. When the Grand Chancellery used Anti-Internationalist laws to crack down on the CGT and the coordinating committees, forcing 3,500 arrests in the subsequent two weeks after the declaration of the formation of the CGT. Boulanger protested but without the support of the police, who were firmly in the hands of the Chancellery, he was essentially powerless.

He would need to act, and would finally approach Maurras and Sorel to coordinate opposition to the power grab. News of the meeting gave Chancellor Dillon the pretext to organise a vote in the Legislative Assembly to condemn the Constable, imply his corruption by Internationalists, and declare the Grand Chancellery's intention to restore the Monarchy in France under Prince Philippe of Orléans, Count of Paris to restore order, build unity, and prevent a civil war. The Assembly voted to impose martial law, and vested power in a transitionary Council of National Defence led by key members of the Chancellery and the pro-Restorationist military. The new government began to rally demobilised soldiers sympathetic to restorationism, primarily from the provinces, into a force designed to crush the National Guard in the cities.

Workers celebrate the Lyon Declaration, 1892​

Boulanger called on the National Guard to resist what he described as a coup, and quickly the National Guard took control of sections Paris and other key cities. The popular support for Boulanger rapidly changed the nature of the Boulangist movement. From its beginnings as a Conservative force, Boulangism was now fiercely anti-aristocratic, anti-monarchy, and anti-capitalist. Finally, as the Catholic Church and Pope Pius declared their support for restoration, Boulangists turned their backs on the Catholic Church as a force for unity and turned against Rome. This metamorphosis was epitomised by Maurras, who used the front page of Action Française to decry the Church and call for the separation of the French Catholic Church from Rome, a so-called Gallicisation of the Church. "It is evident that Rome does not reflect the will of the God, nor the will of the French, only the will of the monied classes and the restorationists," said Maurras. Finally, in the July 12th edition of the paper, Maurras declared that he had converted to Republicanism, and was firmly against restoration.

On the night of July 14th, Bastille Day, Boulanger was stripped of his title of Constable formally, arrested, and exiled to Elba, to the shock and despair of the Boulangist movement. The next day, a hastily convened ceremony restored the Count of Paris to the French throne as King Louis-Phillippe II of the French, nominally restoring the Kingdom of France. While the Austrians and Russians recognised the claim, they maintained a distance from the restorationist regime, choosing to continue to maintain ties with Boulanger. St Petersburg even sent an Ambassador to Elba in the days after his exile to maintain communications with the former Constable. The force raised in the aftermath of the declaration of martial law was deployed to subdue the capital, and while the National Guard were plucky, they were no matched for well-equipped, professional soldiers fresh from battle. Eighteen thousand Parisians were killed as the Royal Army crushed the rebellion in just under 3 days, but rebels held strong in cities like Lyon, Marsailles, Toulouse, and Grenoble. After the defeat in Paris, Maurras and Sorel produced a manifesto that would reverberate around the country and found a new philosophy, described by Maurras as "Actionism".

1. The return of Boulanger to Metropolitan France.
2. The resignation of the Council of National Defence and the reversal of the declaration of the Kingdom of France.
3. In its place, the declaration of Federation, coalescing insurrectionary communes of workers and soldiers united by Patriotism, Nationalism, and Unity.
4. The creation of a political union of all forces rallied to Boulanger, called the 'Party of Action'.
5. The recognition of the CGT, legalisation of trade unions and the abolition of the police, with its powers vested in the National Guard.
6. The resumption of the war against Internationalism to restore French honour and save the French nation.
7. Separation of church and state and the creation of a Laicised, French, Gallicised, and Independent Christian Church, free from the influence of Rome.
8. The arrest of all members of the Grand Chancellery and exile of King Louis-Phillippe II.

