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

Home , David Penhaligon, Earl Russell, Garry Tregidga, Harcourt Johnstone, Harold Spender, Hartley Shawcross

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:

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. The discovery of Africa in September and in response creation of the League of Liberals gold in the Transvaal in  made the Transvaal and the Orange Free Against Militarism and Aggression, matters more pressing as it meant that State launched a pre-emptive inva- Liberal Imperialists founded the Im- the Transvaal could be in an economi- sion of Natal. perial Liberal Council in the spring of  cally dominant position within South , although the most famous Lib- Africa. Over the following decade eral Imperialists such as Rosebery, Britain tried to force the Transvaal into The outbreak of war Asquith, Haldane and Grey held aloof accepting a British-dominated South From the start Campbell-Bannerman from the Council as it was inconsistent African federation. as Liberal leader tried to resolve the with their previously expressed criti- At the end of  the Cape Prime problem of how to lead an opposition cisms of the factionalism of the pro- Minister, Cecil Rhodes, engineered the party during wartime, without appear- Boers. For Liberal Imperialists the war ‘Jameson Raid’, an invasion of the ing unpatriotic. His position was made offered an opportunity to restore the Transvaal in support of a planned ris- more difficult by the fact that British party’s patriotic credentials by putting ing by the Uitlanders – British citizens territory had been invaded and, in the party differences aside and supporting   living in the Transvaal who dominated early part of the war, was under enemy the government. In June the occupation, so opposition to the war Imperial Liberal Council scored a the gold mining industry there. The  rising did not take place and the raid was not a realistic political option. propaganda victory when it managed ended in fiasco with the invading force Campbell-Bannerman pursued a mid- to get thirty-eight Liberal MPs to vote being captured by Transvaal comman- dle course, agreeing to vote supplies with the government on a pro-Boer dos. The embarrassment of the raid’s for the war, but criticising the govern- motion on the defence estimates, ment’s aggressive diplomacy in dealing while only thirty Liberal MPs voted failure was compounded by a wide-  spread suspicion that the Unionist Co- with the Transvaal. But while many for the motion itself. lonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, Liberal MPs could support this posi- The initial months of the war saw a was complicit in its planning. How- tion, there were many on either wing series of humiliating setbacks for the  ever, when a House of Commons com- of the party who would not rally British forces, but from early for- mittee of inquiry into the raid made no round it. tunes changed. The news of the relief of  criticism of the government the Liberal Splits in the party became apparent the siege of Mafeking arrived on leader, Sir William Harcourt, who almost immediately after the outbreak May, and led to spontaneous patriotic served on the committee, was widely of war. An amendment to the Queen’s demonstrations in major towns and felt to have let Chamberlain off the Speech in October criticising the gov- cities and attacks on the homes of hook. Yet, since the inquiry took place ernment’s diplomacy, moved by Liberal prominent pro-Boers. In Battersea, the at a time when delicate negotiations MP Philip Stanhope, won the support future cabinet minister John Burns had of fifty-five Liberal MPs even though his windows smashed by a jingoistic were taking place with the Transvaal   and in the middle of Queen Victoria’s the leadership abstained. Liberals who mob. In June Campbell-Bannerman

4 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 gave his support to the principle of an- fighting a general election and shortly with the pro-Boer brush, Joseph nexing the two republics, while calling before the dissolution he wrote to his Chamberlain notoriously claiming that for a swift granting of self-govern- party leader ‘I have had some disgusting ‘a vote for the Liberal is a vote for the ment. With the war apparently won, it rebuffs in my appeals for money… a Boer’. The result was a landslide de- was widely expected that the govern- disgusting number of candidates have feat for the Liberals – the first time ment would call a general election to skied off’. The Liberals allowed the since before the  Reform Act that capitalise on the wave of patriotic feel- Unionists  unopposed returns – an they had lost two general elections in a ing that followed British military suc- all-time high since the  Reform row. John Auld, in his study of the Lib- cess. On  September Parliament was Act. In its manifesto, the party tried to eral pro-Boers, has calculated that on dissolved and a general election called. salvage its patriotic reputation by prais- average pro-Boer candidates performed ing the ‘genius’ of Lord Roberts, the around three per cent worse than the Commander in Chief in South Africa, average Liberal, although mainstream The ‘khaki election’ as well as criticising both the diplomacy and imperialist Liberals were not im- Unionist victory was a foregone con- that had led to the war and the govern- mune from the tide flowing in favour clusion. By the summer of  the ment’s opportunism in trying to cash in of the Unionists. Liberal Chief Whip Herbert Gladstone electorally on military success. The This election has been dubbed the admitted that the party was not up to Unionists attempted to tar all Liberals first ‘khaki election’, anticipating that of . However, the view that the elec- Anti-war meetings frequently ended in violence as a result of the attentions of jingo tion result demonstrated the elector- crowds. (Punch, 4 April 1900) ate’s support for war and empire has been challenged, particularly by Rich- ard Price and Henry Pelling. Price has argued that to the working classes the war was less important than questions of social reform and that local issues had a significant impact on individual results. But while such factors may have made a difference in some constituencies, it remains the case that the war was the dominant issue. The cases cited by Pelling and Price only show that there were a few minor deviations in some constituencies from the broader electoral trend against the Liberals. Until the summer of  the Liberals had been making steady gains at by-elections, to the extent that they might have hoped to win the next general election with a small majority. Their electoral fortunes changed with the outbreak of war. Every by-election fought between the outbreak of war in October  and the summer of  showed a swing to the Unionists as voters rallied to the government’s patriotic call. There can be little doubt, therefore, that the war was the decisive factor in the Liberal defeat. Electoral adversity was not enough to bring the party together. The Imperial Liberal Council continued to scheme against the Campbell-Bannerman leadership. The election result seemed to justify its analysis of the Liberal Party’s weaknesses and in October it issued a manifesto that repudiated Campbell- Bannerman and demanded that the party:

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 5 … distinguish Liberals in whose policy Methods of barbarism Although Campbell-Bannerman’s de- with regard to Imperial questions patri- nunciation of ‘methods of barbarism’ otic voters may justly repose confi- In the summer of  there was an- has been a source of pride to Liberals dence from those whose opinions natu- rally disqualify them from controlling other outbreak of warfare within the of later eras, at the time it was consid- the action of the Imperial Parliament. party. This was precipitated by the Lib- ered a blunder, even by many of his Sir Edward Grey threatened to dis- eral Imperialists’ lionising of Milner own supporters, because it was seen as own Campbell-Bannerman’s leader- when he returned home on leave in an attack on British troops. Campbell-  ship and even the Chief Whip May. For many Liberals, Milner’s in- Bannerman felt the need to clarify his Herbert Gladstone wobbled, calling transigence was the reason for war remarks, saying ‘I never said a word, on Campbell-Bannerman to support breaking out and for the Boers’ refusal which would imply cruelty… on the Rosebery and Milner. to surrender even when their territory part of officers or men in the British  However, neither the pro-Boers nor had formally been annexed. But the Army’. The Liberal Imperialists im- the Liberal Imperialists were able to party leadership had to be sensitive mediately denounced Campbell- influence the party decisively in their about attacking him because Asquith, Bannerman as he seemed to them to  direction. Neither group wanted to Grey and Haldane supported him. have joined the Pro-Boer camp. split from the party, but each wished The methods used by the British H. C. G. Matthew has pointed out that that their opponents would either Army to defeat the Boers were strongly the crisis over the ‘methods of barbarism’ leave or keep quiet. The Liberal Impe- opposed by both pro-Boers and main- speech was in part based on a misunder- rialists wanted to see a re-launched stream Liberals. In response to the standing. Campbell-Bannerman in- Liberal Party, shed of its unpopular guerrilla tactics used by the Boer com- tended to make a specific denunciation of ideological baggage – a project that mandos, the British army tried to cut the concentration camps. However, the bears similarities to the re-branding of off Boer supplies by rounding up civil- Liberal Imperialists took it as a move to the Labour Party as ‘New Labour’ ians and putting them into concentra- drive them out of the party. As Haldane nearly a century later. However, the tion camps, and by burning Boer farms. put it ‘The party must be rescued from Liberal Imperialists lacked a Tony Blair The aim was to starve the Boers into getting wholly and uselessly out of rela-  – a leader with the determination to submission. The death rate in the camps tion to the national sense’. Even fight and win the internal battles that was very high: by the end of the war Asquith, who had until this point re-   would have to take place before the around , Boers had died in the mained aloof from the internal dispute, party could be reformed. Instead they camps – more was highly and looked to Rosebery, who continued to than the number publicly critical of remain aloof from politics while tanta- of troops on both Although Campbell- Campbell- lising his supporters with speeches that sides killed in the Bannerman’s Bannerman. war. Asquith’s Liberal hinted at a return. Lacking clear and denunciation of ‘methods decisive leadership, the various Liberal Emily Hob- Imperialist sup- Imperialist attempts to win control of house (sister of of barbarism’ has been a porters organised a the party were indecisive and the writer L. T. source of pride to dinner for him (a unfocused. Hobhouse) vis- standard method The pro-Boers had their problems ited the camps on Liberals of later eras, at of the time of too, having had their numbers depleted behalf of the the time it was showing support at the general election and experiencing South African considered a blunder, for a politician), throughout the war the break-up of Women and which was widely their meetings by jingoistic crowds. Children Distress because it was seen as an seen as a direct Famously, in , Lloyd George spoke Fund. On her re- attack on British troops. challenge to at an anti-war meeting at Birmingham turn to England Campbell-  Town Hall, the heart of Joseph Cham- in , she at- Bannerman’s lead- berlain’s fiefdom, which ended with a tempted to publicise her findings, ership. The conflict in the Liberal Party riot by a jingoistic crowd. With no fac- which were very critical of the condi- was parodied by the Parliamentary tion able to deliver a knockout blow to tions she had witnessed. She met sketchwriter Henry Lucy as ‘war to the  its opponents, Campbell-Bannerman Campbell-Bannerman who agreed to knife – and fork’. continued to lead as best he could. speak out against the concentration In the event, the Asquith dinner was Attacks on him by Liberal Imperial- camp policies, which he did at a dinner a damp squib. A party meeting at the  ists consolidated his support on the on June, saying: Reform Club ten days earlier resulted centre and left of the party, But he was A phrase often used is that ‘war is war’, in a vote of confidence for Campbell- careful to keep lines of communication but when one comes to ask about it Bannerman to which the Liberal Impe- one is told that no war is going on, that open with the Liberal Imperialists, espe- rialists assented. In addition, Rosebery, it is not war. When is a war not a war? having declined to preside at the cially Asquith. When it is carried on by methods of barbarism in South Africa. Asquith dinner, upstaged his potential

6 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 ally by speaking at the City Liberal ciliatory to both wings of the party. He Club on the same day as Asquith’s din- defended Milner and criticised the ex- ner in a speech in which he famously pression ‘methods of barbarism’ but ac- announced his intention to ‘plough my cepted the National Liberal Federation furrow alone’ – an apparent snub to resolution which criticised the camps Asquith. Rosebery wanted to see a and urged the government to make decisive split in the Liberal Party, but peace rather than insist on uncondi- Grey, Asquith and Haldane were un- tional surrender. willing to break away without a com- The speech repudiated many of the mitment from Rosebery to make a po- arguments of the Liberal Imperialists, litical comeback. Given the show of but they preferred to ignore this as they unity at the Reform Club, Asquith hoped that Rosebery was now going to could hardly raise the standard of rebel- return to politics and resume his right- lion now and so played down the divi- ful position at the head of the Liberal sions over South Africa, saying ‘I have Party. Sir Edward Grey wrote bluntly to never called myself a Liberal Imperialist. his party leader that ‘… if you & The name of Liberal is good enough Rosebery work together, I have no for me’. more to say & no new departure to In September the breach widened make; if on the other hand you & he further when Campbell-Bannerman decide that you cannot co-operate I repudiated the Liberal Imperialist can- must say this: that I go with him’. To didate selected by the local Liberal asso- many Liberals it seemed that the Ches- The pro-war press portrayed anti-war Liberals as eccentric and unfashionable. ciation in the North-East Lanark by- terfield speech was a peace overture. Liberals were criticised for having con- election. He unofficially supported the Herbert Gladstone wrote to Campbell- ceded self-government to the Transvaal Independent Labour Party candidate Bannerman ‘we ought to sink differ- after the Battle of Majuba in 1881. (Punch, and the Unionists gained the seat with ences… since there is so much that is 19 September 1900) a split Liberal vote. This increased the broad, generous and wise in what he Liberal Imperialists’ sense that they says…’. licly to the Chesterfield speech at a were being driven out of the party. Campbell-Bannerman, however, had meeting of the London Liberal Federa- They were losing the battle to control a clearer understanding of Rosebery’s tion in January and once again declared the structures of the Liberal Party – in intentions. He had noticed that while himself willing to see Rosebery return. December the National Liberal Fed- Rosebery’s pronouncements on the In February Rosebery spoke at Liver- eration passed a resolution broadly in war had struck a chord across a wide pool, reiterating the importance of a line with Campbell-Bannerman’s posi- section of the party, other parts of the ‘clean slate’ in domestic policy and of tion on the concentration camps. It speech made demands that would be abandoning Home Rule. Campbell- was becoming clear that the party less palatable to mainstream Liberals. Bannerman brought matters to a head leader, rather than the Liberal Imperial- These included abandoning Irish by pronouncing against Rosebery, say- ists, could command the support of Home Rule and a adopting a ‘clean ing he was asking Liberals to ‘sponge party organisations at regional and con- slate’ in domestic policy – that is repu- out every article of our creed’. stituency level. diating the party’s policy programme, Rosebery promptly announced his which Rosebery saw as ‘faddist’ and complete separation from Campbell- likely to alienate floating voters. Bannerman and the Liberal Party. The Rosebery’s speech at Campbell-Bannerman met Rosebery Liberal Imperialists set up a new or- Chesterfield and confirmed that the latter was not ganisation, the Liberal League, with In order to revive their flagging for- envisaging a return to Liberal politics. Rosebery as president and Asquith and tunes, the Liberal Imperialists needed Campbell-Bannerman wrote to Grey among the vice-presidents. It ap- Rosebery who, as an ex-prime minis- C. P. Scott, the editor of the Manchester peared to herald the launch of a ter, had a wider public appeal than Guardian, which had joined in the calls breakaway political movement. But Asquith, Haldane or Grey. Rosebery for reconciliation between Campbell- events took a different course: the  announced his intention to address a Bannerman and Rosebery: peace of Vereeniging on May meeting at Chesterfield on  Decem- there has been no offer of help to the brought the Boer War to an end and ber, and the Liberal Imperialists hoped Party – it was to the Country. He will removed the main source of division not join in: even on the war. There this would mark his political comeback. within the Liberal Party. never has been… any unwillingness on The aftermath of the war saw a swift Rosebery again demonstrated his flair our part for his return: this is absolute. for brilliant but enigmatic platform The impediment is that he won’t. turn of the political tide. Uncomfort- able questions were now asked about oratory. On the war he appeared con- Campbell-Bannerman responded pub- the government’s conduct of a war in

