How Did the Empire Strike Back?

HOW DID THE EMPIRE STRIKE BACK?

Andrew S. Thompson looks at three case studies to examine the impact of imperialism on democracy and liberalism in Britain between 1865 and 1920.1

For a century or more, the empire has been blamed for debasing British politics. The experience of governing the colonies is said to have imported The cartoonist t the start of the twen- introducing into our Houses of attitudes and values David Low created tieth century, the Parliament the coarsest and most the pompous New Liberal intel- selﬁsh spirit of “Imperialism”’.2 into Britain that reactionary and lectual, J. A. Hobson, Thirty or so years later, yet in ultranationalistic railed against the fact a similar vein, the New Zealand- were inimical to the Colonel Blimp, originally for the Athat the south of England was born political cartoonist, David growth of a modern Evening Standard. ‘richly sprinkled’ with a class of Low (1891–1963), took great retired colonial soldiers and ofﬁ- delight in deriding the xenopho- democracy. Liberals cials, ‘men openly contemptuous bic and racist, if by then ultimately have been at the of democracy, devoted to mate- irrelevant and futile, attitudes of rial luxury, social display, and the that archetypal imperialist, Colonel forefront of such shallower arts of intellectual life Blimp.3 Jose Harris’s study of later- criticisms. … the wealthier among them Victorian and Edwardian political discover political ambitions, culture ploughs a similar furrow:

16 Journal of Liberal History 42 Spring 2004 HOW DID THE EMPIRE STRIKE BACK?

Imperial visions injected a hungry blacks on the courthouse burnt in effigy by a large gather- powerful strain of hierarchy, of the small town of Morant Bay ing of working-class radicals at militarism, ‘frontier mental- in Jamaica. During a month-long Clerkenwell Green in London. ity’, administrative rational- period of martial law, people were Eyre’s supporters included ity, and masculine civic virtue shot, hanged and flogged, and clergymen, peers and members of into British political culture, at many houses were razed.5 Jamai- the armed forces. Their case was a time when domestic political ca’s white planters praised Eyre made at a welcome home din- forces were running in quite the for his handling of the crisis. But ner, in the pamphlet and periodi- opposite direction towards egali- the severity of the measures that cal press and at various provincial tarianism, ‘progressivism’, con- he had taken left the British gov- societies. They raised a significant sumerism, popular democracy, ernment with little choice but to sum of money (rumoured to be feminism and women’s rights.4 suspend this Australian explorer over £10,000) on Eyre’s behalf. turned colonial official, and to Surely in Some scholars have taken this Is it fair, then, to characterise set up a Royal Commission to episode as proof of a marked hard- imperialist ideology as essentially enquire into his conduct. times of ening of racial attitudes in mid- anti-democratic? Clearly this is a Opinion in the country, mean- colonial Victorian Britain. The view of big question that could be tackled while, was deeply divided.6 The black people as inherently inferior in a variety of ways. Here the focus Victorian intelligentsia, in par- crisis to whites is said to have gained a will be on the domestic political ticular, were at sixes and sevens much wider currency as a result of repercussions of three well-known as to whether the Jamaican Gov- there was the Eyre controversy.7 Elsewhere I episodes of colonial oppression ernor had acted responsibly or question this interpretation, argu- and settler rapacity: the Morant not. A Jamaica Committee, led by a strong ing that working-class racial atti- Bay rebellion in Jamaica (1865), John Stuart Mill, and backed by temptation tudes do not fit comfortably into the Anglo-Indian protest against such luminaries as John Bright, the ‘boxes’ to which they have Lord Ripon’s Ilbert Bill (1883) and Charles Darwin, Frederic Harri- to drop any often been assigned.8 Here it needs the Amritsar massacre at Jallian- son, Thomas Huxley, and Herbert to be emphasised that even though wala Bagh (1919). Surely in times Spencer, organised a campaign to pretence at the Jamaica Committee’s four legal of colonial crisis there was a strong prosecute Eyre privately, while an actions failed, Eyre was nonethe- temptation to drop any pretence Eyre Defence Committee, sup- inclusive- less forced into premature retire- at inclusiveness, liberalism and tol- ported by Thomas Carlyle, John ness, liber- ment, turned down for several erance, and to rally behind those Ruskin, Alfred Tennyson, Charles government posts, and deprived of who were prepared to ‘save the Kingsley and Charles Dickens, alism and the patronage and perks to which Empire’ by upholding and defend- established a fund to pay his legal other ex-governors had grown ing racial privileges and, if neces- expenses. tolerance, accustomed. Even the debate on sary, by a show of armed force? Though the Jamaica Com- Eyre’s legal expenses in 1872 was mittee set out to mobilise ‘gen- and to rally enough to bring his opponents tlemanly opinion’, Eyre’s critics behind out of the woodwork and previ- Governor Eyre also comprised many people of ous passions back to the boil.9 Take the Governor Eyre contro- more modest means. From the those who Of course, martial law con- versy, an event that brought to the outset, abolitionist, missionary tinued to be invoked in the face forefront of British politics the and dissenting groups – known were pre- of future colonial disturbances, nature of colonial rule and the collectively as ‘Exeter Hall’ – had and a string of other massacres relationship between white settlers not only bombarded the Colonial pared to was to litter Britain’s twentieth- and black subjects. Eyre responded Office with petitions and memo- ‘save the century imperial record. Yet, in a swiftly and brutally to the march rials, but staged numerous mass sense, this is to miss the point. In of several hundred angry, land- meetings. Eyre’s figure was even Empire’? 1865, many of Eyre’s opponents,