Actionism represented a potent and transformative political ideology that emerged amidst the fervor of the revolution. It was a philosophy that rejected the status quo, seeking to shake the foundations of traditional institutions and forge a new path for France. At its core, Actionism was defined by its anti-aristocratic, anti-monarchist, and anti-capitalist principles. It vehemently challenged the entrenched power structures that had long dominated French society, advocating for a radical reconfiguration of the nation's social, economic, and political landscape.

The proponents of Actionism viewed the existing order as inherently flawed and corrupt, perpetuating inequalities and stifling the true potential of the French people. Their vision transcended mere reform; it called for a complete overhaul of the system, one that dismantled the privilege of the elite and restored power to the hands of the masses.

Actionism found its strength in direct action and revolution, rejecting the efficacy of parliamentary politics and instead embracing grassroots mobilization and collective action. It sought to unify the working class, the National Guard, and disenchanted soldiers under a common cause, rallying them to reclaim their rightful place in shaping the nation's destiny. Central to the Actionist philosophy was the concept of "No surrender," a rallying cry that echoed through the streets of Paris and other major cities. It embodied the unwavering determination to resist compromise, to reject any attempts to maintain the status quo, and to confront the forces that perpetuated injustice head-on. In their pursuit of change, Actionists embarked on a journey of ideological transformation.

Many Parisians, including Maurras and Sorel fled to rebellious cities around the country to regroup. In Lyon, the home of the CGT, after the Royal Army retreated from the city having failed to take it, thousands of workers pilled into the Place des Terreaux and swore in unison to resist the restoration, reject the authority of the state, and support the return of Boulanger to Metropolitan France. July 14th would be regarded as the simultaneous birth of the state to be known as L’Union fédérative populaire de la Francophonie (Federative Popular Union of the Francophones, or FPUF) and the Kingdom of France, and only one could survive.

 

[Leonidas]

What a fast-paced shift towards revolution! The Actionist/Sorelian left is in a very interesting position with Boulanger supporting them. Although they're syndicalist like the Spanish anarchists, they clearly have a different, more nationalist ideology. The fact that the restorationists were able to pull it off so quickly suggests to me that they'd been making plans to sideline Boulanger for a while, which makes sense given the contradictory nature of his support base. However, I was surprised that Boulanger himself chose to play ball with the syndicalists. It's not the treatment he usually gets in AH, and I'm intrigued by France's future path.

 

[President Conor]

What a fast-paced shift towards revolution! The Actionist/Sorelian left is in a very interesting position with Boulanger supporting them. Although they're syndicalist like the Spanish anarchists, they clearly have a different, more nationalist ideology. The fact that the restorationists were able to pull it off so quickly suggests to me that they'd been making plans to sideline Boulanger for a while, which makes sense given the contradictory nature of his support base. However, I was surprised that Boulanger himself chose to play ball with the syndicalists. It's not the treatment he usually gets in AH, and I'm intrigued by France's future path.

If Boulanger thinks he’s the Prisoner of Versailles now, he’s in for a rude awakening! I think Actionism will develop in its own unique way which will create a kind of nationalist-syndicalism with a Jacobin patriotic spirit, we’ll see in future updates.

I think the most interesting thing is the disconnect in reality between what the Actionists believe Boulanger will do/what he actually thinks. I used the Iranian Revolution as some kind of guide for this - the way many people saw the future in Khomeini, and saw him as the supreme guide of the Revolution without any evidence this was the case.

 

[President Conor]

V, XXV: Centrism Undone

When Stanley and Cecil made their triumphant return from Paris, they were lauded like returning war heroes. This spectacular homecoming marked a crucial pivot in their political journey, a watershed moment. Among the celebrations and honourary dedications, Prime Minister of the Cape Colony, Cecil Rhodes, dedicated a new settlement to the Foreign Secretary, calling the capital for his new territory in the hinterland Rhodesia "The City of Salisbury," in honour of the esteemed gentleman. Yet, beneath this fanfare, storm clouds were gathering within the Unionist Party, a brewing tempest that threatened future turmoil and power skirmishes. As the focus shifted to the imminent elections, the joyous celebrations were quickly replaced by palpable tension. The Unionist Party girded itself to stand its ground against mounting challenges from rival factions. With the party's fate and the Union's future teetering on a precipice, a shroud of uncertainty cloaked the political horizon.