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 7 which the world’s largest empire had within the party and factionalising re- The Liberal Party and the Jameson Raid (Ox- taken two-and-a-half years to defeat inforced them. In fact the Liberal Im- ford, 1968), especially p.187 ff. 7 Gollin, A M Proconsul in politics: a study of Lord two tiny republics. In addition, the war perialists had more in common with Milner in opposition and power (London, 1964) had highlighted Unionist failings in so- their fellow Liberals than they did with p.129 cial policy, with recruitment statistics an imperialist visionary like Milner or, 8Porter op. cit. p.77. 9Koss op. cit. p.38. showing a very high number of volun- for that matter, with the semi-detached 10 John Auld ‘The Liberal Pro-Boers’, Journal of  teers unfit for service. This was embar- Rosebery. It might be thought there- British Studies 14(2) (1975) p.82. rassing to a party that had championed fore, that the Liberal Imperialists were 11 Koss op. cit. p.xiv. 12 Matthew op. cit. p.42. the cause of empire and an imperial wrong in their analysis of the Liberal 13 Ibid. p.52.  race. As a recent historian of the Con- Party’s electoral problems. Yet this 14 John Burns diary 19 May 1900, British Library servative Party has written: would be an oversimplification. Despite B.L. Add. MS 46318. their failure either to win control of the 15 Wilson, John C-B: a life of Sir Henry Campbell- The Conservative Party’s problems as Bannerman (London, 1973) p.327. the party of empire reached a crisis party or to launch a successful breaka- 16 Hamer, D. A. Liberal Politics in the Age of point with the Boer War. The military way group, the Liberal Imperialists had Gladsone and Rosebery (Oxford, 1972) p.298. weaknesses, administrative incompe- a profound impact on the future of Lib- 17 Matthew op. cit. p.54. tence and indeed social problems  18 Blanche, M. D. ‘British Society and the War’ in which the war has revealed laid the eralism. The party fought the elec- Peter Warwick (ed.) The South African War: Conservatives open to the charge that, tion on a platform of not implementing The Anglo–Boer War 1899–1902 (Harlow, as the party of Empire, they had not Irish Home Rule during that Parlia- 1980) p.223. done a particularly good job. 19 British general election manifestos, 1900-1974 ment, thus avoiding accusations of Compiled and edited by F. W. S. Craig (London: The Unionist response to these prob- wanting to break up the empire and, Macmillan, 1975) pp.4–6. lems made matters worse for them and with Sir Edward Grey as Foreign Secre- 20 Marsh, Peter T. Joseph Chamberlain: entre- tary, it proclaimed support for continu- preneur in politics (New Haven and London, helped to revive the Liberal Party. In 1994) p.499. , Joseph Chamberlain, attempting ity with the Unionists in foreign policy. 21 Auld op. cit. p.79. to build on the imperial unity shown During the – Liberal Govern- 22 Richard Price An Imperial War and the British by the support of Britain’s dominions ment the pacifist wing of the party Working Class (London and Toronto, 1972); Henry Pelling Popular Politics and Society in for the war effort, launched his cam- (who had mostly been Pro-Boers) were Late Victorian Britain (London and Basingstoke, paign for tariff reform with the aim of able to exert little influence on overseas 1968) see particularly pp.94–96. binding the empire together economi- policy. By , therefore, the party had 23 Figures taken from Craig, F. W. S. British parliamentary election results 1885–1918 (London, cally. The Liberal Party united behind a taken great strides towards ridding itself 1974). defence of free trade, one of its great of the image of being unpatriotic and it 24 Quoted Porter op. cit. p.80. causes. Asquith, working once again in was a very different Liberal Party that 25 Wilson op. cit. p.338. won the  general election from the 26 Matthew op. cit. p.79ff. tandem with Campbell-Bannerman, 27 Koss The Pro-Boers pp.105–126. led the campaign in the country against one that lost that of . The war had 28 Grigg, John The Young Lloyd George (London, tariffs. The Unionists split three ways: taught the party a lesson. 1973) pp.286–287. both free traders and tariff reformers 29 Wilson op. cit. p.346–47 30 Ibid. p.336. resigned from the government while Iain Sharpe is a member of the Liberal 31 Spies, S. B. ‘Women and the War’ in Warwick those in the middle tried in vain to find Democrat History Group and a Liberal op. cit. p.170. a workable compromise. In addition, Democrat Councillor in Watford. 32 Wilson op. cit. p.349. 33 Ibid. p.351. the government’s education bill, intro- 34 Matthew op. cit. pp.64–65 duced in , angered the Noncon- 1For an analysis of Liberal opponents of empire 35 Koss, Stephen Asquith (London, 1976) pp.54–55. formist Churches because it proposed see Porter, Bernard Critics of empire: British 36 Rhodes, James, Robert Rosebery (London, Radical attitudes to colonialism in Africa 1895– 1963) p.426. state funding of church schools. Liberal 1914 (London, 1968), especially Chapter 3; 37 Koss Asquith p.56. Nonconformists, divided over the Boer Price, Richard An Imperial War and the British 38 Matthew op. cit. pp.74–75. War, now united to fight the education Working Class (London and Toronto, 1972), 39 Ibid. p.77. Chapter 1 and Koss, Stephen The Pro-Boers: bill. Within a year of the end of the war 40 Wilson op. cit. p.367. the anatomy of an antiwar movement (Chicago 41 Matthew op. cit. p.80–81. the Liberal Party had recorded a steady and London, 1973), ‘Introduction’. 42 Robbins, Keith Sir Edward Grey: a biography of stream of by-election gains. In , the 2 Matthew, H C G The Liberal Imperialists: the Lord Grey of Fallodon (London, 1971) p.98. ideas of politics of a post-Gladstonian elite (Ox- government’s importation of Chinese 43 Wilson op. cit. p.371. ford, 1973) 44 Ibid. p.374. indentured labourers to work the mines 3Porter op. cit. p.75. 45 Ibid. p.385. in the Transvaal enabled the Liberals to 4 Robinson, Ronald and John Gallagher with Alice 46 Searle, G. R. The quest for national efficiency: a make political capital both on humani- Denny Africa and the Victorians: the official study in British politics and political thought mind of imperialism (London: 1961) p.410 ff. 1899–1914 (Oxford, 1973) pp.60–61. tarian grounds and over the apparent 5The government was a coalition of Conserva- 47 Green, E. H. H. The crisis of Conservatism: the snub to British labour. tives and Liberal Unionists. In accordance with politics, economics and ideology of the British The restoration of unity within the contemporary usage I have used the word ‘Un- Conservative Party, 1880–1914 (London, 1995) ionist’ to describe the government throughout Liberal Party was a remarkably easy p.77 this article. 48 Bernstein, George L. Liberalism and Liberal Poli- process. As George L. Bernstein has ar- 6For a detailed study of Harcourt’s handling of tics in Edwardian England (Winchester, Mass, gued, the war exaggerated the divisions the aftermath of the Jameson Raid see Butler, J 1986) pp.31–35.

8 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 1900 election The ‘khaki election’ of 1900 saw the Liberals performing poorly. Graem Peters examines one seat they gained from the Conservatives. HastingsHastings inin 19001900

n the general election of , the Liberals made and his supporters opposed the war, while Lord Ia few gains across the country, recovering slightly Rosebery and his Liberal Imperialist followers sup- from the debacle of  – but the recovery was ported the Unionists in their war efforts. Freeman- limited as the Unionist government appealed for Thomas was an Imperialist and a follower of support during the South African war. The fact that Rosebery, and was therefore well placed to appeal to the constituency of Hastings was one of the gains the views of wavering Unionist voters in Hastings. was something of a surprise. Mrs Lucas-Shadwell, wife of the retiring MP, The sitting Unionist MP in  was William came out openly in opposition to the Conservatives Lucas-Shadwell. He was a local man who had been and their candidate and urged voters to support born and raised in Fairlight, just outside the town. Freeman-Thomas. He could also call upon influen- He was known locally for taking a stand on social is- tial support in the Liberal Party to help with his sues, which endeared him to the working classes. campaign in Hastings. As well as being a follower of However, at the last minute he chose to stand down, Rosebery, he was also a personal friend. Rosebery following concerns expressed by the local Con- was keen that such a friend and supporter should be servatives about his voting record (he had frequently returned to the House of Commons, which would voted with the opposition), and the Unionists had to make his position in the Liberal Party and the cause find a new candidate. The man they chose was bar- of Liberal Imperialism that much stronger. Thus rister and architect Edward Boyle KC, selected just Freeman-Thomas’ campaign was well supported by eleven days before polling took place. He lived in the the Roseberyites, and in due course helped him win neighbouring constituency at Hurst Green, and this the seat. was his first contest. Post-election excuses were made by the Tories; (Boyle was to stand again in the neighbouring they claimed that the Liberals had intimated that if seat of Rye three years later, where he was also de- their man won, Lord Brassey would fund the com- feated. His losses were the only two occasions in the pletion of Hastings harbour. The harbour was never twentieth century before  when either Rye or completed, and to this day the local fisherman have Hastings was lost by the Conservatives. This was not to drag their flat-bottomed boats up the beach in- just a case of bad luck for Boyle. He was reputedly land. Freeman-Thomas sat in the Commons until not the best of platform speakers, and during an age his defeat in , one of only a handful of losses suf- when public meetings were a major part of an elec- fered by the Liberals in their greatest election land- tion campaign, how good an orator a candidate was slide. was more important that what he was saying.) Boyle faired particularly badly in  when Graem Peters is the Liberal Democrat prospective parlia- compared with the Liberal candidate. In  the mentary candidate for Hastings & Rye. Liberals put forward thirty-four year-old Freeman Freeman-Thomas. He had played cricket for Sus- Election results, Hastings: sex and Cambridge University and was a local JP. He was imposing in an aristocratic way and came 1900 across well at his meetings. He was the son-in-law Freeman-Thomas (Lib) 3,399 51.6% of Lord Brassey, who had himself been Liberal MP Boyle (Con) 3,191 48.4% for Hastings. In , the main issue of the campaign was, of 1906 course, the Boer War. The Liberal Party was known Du Cros (Con) 4,348 52.5% to be split on the issue. Henry Campbell-Bannerman Freeman-Thomas (Lib) 3,935 47.5%

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 9 Boer War Dr Jacqueline Beaumont considers the importance of the Liberal press in the politics of the Boer War. TheThe LiberalLiberal PressPress andand thethe SouthSouth AfricanAfrican WarWar

t is well known that it was the Liberals who The Daily Telegraph Ifought for and won a free press for this country The newspaper which claimed the largest circula- by effecting the abolition of the ‘tax on knowl- tion before the appearance in  of the Daily Mail edge’, an act which was in large measure responsi- was the Daily Telegraph. Founded in , it was a ble for the huge proliferation of cheap newspapers paper intended to have a broader and more popular  from the mid s onward. It was Liberal theorists appeal than the older newspapers. Its foreign news too who hoped that this new press would act as a coverage was said to rival that of The Times and it also force for educating the newly enfranchised masses offered from its early days book reviews, special arti- into a full appreciation of their rights and duties as cles and interviews. Appealing as it did to ‘the man voting members within the body politic through on the knifeboard of the omnibus’ it always offered a the fulfilment of its role as ‘the fourth estate’. The good and comprehensive city page for the many city role of the Liberals both in theory and in practice men who bought it. The paper had been owned by in the development of the press in the second half the Lawson family almost from its foundation. By of the nineteenth century has long been recognised , Sir Edward, who became Lord Burnham in as significant. Liberals were prominent in founding, , had been formally in control since , and financing and editing new newspapers, both na- informally for much longer. Although there was an tional and provincial. editor, John Le Sage, Sir Edward was in practice By the time of the South African War the Brit- both proprietor and editor; he was ‘The Guv’nor’. ish press, in whose efficacy as the bridge between He vetted and approved the appointment of new governors and governed the Liberals believed so staff and he often decided which leaders were to be fervently, had almost reached its apogee. Alan Lee written and the line to be followed.  has reckoned that in London alone in there When J. L. Garvin became a leader writer on the  were newspapers, mainly local. Throughout paper in the summer of , his appointment had   the provinces there were , , while Scotland to be approved by Sir Edward although he owed it     had , Wales and Ireland . These figures to the paper’s chief leader writer and literary editor, include all newspapers, but if one considers only the W. L. Courtney. Garvin regularly received notes London-based national press, with which I shall be from Sir Edward with instructions as to the subject primarily concerned, when war broke out there and line of his leaders. He did not mind this control, were thirteen morning and five evening papers. In for he was politically in accord with Sir Edward, a  , of the thirteen morning papers, only four Liberal Unionist, and had respect for his judgement. claimed to be Liberal and of the five evening papers Indeed he came to dread the occasions when Sir three were Liberal. The four morning papers com- Edward was absent and the editor took charge, often prised The Daily Chronicle, the Daily News, the aided by Lawson’s eldest son, Harry. During the Morning Leader and, surprisingly, the Daily Tel-  general election Harry Lawson was standing as egraph. The evening papers were the Star, a sister a Radical Liberal while his father was, in Garvin’s paper to the Morning Leader, the Echo and the words, ‘running about to Unionist meetings in the Westminster Gazette. I would like to consider these country’. As a result leaders were not always as con- papers individually before making some general sistent and clear cut as Garvin would have liked, as comments about the nature of the Liberal press both members of the family had to be placated. ‘I during the war.

10 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 was told to say’, Garvin complained on The Daily News home issues. Cook was forced to resign one occasion, ‘that the Government The divisions within the Liberal Party and was replaced by Rudi Lehmann, must be returned by an overwhelming which briefly annoyed Garvin during then on the staff of Punch, who himself majority but that the opposition were resigned after only seven months.  the general election had a far more seri- Britons after all’. Garvin’s annoyance ous effect on the two leading Liberal The troubles of the paper contin- was that of a journalist with strong newspapers, the Daily News and the ued, reflecting clashes between differ- opinions who had joined a newspaper Daily Chronicle. The Daily News was ent styles of Liberalism and between which he believed to be consistent in Lloyd George and the financial back- claimed to be ‘the recognised organ of  its views. The Daily Telegraph had altered the Liberal party’ by press directories, but ers he had secured. However, al- politically from a paper which sup- by  it was not easy to define what though in theory the paper was supported Gladstone to a Unionist news- this meant. Founded in , briefly un- posed to ignore the war, in practice it paper. Although it billed itself in such der the editorship of Charles Dickens, did not. The issue of farm burning trade manuals as the Willings Press Guide and financed by wealthy radical Liberals which had in fact gone on ever since as a Liberal newspaper, the editorial to support a programme of reform at Lord Roberts entered the Free State in  staff was Unionist and Conservative to home, events abroad in the s ex- the spring of , was assiduously fol- a man – mainly Conservative. posed the divisions within the Liberal lowed by the newly radicalised Daily  Although the Daily Telegraph had no Party over Britain’s Imperial role and News and by the end of May it known links with any party or govern- had their effect on the Daily News. was plain that the paper had decided ment department, informal links with E. T. Cook, who was appointed edi- to take up the conduct of the war sys- the Conservative party did exist tor in , belonged to the imperialist tematically. No other paper had so through a member of the editorial staff, wing of the party and spoke for it with much information about the devasta- E. B. Iwan Muller, a close associate and increasing vigour as imperial issues tion of farms and crops. friend of Arthur Balfour. Muller had came to dominate the news pages. No other paper had such full cover- other contacts both in the Hotel Cecil Cook had close contacts in South Af- age of the concentration camps. It was and in government. As one of the rica. Edmund Garrett, editor of the the Daily News that carried the first for- mainstays of the Conservative Canning Cape Times and a forthright supporter mal protest against the policy in a letter  Club at Oxford in the early s, he of the High Commissioner, was an old from Joshua Rowntree and gave the had known both Lord Curzon and friend and colleague from days when fullest coverage to Emily Hobhouse’s Lord Salisbury’s heir, Lord Cranborne. they were both on the staff of the Pall report. She herself had insisted on giv- Curzon had helped to further his career Mall Gazette. Garrett was Cape Town ing the text to the Daily News for ex- and remained a friend. In addition, and correspondent for the Daily News until clusive coverage. The paper printed a most importantly for the paper during the summer of . Cook was also a summary running to more than a page the war, he was an old friend of Sir Al- personal friend of Milner, whom he and there followed during the next few fred Milner, the High Commissioner in had known from the days when he was weeks many letters expressing concern South Africa, whom he had known a brilliant undergraduate at New Col- and horror at the short-sightedness of since his school days. lege, Oxford and Milner a newly ap- the policy. It is difficult to escape the Before the war the paper consist- pointed fellow. conclusion that there was more to this ently looked to and supported Joseph This was to influence the editorial than moral indignation; it was part of a Chamberlain. During the war its views of the Daily News when South concerted plan to pull the Liberal Party stance on the major issues concerning African affairs became prominent on together behind Sir Henry Campbell- the conduct of the war was, predict- the news pages. Cook, like Sir Edward Bannerman in a radical programme, us- ably, to criticise the War Office, expose Lawson, followed Chamberlain’s lead in ing a highly emotive issue which could stupid generals and to defend farm the months before war broke out. He only embarrass a Government already burning and the concentration camps, also defended Milner vigorously, nota- floundering as the war dragged on un- as far as possible. Indeed, as the war bly after the publication of his helot successfully and expensively. progressed any pretence that the despatch. Cook’s appointment had newspaper had to be Liberal became been unwelcome to many radical Lib- increasingly stretched and by the sum- erals, who had always looked upon the The Daily Chronicle  The Daily Chronicle had had a some- mer of it was attacking the pro- Daily News as their voice. Eventually, what chequered career in terms of its Boers for giving psychological support early in , Lloyd George, by then value to the Liberal Party, since it to the Boers with as much vigour as one of the Parliamentary leaders of the started publication in . This was to any of the Conservative newspapers ‘pro-Boers’, arranged for the paper to continue throughout the war. In its and dismissing the evidence about the be purchased by a syndicate headed by early days it had little political content camps with as much evasiveness as the two wealthy Liberal businessmen, on or foreign news, being largely devoted Minister for War, St John Brodrick. the understanding that the Daily News to advertising. During the s it had Indeed, Emily Hobhouse’s report, would take a neutral position on the  taken a Unionist position on Ireland, published on June , was not men- war and concentrate on important tioned at all. only returning wholly to Gladstonian