Journal of Liberal History 42 Spring 2004 17 HOW DID THE EMPIRE STRIKE BACK? especially Liberals, perceived a ‘The Jamaica risk of authoritarian and arbitrary Question’ (Punch, methods of government seep- 23 December 1865). White ing back from colony to mother planter: ‘Am not I country – this was why the debate a man and brother focused as much (or more) on the too, Mr Stiggins?’ uses and abuses of martial law as on rival theories of race. At a time when many people in Britain were agitating for a further exten- sion of the franchise, the prospect of West Indian methods of repres- sion being adopted at home was all the more alarming. Such anxi- eties may well have weighed with the British government when it decided to replace the old regime of rule by the planter class with a more direct form of government from London. Though this looks like a throwback to the past, the decision actually held out some hope for black Jamaicans in so far as it curbed the powers of the island’s ‘plantocracy’. In the words of Niall Ferguson, ‘the liberalism of the centre’ had prevailed over ‘the racism of the periphery’.10 Indeed, in the years that followed, the cry of ‘democracy in danger’ continued to have consid- erable political purchase during moments of colonial crisis.11

The Ilbert Bill The determination and skill with which Anglo-Indians mobilised metropolitan opinion against the Ilbert bill (1883–84) may seem a more straightforward example of imperialists riding roughshod over the principle of racial equality (enshrined in the royal proclama- tion of 1858).12 Lord Ripon,13 Vice- roy of India from 1880 to 1884, was responsible for introducing a raft of liberal reforms, including those to promote local self-government. These were attacked by his Tory opponents as a ‘policy of sentiment’, but Ripon returned to Eng- land to provide a vigorous defence of his policies at the National Lib- eral Club in February 1885. The Ilbert bill needs to be set in this context. It was a statutory ‘The Anglo-Indian amendment to the Criminal Pro- Mutiny – A bad cedure Code whereby Indian example to the elephant!’ (Punch, judges and magistrates in country 15 December areas (the Mofussil) would be given 1883)