Cecil Rhodes founds Salisbury in 1892​

During these celebrations, Chamberlain remained an elusive figure, stepping back to let Cecil bask in the glory for Unionism's pragmatic foreign policy approach. Striding into a Senate session, Senator Cecil brandished a memorandum, a symbol of the agreement he and Chancellor Dillon had negotiated, signalling a reset in relations. Meanwhile, Stanley had orchestrated a diplomatic coup, coaxing the German Foreign Ministry into a similar agreement. A pivotal part of this accord was the extradition of the diplomat's murderer in Berlin, a cold-blooded crime committed just weeks prior. By the time June 1892 rolled around, the newspapers were alive with praise for the relentless diplomatic efforts of the British Foreign Office, with Senator Robert Cecil often taking centre stage in their laudations.

Ever since March, Cecil had strategically fortified his position within the Unionist Party. He spearheaded the mission to reassure Britain's colonies of the country's stability, even in the wake of horrific massacres. Standing shoulder to shoulder with Stanley, he emerged as a leading statesman in the public eye. Despite his understated demeanor, Cecil's popularity surged, particularly among the middle class. They perceived him as a moderating force in the increasingly radicalized Unionist Party, a beacon of stability amid the stormy seas of change. His influence was especially prominent when juxtaposed against figures like Chamberlain.

Cecil, the elder statesman, stood at the crossroads of tradition and change, seen by many as the Union's most dependable bulwark. As a figure steeped in tradition, opposing the Constitutional Laws, championing the Monarchy, and upholding the established church, Cecil was widely viewed as a reactionary. Yet, his extensive governmental experience and astute political acumen made him a critical player. As a Parliamentarian, he assumed leadership not only of the Senate Unionists but also the Conservative Unionists who wielded control over the party. His role as a Senator kept him aloof from the tempestuous passions of the lower house, where the teal-aligned Unionists, now commonly using the term National Unionists, held sway. His expertise was hailed as invaluable to the government's functioning, a sentiment echoed fervently by Randolph Churchill among others. Chamberlain grudgingly acknowledged Cecil's value to Unionism, believing it would suffice to eject the radical elements from his party. Yet, he remained adamant about not kowtowing to the traditional conservative elements within the party, a stance that met with disapproval from the party's grandees and financiers post-March.

A seasoned statesman known for his shrewd political manoeuvring and depth of knowledge, Cecil positioned himself as a force to reckon with within the Unionist Party. His pragmatic, moderate approach to politics had endeared him to many, particularly the middle class, and helped him consolidate his power base. As a beacon of traditional conservative values such as monarchy and the established church, he emerged as a moderating figure, counterbalancing the party's increasingly radical elements, especially those personified by Chamberlain. His experience and stature as an elder statesman enabled him to steer the Unionists in the Senate effectively. More conservative elements began to exert their influence over the party, still outwardly championing the cause of the Union.

The change in leadership at The Union, with John le Sage, the extremely conservative editor of The Telegraph, replacing Alfred Milner, signaled the conservative takeover. The newspaper, once a torchbearer of patriotism and nationalism, made a dramatic volte-face, embracing conservatism and pragmatism. Polemics about "sweeping away undesirable elements" disappeared, replaced by a softer, more pragmatic tone in the run-up to the 1892 election campaign. The moves initiated were incredibly popular among the middle class, and helped the Unionists regain their image as the party of government. Unionists of all factions and stripes agreed that the party was recovering after the turmoil of the March Massacres.