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 11 Liberalism in . In  Henry proved of the paper’s attacks on the It was hoped that Sir John Brunner, Massingham, who had been the assist- Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, the influen- one of the founders of ICI and well ant editor since , became editor. At tial Imperialist editor of the Methodist known for his radicalism and his inter- the time he seemed to be a supporter of Times. Massingham was ordered not to ests in the press, would finance the Lord Rosebery’s version of Liberalism, express views on South African affairs. scheme, but this was not to be. a position which he soon abandoned. This was tantamount to dismissal, for Massingham estimated that at least His second-in-command, Henry Nor- no editor could possibly remain silent £, would be needed to start a man, remained a Liberal Imperialist on the main issue of the day and on new paper. It was never collected; by while Massingham veered increasingly November  , Massingham duly early March  £, had been to the left of the party, more particularly resigned. promised, very little of which was ever on foreign issues and imperialism. The Thereafter the paper became impec- received. In the meantime, the Man- staff whom he engaged were like- cably Imperialist on the war. Spender chester Guardian, which had taken minded. Harold Spender, his Parliamen- and Nash both resigned, but Nevinson Massingham on as its London editor tary correspondent, was a Liberal radical; stayed on. At the time of the change he and found space both for Vaughan so too were Vaughan Nash, his labour was locked up in Ladysmith during the Nash and Harold Spender in Man- correspondent, and Henry Nevinson, siege and it was some weeks before he chester, filled the gap. Copies of the war correspondent, leader writer and lit- heard the news. It was a blow, for, as he paper were sent to London and, ac- erary editor. Henry Norman resigned in mourned in his diary, ‘all my influence cording to J. L. Hammond, could be May , leaving a clear field for is gone’. When he returned to England bought in Fleet Street by . in the Spender and Nevinson as Massingham’s he found that this was indeed so: the morning. Hammond’s own weekly chief assistants. new editor, J. H. Fisher, whom he came paper, The Speaker, was also regarded by During the months before war to detest, allowed him little leeway even his friends as to some extent a substi- broke out, the paper became increas- in the choice of books for review. He tute for the Chronicle during the pe- ingly uneasy and critical of Govern- tried to move to the Daily News with- riod between Massingham’s resigna- ment policy in South Africa and by the out success, but, somewhat ironically, tion and the acquisition of the Daily summer of  was voicing all the ar- was consoled by the civilised presence News fourteen months later for the guments against intervention in the in the Chronicle office of E. T. Cook, radical cause. Transvaal and acting as the most impor- who was taken on to write leaders for tant public sounding board for ‘pro- the paper after leaving the Daily News. Boer’ opinions. However, Frank Lloyd, The Morning Leader owner of the paper since , did not But there were always alternatives to like Massingham’s policy on the Trans- A new paper? the Daily News and the Daily Chronicle. vaal, which was affecting turnover, and The fortunes of these two newspapers There were the two newspapers in it was rumoured that Mrs Lloyd disap- horrified many radical Liberals opposed which Sir John Brunner had a finan- to the war at the time. It seemed to cial interest, the Morning Leader and Henry Campbell-Bannerman (1836–1908), them that a vital element in the public the Star. The Morning Leader, founded leader of the Liberal Party 1899–1908 discussion of Britain’s role in the world, in , was by  edited by Ernest the moral basis of British hegemony, Parke. It is a paper which has been was under threat of being stifled. For largely ignored in press histories. these two papers represented and were Where they do mention it, it is to dis- read by the type of middle-class, edu- miss it as being of little political im- cated Liberal who also read The Times. portance. It had, apparently, no con- Most educated Liberals saw  as tacts with the government or leading the year when their Press was totally politicians. H. N. Brailsford, who was emasculated because it had no signifi- happy to write leaders for it in  cant national voice. When the Daily when the choice of newspapers to Chronicle changed sides, an attempt was work for was severely limited for ‘pro- made to raise funds for a new Liberal Boer’ Liberal intellectuals like himself, newspaper to fill the perceived gap in remarked somewhat patronisingly to the market. The prime movers in the Gilbert Murray, ‘It is cheap, popular scheme, apart from Massingham him- and sometimes vulgar but it is staunch self, were a group of radical Liberals, all and loyal, has a good circulation and is ‘pro-Boer’, who included Vaughan preparing to reform itself into as good Nash, Frederick Mackarness, a radical a paper as one can expect for ½d’. lawyer prominent in the South African The Morning Leader was certainly Conciliation Committee, Lady Carlisle different from the other Liberal morn- and her son-in-law, Professor Gilbert ing papers. Its primary aim, in good tra- Murray. ditional Liberal fashion, was to educate

12 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 its readership, but it had also adapted to ions of the different radical movements penny evening newspaper, which from the new journalism. It was easier to while providing its readership with ex- the start was noted for its advanced Lib- read, having only five columns on a cellent literary and music criticism. So its eral views. From  it was owned by page in place of the six or seven fa- letter pages accommodated Fabians, J. Passmore Edwards, Liberal MP for voured by most other morning daily Trade Unionists and Marxists, while Ri- Salisbury, and well known as the papers and using a larger font through- chard Le Gallienne and George Bernard founder of many public libraries and out. It was also illustrated, with a daily Shaw wrote respectively of literature and institutions. The Echo was his voice un- cartoon and other pictures of current music. It had a pungent style of presenta- til the end of  when he sold it, to- interest. tion, including headlines in language gether with the Morning Herald, to the Education on the issues of the day aimed both to attract immediate atten- Liberal MP and businessman, Thomas was provided in its leaders, which tion and to proclaim the paper’s stance, Lough, and to John Barker, who was tended to review and criticise the which by  had become more famil- elected MP for Maidstone in . whole range of editorial opinion on iar and popularised through the Daily They appointed Sir Hugh Gilzean Fleet Street. This was supplemented by Mail than it had been a decade earlier. By Reid, also a Liberal MP and proprietor special articles on the subjects of the  O’Connor had long departed and of several successful newspapers in day, some serious, some frankly satirical the editor was Ernest Parke. Scotland and the North of England, as and intended to entertain. It did not The role of the Star was dismissed manager and William Crook as editor. aim at the highly educated intellectual by Francis Williams as of little impor- Crook was an Irishman, son of the elite of the party. Some idea of those tance, particularly in capturing the founder of the Methodist College in who did read it is provided by the widespread attention of the all-impor- Belfast. He had himself been a teacher newspaper itself. At the end of October tant lower middle class mass reader- when he first came to England, but had , it offered to its readership a cheap ship. But reading its pages one cannot for many years also been a journalist, news telegram service. On November  but be struck by its sharp freshness in writing regularly for Hugh Price the paper reported that the first sub- support of a frankly ‘anti-jingo’ policy, Hughes’s Methodist Times under the scriber was ‘a London tradesman – who or by its combination, in the space of a pseudonym ‘Historicus’. As editor of desired to post the news in his shop mere four pages, of the essentials of the the Echo he continued Passmore window for the benefit of his custom- latest news, comment upon it, regular Edwards’s radical Liberalism. When war ers and the public generally’. During coverage of labour issues and book re- started he soon fell out with Price the first few days, the paper subse- views and theatre criticisms. Hughes, who disliked his ‘pro-Boer’ at- quently announced: Whether or not the Star and the titude, and ceased to write for the Meth- Not only did tradesmen in remote Morning Leader had significant influ- odist Times. At the end of that year he country towns accept the idea initiated ence, what that was and why they was also forced to resign as editor of the in London and seek to become news foundered are questions which might Echo. The paper was making a loss and purveyors to their neighbours; instances bear re-examination. During the war he and his unpopular views on South came to hand of bands of men engaged in some common employment club- neither ever wavered in their sympa- Africa were blamed. Crook himself bing together to obtain the service. In thies for the Boers; indeed they were so blamed the proprietors for having one case the clerks of a big waterworks sympathetic that in  Milner made poured too much money into their sent an order, in another soldiers in bar- sure that their chief apologist for Presi- other newspaper, the Morning Herald, racks, in a third men working on some dent Kruger was publicly exposed as a which had never done well and was large engineering job in a remote dis- Boer agent in the pay of the Transvaal eventually sold on and amalgamated trict of Wales. Government. This was Reginald into the new Daily Express. Its readership, judging from its substan- Statham, one time editor of a newspa- Like the Star, the Echo had only four tial letter columns, also included many per in Natal, leader writer for the Daily pages, but it too managed to cram in a nonconformist clergymen mainly, but News during the first Anglo-Boer war, vast amount of information about news not exclusively, from London. It seems and the first journalist in England to and current affairs, trade union matters, to have appealed to women too. popularise the theory of a capitalist sport and entertainment. Crook con- conspiracy on the Rand aimed against tinued to write for it even after he The Star the Transvaal Government, financed by ceased to be editor and, of course, later the Randlords, including Cecil Rhodes he took on the post of chief publicist Its sister paper, the Star, was slightly older. and operating through a bought Press, for the Liberal Party, but the Echo was Founded in  under the legendary soon to be more widely popularised by more non-committal in its coverage of editorship of T. P. O’Connor, with a   J. A. Hobson. the war after Crook resigned. talented staff, including Massingham and George Bernard Shaw, it was and remained uncompromisingly and consist- The Echo The Westminster Gazette ently radical, more so than either the Radical Liberals were also able to look The most significant of the evening Daily News or the Daily Chronicle. It to another evening paper, the Echo. papers was the Westminster Gazette. aimed to represent and unify the opin- Founded in , it was the first half- Like all evening papers it was not pri-

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 13 Campbell-Bannerman, elected leader were family businesses. Consequently all of the party at the start of , a rela- were undercapitalised and had plant and tionship which developed during the equipment badly in need of modernisa- South African war. tion. None of them could hope to com- Campbell-Bannerman seems to pete with a new paper like the Daily have become acquainted with Spender Mail which had invested in the latest through his friend and fellow Scottish equipment which allowed it to reach MP James Bryce. Sir Henry found unprecedented circulation figures. Spender an intelligent and sympathetic Secondly it was not a press which put supporter to whom he could send ad- news first and foremost, like the Ameri- vance copies of speeches delivered in can press of the time, upon which the Scotland, secure in the knowledge that new tabloid newspapers, the Daily Mail they would be properly reported in the and the Daily Express, modelled them- Westminster Gazette. The Press Associa- selves. Debate and comment in leaders tion, which in Scotland was dominated and articles was still regarded as being by representatives of the Scotsman and of equal importance and, in the case of the Glasgow Herald, both papers hostile evening papers, perhaps even greater to Campbell-Bannerman, and the na- importance. These two factors were tional London-based papers therefore both disadvantageous to the wide dis- received mangled and inadequate re- semination of a Liberal view of the war. J. A. Spender (1862–1942), editor of the ports of his Scottish speeches. But even more disadvantageous was Westminster Gazette 1896–1921 During the khaki election of  the third point; the lack of any uniform Spender also provided the Liberal pattern or homogeneity in the Liberal marily a newspaper. Indeed sometimes leader with an aide to help him to write press, any more than there was in the it hardly bothered with news at all, speeches and present himself to the Liberal Party at that time. At the out- preferring to use its space for ample public. But despite these close links break of war the Liberal section of the comment combined with articles of with the Liberal leadership Spender national press had been profoundly af- general interest. Founded in  on never provided the uncompromising fected by the various arguments within the initiative of E. T. Cook to replace support which one finds in the Daily the party and was divided, not over so- the Pall Mall Gazette as an evening pa- Chronicle under Massingham or Rudi cial aims, but over the question of un- per in the Liberal interest (after the lat- Lehmann’s Daily News. Spender did not ion and, increasingly, over the problems ter had been purchased by John Jacob want war; he saw no necessity for it. arising from the existence of the British Astor and changed its politics), it had Like his friend Bryce he blamed the Empire. From , with the election been edited by J. A. Spender since new diplomacy of Chamberlain for an of Lord Salisbury’s coalition Govern- Cook’s departure to edit the Daily unnecessary war, but once war came ment of Conservatives and Unionists News in . It was owned by Sir Spender, like many Liberals, saw no op- and the appointment of the former George Newnes who accepted con- tion but to bend before the storm, hope Liberal, Joseph Chamberlain to the post sistent losses during his period of it would all be over soon and prepare of Colonial Secretary this latter ques- ownership because, under Cook and for a generous, liberal settlement. tion became ever more dominant and Spender, it became the most prestig- Even after hopes of achieving this divisive within both party and press. ious national evening paper of the day. were dashed, Spender was still tempera- This is reflected in the very variable ap- Spender used his editorial pulpit to mentally incapable of taking a hard line. proach which the different papers took preach sweet reason. He approached For instance, he condemned the con- to the issues raised by the war. The lack any question with a open mind and he centration camps but, typically, argued of unanimity in the party on most of was more prepared to examine it from that their shortcomings must be the re- the major issues, remained throughout several angles than any other editor on sult of mismanagement and not delib- the war a weakness constantly on show Fleet Street. His leaders were required erate policy. in the Liberal press and constantly ex- reading for cabinet ministers and mem- ploited by its opponents. bers of the opposition alike even if those with strong partisan views, such Conclusions Dr Jacqueline Beaumont is a Research Fel- as Leonard Courtney’s wife Janet, com- Such was the national Liberal press at low at Oxford Brookes University. This pa- plained that he was a ‘wobbler’. Politi- the time of the South African war. Cer- per is based on her talk to the Liberal Demo- cally his links were with the Liberal tain features are striking. crat History Group meeting on  July , Party and he was in the confidence of First, it was not a press dominated by ‘Liberalism and the Boer War’. the party leadership. His links with groups and cartels motivated primarily Asquith at a later date are well known, by profits and circulation figures. Most of 1 Alan Lee, ‘The Structure, Ownership and Con- but he was equally close to Sir Henry these papers were small businesses, some trol of the Press, 1855–1914’ in Ed Boyce,

14 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 Curran and Wingate Newspaper History from war. Koss’s volume is the chief source of infor- per. Bodleian Library: Ms Murray 7 £7 for sub- the Seventeenth Century to the Present Day mation for many of the newspapers referred to scribers and figures in the attempt to float a new (London 1978), p. 121. See too Alan J. Lee, The in this paper. For an account of the Daily News paper. Origins of the Popular Press 1855–1914 London during this period, which may not be entirely re- 7 See for instance Francis Williams, Dangerous 1980 pp. 274–80 for more detailed tables. liable see Archibald Marshall Out and About . Estate London 1957 pp. 134–5. 2For the Daily Telegraph see Lord Burnham ‘Pe- Random Reminiscences pp. 85–89. Marshall, 8 Bodleian Library, Ms Murray 124 11.1.1900 Let- terborough Court: The Story of the Daily Tel- who was a friend and admirer of Lehmann, sug- ter from H. N. Brailsford to Gilbert Murray egraph’ (1955). gests that Lehmann was forced out of the 9 R. F. Statham My Life’s Record: A Fight for Jus- 3For Garvin and the Daily Telegraph see David editorship. Gerald Shaw The Garrett Papers, tice. London 1901. Statham regularly wrote let- Ayerst ‘Garvin of the Observer’, especially Van Riebeck Society, Second Series, No 15, ters to the Star expressing views sympathetic chapter 2. The quotation is taken from Garvin’s Cape Town 1984 pp. 1–39. towards the Transvaal and the Kruger regime in letter to his wife Christina dated 3 Oct 1900. The 5For the Daily Chronicle see Koss op. cit., A. the months before war broke out. letters are owned by Garvin’s grandson, Profes- Havighurst, H. W. Massingham, Bodleian Li- 10 This paragraph is based upon information in let- sor John Ledingham, to whom I am grateful for brary Ms Eng Misc e 610/6 Journal of H. W. ters in the Crook papers; Bodleian Library: Ms permission to quote from them. Nevinson Feb 1899 – March 1900. Eng Lett d 380. See too Stephen Koss, op. cit. 4 Stephen Koss, The Rise and Fall of the Political 6 Bodleian Library: Ms Harcourt 32 3.12.1899 11 F Wilson Harris, J. A. Spender, London 1946, Press in Britain vol 1, London 1981 pp. 362–66 Letter from John Morley to Harcourt with Koss op. cit. for the Westminster Gazette. for Cook, pp. 397–404 for changes during the Massingham’s comment as to cost of a new pa-

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 2) for inclusion here.

