Liberals and the Boer War Iain Sharpe the Liberal Party and the South African War 1899–1902 Dr Jacqueline Beaumont the Liberal Press and the South African War J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Issue 29 / Winter 2000–01 / £4.00 Liberal DemocratHISTORY Liberals and the Boer War Iain Sharpe The Liberal Party and the South African War 1899–1902 Dr Jacqueline Beaumont The Liberal Press and the South African War J. Graham Jones The Peacemonger David Davies Meeting report Liberalism in North America Reviews D’Arcy, Nightmare! Susan Kramer Kennedy, The Future of Politics Duncan Brack Liberal Democrat History Group Issue 29: Winter 2000–01 Journal of Liberal Democrat History The Journal of Liberal Democrat History is published quarterly by the Liberal Democrat History Group. 3 The Liberal Party and the South ISSN 1463-6557 African War 1899–1902 Editor: Duncan Brack Assistant Editor: Alison Smith Iain Sharpe describes the crisis in the Liberal Party provoked by the Anglo- Reviews Editor: Sam Crooks Boer War Liberal Democrat History Group The Liberal Democrat History Group promotes 9 Hastings in 1900 the discussion and research of historical topics, particularly those relating to the Graem Peters looks at a rare Liberal victory in the ‘khaki election’ of 1900 histories of the Liberal Democrats, Liberal Party and the SDP. The Group organises discussion meetings and produces the Journal 10 The Liberal Press and the South and other occasional publications. African War For more information, including details of publications, back issues of the Journal, tape Dr Jacqueline Beaumont analyses the role of the media in the politics of the war records of meetings and archive and other research sources, see our web site at: www.liberalhistory.org.ukwww.liberalhistory.org.uk. 16 Biography: David Davies Hon President: Earl Russell Chair: Graham Lippiatt The life and career of the first Baron Davies of Llandinam (1880 –1944), by J. Graham Jones Editorial/Correspondence Contributions to the Journal – letters, articles, 24 Report: Liberalism in North America and book reviews – are invited. The Journal is a refereed publication; all articles submitted will with Dilys Hill, Terry McDonald and Akaash Maharaj; report by Jen Tankard be reviewed. Contributions should be sent to: Duncan Brack (Editor) 25 Letters to the Editor Flat 9, 6 Hopton Road, London SW16 2EQ email: [email protected] David Rebak; Graem Peters; Dr Michael Brock All articles copyright © their authors. 27 Reviews Advertisements Adverts are welcome; please contact the Editor. Mark D’Arcy & Rory Maclean: Nightmare! The Race to Become London’s Mayor, reviewed by Susan Kramer Subscriptions/Membership Charles Kennedy: The Future of Politics, reviewed by Duncan Brack An annual subscription to the Journal of Liberal Garry Tregidga: The Liberal Party in South-West Britain since 1918: Political Democrat History costs £10.00 (£5.00 unwaged Decline, Dormancy and Rebirth, reviewed by John Howe rate). This includes membership of the History Group unless you inform us otherwise. Overseas G. W. Keeton James: A Liberal Attorney-General, reviewed by Robert Ingham subscribers should add £5.00; or, a special three- year rate is available for £40.00 total. Cheques (payable to ‘Liberal Democrat History Group’) should be sent to: Patrick Mitchell 6 Palfrey Place, London SW8 1PA; email: [email protected] Cover design concept: Lynne Featherstone Front cover cartoon: ‘So Perplexing!’ Published by the Liberal Democrat History Group, c/o Flat 9, 6 Hopton Road, London SW16 2EQ Old Liberal Party: ‘Oh deary me! Which platform shall I take?’ Printed by Kall-Kwik, A cartoon representation in Punch of the dilemma facing the Liberal Party during the 426 Chiswick High Road, London W4 5TF Boer War (Punch, 1 August 1900). December 2000 2 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 Boer War Iain Sharpe describes the crisis in the Liberal Party that was provoked by the Anglo-Boer War. TheThe LiberalLiberal PartyParty andand thethe SouthSouth AfricanAfrican WarWar 1899–19021899–1902 he South African War of –, com- (leader in the House of Commons from to Tmonly known as the Boer War, brought to a ) and John Morley, Gladstone’s biographer, were head long-standing divisions in the Liberal Party inclined to sympathise with these views. However, over its attitude to empire and foreign policy and some Liberals (dubbed ‘Liberal Imperialists’) be- very nearly led to a permanent split along the lines lieved that a policy of opposition to imperial expan- of the Liberal Unionist secession. The sion was an electoral albatross for the Liberal Party. general election saw the party reach the nadir of the Lord Rosebery, Gladstone’s successor as Prime Min- its pre- electoral fortunes, when it suffered an ister, and rising stars such as Sir Edward Grey, unprecedented second successive landslide defeat. R. B. Haldane and H. H. Asquith felt that the party Internal feuding between supporters and opponents was in danger