John Le Sage, Editor of the Union Newspaper​

Seeking to leverage the soaring public confidence, Stanley dissolved Parliament on June 8th, 1892, setting the chessboard for a legislative reshuffle before winter's end. This move, backed unanimously by senior Government figures and state administrations, aimed to pave the way for elections at county, state, and Union levels. Although the elections weren't all scheduled simultaneously, the Parliamentary elections all fell on the same day: July 14th, 1892. As noted in the last chapter, this proved to be a historic day across the continent.

As the campaign period began, news was largely dominated by murmurs of France's unfolding situation, catapulting Senator Cecil and Joseph Chamberlain into the limelight fostering the British response. The duo assumed the leadership of the Unionist Party throughout the campaign, with Chamberlain shouldering the responsibilities of public relations and communications. While Chamberlain's presence was muted compared to the rousing rallies of the past, he remained active, touring the country and delivering stirring speeches in town halls. His emotional interaction with the mother of a March Massacres' victim in Norwich struck a chord with the public, adding a more humane aspect to his persona. Inspired by the encounter, he returned to a more impassioned style of campaigning, rallying the people to "build a better Britain from the lessons of the founding of the Union."

The election campaign was far from smooth sailing, with simmering tensions within the Unionist Party escalating to the forefront. The clash of ideologies finally erupted at a high-profile party hustings in Leeds, where Rowland Barran, a prominent Teal Unionist, and Jesse Collings, the fiery leader of the Progressive Unionist faction, engaged in a gripping debate. Accusations flew as their passionate speeches reverberated through the hall, with Barran accusing Collings of betrayal and Collings retaliating with fierce righteousness. The audience, a mix of party members and the press, was left stunned, sensing a pivotal moment for the future of the Unionist Party.

Collings, known for his relentless commitment to social reform, opposition to radical elements with the party, empathy towards the working class, and moderate line towards the SDF, made him a darling of Progressives on both sides of the House. His charismatic speeches echoed their struggles and dreams, making him a formidable figure within the party. As the face of the Progressive Unionist faction, he challenged the status quo with his robust advocacy for change, setting a course for a more inclusive Union.

Jesse Collings in 1892​

Meanwhile, whispers of covert alliances and backroom dealings added an air of suspense to the tense political climate. Even without concrete evidence, rumors of potential defections and surprise endorsements kept the nation on tenterhooks. As the election day neared, anticipation hung in the air. The electorate knew that the results would not only determine the composition of the Parliament but would also have far-reaching implications for the political landscape. The Unionist Party, once a unified force, was on the brink of fragmentation, making the stakes even higher for this election.

 

[President Conor]

V, XXVI: The 1892 Parliamentary Election

In the tapestry of time, the year 1892 emerged as a watershed moment in the annals of British political history. From the lush countryside to the bustling cities, a political storm was brewing, its winds sweeping across the length and breadth of the Union. The stage was set, not for an ordinary election, but for a political reckoning that would reframe the future of Britain at the Union and State level. Unionists, traditionally the guardians of the status quo, stood at one end. On the other, an eclectic array of Republican factions, each with their vision for a new Britain, ready to contest the Unionist hold.

The political discourse that year was fervent, the ideological battlefield riddled with notions of regency, power dynamics, and constitutional reform. As the electorate geared up to cast their ballots, the undertone was clear: the election of 1892 was not merely a fight for seats in the Parliament, but the beginning of a battle for the soul of Britain itself. This pivotal electoral period would echo through the ages, its implications rippling through decades, marking the genesis of a dramatic shift in Britain's constitutional landscape.

While foreign policy took precedence and social and economic strife continued, debates about constitutional matters heated up. The future of Britain's constitutional framework, including the role of the regency and power dynamics between the central government and the states, became a fervent discussion point. The election campaign gave Republican candidates from the three Republican factions (the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), its Celtic Nationalist sister parties, the Irish & Scottish National Democratic Party (collectively the NDP), and the Social Democratic Federation (SDF)) a platform to share their visions for the Union's future, sparking conversations about reform and balancing individual liberties with collective responsibilities.

