21 Winter 1998 99

Journal of Liberal Democrat History issue 21 winter 1998–99 £3.00 Liberal History and the Balance of Power The Dictionary of Liberal The Greening of the Liberals? Biography Green thinking and the party Ben Pimlott, Bill Rodgers, Graham Watson Reviews Archive Guide The House of Lords: An Anecdotal History The papers of Neville Sandelson Liberal Crusader: Life of Sir Archibald Sinclair Liberal Democrat History Group Issue 21: Winter 1998–99 The Journal of Liberal Democrat 3 Liberal History and the Balance of Power How much influence do third parties holding the balance History of power really exert? John Howe analyses the Liberal record. The Journal of Liberal Democrat History is published quarterly by the Liberal Democrat History Group. 6 Archive Guide The Papers of Neville Sandelson; by Mari Takayanagi. ISSN 1463-6557 7 The Dictionary of Liberal Biography Editorial/Correspondence Contributions to the Journal – letters, The History Group’s first major publication. articles, and book reviews – are invited, preferably on disc or by email. Foreword: Professor Ben Pimlott. The Journal is a refereed publication; Report: No More Heroes Any More? all articles submitted will be reviewed. Fringe meeting, 20 September; by Graham Lippiatt. Contributions should be sent to: Duncan Brack (Editor) Of obituaries and great men; Bill Rodgers. Flat 9, 6 Hopton Road, London SW16 2EQ. Six characters in search of an author; Graham Watson. email: [email protected]. All articles copyright © their authors. 15 The Greening of the Liberals? Tony Beamish traces the development of green thinking in Advertisements the party. Adverts from relevant organisations and publications are welcome; please 20 Letters to the Editor contact the Editor for rates. Subscriptions/Membership 22 Review: The Peers and the People An annual subscription to the Journal John Wells:The House of Lords: An Anecdotal History. of Liberal Democrat History costs Reviewed by Tony Little. £10.00 (£5.00 unwaged rate; add £5.00 for overseas subscribers); this includes membership of the History 23 Review: The Last Liberal Landlord Group unless you inform us otherwise. Gerard J. De Groot: Liberal Crusader: The Life of Sir Send a cheque (payable to ‘Liberal Archibald Sinclair. Reviewed by Lionel King. Democrat History Group’) to: Patrick Mitchell, 6 Palfrey Place, London SW8 1PA; email: [email protected] Published by The Liberal Democrat History Group promotes the discussion and Liberal Democrat History Group, research of historical topics, particularly those relating to the histories of the c/o Flat 9, 6 Hopton Road, Liberal Democrats, Liberal Party and the SDP. The Group organises London SW16 2EQ. discussion meetings and publishes the quarterly Journal of Liberal Democrat History and other occasional publications. Printed by Kall-Kwik, 426 Chiswick High Road, For more information, including details of back issues of the Journal, tape London W4 5TF. records of meetings, Mediawatch, Thesiswatch and Research in Progress services, see our web site: www.dbrack.dircon.co.uk/ldhg. December 1998 Hon President: Earl Russell. Chair: Duncan Brack. 2 journal of liberal democrat history 21: winter 1998–99 Liberal History and the Balance of Power How much influence do third parties holding the balance of power really exert? John Howe analyses the Liberal record. George Dangerfield’s study of the Strange Death of again an Irish-Labour majority’. Dangerfield’s assessment has achieved wide- Liberal England was published in . It is a lively, spread currency. R. Shannon in The Crisis of readable and persuasive interpretation of the years Imperialism writes that ‘after January the Irish before and it has provided the starting point Nationalists could if they wished by voting against the government turn them out’. He for almost all subsequent writing on the period. It comments that as the Liberals lost seats at sub- depicts the Liberal government fighting a losing sequent byelections their ‘dependence on La- battle against a mounting tide of violence generated bour and Irish Nationalists was cruelly under- lined’. R. Webb says in Modern England that by trades unionists, suffragettes and Irishmen, and after January ,‘the balance was held by saved from a civil war only by the outbreak of the Irish Nationalist and Labour members’. European conflict. Of course this interpretation has Numerous other examples might be cited but one more from a recent number of the Journal been challenged but it remains influential. It is the of Liberal Democrat History must suffice. In purpose of this short essay to examine one of Graham Lippiatt’s review of the recent new edition of the Strange Death of Liberal England Dangerfield’s hypotheses which has been very widely he suggests that the passage of the Home Rule accepted and which, though only part of his case bill was at least