The party agent and English electoral culture, c.1880 – c.1906. The Liberals and the local government of London 1919–39. Chris Fox, development of political agency as a profession, the role of the 173 Worplesdon Road, Guildford GU2 6XD; election agent in managing election campaigns during this period, [email protected]. and the changing nature of elections, as increased use was made of Crouch End or Hornsey Liberal Association or Young Liberals in the the press and the platform. Kathryn Rix, Christ's College, 1920s and 1930s; especially any details of James Gleeson or Patrick Cambridge, CB2 2BU; [email protected]. Moir, who are believed to have been Chairmen. Tony Marriott, Flat Liberal policy towards Austria-Hungary, 1905–16. Andrew A, 13 Coleridge Road, Crouch End, London N8 8EH. Gardner, 22 Birdbrook House, Popham Road, Islington, London N1 The Liberal Party and foreign and defence policy, 1922–88; of 8TA; [email protected]. particular interest are the 1920s and 30s, and the possibility of The Hon H. G. Beaumont (MP for Eastbourne 1906–10). Any interviewing anyone involved in formulating party foreign and information welcome, particularly on his political views (he stood as defence policies. Dr R. S. Grayson, 8 Cheltenham Avenue, a Radical). Tim Beaumont, 40 Elms Road, London SW4 9EX. Twickenham TW1 3HD.

Edmund Lamb (Liberal MP for Leominster 1906–10). Any Liberal foreign policy in the 1930s. Focussing particularly on Liberal information on his election and period as MP; wanted for biography anti-appeasers. Michael Kelly, 12 Collinbridge Road, Whitewell, of his daughter, Winfred Lamb. Dr David Gill, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT36 7SN [email protected]. The Liberal Party and the wartime coalition 1940–45. Sources, Joseph King (Liberal MP for North Somerset during the Great War). particularly on Sinclair as Air Minister, and on Harcourt Johnstone, Any information welcome, particularly on his links with the Union Dingle Foot, Lord Sherwood and Sir Geoffrey Maunder (Sinclair's of Democratic Control and other opponents of the war (including PPS) particularly welcome. Ian Hunter, 9 Defoe Avenue, Kew, his friend George Raffalovich). Colin Houlding; Richmond TW9 4DL; [email protected]. [email protected] The grassroots organisation of the Liberal Party 1945–641945–64; the role The political life and times of Josiah Wedgwood MP. Study of the of local activists in the late 1950s revival of the Liberal Party. Mark political life of this radical MP, hoping to shed light on the question Egan, 42 Richmond Road, Gillingham, Kent ME7 1LN. of why the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the primary The Unservile State Group, 1953–1970s. Dr Peter Barberis, 24 popular representatives of radicalism in the 1920s. Lime Avenue, Flixton, Manchester M41 5DE. Paul Mulvey, 112 Richmond Avenue, London N1 0LS; [email protected]. The Young Liberal Movement 1959–1985; including in particular relations with the leadership, and between NLYL and ULS. Carrie Recruitment of Liberals into the Conservative Party, 1906–1935. Park, 89 Coombe Lane, Bristol BS9 2AR; Aims to suggest reasons for defections of individuals and develop [email protected]. an understanding of changes in electoral alignment. Sources include personal papers and newspapers; suggestions about how The political and electoral strategy of the Liberal Party 1970–79. to get hold of the papers of more obscure Liberal defectors Individual constituency papers, and contact with members of the welcome. Cllr Nick Cott, 1a Henry Street, Gosforth, Newcastle- Party’s policy committees and/or the Party Council, particularly upon-Tyne, NE3 1DQ; [email protected]. welcome. Ruth Fox, 7 Mulberry Court, Bishop’s Stortford, Herts CM23 3JW.

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 15 Biography J. Graham Jones analyses the life and career of David Davies, the first Baron Davies of Llandinam (1880 – 1944) TheThe PeacemongerPeacemonger

ord Davies was one who stood for great ideals, eficiaries of a cash estate exceeding £,,, Lfor which he was ready to spend his health and more than , acres of land, a substantial share- his fortune. He had the imagination of a poet; he saw holding in the Cambrian railways and a controlling great visions. His deep sincerity, his great generosity, interest in the renowned Ocean Coal Company his burning faith made him one of those rare beings and Barry Docks. The young David thus found an who overcome obstacles and change the course of array of industrial responsibilities thrust upon him, history. but he also enjoyed the unwavering support of his Viscount Cecil of Chelwood  stepmother who possessed exceptional intelligence and ability. He also shared the energy, enterprise We live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, breaths; and determination of his grandfather. In feelings, not in figures on a dial. David Davies was educated at Merchiston Castle, We should count time by heart-throbs. He most a public school in Edinburgh, where rugby football lives was regarded as vital and where he was dubbed Who thinks most, feels the noblest, acts the best. ‘% man’, and at King’s College, Cambridge from Tr ibute of the King Edward VII Welsh  to , where he graduated in history. At National Memorial Association  Cambridge he was viewed as an avid nonconformist and teetotaller, and was described as ‘an impetuous David Davies, the first Baron Davies of Llandinam, Welshman with a great sense of humour and an in- was born on  May  at Llwynderw, Llandinam, fectious laugh’. Upon graduation Davies went on Montgomeryshire, the first child (and only son) of big game expeditions to Alaska, Vancouver and Edward Davies who three years earlier had married Washington, and he owned a ranch in Edmonton, his cousin Mary Jones, the daughter of the Revd. Canada from  until . During  he also Evan Jones of Trewythen. There were also to be two spent a considerable period in Japan, and was one of daughters of the marriage, Gwendoline Elizabeth the few westerners to be a long-term eye-witness of (–) and Margaret Sidney (‘Daisy’) (– the Russo-Japanese conflict. ), who were eventually to become the two fa- Upon his return home to Wales, Davies devoted mous Davies sisters of Gregynog Hall, Newtown. his energies to improving agricultural practices on Edward had been the only son of the first David the Llandinam estate, and became one of the most Davies (–), popularly known as ‘Top Sawyer’, avid of the founders of the Welsh National Agricul- an enormously successful capitalist and philanthro- tural Society. Welsh native breeds of cattle were con- pist who had amassed a huge personal fortune from scientiously nurtured at Llandinam, and Davies is the collieries, railways and docks of south Wales, and himself credited with saving the Welsh pig from ex- who had himself served as the Liberal MP for Cardi- tinction. He also developed a keen interest in fox gan Boroughs from  to . ‘Top Sawyer’ had hunting, diligently building up his own pack of fox- been highly regarded as the epitome of all that was hounds, and acquiring, too, his own pack of beagles. best in the Welsh, nonconformist way of life, and was Other pursuits included shooting, rearing pheasants deeply revered in his native Montgomeryshire. Mary and entertaining his wide range of friends and ac- Davies had died in , leaving the three infant quaintances to good sport. In  he became chair- children to be brought up by their maternal aunt man of the Ocean Colliery group, one of the largest Elizabeth Jones who four years later married her employers of labour in south Wales, with coal mines brother-in-law, thus becoming the second Mrs centred on the Rhondda and Taff Vale area. Edward Davies. Edward, who had himself suffered In the landslide Liberal victory of the same year from indifferent health for a number of years, died in David Davies began his active political career when , leaving David Davies II, at just eighteen years he succeeded A. C. Humphreys-Owen, Glansevern, of age, and his two younger sisters as the joint ben- as the Liberal MP for his native Montgomeryshire.

16 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 In many ways he was a very strange George’s ‘People’s Budget’ of , and keeping Lloyd George informed of the choice. Both his grandfather ‘Top Saw- in  he pronounced publicly mood of the rank and file of the Parlia- yer’ and his father Edward had turned against Irish home rule. mentary Liberal Party by keeping his Liberal Unionist back in , and he ear to the ground in the smoking himself conspicuously diverged from rooms and lobbies of the House of the party line on most political issues: The impact of war Commons and the clubs of Westmin- he was flatly opposed to Irish home David Davies’ life, like that of so many ster. At this point the personal rapport rule, he tended to favour tariff reform of his contemporaries, was transformed between the two men was evidently on the lines advocated by Joseph by the outbreak of war in September very close; in November Davies was re- Chamberlain (perhaps endorsing the . He served in the South Wales sponsible for purchasing and furnishing taxation of imported food), he was not Borderers and the Royal Welsh Fusi- a flat in St James’s Court for his ally. He a supporter of church disendowment, liers, and by November he had attained also made persistent overtures concern- and had even come out in opposition the rank of lieutenant-colonel and was ing the purchase of the Westminster Ga- to Lloyd George’s campaign against the channelling his prodigious energies zette ‘in the Government interest’. provisions of Balfour’s  Education into the raising of a new battalion – the During these fateful months, too, he Act. He adhered to the party line only th RWF Caernarvon and Anglesey. made soundings of his Liberal parlia- over temperance (he remained a teeto- Although military life was completely mentary colleagues to discover their taller), and he was a fervent Calvinistic new to him, his fertile imagination was feelings towards a possible Lloyd Methodist. Some Montgomeryshire totally captured by the necessity for rig- George premiership, and during the To r ies hoped that he might well be ca- orous military training, and he readily crucial first week of December it was joled into joining their ranks. expended his own personal resources in Davies, together with Dr Christopher Indeed in  Davies entered parlia- purchasing field telephones, a supply of Addison and F. G. Kellaway, who was ment unopposed, standing on a highly bicycles and other equipment, while primarily responsible for motivating personal, ambivalent political platform also making available his own hunters support for Lloyd George. When his which combined policies taken from for use as chargers. ally duly became prime minister and both the Liberal and Conservative elec- His own unit, subjected to an formed his renowned ‘Garden Suburb’, tion manifestos, apparently having won uniquely vigorous training in Snow- Davies received his reward, becoming over both local parties. He thus entered donia, reached the western front in De- one of his inner circle of trusted advis- the Commons like some eighteenth- cember , and spent the first five ers and given a special responsibility for century landowner, at once voicing his months in the trenches around Laventie, the drink trade and its possible state heartfelt distaste for the cut-and-thrust Festubert and Givenchy. Davies’ im- purchase. He was also responsible for li- of parliamentary life. Very rarely did he petuosity as a commanding officer soon aison between the War Office and the participate in Commons debates, and he became proverbial, as did his propensity ‘Garden Suburb’, and he visited could never shed a consciousness of feel- for experiments with unconventional Petrograd as a member of Lord Milner’s ing ill at ease when speaking in public. weapons and for schemes to lure the delegation for the only Allied confer- Neither did he feel closely bound by enemy troops out of their trenches. But ence to be convened in Russia. Sensing party ties. Generally he preferred to rely he developed a profound distaste for at first hand the imminent collapse of on the services of the huge personal the squalor and filth of trench warfare the Czarist regime, he hastened to keep staff which he built up, and he was anx- and the massive loss of life which had Lloyd George informed of develop- ious to discourage the formation of a already taken place. While on leave ments in Russia. local party organisation within Mont- from his battalion during January  Thereafter, however, the warm rap- gomeryshire. Parliamentary procedure he spoke freely in the House of Com- port between the two men rapidly and niceties repelled him. mons, pleading for changes in recruit- crumbled. Davies’ self-image as a ‘self- Within his constituency, however, ing methods and in the production of appointed candid friend’ soon antago- Davies’ position was totally secure. On munitions. nised both the prime minister and the eve of the First World War the local In June he was suddenly recalled to some of his closest associates. He was Conservative press could write of the England and was appointed parlia- soon reduced to self-parody as ‘a harm- county’s agricultural communities: ‘In mentary private secretary to David less sort of lunatic – always grousing recent years they have given them- Lloyd George on his becoming Sec- and criticising’. In his lengthy epistles selves over to, not Radicalism by any retary of State for War. One of the fu- to Lloyd George, Davies engaged in means, but the cult of David Davies- ture prime minister’s biographers has virulent criticism of many of their par- ism. They have nothing in common described Davies as ‘a talkative, liamentary colleagues, the general con- with the Radical-Socialism which wealthy and light-hearted young duct of the allied war effort, the failure nowadays masquerades under the Welshman in whose friendship and of the allies to render greater assistance name of Liberalism’. During his early gossip he [Lloyd George] took much to Serbia, and finally the government’s years in the Commons Davies had cer- delight at this time’. decision to permit a . per cent in- tainly gone his own way; he had voted During the successive critical crease in the brewing of beer. The against the land clauses of Lloyd months Davies played a key role in crunch came in June  when it was