Prominent Republican Keir Hardie speaks to amassed crowds on the campaign trail​

The Unionists, generally favoured for their moderation towards the contentious Republican issue, faced competition from younger parties that had not existed at the previous election, one of which was previously banned. Both parties, stemming from the Democratic Federation just like the Unionist Party, agreed on the Republican issue and disagreed with the Unionist moderation. There was a shift in the political climate. Earlier in the year, fear and hatred were prevalent. But, as the year progressed, conversations started focusing more on Republic-centered issues. This hinted at a shift towards more open political discussions. The return of peace and the ongoing elections brought some relief to the voters. Despite this, the ground was still unstable for Unionism in Britain.

There was still angst surrounding certain parts of the country, especially those involved in the violence of the March Massacres. In Liverpool, Sarah Ange, a schoolteacher from the Republican area of the city around Scotland Road, wrote in her diary of the general feeling of the City and Liberties residents in the lead-up to the Parliamentary Election.

"As the bustle of the marketplace surrounded me, the talk of the town was but one - the upcoming election. The air was charged with a sense of anticipation, and anxiety too. Many a conversation hinged on the political divide that seemed to be engulfing our nation. As I pen this entry, I can't help but wonder - will this election sew the seeds of unity or further fuel the fire of discord? Our city sits on a knife edge, a peace stitched together. Agnes, the Irish teacher at our school, says the Teal Guards remain, just hidden - she has been followed home every evening this week. The shadows of March stalk us at every corner." - 3rd July, 1892

With peace, newspapers and journals reopened, revealing an undercurrent of republican sentiment within the conservative Unionist heartland. Letters from professionals to Republican newspapers - merchants, professors, engineers, lawyers, and accountants - detailed this sentiment. This trend reflected in the culture, too, with Republican pastimes like rugby, cycling, football, and caid contrasting Unionist entertainment such as horse racing, tennis, golf, and cricket. The divide between urban, Republican Britain, and provincial, traditional Unionist Britain was increasingly apparent. This divide would grow in the coming years.

The major Republican paper, The Sunday Republic, edited by the imprisoned Annie Besant, found readers across different social classes in many cities. This paper appealed to a large portion of voters who, in 1892, elected 172 openly Republican MPs, including David Lloyd George, Herbert Asquith, Edward Grey, Fred Jowett, and Keir Hardie, all first-time electees. Though the Republicans didn't have the numbers to effect immediate change, it marked a promising beginning. Asquith made a speech in late June in which he underlined the aims of the Republican movement across each of the parties, saying "We do not seek to merely claim seats in the Parliament. We strive for the soul of Britain, a Britain that values each citizen's voice and envisions a future where collective progress reigns supreme."

H.H Asquith, prominent Republican and future Grand Councillor​

Several factors contributed to the resurgence of the Republican movement. Years of discontent with the Unionist Party's policies, perceived governmental corruption, and a growing appetite for political reform laid the foundation. Intellectuals, writers, and activists significantly influenced public opinion, advocating for a republican government and championing equality and popular sovereignty while urging to limit monarchical influence, contrasting the neo-royalist turn taken by the Unionists in the aftermath of Senator Cecil’s influence.

In regions like Scotland, Ireland, Yorkshire, and Wales, the Republican movement gained substantial support due to local socio-political factors. In Scotland, longstanding grievances over issues like land ownership, representation, and preserving Scottish identity stoked republican sentiment. Irish nationalism and aspirations for self-governance drew Irish people towards republicanism. Yorkshire, with its strong labour traditions and active trade unions, embraced the socialist ideals of the Republican movement. In Wales, a growing sense of national identity and the desire for more autonomy aligned with the principles advocated by Republican leaders.

As the Parliamentary election results were announced over the following few weeks, it was clear that, while the Unionists had retained their control over the chamber. On the ninth count in Carnavon-Merioneth, the Unionist candidate Hugh Ellis-Nanney won the final seat in the constituency, giving the party its 201st member in the Commons. A nervous wait would ensue as State elections occurred in the following two weeks, but the Unionist decision to expel the National Unionists and moderate had been vindicated. Voters respected the foreign policy achievements, the decisive action against Radicals, and preferred continuity rather than change in the halls of power.