18 Journal of Liberal History 42 Spring 2004 HOW DID THE EMPIRE STRIKE BACK? the power to try British offend- victory had not been achieved 1883 was ever, showed greater perspicacity, ers in criminal cases. It became without a fight. Several pro-bill regretting that Ripon had thrust the focus of a ‘White Mutiny’ newspapers – the Daily News, the not so the measure on Anglo-India at a – a heady cocktail of racial and Echo, Reynolds’ News, the Weekly moment when he was engaged sexual fears, which fed on memo- Times, the Pall Mall Gazette much a ‘in the gigantic and difficult task ries of 1857, and engulfed India’s and the Contemporary Review of introducing local govern- community of English business- – had rallied round Ripon. They crossroads ment reform’.21 There were also men, planters and professionals. argued for the importance of a in the his- those who supported the liber- A European and Anglo-Indian more sympathetic and sensitive alisation of municipal govern- Defence Association was formed. approach on the part of the Gov- tory of ment but opposed the Ilbert bill It staged protest meetings, threat- ernment of India to the ‘native because they felt that it would do ened boycotts and even tried to population’. They affirmed the the Raj, more harm than good, not least get army volunteers to resign. ability of Indians to participate because only a handful of angli- Crucially, it was well-con- more fully in the administration. whereby cised Indian civil servants – the nected to the British press. As They also reported on the meet- colour- so-called ‘Bengali Babus’ – alleg- Chandrika Kaul shows, several ings that were organised by John edly stood to gain.22 Understood London newspapers and reviews Bright and other Liberal MPs blind jus- in this way, 1883 was not so much clubbed together to stop the to back the bill. Ripon’s resolve a crossroads in the history of the liberal Viceroy in his tracks: ‘the was certainly stiffened by these tice was Raj, whereby colour-blind justice anti-bill papers did not simply expressions of support.16 was rejected in favour of a racially articulate [Anglo-Indian] griev- Moreover, the anti-bill agita- rejected in segregated colonial state, as a ances, but provided a focus which tion was very much a press affair. favour of poorly judged and badly timed, heightened the entire agitation Only a handful of Tory MPs albeit well-intentioned, reform. movement’.14 Chief among these raised the matter at Westminster, a racially were The Times, the Telegraph, the and the response from the Tory Morning Post, the Standard, and the party caucus was likewise lacklus- segregated Amritsar Spectator. Much of their informa- tre.17 In so far as opinion in the The British reaction to the mas- tion was derived from the Anglo- rest of the country was caught colonial sacre of an unarmed crowd, Indian press – by the 1880s, up in the Ilbert bill controversy state, as gathered in the Punjab city of telegraphic communication had there is no evidence to suggest Amritsar on 13 April 1919, adds slashed the time taken for Indian that it sided with Anglo-India. a poorly further weight to my argument. news to reach Britain. The Times Even the emissary sent by the The irascible Brigadier-General spearheaded the anti-bill agita- Defence Association – F. T. Atkins judged Reginald Dyer had issued a proc- tion; it relied on advice from its – to arouse British engineering lamation banning such meetings. correspondent, J. C. Macgregor, a and railway employees against the and badly He ordered his men to fire on a Calcutta barrister who was thor- bill proved a complete failure: ‘at timed, crowd of some 20,000 people oughly opposed to the measure.15 his most important meeting in without any warning, or with- It was argued that indigenous Edinburgh, a motion was carried albeit out first demanding that it dis- Indians were incapable of shoul- unanimously against him’!18 perse. The firing continued for a dering the responsibility the bill To a large extent, Ripon had well-inten- full ten minutes. Official figures entailed; that British prestige himself to blame for what hap- recorded 379 deaths and over would be irreparably damaged; pened in 1883–84. Not only was tioned, 1,200 wounded. Indian estimates that Europeans (especially planter he too far ahead of Anglo-Indian reform. were much higher. The British families) would be increasingly opinion, he had failed to properly government moved quickly to harassed; and that there was sim- brief his cabinet colleagues on the disavow Dyer’s actions and he was ply no necessity for change. details of the bill, to take sufficient forced to resign. Again Anglo- In the end, the Anglo-Indian care in its drafting, or to have it Indian opinion was inflamed, and ‘jingoes’, as Ripon called them, properly debated in parliament sections of the metropolitan press, got their way. The Ilbert bill was – the latter, in particular, ‘created a minority of MPs and a majority emasculated: Europeans were a political vacuum’ for the proof peers protested against Dyer’s to have the right to be tried by bill press to exploit.19 In Ripon’s ‘punishment’. By discharging juries at least half of whose mem- defence, he was not the only per- his duty and teaching the ‘rebels’ bers were themselves European. son to have underestimated the a lesson, Dyer, they argued, had Although the distinction between strength of Anglo-Indian feeling. ‘saved India’, only to be aban- Indian and British district mag- Charles Hobhouse had twenty- doned by craven and cowardly istrates and session judges was six years of ICS experience but politicians at Westminster.23 A abolished, the difficulty of empan- wrongly predicted that the racial defence (or ‘Scapegoat’) fund was elling such a jury, and the costs passions aroused by the bill were set up by the editor of the Morning and delays of transferring cases to ‘so much froth’ and would soon Post newspaper, Howell Gwynne; the high courts, made it very dif- subside once it became law.20 almost £15,000 was collected ficult to secure a conviction. Yet Other pro-bill periodicals, how- within a few weeks.

Journal of Liberal History 42 Spring 2004 19 HOW DID THE EMPIRE STRIKE BACK?