partly ‘a consequence of the against the Liberal government, has important dependence of the Liberals in parliament on the votes of the Irish Nationalists after the two implications for other periods in political history. inconclusive general elections of ’. This is his evaluation of the effects of the results of The origin of Dangerfield’s view of the the two general elections of . political situation after is easy to trace. It is the Conservative and Unionist version Dangerfield gives only a brief account of widespread at the time. In January and even the campaign leading to the first election in more in December numerous Unionist can- January of . The overall Liberal majority didates warned that the government was now gained at the landslide election of disap- enslaved to John Redmond, ‘the dollar dicta- peared and ‘the Liberals were so reduced and tor’, the Irish Nationalist leader who had just the Conservatives so swollen as to be almost returned from a successful fund-raising tour equal in numbers; the Irish and Labour parties of the United States. The fact that no Home held the balance of power’. Thus in Rule bill had been introduced while the Lib- Dangerfield’s opinion, Parliament was control- erals had an overall majority, but appeared in led by ‘a handful of men to whom England when the majority had gone seemed to was an enemy’. It soon became clear that ‘in prove the Unionist case, and the opposition order to keep himself in power [Mr Asquith] fulminated against the government tearing up had made a bargain with the Irish’, that they the constitution and destroying the United would be given Home Rule in return for sup- Kingdom at the behest of Irishmen backed porting the Liberal government. The campaign by foreign gold. for the December election, again briefly cov- This version is, however, a partisan one and ered by Dangerfield, produced an almost un- thus should be treated with caution. The real- changed result which he describes as ‘once ity was rather different. There are two obvious journal of liberal democrat history 21: winter 1998–99 3 reasons why the Liberals did not in- would mean the end of the Lords’ the Labour Party had less influence troduce Home Rule between veto and Home Rule could then be after , not more. In the and . They had fought the expected. government, with its huge overall election on a number of issues but If we turn now to the idea that majority, reversed the Taff Vale deci- specifically not on Home Rule. Over the Irish or Labour parties held the sion and did so by adopting the La- three-quarters of the Liberal candi- balance of power we find that the bour Party’s proposals lock, stock and dates did mention Home Rule in situation was very different from that barrel. In contrast, it took the Labour their election address, but nearly all depicted by Unionist speakers at the Party three years of nagging after did so in order to declare that it was time and by Dangerfield in . before legislation to reverse the not an issue. Indeed, R. C. K. Ensor gave a more Osborne judgement was proposed, It is true that no less than % of convincing interpretation in his vol- and even then the bill was not at all Unionist candidates did warn of the ume of the Oxford History as long what the unions or the Labour Party danger of Home Rule, making this ago as , but his careful judge- wanted. Nevertheless, it supported their second most important cam- ment has had less impact than the bill in the lobbies because it had paigning point, but this merely re- Dangerfield’s colourful drama! Ensor to keep the Liberal government in inforces the second reason why writes that after the January election office and the Unionists out. Home Rule was not introduced. the government did depend on the There are other examples which There was no prospect whatever that minor parties for support but this show that third or fourth parties do it would get through the House of was a problem, not an opportunity, not have freedom to choose a part- Lords. Any Liberal or Irish Nation- for them. Indeed, ‘for the Labour ner, and thus that the notion of a alist with any hopes quickly had Party this was particularly embarrass- balance of power is a myth. The most them destroyed by Balfour, the Un- ing’. Some Labour supporters obvious example is that of –, ionist leader, who, speaking in Not- wanted to take a strong independ- when the Irish Party appeared tingham in January , declared ent line to distinguish themselves briefly to have a choice. Carnarvon, that ‘the great Unionist Party should from the Liberals but the party could the Irish viceroy of the minority still control whether in power or not do this; ‘on the contrary it must Conservative government then in whether in opposition, the destinies cast many reluctant votes in order to office pending the general election of this great Empire’.

Load more