*Unionist figures include; Unionist Party of Great Britain (inc. Progressive Unionists), Unionist Party of the Orange State (UPOS), Scottish Unionist Party, and Conservative Party
*Liberal Democratic Party figures include: Liberal Democratic Party, Scottish National Democratic Party, National Democratic Party of Ireland, Cymru Fydd, Welsh Liberal Party, London Progressive Party.

March 1892 wouldn’t be the last political violence or violence in general in the Union, but the summer of 1892 would certainly end an era of dominance for the Unionist Party. It would also be the last time Conservative Party candidates would stand independently, as they would be wound up into the Unionist Party soon after - not that there was much difference at this rate. The emergence of factions and defections, too, would set a dangerous trend, as outlined in Kenneth Clarke's excellent history of the party:

"The Unionist Party post-1892 was divided into four main groups. The first group was the 'Conservatives,' made up of upper and upper-middle class Anglicans, with about 80 members. The second group was known as the 'Chamberlainites' who were core supporters of Chamberlain, totalling around 60. The third group, called the 'Progressives' was led by Collings and made up of Unionist members leaning towards the left, numbering around 40 and expecting to acquire a few more seats in the Senate. Lastly, there were a few remaining members who labelled themselves as 'National Unionist,' showcasing their deep patriotism, and more unsavoury pro-terror and pro-violence views. These members further subdivided into those who would continue to sit within the Party, and those who operated outside of it."

After the election, Chamberlain expressed his relief at the return of the Unionist Party to power, but expressed Angst at the political fighting he felt was coming. He wrote to his son, Austen, after the results were confirmed: "The election has passed, and we stand in its wake, amidst a sea of emotions. Disbelief, joy, and uncertainty fill our hearts. We find ourselves at the precipice of a new era. Only time will reveal what this new dawn brings for our nation."

Despite a remarkable victory considering the political challenges of the preceding five years, Unionism in Britain was facing a significant crisis. Political historians now recognize the 1892 election as a pivotal moment, setting the stage for the transformative political reform of 1908 that would eventually result in the abolition of the regency in the Union of Great Britain and Ireland. Yet, it's important to note that the Unionists would not regain majority control in the Commons until the 1930s, marking a prolonged period of fluctuation and change in Britain's political landscape.

House of Commons Composition, 1892

Unionists - Teal
LDP - Yellow
SDF - Red
General League - Green
ALO - Orange
National Unionists - Dark Teal
Independents - Grey

 

[President Conor]

Hey all! If anyone has an questions, let me know, I’m happy to answer 😀

 

[President Conor]

V, XXVII: 1892 State Elections & Senate Results
Victor Bruce, leader of the Scottish Unionist Party, paced nervously in his Edinburgh office. The latest news from the count had not been kind. Scotland looked ready to boot Victor Bruce and his Scottish Unionist Party from power, enchanted by Edward McHugh's promises of radical social reform, land redistribution, labour arbitration, and the creation of cooperatives. Edward McHugh and his National Democratic government threatened Bruce’s grip on Scotland. ‘We stand on the precipice of history,’ McHugh proclaimed at a Glasgow rally, his voice resonant with conviction, “a Scotland where the land belongs to those who till it, and power to those who live it!” The passion in McHugh's eyes had captivated the nation, inspiring belief in a future reimagined.

Edward McHugh, Premier of Scotland​

As Bruce contemplated his own political future, he couldn’t help but notice that waves of change were not limited to Scotland; in Ireland, too, changes were afoot. Michael Davitt had returned like a storm from the sea. As Bruce read a report on Davitt’s speech, he couldn’t help but feel the Irishman’s words—his calls for social reform under state sovereignty—were the winds that would soon engulf all the Celtic nations. "Freedom and fairness are not mere words," Davitt boomed, "they are the birthright of every Irish son and daughter!"