The wider political context for of British officers in the Punjab, parliamentary system of govern- the defence of Dyer is the build and called for the repeal of all ment and the necessity of a free up of ‘diehard’ Tory sentiment repressive legislation: there was a press. In the fashioning of a more during the years 1919–22. Die- real fear of labour unrest at home democratic political culture, there- hardism drew strength from the meeting with similar treatment.27 fore, the Empire arguably proved hardships of the post-war depres- As the progressive newspaper, the as much of a friend as a foe. sion, and from antipathy to Lloyd Manchester Guardian, commented George, but home affairs were immediately after the debate in Dr Andrew Thompson is a Senior not at the core of its creed. Much the Commons: ‘General Dyer’s Lecturer in modern British history at more fundamental was the notion more thorough supporters by no the University of Leeds, where he is of imperial weakness – the feeling means intend to stop at India … also pro-Dean for Learning & Teach- that the British Empire might be After India, Ireland. After Ireland, ing in the Arts faculty. He is cur- living on borrowed time.24 Die- British workmen on strike.’28 rently writing a book on imperialism’s hards believed Britain to have Other elements of the anti- impact on Britain from the mid-nine- ‘providentially sanctioned impe- Dyer camp, which included many teenth century to the present day. rial obligations’,25 and insisted that senior politicians (Asquith, Bonar challenges to colonial authority Law, Churchill) and The Times, 1 This essay is drawn from a more had to be resisted, whether in Ire- took their stand on the British extensive analysis of the political repercussions of imperialism in my land, Egypt or India. Their finest government’s obligation to main- new book, The Empire Strikes Back: hour may have been the removal tain a single standard of justice Imperialism’s impact on Britain from the from office of the well-known across the British Empire,29 while mid-nineteenth century to the present day Indian sympathiser and Lib- Churchill went so far as to call (Longmans, forthcoming). I am grate- eral politician, Edwin Montagu this ‘the most frightful of all spec- ful to Richard Grayson and Richard Whiting for their comments. (1879–1924), author of the 1917 tacles, the strength of civilisation 2 J. A. Hobson, Imperialism: A Study declaration that the goal of British without its mercy’. There is a real (1938 edition), p. 151. policy in India was the ‘increas- danger therefore of inflating the 3 M. Bryant (ed.), The Complete Colonel ing association of Indians in every importance of the xenophobia Blimp (1991). branch of the administration’, and and racialism that characterised 4 Jose Harris, Private Lives, Public Spirit: a social history of Britain, 1870–1914 architect of the 1919 constitutional many of the pro-Dyer utterances (1993), p. 6. reforms. Montagu was replaced as in 1919–20. Diehardism was a 5 G. Hueman, ‘The British West Indies’ Secretary of State for India by the minority, if passionately held, in A. Porter (ed.), Oxford History of the Conservative, Viscount Peel, who view. Ranged against it was a British Empire (Oxford, 1999), Vol. III, lost no time in pouring cold water phalanx of much more liberal and pp. 486–87; D. Judd, Empire: The Brit- ish imperial experience from 1765 to the on a scheme for the Indianisation progressive sentiment. present (1996), pp. 82–83. of the army. Montagu’s Jewish During the Morant Bay upris- 6 C. Bolt, Victorian Attitudes to Race antecedents, and his rather tactless ing, the Ilbert bill controversy, (1971), pp. 82–108; B. Semmel, The remarks in the House of Com- and the Amritsar uprising the Governor Eyre Controversy (1962), chs. mons on 8 July 1920, had incensed Empire did indeed strike back 1, 3, 4, 6; G. B. Workman, The Reac- tions of Nineteenth-Century English ‘diehard’ MPs and left them bay- on the British political scene. For Literary Men to the Governor Eyre Con- 26 ing for his blood. Liberals such as J. A. Hobson, and troversy (University of Leeds Ph.D., But just how powerful was the for many historians and political 1973). public demonstration of support commentators who share Hob- In the 7 Bolt, Victorian Attitudes, pp. 102–06; for Dyer? His defenders were a son’s perspective, such episodes C. Hall, Civilising Subjects: Metropole fashioning and colony in the English imagina- somewhat disparate group, made provide further proof of impe- tion (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 25, 424; up of Anglo-Indians, military rialism’s tendency to debase and of a more D. A. Lorimer, Colour, Class and the members of the army coun- corrupt British public life. Yet Victorians: English attitudes to the Negro cil, Ulster Unionists (led by Sir even when it involved the sanc- democratic in the mid-nineteenth century (Leicester, Edward Carson), and a few right- tioning of martial law and the use 1978), pp. 12, 200. political 8 Thompson, The Empire Strikes Back, wing newspapers. The Dyer fund of armed force, there is little evi- ch. 3. drew donations from a wider dence to suggest that colonial rule 9 G. Dutton, The Hero as Murderer range of people, but the manual constituted a serious or sustained culture, (1967), p. 390. workers and schoolchildren who threat to liberal and progressive the Empire 10 N. Ferguson, Empire: How Britain parted with their pennies were values or to widening political made the modern world (2003), p. 195. 11 M. Taylor, ‘Imperium et Libertas? predominantly Anglo-Indian. participation in Britain. arguably Rethinking the Radical Critique of Working-class opinion in Brit- On the contrary, as this essay Imperialism during the Nineteenth ain was on the whole far less suggests, the domestic political proved as Century’, Journal of Imperial and Com- sympathetic. For example, the effects of arbitrary and authori- monwealth History (1991), pp. 1–18. well-attended Labour Party con- tarian rule in the colonies were as much of a 12 Sir Courtenay Ilbert (1841–1924), who brought forward the legislation, ference at Scarborough in 1920 likely to run in the opposite direc- friend as a was the law member of the Viceroy’s passed a resolution denouncing tion – namely, to galvanise ‘liberal’ council (1882–86). He subsequently the ‘cruel and barbarous actions’ opinion to defend the virtues of a foe. became the Clerk of the House of