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 17 announced that Lord Northcliffe rather do not scruple to suggest that your damp squib. In , together with his than Balfour had been appointed the wealth is your shield. I know that you two sisters, he endowed the Wilson head of a high-powered mission to the are not responsible, but they blame me, Chair of International Politics at the and as I know that you are anxious not United States to precipitate American to add to my difficulties in the terrible University College of Wales, Aberyst- entry into the war. Davies was unre- task entrusted to me, I am sure you wyth (the first chair of its kind at any strained in his criticism: will agree that I am taking the straight British university), dedicated to the .. course intimating to the Committee memory of those students who had My dear Chief, set up to re-examine men in the pub- perished in the conflict, to foster the lic service that in my judgement you I have seen various people of all colours can render better service to your study of the inter-related problems of this week and the impression left on my country as a soldier than in your law and politics, ethics and economics, mind is that the Govnt. stock and yours present capacity. raised by the project of the League of in particular, is tumbling down. The I have put this quite bluntly to you, as I Nations. The first holder of the new Reform [Club] is seething with discon- chair was the eminent political scientist tent, and even the Tories are beginning have always found you preferred plain to ask questions. … speaking, however disagreeable. My Sir Alfred Zimmern who soon distin- only apology is for having withheld guished himself in the position. His It’s no good, my dear Chief, you can’t from you so long rumours which were eventual successors included prominent go on fooling the people indefinitely. detrimental to your patriotism and historian Charles Webster and E. H. They take you at your word – if you courage, both of which I know to be play them false they will send you to beyond reproach. Carr, an outstanding authority on in- Coventry with Winston. They thought ternational relations, notably on the af- Ever sincerely, you were a man of his word, who would  fairs of Soviet Russia. DLlG not tolerate delay, who would make a The League of Nations Union duly clean sweep of incompetents – minis- came into being on  October  ters or soldiers. They thought you were The attack was blatantly unfair, for out to win the war for the vindication Davies had commanded his battalion of shortly before the signing of the Armi- of the principles we are fighting for. the Royal Welsh Fusiliers in France stice with a founder membership of Making the fullest allowances for all the with bravery and distinction. His dis- ,. Sir Edward Grey was its first tremendous difficulties which have be- missal from the Cabinet Secretariat at president, distinguished Oxford classi- set your path, have you employed the this point heralded a permanent rift cist Gilbert Murray was chairman, and best means of fulfilling these expectations – have you run the straight with the Prime Minister, an irrevocable Davies was vice-chairman. All three course? Have you set your teeth and parting of the ways. It was Davies’ sub- were prominent and respected Liberals. done what was obviously the right sequent ambition to return to com- In  David Davies was one of the thing – regardless of other considera- mand a battalion in France, but he soon primary instigators of the formation of tions? This was the one course which found his ambitions thwarted, probably the International Federation of the could bring you success and victory in League of Nations Societies, and in the long run. The moral factor is the by Lloyd George.  only one which counts in the end, and he was one of the founders of the that is why so many brilliant people Welsh National Council of the League come to grief. … The cause of world peace of Nations Union to which he donated   You can call me anything you like my It was then his lot to make use of his the princely sum of £ , to estab-  dear Chief – it’s damned unpleasant – parliamentary platform to press for an lish an endowment fund. It soon but it is the truth. improved conduct of the Allied war ef- proved a most flourishing body in Yrs. fort and for some consideration of the Welsh life. Thereafter Davies journeyed Dafydd bob man  pressing issues which would inevitably to the USA in pursuit of co-operation accompany the peace. He became al- with American peace societies. By return of post came Lloyd George’s most totally divorced from party poli- This impassioned quest for interna- devastating response: tics and began to interest himself in the tional peace extended to a number of  June,  idea of a League of Nations to exclude ambitious initiatives. It was even pro- My dear Davies, the possibility of a similar world con- posed, following the death of Lord I regret having to tell you that there is flict in future. As he mulled over in his Northcliffe in , that David Davies a concerted attack to be made upon mind his terrible experiences on the might purchase The Times newspaper me for what is called ‘sheltering’ in a western front, he became convinced for £,,. He responded charac- soft job a young officer of military age and fitness. I am told that the attack is that another world war must be out- teristically positively, calculating that a associated with the efforts made to re- lawed. Thereafter he spoke regularly in controlling interest might be pur- inforce the Army by re-examining the the Commons on the necessity to es- chased for £,; he himself was to rejects. It is urged that it is a scandal to tablish a League of Free Nations. put up £,, and his two sisters force men of doubtful fitness into the Davies was one of those who pro- the residue. The venture was to be fighting line when others whose wholly philanthropic with all profits physical efficiency is beyond question moted a national conference held at  are shirking under powerful protec- Llandrindod in June to discuss a donated to charity. It was even sug- tion. I hear that Welsh parents – North measure of devolution for Wales. Inevi- gested that former prime minister and South – are highly indignant and tably perhaps, it soon became a notably David Lloyd George, recently ousted

18 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 war years so that by , when , patients were examined, there were  hospital beds and  sanatorium beds. Upon discovering that the WNMA was inadequately equipped for research, Davies and his two sisters shouldered single-handed for many years the total cost of maintaining a laboratory and paying the salary of a specialist bacteri- ologist. They, too, in  were responsible for endowing a Chair of Tuberculosis Research at the Welsh National School Medicine to which they donated £,. When Davies died in  his work in establishing the WNMA was rightly applauded as ‘the most outstanding of his manifold activities on behalf of the people of Wales’. At the same time journalist David Raymond pointed to the ‘unsolved paradox’ of Davies’ life and career: ‘He was a rich coal owner. It was a position he inherited. Most of his life-work was devoted to curing the ills partly created by the very industry from which he drew his income’. David Davies was well aware that the appalling death rate from tuberculosis David Davies, first baron Davies of Llandinam (1880–1944) in many Welsh counties, his native Montgomeryshire included, was largely from power, might serve as editor (a who personally paid the expenses of the consequence of poverty, poor hous- scenario unique in the history of more than  delegates from twenty- ing and living conditions, malnutrition British journalism). But the bizarre two countries. and an ignorance of basic dietary and proposal soon became a damp squib. hygiene requirements. Consequently Another ultimately abortive proposal he set about devising schemes to im- was that a national ‘Temple of Peace’ For the common good prove housing conditions, initially might be built on the site of Devon- An array of other interests and activities within the Montgomeryshire towns of shire House, Piccadilly. filled his every waking hour. Davies and Llanidloes, Machynlleth and Newtown. Throughout the s David Davies his two sisters were the primary found- In  he and his sisters had set up the devoted himself above all else to the ers in September  of the King Welsh Town Planning and Housing cause of world peace, making use of the Edward VII Welsh National Memorial Tr ust charged to design model towns Welsh Council of the League of Na- Association (the ‘WNMA’) set up to and villages where housing would be tions Union to exert pressure on the combat the scourge of the ‘white peril’ monitored, and facilities for amenity League of Nations to adopt a more ag- – tuberculosis – which was so rampant and recreation made available. This progressive policy. He spared no effort to in Wales at the beginning of the twenti- gressive scheme, following swift upon secure the return of the USA to the eth century. He himself became the As- the heels of the passage of the  League. A succession of conferences on sociation’s first chairman, and he also Town Planning Act, first came to frui- international education was held at chaired its finance committee. Of the tion at Wrexham where a housing es- Gregynog Hall and was attended by £, collected during the first year tate of  houses was built between many distinguished foreign education- of its existence, the Davies family per-  and . Similar enterprises fol- alists. In  Davies regarded as a personally donated no less than £,. lowed at Barry (with a family holiday sonal coup the admission of Germany By the eve of the first world war the As- centre attached) and at Rhiwbina near as a Council Member of the League of sociation owned eighty-seven hospital Cardiff. Davies was also instrumental in Nations at the AGM of the Federation beds,  sanatorium beds, while almost devising a scheme whereby the Great of League of Nations Societies which , patients had been examined dur- Western Railway Company assumed he insisted should be held at Aberyst- ing the course of  alone. Its activi- responsibility for building and letting wyth rather than Dresden. It was he ties expanded rapidly throughout the houses to its employees.

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 19 Parallel with David Davies’ work on accumulated by his grandfather ‘Top every utterance of the coal-owners’. behalf of health care and housing in Sawyer’ should be deposited at the Li- Appalled by the total lack of concilia- Wales must be considered the enor- brary’s Department of Manuscripts and tion apparent in the evidence of the mous contribution which he made to Records. In May  an impressive colliery owners, and convinced that the the educational development of the portrait of Davies in oils, the work of ‘Triple Alliance’ of colliers, railwaymen principality. His grandfather, ‘Top Saw- S. Morse Brown, was donated by his and transport workers would be called yer’, had generously supported the friends to the Library. into play, Davies urged conciliation. He foundation and early development (to David Davies’ munificence to these was adamant that the views of the coal ) of the University College of national institutions was made possible owners in relation to the seven-hour Wales at Aberystwyth. His father by the massive income which he con- working day in the mines were wholly Edward had served as the college’s in- tinued to receive as chairman of the mistaken, and urged recourse to the In- defatigable joint treasurer from  Ocean Coal Company. Yet his concern ternational Labour Office to solve the until his death in . and generosity extended, too, to the dispute. He believed passionately that Shortly after his graduation from coalminers employed by the company. an independent tribunal should be es- Cambridge in , Davies, his step- He was instrumental during the war tablished to arbitrate the disputes which mother and his two sisters all began to years in persuading his fellow-directors arose in the coal trade, but his advanced take an avid interest in the fortunes of to inaugurate a voluntary pension views were disregarded as events moved ‘the college by the sea’. In that year all scheme for the staff of the Ocean Coal inexorably towards the general strike of four donated £, to build the Company, and he arranged for the May  and the subsequent long Edward Davies Chemical Laboratory Deep Navigation coalmine to con- lock-out in the coal industry. in the town. In  he endowed the struct the first pithead baths in the college’s Chair of Colonial History, in whole of Wales (the second in Britain). the same year accepting the vice-presi- During  a company welfare officer Out of politics dency of the college together with Sir was appointed and an Ocean Area Rec- It was the very same sequence of John Williams Bart, the distinguished reation Union formed which soon led events which led to David Davies’ final royal physician. From  until his to local associations in each of the Un- severance with Lloyd George and his death he served as the President of the ion’s seven districts. An impressive array resignation as the Liberal MP for College, urging the beginning of a of initiatives and facilities followed. Montgomeryshire. As already noted, building programme on the Penglais Davies’ other business commitments, the two men had parted company site overlooking the town, launching which he invariably took seriously, in- back in . In the ‘Coupon’ general an appeal fund for £,, and in cluded directorships of the Midland election of December  Davies was  agreeing to contribute up to Bank and of the Great Western Railway yet again returned unopposed to West- £, on a £ for £ basis to a fund Company. His chairmanship of Ocean minster, having, it would seem, been established by the college’s Old Stu- Coal and of Ocean Coal and Wilsons offered the infamous ‘coupon’ as an dents’ Association. This objective was vexed him particularly as the severe indication of favour from the coali- indeed achieved before Davies’ death economic depression of the s be- tion government machine and having in . Back in  he had also gan to bite. As the mounting crisis in publicly repudiated it, dismissing the been instrumental in ensuring the ap- the coal industry reached crisis point gesture as ‘an unsolicited testimonial, I pointment of the distinguished com- during –, Davies was generally assure you. I never asked for it… A poser (Sir) Walford Davies as Professor out of action, laid low by major surgery great many people are beginning to of Music at Aberystwyth. necessitated by the removal of a duode- protest against the kind of labelling Davies was also a fervent supporter nal ulcer. Yet from his sickbed he pro- which is going on at present’. of the National Library of Wales ever tested vehemently against the unrelent- During the lifetime of the post-war since its foundation in , donating ing stand of the representatives of the coalition government he rarely ap- materials, pressing for reasonable con- Mining Association of Great Britain in peared at Westminster, and, when he ditions in connection with the grant of their evidence before the Samuel did surface, was generally to be found a royal charter, and serving as one of the Commission set up by Baldwin’s gov- in the opposition lobby: ‘I support the first members of the Library’s Council. ernment in  to investigate the Coalition when it proposes measures In May  he was elected its presi- pressing problems facing the British based on Liberal principles’, he wrote. dent, and was re-elected three times to coal industry. Describing the coalition as ‘this new the same position, personally welcom- His own outlook in this connection order of shameless opportunists,’ he was ing the King and Queen to the formal was clearly influenced by his campaign notably venomous in his personal at- opening of the completed library for international peace. Finally com- tacks on Lloyd George who, he as- buildings in July . His regular con- pelled to make his own representations serted, was fully prepared to ‘sacrifice tributions to the institution’s building directly to Sir Herbert Samuel as the nearly all our principles in order that fund were unfailingly lavish, and he en- commission’s chairman, he voiced his certain statesmen might remain in of- sured that the substantial archive of col- heartfelt distaste for the ‘evil spirit fice’. A fervent advocate of reunion liery, railway, shipping and dock records which appeared to vitiate and befog between the two Liberal camps

20 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 (Asquithian and Lloyd Georgeite), since . Yet the circumstances of the lished in a succession of detailed re- Davies was vehemently opposed to the  poll – a superficial reunion of the ports, among them Coal and Power suggestion that the Coalition Liberals two wings of the Liberal Party in de- (), The Land and the Nation (the might consider ‘fusion’ with Bonar fence of free trade – appealed greatly to ‘Green Book’) () and Towns and Law’s Conservatives. Parliament, he Davies when he addressed election the Land (the ‘Brown Book’) (). thundered, had become ‘simply a regis- meetings in support of a number of Of these by far the most contentious tering machine for the decrees of the Liberal candidates in Wales. In  he were the proposals of The Land and the Cabinet’, ‘practical government’ having easily repelled the challenge of a pio- Nation which proposed that British ag- become the preserve ‘of the chosen neering Socialist aspirant, Arthur riculture might be developed through few’. Indeed, in his view, the Prime Davies. At this juncture it seemed that the adoption of a scheme for the state Minister had ‘well-nigh become an ab- David Davies might well feel predis- purchase of agricultural land which solute dictator’. posed to continue as Liberal MP for would then be leased to working farm- He railed consistently against what Montgomeryshire, but events soon ers under strict supervision at fixed he regarded as the government’s exces- took a dramatically different turn. rentals. These proposals came close to sive public expenditure, and was one of Davies had always looked askance at advocating the nationalisation of rural only three Liberal MPs from Wales to Lloyd George’s accumulation of a pri- land and immediately enraged many vote against the Temporalities Bill to vate ‘Political Fund’, which he had prominent Liberals. Among them was disendow the Welsh Church. Only over built up between  and , alleg- David Davies who became even more the Irish settlement of  did Davies edly by selling political honours and incensed at the renewed fissure in the applaud Lloyd George’s achievement – distinctions. From the spring of  ranks of the Liberal Party caused by its ‘He has gone off the rails in the past, onwards the former Prime Minister reactions to the general strike in May but he is on the right track now and had made lavish use of his ‘Fund’ to fi- , and who intimated his intention his greatest war achievements have nance a number of autonomous policy to resign as MP for Montgomeryshire. been entirely eclipsed in this latest tri- committees to investigate the eco- Although the original ‘Green Book’ umph’. This sense of admiration and nomic ills of the nation and attempt to proposals were soon substantially modi- respect, however, proved notably evolve radical policies for their rem- fied, and repeated pleas were made to short-lived as Davies returned to as- edy. Their findings were then pub- Davies to reconsider, he reiterated his sailing the Prime Minister as the term of office of the coalition government David Davies and his son, Mike, about 1922 drew to its close. In both the general elections of No- vember  and December  David Davies was returned to parliament unopposed. Within Mont- gomeryshire, such was his personal popularity and prestige that he was considered ‘unassailable’, ‘the premier of Wales when the time comes’, and local interest focused simply on ‘the brand of Liberalism Col. Davies will adopt’. At times he himself doubted whether he should continue to sit at Westminster. Fully absorbed by his abiding commitment to the work of the League of Na- tions and by an array of philanthropic initiatives to improve the lot of his fellow Welshmen, on more than one occasion he asked pointedly, ‘Is it right that I should endeavour to represent the County in parliament when obviously so much of my time has to be devoted to other work?’ His appearances at West- minster were few and fleeting, while his constituency engagements had dwin- dled to almost nothing. No contested parliamentary election had taken place in Montgomeryshire