While Davitt was igniting a storm in Ireland, a similar passion for change was brewing across the Irish Sea in Wales, where the newly founded Cymru Fydd, a radical National Democratic offshoot of the local Liberal establishment, was no less significant. David Lloyd-George, standing beside fellow leaders T.E. Ellis and J.E Lloyd at a town hall in Cardiff, captivated his audience. “We will revive our beautiful Welsh language,” he pledged, “bring education that opens doors, land that is justly owned, and an economy that works for everyone.” The Cardiff Post recalled that among the crowd, an elderly woman wiped away a tear as Lloyd-George detailed his plan for a pioneering pension scheme. In her eyes, for the first time, hope.

David Lloyd-George, founder of the Cymru Fydd Party​

Ultimately, the Liberal Democratic Party had a wonderful election at the State level in 1892, setting it up for future successes. Its allies controlled the governments of Scotland, Ireland, Manchester, London, and Wales: Edward McHugh became Premier of Scotland, T.E. Ellis led the Welsh Government, and Michael Davitt was carried back to power with a healthy majority of 59% of the popular vote for his party. Herbert Gladstone became Chancellor of Manchester, and Thomas Farrer was finally re-elected as Metropolitan Chancellor. These LDP and National Democratic administrations would implement profound social reforms and significantly impact their states over the coming years. However, they wouldn’t be the only victors of the 1892 State Elections.

In Yorkshire, the trade unions were beginning to create history. Its Assembly returned 35 SDF members, which put them in a minority, thanks to the work of Fred Jowett, who coordinated an alliance across independent and GFTU-aligned Union workers to vote for SDF. In the bustling city of Bradford, the atmosphere was electric. Fred Jowett, standing with his fellow Social Democratic Federation members, reveled in a historic victory. “Feds in the mayor's office,” he laughed warmly, recalling the past few months when their rightful place had been in prison cells, “we’ve come quite a long way, haven't we?” Joseph Rowntree, the newly appointed independent Premier of Yorkshire, nodded in agreement. Rowntree's coalition, dubbed the ‘Democratic Bloc’ by the local press, was precarious, formed between SDF members and the local LDP faction, but promising—a gamble that the members of the Great Assembly of Yorkshire were willing to take.

The success of the Social Democratic Federation in Yorkshire can be attributed to a strategic alliance between trade unions and the broader SDF leadership. Understanding the potency of organized labour, the prominent union organizer Jowett mobilized workers and also collaborated with the SDF to secure seats in the House of Commons. The working-class population, enduring economic hardships and witnessing the March Massacres' injustices, finally found a voice through the SDF candidates who staunchly advocated for their interests. Federation candidates were successful in nearly every Northern state: Independent Labour Party (ILP) candidates were the SDF’s most successful and organized group and won several seats in the House of Commons, much to the surprise of the LDP and Unionists alike.

Fred Jowett, SDF MP elected at the 1892 State Election​

As Yorkshire embraced its Democratic Bloc, miles away in London, the effects of this political whirlwind were being felt acutely. William Harcourt resigned as Leader, and the party met before the first meeting of the new Parliament to elect Henry Campbell-Bannerman, or “CB,” as his friends affectionately called him, as his replacement. Upon his election, he stood in the chamber, gazing at the assembly of faces.

Among them were 40 new, determined members of the SDF and ILP, survivors of assassination attempts, and witnesses to the March Massacres. CB couldn’t help but feel the shifting sands beneath them as he looked into their eyes. “Let the record show, Mr Speaker,” he declared as the session opened, “that this Parliament is not like those that came before. We are the voice of the people, and we will be heard.” His words were met with resounding applause from his side and cold, calculating stares from the Unionists on the other.