of being portrayed as unpatriotic – of the war threatened to lead a permanent division willing to countenance the dismantling of empire in the Liberal ranks, along the lines of the Liberal and thus the decline of British power. Rosebery Unionist secession of . Ye t, within four years of wanted the party to shake off the Gladstonian the war’s end the Liberals were back in power, hav- legacy and positively embrace empire. Although he ing themselves won a landslide majority. Paradoxi- resigned from the Liberal leadership in , a year cally, although the war led to the Liberal defeat in after his government was defeated in a general , its legacy contributed to the victory. election, he remained a ‘king over the water’ for many Liberals who sympathised with his views. The third strand of opinion was represented by Empire and the Liberal Party Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Liberal leader The divisions in the Liberal Party that the war ac- from . Campbell-Bannerman belonged to the centuated had their origins in differing views on centre of the party, describing himself as ‘a Liberal how the party should cope with the growing enthu- and an imperialist enough for any decent man’. He siasm for empire among the electorate during the and many mainstream Liberals broadly supported s and s. On these issues the party divided the Cobden/Gladstone tradition, but saw the need into three camps. Many Liberals believed the party for the party to be pragmatic. They recognised that should follow in the footsteps of Cobden, Bright hostility to empire was not electorally popular, but and Gladstone in supporting ‘peace, retrenchment equally they rejected the views of the Liberal Impe- and reform’. They opposed overseas expansion and rialists who seemed prepared to abandon Liberal entanglements as wrong in themselves and as drains principles altogether in the cause of electoral expe- on the exchequer. Many backbench Liberal MPs felt diency. Campbell-Bannerman’s views were shared that it was a fundamental purpose of the party to by a substantial section of the party but, as is often maintain what they saw as the ‘Liberal tradition’ of a the case when parties suffer debilitating splits, those pacific foreign and imperial policy. Some leading at either extreme were unwilling to unite around a figures in the party such as Sir William Harcourt compromise policy for the sake of party unity. Given Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 3 the nature of these divisions, an impe- Diamond Jubilee year, Harcourt’s room opposed the war saw it as the party’s rial war was guaranteed to highlight for manoeuvre was constrained by the duty to follow in the tradition of and widen the faultlines within the need to avoid appearing unpatriotic. Gladstone’s – Midlothian cam- Liberal Party. The Jameson Raid episode highlighted paign and defend the rights of small na- the dilemma the Liberals faced in op- tions. However, Liberal MPs who were posing the government on matters that involved in anti-war agitation were Britain and South Africa appeared to involve Britain’s vital na- mostly obscure and eccentric back- 1877–1899 tional interests – a dilemma which was benchers, while their sympathisers at to recur during the war. the higher levels of the party remained The war in South Africa was the culmi- nation of a quarter of a century’s efforts To recover Britain’s position after circumspect. Thus anti-war Liberals by British governments to establish su- the raid, the government appointed Sir were unable to impose their policy on premacy in the region, which was seen Alfred Milner as High Commissioner the party leadership. Many Liberal op- as a vital British strategic interest as a to the Cape Colony in . Milner, a ponents of the war became involved in committed imperialist who described non-party organisations such as the key point on the route to India. South Africa consisted of the two British himself as a ‘British race patriot’, was South Africa Conciliation Committee colonies of the Cape and Natal and two a highly-regarded administrator and and the more extreme Stop-the-War independent Dutch republics, Transvaal had close links with the Liberal Im- Committee. In February some of and Orange Free State. In perialists, sharing a Balliol back- them set up the League of Liberals Disraeli’s government annexed the ground with Asquith and Grey. He Against Militarism and Aggression as a Transvaal, but after an uprising by was determined to bring matters to a pressure group for anti-war Liberals. Transvaalers and the defeat of a British head and assert British supremacy in Opponents of the war were dubbed army at the battle of Majuba Hill in South Africa. After abortive negotia- ‘pro-Boers’ by their opponents, and tions during the summer of , often adopted the label themselves as a , the new Liberal government ef- fectively restored its independence un- Britain despatched troops to South badge of defiance. In response to the der British suzerainty.