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 21 intention to stand down as, in his view, force its decisions. His proposals, how- voices protesting against the failure to the Liberals had become ‘a party whose ever, were widely rejected out-of-hand impose sanctions against Italy. During policy is no longer based on Liberal as visionary and impracticable. Davies’ the years leading up to the outbreak of principles, whose Parliamentary leader response was to write and publish the the second world war, Lord Davies was is no longer to be trusted, and whose massive tome The Problem of the Twenti- an imposing voice, notably in the col- organisation is no longer inspired by eth Century (), an attractive work umns of the Manchester Guardian, the the true spirit of Liberalism’. with an array of appendices which was letters page of The Times, and the House Again local Liberals begged Davies generally well received by the critics. of Lords, as German rearmament gath- to review his position. ‘Personally I Sales, however, were sluggish; most ered momentum and Czecho-Slovakia don’t want to stand again as I am sick of copies were despatched as gifts by the was invaded. A public speech in Lon- politics’, he confided to Sir Donald author. Throughout  the domestic don in May  summed up the ker- Maclean, ‘If the party is going to be economy and international relations nel of his philosophy: ‘Our purpose is bribed by Lloyd George we may as well rapidly deteriorated, provoking Davies to make force the servant of right’. shut up shop, at any rate for the to declare, ‘We are prepared to die for It was noted in the press that he had present’. Richard Jones, the chairman our country, but God forbid we should lent support to Labour candidates in re- of the Montgomeryshire Liberals, ever be willing to think for it’. cent by-elections, and, amidst avid genuinely feared that the seat might be Somewhat dejected by the conduct speculation that a general election lost to the Conservatives at the next of the League of Nations Union, in might well be imminent, it was ru- general election if another Liberal can-  David Davies turned to a new moured in the Welsh press that Lord didate stood: body, the New Commonwealth Soci- Davies’ son, the Hon. Michael Davies, I would not like to be a party to the re- ety. Now created the first Baron Davies was likely to stand as an independent jection of so admirable a man. With a of Llandinam by Ramsay MacDonald, Liberal in Montgomeryshire against great name – famous traditions – rich he looked askance at Japanese aggres- Clement Davies. Although Lord personal qualities – and a good Liberal sion in Manchuria and at what he re- Davies at once dismissed the press con- to boot, he would prove a tower of strength in the keen fight that is facing garded as the spineless acquiesence of jecture as ‘pure gossip and invention’, us. The Liberal Party in the county the British foreign secretary Sir John he implored Clement Davies, a mem- should make everything subservient to Simon. June  saw the publication ber of the Simonite Liberal group in the prime consideration of retaining of a second important work from his the Commons ever since , to re-  the seat. pen, Force, which virulently attacked turn to the mainstream party fold: Davies was adamant, and local Liberals the relative impotence of the League of We shall never emerge from this torpor were compelled to choose a new par- Nations and again pressed for an Inter- until the Liberal and Progressive flag is liamentary candidate, a process in national Tribunal and Police Force. once more unfurled … So will you al- which Davies intervened by attempt- During the same year he donated the low me once more, as a Hen Liberal ing to ensure that the nomination   [‘old Liberal’], to plead with you most sum of £ , to finance the building earnestly and sincerely to join the ranks went to his own personal nominee W. of the Temple of Peace which still of the Independent Liberals in the Alford Jehu of Llanfair Caereinion. In adorns Cathays Park, Cardiff to this day. House of Commons? this unworthy objective his ambition Lord Davies’ energy and enthusiasm By this time Lord Davies had become was thwarted as the choice fell on E. for the causes in which he believed so totally convinced of the need to form a Clement Davies, ‘by an overwhelming passionately knew no bounds. He ‘United Front’ of all progressive forces majority’, and it was he who was duly campaigned tirelessly to increase the in British political life as a base to fight   elected to parliament on May . membership of the New Common- against the appeasement policies of the David Davies, although chosen presi- wealth Society (year after year he Chamberlain government. In Novem- dent of the Montgomeryshire Liberals, wrote off its debts) and he addressed ber he had appealed to Sir Anthony generally remained conspicuously his fellow peers regularly on the need Eden, the Foreign Secretary, to con- aloof from his successor’s first election for an international tribunal and po- demn appeasement as ‘the very antith- campaign. lice force. When in June  the esis of any policy based on League League of Nations Union organised principles and the system of collective the National Peace Ballot, the extent security’, imploring him, ‘Why not de- International affairs of Lord Davies’ influence in Wales be- clare war openly against the existing re- Predictably, following his retirement as came immediately apparent as the gime, and join with others in creating a an MP, David Davies devoted much of twelve highest returns in the whole of United Front of all the progressive par- his time to international affairs. Con- the United Kingdom were recorded in ties in our country?’ During  he vinced that the Covenant of the League Welsh counties. Montgomeryshire, had twice travelled to the USA in the of Nations was incapable of preventing with a turnout of . per cent, was cause of peace. the recurrence of war, he came to advo- the highest of them all. When war followed in September cate the setting up of both an impartial The same year saw the Italian inva- , Lord Davies occupied himself tribunal to settle international disputes sion of Abyssinia. Lord Davies and fully with drafting lengthy memoranda and an international police force to en- Winston Churchill were generally lone on national policy for the war effort.

22 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 He began to formulate plans for a fed- famous portrait by S. Morse Brown is 6 Montgomery County Times, 18 March 1913. eration of free countries in Europe after by now in the custody of the National 7 See Davies’ election addresses in the general elections of January and December 1910. the end of hostilities. He was moved to Museum. A further portrait by 8Peter Rowland, Lloyd George (London, 1975), action above all by the Russian assault Augustus John is at Berthddu, p. 335. on Finland in November and began to Llandinam. A large archive of Lord 9 See the correspondence published in Frank Owen, Tempestuous Journey: Lloyd George set in motion a Finnish Aid Committee Davies’ papers, many relating to the or- His Life and Times (London, 1954), pp. 379–82. and Bureau, even visiting Helsinki. The ganisation of the New Commonwealth 10 Joseph Davies, The Prime Minister’s Secre- ultimate defeat of Finland vexed him Society, has been deposited at the Na- tariat, 1916–1920 (Newport, 1951), p. 56. 11 House of Lords Record Office, Lloyd George enormously. tional Library. His biography remains Papers F/83/10/5, Davies to Lloyd George, 27 Later campaigns involved the evacu- unwritten. May 1917. ation of children, a defence of the reser- David, Lord Davies, was undoubt- 12 Ibid. F/83/10/7, Davies to Lloyd George, 23 voirs serving the great cities, and a edly the public-spirited Welshman of his June 1917. 13 Ibid. F/83/10/8, Lloyd George to Davies, 24 movement to reform the procedures of age, blessed with an exceptionally re- June 1917. the House of Lords. Subsequently Lord tentive memory and an ability to take a 14 Davies’ work in this connection is noted in Davies began to campaign for a Su- distant view of events. But he did tend Goronwy J. Jones, Wales and the Quest for Peace (Cardiff, 1969). preme War Council. The war years saw to rely on his wealth to achieve results, 15 The Times, 17 June 1944, p. 6, cols. f–g. the publication of a number of volumes and he was reluctant to concede that 16 Reynolds News, 18 June 1944. penned by him, among them Federated short cuts were not always available to 17 Western Mail and South Wales News, 23 April  1935. Europe ( ), The Foundations of Victory achieve his cherished goals. Conse- 18 The Times, 17 June 1944. () and The Seven Pillars of Peace quently he could be imperious and im- 19 NLW, Llandinam Papers. (). By this time he had himself patient at times, described by Sir Wynn 20 See the fulsome tribute by the NLW Librarian Sir fallen victim to cancer of the spine and Wheldon as ‘notable for kindness and William Llewellyn Davies published in the Western Mail and South Wales News, 20 June he died at Llandinam on  June . terribleness’ (a phrase originally used by 1944. Three months later his eldest son Mike Elizabeth Barrett Browning to describe 21 Cited in Lewis, op. cit., pp. 34–35. was killed in action with the Sixth an acquaintance). 22 Davies argued that the coal owners should have concentrated their efforts on proving that the Royal Welch Fusiliers on the borders of In his most important book The British coal industry was the victim of unfair Holland. Problem of the Twentieth Century (), competition from the continental coalfields In  David Davies had married he summed up the crux of his belief in where eight- or even nine-hour working days were the norm. See David Davies, ‘The coal po- Amy, the fourth daughter of L. T. Pen- international co-operation: sition in South Wales’, Welsh Outlook, October man of Broadwood Park, Lanchester. We shall never get real prosperity and se- 1929, pp. 38ff, where Davies argues powerfully There were two children of the mar- curity until we get peace; we shall never that the Italian market had been lost to Welsh riage, a son David (always known as get peace until we get justice, and we mines mainly because of the demand for Ger- man ‘reparations’ which would be paid in coal Mike), who briefly became the second shall get none of these things until we succeed in establishing the rule of law by as imposed by the victorious allies from 1920  onwards. Germany supplied the bulk of the raw Lord Davies in , and Margarite, means of the creation of a really effective materials which fuelled the dramatic rise in Ital- who died at school at the age of eight- international authority equipped with  ian industrial production after the war. een. The honeymoon had been those two vital institutions, an equity tri- 23 Montgomeryshire Express, 3 December 1918. spent big game hunting in Africa bunal and an international peace force. 24 Ibid., 3 February 1920. where it is thought that Amy con- 25 The Times, 26 March 1920. J. Graham Jones is Assistant Archivist at the 26 Montgomeryshire Express, 30 September tracted a rare tropical disease from 1919. which she eventually died in  fol- National Library of Wales, currently respon- 27 NLW, Lord Davies of Llandinam Papers lowing years of ill-health. sible for the Welsh Political Archive. He is (uncatalogued), Davies to Thomas Jones, 7 De- In  Davies married Henrietta the author of A Pocket Guide: the His- cember 1921.  28 Liverpool Post and Mercury, 23 October 1922; Margaret (Rita) (died ), daughter tory of Wales ( ) and several articles South Wales News, 1 November 1922. of James Grant Fergusson of on late nineteenth and twentieth century 29 Montgomery County Times, 28 October 1922. Baledmund, Pitlochry, Perthshire. Rita Welsh politics. 30 Montgomeryshire Express, 23 October 1923. 31 NLW, Lord Davies of Llandinam Papers, Davies proved to be an extraordinarily devoted to Richard Jones, 15 November 1926 (copy). 1 Cited in Peter Lewis, Biographical Sketch of partner, fully in tune with her husband’s 32 Ibid., Davies to Maclean, 7 December 1926 David Davies (Topsawyer), 1818–1890, and his (copy). philanthropic impulses, notably those grandson David Davies (1st Baron Davies), 33 Ibid., Jones to T. Hughes Jones, 27 February 1880–1944 (n.d.), p. 17. related to health. There were to be four 1927. 2 N(ational) L(ibrary of) W(ales), Welsh National children of the second marriage – 34 Cited in Lewis, op. cit., p 38. Memorial Association Records, file 11, tribute 35 Montgomeryshire Express, 29 May 1937. Mary, Edward, Islwyn and Jean. The of the WNMA to Lord Davies, 27 June 1944. 36 Western Mail, 3 December 1938. present (third) Lord Davies, born in 3Lewis, op. cit., p. 21. 37 Ibid., 17 December 1938. 4Kenneth O Morgan, ‘Montgomeryshire’s Lib- , is the son of the second baron, 38 NLW, Clement Davies Papers I1/3, Lord Davies eral century: Rendel to Hooson, 1880–1979’, and still resides at Plas Dinam, to Clement Davies, 19 December 1938. Welsh History Review XVI (1992–93), 99–100. 39 NLW, Lord Davies of Llandinam Papers, Lord Llandinam, Montgomeryshire. 5 South Wales Daily News, 5 and 15 December Davies to Eden, 9 November 1938 (copy). 1905; Montgomeryshire Express, 5 January The National Library of Wales has a 40 Dictionary of National Biography, 1941–1950 1906; Montgomery County Times, 9 January bust by Sir W. Goscombe John and the (London, 1959), p. 200. 1906. portrait by Murray Urquhart, while the

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 23 Family Assisted Plan and then in the s because of economic downturn, a new conservatism and a backlash ReportsReports against the s. This resulted in a conservative renaissance that successfully labelled liberalism as a dirty word. Her conclusion was that despite the Liberalism in North America Clinton years, liberalism has yet to recover its position in influencing Fringe meeting, September 2000, with Dilys Hill, American politics and philosophy. Terry McDonald and Akaash Maharaj Te rry McDonald had a cheerier story to tell. The Liberals in Canada Report by Jen Tankard have dominated the political scene for the last hundred years and, by the s, had come to be regarded as the et again at a Liberal Democrat early twentieth century. According to natural party of government. Given the YHistory Group fringe meeting Hill, ‘Reform liberalism brings to- similarities of the political systems in there was standing room only. The gether ideas from populism, progressiv- Canada and the UK, it is not surprising chosen topic for this meeting (borrow- ism and even socialism. It was and that, in both countries, national politics ing a phrase from Tom Paine), ‘“The remains the synthesis of many strands has been dominated by two parties. Fruits of the Liberty Tree”: Liberalism in American politics.’ McDonald noted that: ‘Unlike in North America’, was timed to Hill saw reform liberalism reaching Britain, where the Tories have survived highlight the role of liberalism in its apogee in FDR’s ‘New Deal’ and and (usually) flourished, and the northern America in the run up to the Lyndon Johnson’s ‘Great Society’ Liberals have found themselves chal- US presidential elections. Chaired by programmes of the s. These lenged and replaced as the party of Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the speakers programmes promoted positive liberty government by Labour, in Canada it is were Professor Dilys Hill from the through social reform programmes the Liberal Party that has not only University of Southampton, Terry implemented by the government. At survived into the st century but has McDonald from the Southampton the same time, America became the undoubtedly become the “natural Institute and Akaash Maharaj, National conscious leader of the free world, and party of government”’. Interestingly, in Policy Chair of the Liberal Party of Hill commented that ‘America is a Canada, while the Conservatives are Canada. nation obsessed with liberty… the idea referred to as Tories, the Liberals are Dilys Hill focused on the tradition of liberty is central to American referred to as Grits, derived from the of liberty in the USA, starting with a culture’. term ‘men of clear grit, or determina- reminder of the Jeffersonian concept of However, Hill acknowledged the tion, and whose commitment to liberty and how it combined with shortcomings of American liberalism democracy was uncompromising’. elements of classical liberalism. This but believed that ‘while it can be So why have the Canadian Liberals resulted in an interpretation of liberal- claimed that American liberty has a been so successful? McDonald put it ism, from the eighteenth century positive existence, it also takes a certain down to two key factors. The Liberals onwards, which placed equal emphasis fixed form. Newcomers pass freely into have always managed to remain at the on the importance of the marketplace the mainstream, but at the same time centre of national politics, adjusting and that of representative government. there are demands that they conform their ideology to match prevailing Hill also briefly mentioned the need to an orthodoxy that restricts their views. The party has swung from to understand US liberalism in the freedom to a set of social expectations. Keynesianism in the s and s context of achieving a balance be- Nevertheless, in spite of imperfections, to ‘business liberalism’ in the s. tween libertarianism and liberation. the ideal is still promoted as America’s McDonald also commented that This balancing act is essentially be- public philosophy and America’s Liberals have also been the party that tween the wish to achieve libertarian, intentions and objectives remain ‘most clearly articulated the ways in minimalist government while liberat- dedicated to the preservation and which national unity could be main- ing citizens from ethnic and gender enlargement of freedom. Liberty tained. They were… the party that saw discrimination and finding structures continues to be the ideal by which provincial rights as an essential element to tackle inequality. America characterises itself and in maintaining this unity.’ In fact The ascendancy of capitalism in the projects itself to the outside world’. McDonald believed that ‘If there is one nineteenth century, which coincided Hill explained how this dominance consistent strand to the attitudes and with urbanisation and industrialisation, of ideology came under attack from actions of Liberal governments it is was countered by reform liberalism the s onwards. This was partly as a their belief that Canada is indeed a towards the end of the nineteenth and response to the failure of Nixon’s confederation, a pact between two