Alongside the state elections, the upper chamber was no less a battleground. In the following weeks, 100 new senators were appointed by the State Legislatures, ensuring that the Unionists would have a majority of just two. The Senate election would prove to be the beginning of the partisan nature of the chamber, with fewer Independent members elected. While Unionism had ultimately won the battle, members of the Republican opposition increasingly believed they would win the war. As political leaders across Britain grappled with the changing times, the final tallies of the Senate elections marked a significant shift in the nation's political landscape.

Senate Results

• Unionist Party - 101
• Liberal Democratic Party - 86
• Social Democratic Federation - 7
• Independents - 6
• Association of Loyal Orangemen - 1

Source: National Archives

Among its newly appointed Senators were seven members of the SDF, joining the esteemed Senator John Ruskin. Their presence was a poignant reminder—no longer could the Senate remain a distant, unaffected entity. In this chamber, William Harcourt, now a Senator for London after resigning his leadership of the LDP, found his new stage. “Gentlemen,” he addressed the chamber, “we are at the dawn of a new era. We must decide if we are to be the architects of progress or the barriers to it.”

Upon hearing the collated Senate results with his wife, reading The Sunday Republic, Herbert Gladstone sighed gently. “What a time to be alive,” he whispered, a mixture of hope and trepidation in his eyes. “What a time indeed.” His wife, sensing the weight of the moment, took his hand. “You’re a part of this, dear,” she said softly, “a part of making things right.” As they looked into the fire, the flames seemed to dance in a manner reminiscent of the fervor sweeping their nation—a Britain at once familiar and altogether new.

After hearing the foreign dispatches from the troubling events in Paris in his Dublin office, Davitt looked gravely at his advisors. He took a deep breath, feeling the weight of the world on his shoulders. 'We've championed the cause of sovereignty,' he whispered, his voice steady yet tinged with an undeniable urgency. 'Now, we stand on the brink. It is our duty, our destiny, to defend it — against threats we are only beginning to comprehend.' His advisors exchanged glances, knowing their world was about to change irrevocably.

 

[TheBerlinguer]

Hey all! If anyone has an questions, let me know, I’m happy to answer 😀

Since this TL is more on the soft side of alternate history*, does that mean we're going to see OTL figures handle everything until the end (1960, I guess)? We're quite removed from the moment in time when things really started diverging hard from the events we're used to (the early death of William IV, arguably) and so far I don't think I've actually spotted a single original creation rising to prominence in the world of The Popular Will.


*Not that there's anything bad with that, mind you! "Hard" and "soft" alternate history are just descriptors of the way the subject is approached, not statements of quality.

 

[President Conor]

Since this TL is more on the soft side of alternate history*, does that mean we're going to see OTL figures handle everything until the end (1960, I guess)? We're quite removed from the moment in time when things really started diverging hard from the events we're used to (the early death of William IV, arguably) and so far I don't think I've actually spotted a single original creation rising to prominence in the world of The Popular Will.


*Not that there's anything bad with that, mind you! "Hard" and "soft" alternate history are just descriptors of the way the subject is approached, not statements of quality.

Thanks for the question! My philosophy is that politics and government structures don’t really mess with who is attracted to rise to prominence, so the same people will emerge, but with different reactions to the issues dictated by the new surroundings.

So you’ll see the same sorts of figures hanging around, but certain figures might survive longer (especially in Irish politics) and others might be removed from the equation. In the next book, things do start to change quite considerably, so there would be the potential for some bigger changes from OTL, but I imagine that we’ll be working with the same figures as OTL largely.

 

[Mayukh]

My philosophy is that politics and government structures don’t really mess with who is attracted to rise to prominence,

But what if they are never born?

 

[President Conor]

But what if they are never born?

Good point, some won’t be - and some will die prematurely as well, which will affect things

 

[Mayukh]

Good point, some won’t be - and some will die prematurely as well, which will affect things

What if two random people hook up?

 

[President Conor]

What if two random people hook up?

My thoughts have always been constitutional reform isn’t fodder for luuurrv.