20 Journal of Liberal History 42 Spring 2004 HOW DID THE EMPIRE STRIKE BACK?

Commons (1902–21). Constitutional Associations also W. Summer, ‘Mr Ilbert’s Bill’, 25 G. Studdart-Kennedy, ‘The 13 George Frederick Robinson pamphlet issued on the Ilbert bill British Quarterly Review (October Christian Imperialism of the (1827–1909), 1st Marquis of (Lord Ripon’s Policy in India, 1883), pp. 432–41. Diehard Defenders of the Raj, Ripon, went on to lead the Lib- 1883), while the party’s cam- 21 ‘India and Our Colonial Empire’, 1926–35’, Journal of Imperial and eral Party in the House of Lords, paign guide described the bill Westminster Review (April 1883), Commonwealth History (1990), 1905–08. as a ‘misguided’ but nevertheless pp. 610–14. pp. 342–35. 14 C. Kaul, ‘England and India: the ‘innocuous’ measure: NUCCA 22 J. Goldsmid, ‘Questions of the 26 S i r W. S u t h e r l a n d t o Ilbert Bill, 1883: a case study Campaign Guide (1885), p. 18. day in India’, The Nineteenth D. Lloyd George, 9/7/1920, of the metropolitan press’, The 18 L. Wolf, Life of the First Marquess Century (May 1883), pp. 740–58. copy in M. Gilbert (ed.), Indian Economic and Social His- of Ripon, Vol. II (1921), pp. 128, 23 For Dyer’s supporters, see Winston. S. Churchill, Vol. IV tory Review (1993), pp. 413–36. 141. Atkins also asked the Secre- D. Sayer, ‘British Reaction to the [Companion, Part 2, Docu- Quote from p. 435. tary of the TUC for support, but Amritsar Massacre, 1919–20’, ments], pp. 1140–41. 15 S. Gopal, The Viceroyalty of Lord was again rebuffed: Gopal, The Past and Present (1991), pp. 149– 27 Sayer, ‘British Reaction’, p. 152. Ripon, 1880–1884 (Oxford, Viceroyalty of Lord Ripon, p. 155. 50, 157–63. 28 ‘Unionist Revolt’, Manchester 1953), pp. 151–52. 19 Gopal, The Viceroyalty of Lord 24 K. Morgan, Consensus and Disu- Guardian, 9/7/1920, pp. 6–7. 16 A. Denholm, Lord Ripon, 1827– Ripon, pp. 136–37, 150–51, 153– nity: The Lloyd George Coalition 29 H. Fein, Imperial Crime and Pun- 1909: A political biography (1982), 54; Kaul, ‘England and India’, Government, 1918–22 (Oxford, ishment: The massacre at Jallian- p. 156; J. L. Sturgis, John Bright p. 418. 1979), ch. 10; A. S. Thompson, wala Bagh and British judgement, and the Empire (1969), pp. 74–75. 20 C. Hobhouse, ‘Plain facts in India Imperial Britain: The Empire in 1919–1920 (Honolulu, 1977), 17 There was a single National Policy’, Macmillan’s Magazine British politics (Longman, 2000), pp. 138–44. Union of Conservative and (October 1883), pp. 465–73. See pp. 163–65. RESEARCH IN PROGRESS If you can help any of the individuals listed below with sources, contacts, or any other information — or if you know anyone who can — please pass on details to them. Details of other research projects in progress should be sent to the Editor (see page 3) for inclusion here.