24 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 founding nations’. McDonald con- values, and have served as a mirror in in representation at national, regional cluded that the real threat to the rule which Canadians could see reflected and local levels. of the Canadian Liberal Party was back their better natures, victory has complacency from within rather than been Canada’s’. Note: as readers of the Journal will no strong opposition from without. But All three speakers raised interest- doubt be aware, the Canadian federal should the party be defeated at the ing parallels between the history of election took place on  November. next national election, McDonald felt liberalism in the UK and in North- Liberal leader Jean Chretien became the sure that the Liberals would once more ern America. What students of first Canadian prime minister since  be able to rally round and bounce back history should consider is whether to win a third successive election victory. into power. there are lessons to learn from the The full result was: Liberals ; Cana- The LDHG was very lucky to have, Canadian experience which could dian Alliance (previously Reform) ; as the final speaker, Akaash Maharaj help to consolidate and boost the Bloc Québecois : NDP : Progressive from Canada. Over to observe our UK Liberal Democrats’ current rise Conservatives . conference on his party’s behalf, he spoke about contemporary liberalism in Canada. Maharaj believed that ‘the next twelve months will inevitably come to be seen as the decisive moment for Canadian liberalism and for the very destiny of national enterprise’. LettersLetters toto thethe Maharaj is rightly proud of the Liberal record of success in office. On taking office in , the Liberals faced high unemployment, accumu- EditorEditor lated debt levels, spending deficits and EditorEditor a reputation as ‘a snowy third world state’. Over seven years, the Liberals had turned a deficit into surplus, cut taxes, reduced unemployment, held David Rebak Southend Cllr David Evans, Liverpool inflation levels down and been rated I have just read with great interest issue Cllr Cyril Carr and Richmond Cllr Dr in the United Nations Human  of the Journal of Liberal Democrat Stanley Rundle. Incidentally, it was Development Index as the best place History, and in particular John Rundle who, at that conference, first in the world to live. Yet despite this Meadowcroft’s article on ‘The Origins coined the phrase later to be made even track record, Maharaj believed the of Community Politics’. more famous by David Penhaligon: ‘If Liberals faced a real threat at the next I don’t wish to lessen the credit due you’ve got something to say to the national election. to Young Liberals and the Union of electorate, stick it on a piece of paper Unlike McDonald, he did not see Liberal Students, nor to minimise in and shove it through their letterboxes’. the threat to liberalism as coming any way the tremendous importance In the early s, David Evans, from internal strains. Rather that, as and value of the job they did. However, Stanley Rundle and Cyril Carr had the traditional main opposition party the article doesn’t acknowledge the been elected by carrying out a policy – the Progressive Conservatives – absolutely critical work and example of ‘community politics’ long before collapses into disarray it is being given by a number of leading Liberals the term had been coined. If I remem- replaced by the Bloc Québecois, of the s. ber correctly, it was at that conference which would destroy Canada through In May  I stood as a Liberal that the first moves were made to set separatism, and the Reform Party, council candidate for the first time. I up the Association of Liberal Council- which would herald a new era of was naive, innocent and willing to allow lors, which I was glad to join. Some right-wing bigotry for Canada. the election to be run by ‘those who short time later our first whole day of It was hoped that the Liberal Party were supposed to know it all’ because seminars was at Leamington Spa. would see off this threat – not only they had been doing it for years. I At the  Assembly, Russell because of its track record in delivering personally canvassed  per cent of the Johnston, who had just been elected to economic prosperity and unity to the ward and I doubled the Liberal vote and the House of Commons, gave a fringe country but also because, as Maharaj came second. Nevertheless I considered meeting talk advising aspiring council- believed, ‘Our success has flowed the election campaign a fiasco and was lors and MPs how it was done. It was entirely out of the fact that Canadians sure there was a better way. common sense and electrifying. I, and are, on the whole, an enlightened and In the autumn of  I attended my many others, was inspired to go out therefore liberal people. As long as we first Liberal assembly at Scarborough and practice what was later to be called [the Liberals] have stayed true to liberal and had the opportunity to meet community politics.

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 25 Graem Peters Liberals and went off and joined guarantor powers for more than I enjoyed reading Peter Joyce’s article Labour, who managed to get him into diplomatic help. The second cabinet  on the Popular Front of the late s Parliament in . broke up before news of the German (Journal , Autumn ) and its It is hard to criticise Labour for ultimatum to Belgium reached failure to see Liberals and Labour not taking the PF seriously when London. The pledge on Belgium was nation-wide working together, politi- the Liberals as a party were incapa- thus given when the German incur- cally and electorally. His analysis does ble of bringing anything of real sion into Belgium was expected (in not adequately explain why the value to its cause. London, as in Brussels) to be con- Popular Front amounted to nothing. fined to the Ardennes, south and east The PF was always intended to be, Dr Michael Brock of the Sambre–Meuse line. The first and foremost, an electoral chal- May I ask for the freedom of your evidence that, if it had been so lenge to the National Government. columns to dispute some statements confined, the guarantors would not For the PF to be treated seriously by about Grey and Asquith in Peter have been asked for military aid is either Liberals or Labour, it needed to Truesdale’s review of John Charmley, very strong (J. E. Helmreich, Journal    be seen to be successful in winning Splendid Isolation (Journal , Autumn of Modern History ( ), ). The votes and seats in by-elections. The )? cabinet, Asquith wrote to Bonar Law  relative weakness of the Liberal Party Did ‘Asquith and Grey… outma- on August, ‘do not contemplate … at the time meant that it had very few noeuvre the peace party within the and are satisfied that no good object candidates to withdraw to assist Labour cabinet’ in July–August ? It was would be served by the immediate in winning seats. What candidates it agreed, at the first cabinet meeting on despatch of an expeditionary force’ could muster were unlikely to gather Sunday  August, to tell the French to the Continent.  many votes regardless of where they that the German fleet would not be By August, with the German came from. allowed to enter the Channel and ultimatum to Brussels, the Belgian The Liberal Party was, frankly, an bombard their coast. At the second appeal for help, and the prospect of an electoral joke in the  Parliament. A there was a decision ‘to take action’ in assault on Liège, everything had  total of eight Liberal vacancies oc- case of ‘a substantial violation’ of changed. Harold Begbie wrote in curred between  and  (when Belgian neutrality (no attempts being that it was mistaken to talk of Asquith electoral hostilities ceased). In six of made ‘to state a formula’ by defining having ‘brought England into the war. these constituencies, the local Liberal either ‘substantial’ or the nature of the England carried Mr Asquith into the Association failed to select a Liberal intended ‘action’). Grey recorded after war … A House of Commons that had candidate. Only in two, North Corn- the war that the Channel pledge was hesitated an hour after the invasion of wall () and St Ives () did the ‘suggested originally by an anti-war Belgium would have been swept out of local Liberals choose a Liberal candi- member of the cabinet’ (British existence by the wrath and indignation date. Even then, with Labour choosing Library Add. MSS , , fos. –; of the people’ (The Mirrors of Downing    not to field a candidate in St Ives, the see also fos. , , ; Twenty-Five Years, Street, popular edition, , – ). Liberals still failed to win. ii. ). It had no war-like effect: the The most articulate spokesman for Labour also stood down to allow Germans’ plans did not include using the peace party did not behave as the Liberals a straight fight with the their fleet in this way (nor would it someone who had been ‘outmanoeu- To r ies in Bewdley, Chertsey, North gave been feasible to do so, since it was vred’. Massingham wrote to Margot  Dorset and Aberdeenshire West. In a short-range fleet). Asquith on August: the Govern- each case, the Liberals failed to capital- As to the pledge on Belgium, ment’s White Paper ‘completely ise. Over the same period, Labour was maintaining the neutrality of that changed my views. Sir Edward Grey’s managing to gain twelve seats and to country had long been a great objec- case seems to me unbreakable at every hold all its own seats in the bargain. tive for Little Englander Liberals. In point’. R. C. K. Ensor, the chief leader-  Peter Joyce criticises Labour’s  Grey was criticised in the Nation writer in for the Liberal Daily attitude to supporting PF candidates. for regarding the  Treaty as less Chronicle, wrote years later about the He misleads, however, with regard to important that the balance of power. German invasion of Belgium: ‘For Chertsey, where the ‘progressive’ ‘We could not imagine’, H. W. years past the Liberals … had been candidate, E. R. Haylor, had stood as a Massingham wrote, ‘Sir Edward Grey making it an article of party faith that Liberal candidate at the preceding following Lord Granville in risking militarist Germany was not as black as three general elections. war in defence of the integrity of it was painted. Now in a flash it The whole situation is best summed Belgium against a Franco-Prussian seemed to them self-revealed as much up by the plight of the highly rated encroachment’ (Nation,  June ). blacker’. Can Grey be said to have Arthur Irvine, the Liberal candidate in ‘A substantial violation’ of Belgian ‘painted Britain into a corner’ when the Aberdeenshire West by-election. neutrality meant, in substance, a the treaty guaranteeing Belgian Having come close to winning the seat violation which would cause the neutrality had been signed twenty- in  and , he gave up on the Belgian government to call on the three years before he was born?

26 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 knew there would be a huge audience once both agreed to appear and the BBC trailed it heavily. The mood ReviewsReviews beforehand was vile, with my support team (my husband and son) and Norris’ minders finding themselves in … a virtual demilitarised zone between 250 High Streets later the Dobson and Livingstone camps. Dobson, I am convinced, had abso- Mark D’Arcy & Rory Maclean: Nightmare! The Race lutely believed Livingstone when he to Become London’s Mayor said that he would support the decision of the Labour selection process and (Politico’s Publishing, 2000; 287pp.) could not conceive of a man of honour Reviewed by Susan Kramer going back on his word. I knew that I was with them on the Question Time panel on sufferance. But that also gave ightmare, the story of the London and I still do – if the timing of his fall, me the advantage of surprise. I came Nmayoral election, had no sooner so early in the campaign, was triggered out fighting with strikes against all been published than kind friends by a surge of conscience in Ted Francis three opponents, Livingstone, Dobson began to send me copies in the post. I who had allegedly lied for him, or by and Norris. From that point on we tried to share one with Flick Rea, the Tory hierarchy deciding that he finally began to get serious treatment keeper of my campaign diary, protector was too great a risk and had to from the press and no-one ever asked of my time and raiser of my spirits on go. Tory crises always seemed to come again ‘are you tough enough?’ which the inevitable days when everything in just when we thought the day was had always been the refrain from the campaign went wrong. ‘I don’t over. When Norris was ‘in’ then ‘out’ Michael White of the Guardian. need a copy’, she said ‘I was there’. then ‘in’ again in the second Tory The question remains: could I have Flick has a point and it is very selection, I did the interviews on a beaten Dobson and Norris to end up relevant to this book. Nightmare is a cramped phone on the back counter of in the final two with Livingstone, blow-by-blow account, gripping in a a dimly lit cafe near Elstree. where we might have dislodged him rather breathless way, of one of the Labour’s crises were a little more on the basis of second preferences and strangest elections in British history. predictable. But none of us anticipated won? Certainly I could have beaten But it is not a work of political analysis. the Labour short-listing when Dobson; we were only some twenty The characters – and what a collection Livingstone was ‘off’ one day and ‘on’ thousand votes short. The reason that they were, from Archer to Livingstone the next. The tensions between the we did not was simply the Romsey by- – charge on and off the page. The real Labour candidates were palpable at election. In early March we received question that I want answered though, husting after husting during their pre- word that central resources and is how Labour, who by rights should selection period. It seemed to me that manpower that might have come to easily romp home in any election in only Glenda Jackson came out of it the London campaign would go to the capital, managed to let a prize like with real dignity. My admiration for Romsey. Key activists, including many Mayor of London slip through their her grew as she resisted pressures and I from London, switched their efforts to fingers? How did the Labour leader- am sure all kinds of advantageous offers Sandra Gidley’s campaign. It was ship become so arrogant? What fuelled to leave the mayoral race. On the day absolutely the right thing to do and my its control-freak tendencies and its when the press rumours flew that she team resoundingly cheered her success resistance to the spirit of devolution? was dropping out, we crossed paths on election night. How did Millbank so badly misunder- close to the Millbank studios. When Beating Norris would have taken stand the Livingstone appeal? With she said ‘See you tomorrow’, I knew much more although until the closing those questions unanswered, the story that she was going to stick it out. days we were never more than a few of the Mayoral election remains a Glenda always said that on principle percentage points behind. The difficul- series of chaotic, almost random events, she felt there must be a woman in the ties began with the delays in the Tory which is how it often felt to me when Labour mayoral line-up. and especially the Labour selection. I was in the middle of it. As a Liberal Democrat candidate, Instead of a full line-up of candidates Many days on the campaign trail and one that started the campaign as an by mid-December, which would have were simply surreal. I have vivid unknown, you make your chances given us a five-month crack at getting memories of sitting in Hammersmith when you can. The definitive moment decent press coverage, we did not bus station, late on a Saturday, doing came for me on Question Time after seriously get press until Livingstone interviews on the mobile phone as the Dobson had been selected by Labour announced as an independent in News of the World collapsed Jeffrey and when Livingstone was dithering February. As always in Liberal Demo- Archer’s candidacy. I wondered then – over running as an independent. We crat campaigns, we lacked the financial

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 27 I loved every minute of the nine vote, even if a second preference, to months of the mayoral campaign. I support a Liberal Democrat for the was blessed with a small but amazing first time. We won four seats in the team, from Ashley Lumsden, who was Greater London Assembly and born to be a campaign manager, to because of the calibre of our candi- Charlotte Barraclough, who had dates they are influencing events well never done media until she aban- beyond their numbers, effectively doned a round-the-world trip to run holding the balance of power. my press operation. My son Jonathan There will never be an election like dropped out of university (temporar- this again. Next time it will be a short ily) to be my minder, and student campaign with limited appearances, interns became the backbone of our more conventional and, I suspect, less operations. Brian Orrell and the filled with surprises. Livingstone will London Region Liberal Democrats, try to remain Mayor until he is carried MPs and peers led by Ed Davey and out feet first. Norris and I will almost Conrad Russell, were stalwarts. The certainly both run again. I doubt that Assembly candidates were dedicated next time anyone will bother to write and we owe a lot to those who a book about the campaign. flogged their guts out knowing that But as the events of last year fade in they themselves would not win. We the memory, I confess I am glad used the campaign to build a London- Nightmare was written, to remind me resources to advertise and get around wide awareness of Liberal Democrats that it really did happen and was not the press focus on the other parties and and our policies. Local parties turned just a dream. their scandals. At the end of the out across the capital and we did campaign, the May Day riots, with no indeed cover every one of its  high Susan Kramer was the Liberal Democrat effort on the Tories’ part, had the effect streets. Many Londoners used their candidate in the first London mayoral race. of pushing anti-Livingstone votes into the Norris camp on an implied ‘law and order’ association. I believe that those events finally settled the out- come of the election. New leader, new book If there was one surprise above others in the mayoral campaign, it was the emergence of a London political Charles Kennedy: The Future of Politics identity. When I began on the cam- (HarperCollins, 2000; 255pp.) paign trail in August, the hustings Reviewed by Duncan Brack showed candidates to be all over the place, both in defining the problems and the solutions. Candidates behaved ow times change. Paddy was full of ideas, some half-baked, pretty true to party. By May, the core Ashdown had to struggle to find many sensible, some already party manifestos looked amazingly similar H a publisher for his first book as leader, policy, some not. In policy terms and indeed quite clearly recognisable Citizen’s Britain. Twelve years later, (though not in strategy), it described to anyone following the policies of the Charles Kennedy’s first book is an agenda which Ashdown stuck to, London Region Liberal Democrats as produced by a mainstream publisher pretty much, for the following ten far back as . The pressure of the in glossy hardback – tribute, of course, years of his leadership. hustings, sometimes three or four a day, to the strength and relevance of the The Future of Politics does not need to had forced common sense and conver- party that Ashdown built and establish the party in the public mind. It gence and in terms of the policy Kennedy inherited. is aimed instead to define Kennedy as a debate it was a clear Liberal Democrat Ye the purpose of these two books man with a policy prospectus, some- win. A strange bonding also developed was and is rather different. Citizen’s thing which neither his own back- among the candidates, with the Britain was a (reasonably successful) ground as TV light entertainment’s possible exception of Dobson. No-one attempt to put the third party, at the favourite politician, nor his uninspiring was naive, but it must have been close time disappearing in the opinion polls leadership campaign, managed to do. to the sense of shared suffering experi- to within the statistical margin of error Does it succeed? Yes and no. enced by hostages. Certainly we could of zero, and its leader, on the policy Unlike Citizen’s Britain, it contains give each other’s set speeches and map – to reassert the Liberal strength as almost no new ideas. It is an explana- Norris to this day claims that he once a party of imagination and invention. It tion, mostly coherent and lucid, of the gave mine and I his.