Cornish Methodism and Cornish political identity, 1918–1960s. Liberals and the local government of London 1919–39. Chris Researching the relationship through oral history. Kayleigh Milden, Fox, 173 Worplesdon Road, Guildford GU2 6XD; christopher. nstitute I of Cornish Studies, Hayne Corfe Centre, Sunningdale, Truro TR1 [email protected]. 3ND; [email protected]. Political life and times of Josiah Wedgwood MP. Study of the History of the Liberal Party. Roy Douglas (author of The History of the political life of this radical MP, hoping to shed light on the question Liberal Party 1895–1970 and a dozen or so other historical books) is of why the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the primary popular working on a new book about the Liberal Party and its history. This will representatives of radicalism in the 1920s. Paul Mulvey, 112 Richmond trace events from the rather indeterminate 19th century date when the Avenue, London N1 0LS; [email protected]. party came into existence to a point as close as possible to the present. Recruitment of Liberals into the Conservative Party, 1906–1935. He believes that the story requires attention to be given not only to the Aims to suggest reasons for defections of individuals and develop an glamorous deeds of major politicians but also to such mundane matters understanding of changes in electoral alignment. Sources include as party organisation and finance. ideas, please! Roy Douglas, 26 personal papers and newspapers; suggestions about how to get hold of Downs Road, Coulsdon, Surrey CR5 1AA; 01737 552 888. CllrNickCott,1a he t papers of more obscure Liberal defectors welcome. enry Hon H. G. Beaumont (MP for Eastbourne 1906–10). Any information H Street, Gosforth, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE3 1DQ; N.M.Cott@ncl. welcome – especially from anyone having access to material about the ac.uk. history of Liberalism in Eastbourne – particularly on his political views SDP in Central Essex. Contact with anyone who had dealings with (he stood as a Radical). Tim Beaumont, 40 Elms Road, London SW4 the area, and in particular as many former SDP members of the 9EX. area as possible, with a view to asking them to take part in a short Letters of Richard Cobden (1804–65). Knowledge of the questionnaire. Official documents from merger onwards regarding the whereabouts of any letters written by Cobden in private hands, demise of the local SDP branches and integration with the Liberals autograph collections, and obscure locations in the UK and abroad for a would also be appreciated. Elizabeth Wood, The Seasons, Park Wood, complete edition of his letters. Dr A. Howe, Department of International Doddinghurst, Brentwood, Essex CM15 0SN; [email protected]. History, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A Student radicalism at Warwick University. Particulary the files affair 2AE; [email protected]. (For further details of the Cobden Letters in 1970. Interested in talking to anybody who has information about Project, see www.lse.ac.uk/collections/cobdenLetters/). Liberal Students at Warwick in the period 1965-70 and their role in Liberal foreign policy in the 1930s. Focussing particularly on Liberal campus politics. Ian Bradshaw, History Department, University of anti-appeasers. Michael Kelly, 12 Collinbridge Road, Whitewell, Warwick, CV4 7AL; [email protected] Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT36 7SN; [email protected]. Welsh Liberal Tradition – A History of the Liberal Party in Wales Liberal Party and the wartime coalition 1940–45. Sources, 1868–2003. Research spans thirteen decades of Liberal history in particularly on Sinclair as Air Minister, and on Harcourt Johnstone, Wales but concentrates on the post-1966 formation of the Welsh Dingle Foot, Lord Sherwood and Sir Geoffrey Maunder (Sinclair’s PPS) Federal Party. Any memories and information concerning the post- particularly welcome. Ian Hunter, 9 Defoe Avenue, Kew, Richmond TW9 1966 era or even before welcomed. The research is to be published 4DL; [email protected]. in book form by Welsh Academic Press. Dr Russell Deacon, Centre for Humanities, University of Wales Institute Cardiff, Cyncoed Campus, Liberal policy towards Austria-Hungary, 1905–16. Andrew Gardner, Cardiff CF23 6XD; [email protected]. 17 Upper Ramsey Walk, Canonbury, London N1 2RP; agardner@ssees. ac.uk.

Journal of Liberal History 42 Spring 2004 21