28 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 communicate a message, and what this law in  (not , as the book book does is to put over the Liberal says); not paying enough attention to Democrat agenda in a well-written and the environment as a major campaign- accessible way. The policy proposals are ing issue for the Alliance; and not interspersed with personal anecdotes protesting enough at the British and reminiscences which make them police’s suppression of demonstrations enjoyable to read, and Kennedy’s turn of against Chinese President Jiang phrase is occasionally brilliant (as in ‘the Zemin’s visit in ). What other political map is like a water bed – apply party leader would approach his task pressure in one area and you will get a with such humility? reaction somewhere else’). Some Charles Kennedy, of course, still has sections – particularly the case for the much to prove. Next year’s anticipated Euro – are excellent. election campaign, and particularly the My favourite part of all is the TV debates between the leaders, will opening paragraphs of the conclusion, put to the test the extent to which he where Kennedy lists the four things he really believes and understands every- has got most seriously wrong since thing that’s in this book, as well as his entering parliament in  (for your ability to communicate it. But The information: not opposing the estab- Future of Politics is not a bad start at all. lishment of the Child Support Agency; party’s existing policy position; indeed, trying to minimise attention to the Duncan Brack was Policy Director of the those of us more familiar than we conference vote in favour of a Royal Liberal Democrats –, and is Editor of would like to be with party policy Commission on the reform of drugs the Journal of Liberal Democrat History. papers will recognise many proposals and even, on occasion, entire paragraphs lifted verbatim from other sources. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this – after all, it would be rather alarming to find that your new More mirage than vision leader didn’t go along with the vast bulk of party policy – but it would be Garry Tregidga: The Liberal Party in South-West nice to find the occasional new idea. Britain since 1918: Political Decline, Dormancy and The only one I could spot in the Rebirth (University of Exeter Press, 2000; 281pp.) entire book was a commitment to all- women shortlists and ‘zipping’ for Reviewed by John Howe parliamentary selections, a position which I was certainly not aware Kennedy held, and one that it would o those who joined the Liberal limited – but only a limited – recovery be quite nice seeing him do some- TParty in the s or s, the in ? Why did the party decline for thing about. There are also, unfortu- West Country was the promised land, two decades thereafter but not die? And nately, too many mistakes – carbon or rather the land of promise. Fading why did the series of revivals from  monoxide, for example, is not the memories of triumphs in the twenties onwards achieve no significant parlia- main global greenhouse gas (it’s were reinforced by the contemporary mentary success until ? carbon dioxide, an entirely different view of the Liberals as the party of the To answer these questions substance), and the UK’s target under Celtic fringe; then Torrington in  Tregidga has amassed impressive the Kyoto Protocol is a .% reduc- and North Devon in  created the evidence. He has read extensively in tion in greenhouse emissions, not vision of a Liberal heartland from which the local press, which continued to .%. The logic is not always coherent, the party might expand. But the vision provide good reports of meetings, for example over fuel taxes, a point proved a mirage, and even in  fewer speeches and party events with picked up when the launch of the than half of the West Country seats fell editorial comment reflecting local book coincided with the first wave of to the Liberal Democrats. opinions. The personal papers of the fuel tax protests; and overall the book Garry Tregidga’s book examines the regional party leaders, notably the has not been well edited. background to these events with four Aclands and the Foots, have been But on the other hand… no-one successive questions. Why did the thoroughly reviewed, and the rel- expected Kennedy to be an ideas man, Liberal Party achieve a triumph in the evant national collections are cited – and there are other qualities which south-west in  almost equalling the for example Sir Archibald Sinclair’s party leaders can display. Kennedy’s  landslide? Why was it wiped out papers seem particularly useful for great strength lies in his ability to only ten months later yet then made a the years just before  when

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 29 Tregidga sees signs of a Liberal socialist/anti- socialist ideologies – success in dragging the party back to the revival aborted by the war. interact with ‘old’ divisions based on progressive side, aiming to replace The list of party records consulted religion, rural/urban and centre/ Labour as the party of the left, a drive to shows the lamentable lack of surviving periphery tensions. The ‘petite bour- fight council seats, and – at last – efforts Liberal records – only three local parties geoisie’ had a key role – small farmers, to target resources on winnable seats. In are listed, compared to seven Conserva- shop-keepers, small businessmen and the south-west this meant that ‘petite tive and even two Labour. More others were historically strongly bourgeoisie’ dissatisfaction with the alarming, while six of the Conservative illiberal and non-conformist but Conservatives was translated into victory parties have wisely deposited their deeply anti-socialist: for example, at Torrington in  and North Devon archives in the county record offices, alarmed by the  Labour govern- in , but a key role was played by two out of the three Liberal collections ment, they voted ‘modern’ but by  individual candidates which may explain remain in the vulnerable location of traditional issues had revived and some why the victories were not repeated their local party offices. returned to the Liberals. elsewhere in the region. Several participants in the events The core of the book is the six Garry Tregidga’s final chapter have been interviewed and their chronological chapters covering the sweeps from  to . This is testimony has been effectively de- years from  to . In each clearly attempting too much. Interest- ployed to supplement documentary Tregidga has to strike a balance ing points are made, for example on evidence. One wonders why other key between explaining the national the revolutionary effects of winning players were not; Jeremy Thorpe is context, describing local events, council seats, but it is simply not only the most obvious omission, assessing the strength of party activity possible to develop the discussion although his splendid agent appears in locally and nationally, and relating all properly. The debilitating and demoral- the select list. The vast amount of this to his theoretical framework. This ising debates in seat allocations be- published material on the period is an extensive agenda, more successful tween the Liberals and the SDP in the means that the bibliography is likewise when national developments are fairly mid-s are ignored. selective; nevertheless the omission of straightforward, for example in – A more basic problem for the book is R. C. Whiting’s study of Oxford , but less so for the crisis-packed the definition of the region. Bristol politics is unfortunate and Chris years  or –, when it is (which some might argue is the regional Cook’s useful article on local elections difficult to disentangle national and capital) is ignored. Somerset and Devon between the wars might also have been local factors. are included, but the main focus is on considered. Tregidga’s book draws many Devon and Cornwall. A more tightly The book opens by discussing the interesting conclusions. For instance he drawn regional boundary might have growth of interest in regional political challenges the standard interpretation provided a more logical and manageable history, justifying the selection of of the success of the Yellow Book and region. The problem was well illustrated period and topic. Drawing on Euro- Lloyd George’s pledge to conquer at a recent Liberal Democrat History pean, and particularly Scandinavian, unemployment in . He points out Group meeting, when Michael Steed writers, Tregidga suggests a theoretical that unemployment was an urban suggested an extended south-west, up to analytical framework in which ‘mod- industrial issue, irrelevant in the south- a line from the Isle of Wight to Oxford, ern’ factors – class and its related west where a rural and agricultural while Malcolm Brown selected the programme was necessary to win seats. Tamar as frontier. Interventionist policies were unlikely Overall Garry Tregidga has pro- to attract ‘petite bourgeoisie’ anti- duced an interesting study. The theo- socialists who had defected to the retical material is not always effectively Conservatives in . Hence, perhaps, integrated into the narrative and the the limited recovery of . detail is at times daunting but the end Tregidga is frequently scathing result is a thoughtful and persuasive about the party’s national leadership – account of a significant part of twenti- or lack of it. The shambles of the early eth century Liberal history. thirties, an ill-founded zeal for a broad front in  and , failure to John Howe lectures in the School of History perceive the opportunity for recovery and Local Studies of the Cheltenham & in the south-west are all castigated. Gloucester College of Higher Education This is not merely with the benefit of hindsight, for examples are quoted of 1 R. C. Whiting, The View from Cowley (Oxford, contemporary proponents of an 1973); C. Cook, ‘Liberals, Labour and Local Elections’ in G. Peele & C. Cook, The Politics of alternative narrow front, including Reappraisal 1918–39 (London, 1974). Sinclair himself in . 2 Report on ‘Liberalism in the West’ fringe The s revival is attributed to meeting, Plymouth, March 2000 (Journal of Liberal Democrat History 28, Autumn 2000). varied national events – Jo Grimond’s

30 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 Robson marked himself out as a rising star in the Liberal Party during the Unremembered – but not forgotten  Parliament by his speeches on legal questions and by piloting the Children’s G. W. Keeton James: A Liberal Attorney-General; Act, a private member’s bill, on to the statute book. When Campbell- Being the Life of Lord Robson of Jesmond, 1852– Bannerman became Prime Minister in 1918, with an Account of the Office of Attorney-  he was disappointed not to be made Attorney-General, but as Solicitor- General, etc. (Nisbet & Co, 1949) General he embarked on an exhausting Reviewed by Robert Ingham five-year career as a law officer, being promoted to Attorney-General by Asquith in . Keeton brings out well ho remembers the govern- ence, including parliamentarians of the pivotal role played in the House by Wment’s law officers? The post- the stature of F. E. Smith, Edward law officers at that time. It would not war lists of Attorneys-General and Carson, John Simon, Rufus Isaacs and have done for ministers to promise to Solicitors-General are dominated by Douglas Hogg. Among this distin- write to members who raised difficult distinguished but little-known law guished list is the name of Sir William questions about legislative proposals. men (no women, yet). There are a few Robson, Solicitor-General from  Robson served long hours on the highlights. Sir Hartley Shawcross, one to  and Attorney-General from Treasury bench providing accurate off- of the last surviving members of  to . the-cuff responses to complex queries. Attlee’s governments, is famous for his Robson was born in , the son of He was also responsible for several comment ‘We are the masters now’; a prosperous Newcastle-upon-Tyne minor but technical pieces of legislation Geoffrey Howe and Patrick Mayhew businessman. After Cambridge he and represented the Government in served as law officers before establish- entered the legal profession, becoming a numerous legal cases. These are reported ing their reputations in other, more barrister in , a Queen’s Counsel in rather too prominently by Keeton. A politically sensitive, positions; Sir , and sitting as Recorder of New- whole chapter is devoted to an intricate Nicholas Lyell is famous for his role in castle from  to. Aside from the case concerning fishing rights in the the Matrix Churchill affair; former law, his passion was politics. Deeply North Atlantic which, although impor- Liberal MP Sir Dingle Foot became affected by the slums of his native city, tant in its day and a great triumph for Solicitor-General in the  Wilson he was for his time an ‘advanced’ Robson, is only of limited interest now. administration before resigning over Liberal, a key proponent of social A general criticism of Keeton’s book is British policy in Southern Rhodesia; legislation to ensure that economic that it dwells rather too much on and Sir Harry Hylton Foster served for freedom complemented political liberty, Robson’s legal career and the history five years as Solicitor-General before and an active seeker of a constituency in of the position of Attorney-General at becoming Speaker of the House of the north-east of England. the expense of information about Commons. But who remembers Sir While based in London he was briefly Robson’s personal and political lives. Lionel Heald, Sir Reginald the Member for Bow & Bromley in the The result is a volume which, although Manningham-Buller or Sir Peter  parliament, but he disliked carpet- informative and entertaining, is Rawlinson? And who can name the bagging and in  stood for Middles- somewhat unsatisfying. current law officers, one of whom is brough. The constituency was one of the Robson’s life reached a sad conclu- the first peer ever to hold the office of earliest in which Labour candidates took sion. He was junior spokesman to Attorney-General? on the Liberal establishment and after a Lloyd George during the long passage Despite their obscurity, the law bitter battle Robson lost to the seamen’s through Parliament of the  officers play a vital role in advising leader J. Havelock Wilson. One of the Finance Act. While Lloyd George dealt ministers on the legal complexities of most interesting aspects of Keeton’s book with the broad outline of the conten- legislative proposals and on the is the insights it gives into the develop- tious bill, Robson was responsible for myriad legal problems which government of the Labour movement in north- the mass of detail it contained. His ment departments encounter from east England and its attitude to the constitution, never robust, was broken day to day. In the present era this role Liberal Party. by the long hours he spent in the is performed behind the scenes, but in Robson was elected Member for House of Commons. Forced to retire decades past the law officers were South Shields in , but even in this from politics, he was created Lord more prominent parliamentarians, staunchly Liberal constituency he faced a Robson of Jesmond in  and made required to provide advice on the continual battle to prevent independent a Lord of Appeal. Unable to recover his detailed wording of bills and proposed Labour candidates from opposing him, health fully, he retired in  and died amendments on the floor of the and he was deeply pessimistic about the six years later. House of Commons. The pre- Liberal Party’s long-term prospects in the list of law officers reflects this differ- face of an organised Labour challenge. Robert Ingham is a political researcher.

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 29 Winter 2000–01 31 A Liberal Democrat History Group Evening Meeting The Limehouse Declaration and the birth of the SDP On 25 January 1981, four former Labour cabinet ministers – Roy Jenkins, David Owen, William Rodgers and Shirley Williams – published the Limehouse Declaration, publicly signalling their intention to quit the leftward path that the Labour Party had taken. The Declaration advocated a classless society and called for the realignment of British politics. After an overwhelming public response, the SDP came into being two months later. Twenty years on, the Liberal Democrat History Group looks at the origins and importance of the Limehouse Declaration. Did it signal the end of both Old Labour and Liberal Party irrelevance? Or did it back the progressive forces in British politics into a cul-de-sac? Was the SDP a mistake? Or was the party essential for both the reform of Labour and a rebirth of Liberalism?

7.00pm, Monday 29 January 2001 (following the AGM of the Liberal Democrat History Group, at 6.30pm) Lady Violet Bonham Carter Room, National Liberal Club, 1 Whitehall Place, London SW1

History Group News Enquiry service The Liberal Democrat History Group receives answers you are able to give will be collected the editor, articles and reviews: many queries about various aspects of and sent back to the enquirer. [email protected] Liberal, SDP and Liberal Democrat history – Thanks in advance for your help! • Any general queries about any aspect of from questions about past election results in Liberal, SDP and Liberal Democrat particular constituencies to requests for help history: in tracking down details of Liberal ancestors [email protected] to queries about the location of archives. New email Often these are referred to us from party Ordinary communication by post, however, is headquarters. Particularly interesting queries addresses still possible! – see addresses on page 2. and their answers are occasionally reprinted The Liberal Democrat History Group is in the Journal. gradually developing its new website, at The History Group executive does its best to www.liberalhistory.org.ukwww.liberalhistory.org.uk. Correction provide answers, but we know that readers As part of this process, new email addresses Journal of Liberal Democrat History 28, of the Journal possess a very wide range of will replace all earlier ones, from 1 January Autumn 2000 knowledge and relevant backgrounds. So we 2001: would like to ask you to help us deal with In David Steel’s review of Bill Rodgers’ these enquiries. • Any correspondence about subscriptions Fourth Among Equals, we wrongly assigned to the Journal and membership of the Lord Steel MSP to the South of Scotland Will anyone willing to help please send an Group: region. In fact, he is MSP for the Lothian email to [email protected]@liberalhistory.org.uk? We [email protected] region. Our apologies. will add your email address to an email circulation list, and send everyone on it • Any correspondence about any other details of enquiries as they are received. Any aspect of the Journal, including letters to