The 1936 Preston By-election

The conduct of by- elections is one of many taxing problems confronting a coalition government. Governments fight by-elections in defence of policies they are already pursuing or are committed to pursuing in the present parliament. Granted that there is, or at least should be, only one set of coalition government policies, there is a strong argument for putting up just one coalition candidate at any by-election. Yet this approach too can cause problems. David Dutton examines the tensions generated between the Liberal Nationals and the Conservatives in the Preston by-election of November 1936.

20 Journal of Liberal History 75 Summer 2012 The 1936 Preston By-election

n the evidence available and a large number of by-elections conflict’.3 In the months that fol- so far, the present Con- took place. In these the chief prob- lowed the 1935 election, moreover, Oservative–Liberal Demo- lem facing the partners to the coa- Simon’s Liberal National faction, crat government appears to have lition was often the decision over once easily dismissed as a group concluded that its component par- which contributing party should of self-serving MPs representing ties should both fight by-election contest the by-election on the gov- no more than their own personal contests rather than uniting behind ernment’s behalf. The doctrine that interests, took on more and more a single candidate. Such a strategy the incumbent party should have a of the attributes of a traditional is no doubt designed to empha- presumed right to stand generally political party. Some of this devel- sise that the parties to the coali- applied, though there were excep- opment was already ongoing. As tion remain separate entities and tions as, for example, when it was Simon noted, ‘I have been very that they will resume their inde- judged urgently necessary to find a busy with the Liberal National pendent identities in time for the seat for Malcolm MacDonald, son organisation, which is now greatly next general election, anticipated of the former Prime Minister Ram- strengthened both as regards per- in 2015. It is also a gesture towards say MacDonald, representing the sonnel and funds’.4 Such activity the autonomy of local constitu- National Labour Party, after he had was now intensified. A monthly ency parties whose role in the selec- gone down to defeat at Bassetlaw in journal, the Liberal National Maga- tion of a parliamentary candidate the general election of 1935.2 Such zine, made its first appearance in is one of the few tangible rewards a doctrine, however, had the disad- March 1936, designed to propa- for a continuous and largely unsung vantage of entrenching the existing gate the party’s ideas and policies, round of fundraising activities and imbalance between the compo- while strenuous efforts were made delivered party leaflets.1 Yet there nent parts of the coalition. The by- to build up a national and regional is a potential problem here. Unlike election that took place in Preston infrastructure to cover the whole of general elections, by-elections are in November 1936 highlights the Great Britain. The Liberal National not fought on the basis of the future problems that could arise and the Magazine carried monthly reports policies that a particular party will resulting tensions between the gov- of the political and social activi- pursue, if elected, in the next par- erning parties. ties of these local bodies. The work liament. Governments fight by- After the general election of of consolidation culminated in the elections in defence of policies they November 1935 it was plausible holding of a first Liberal National are already pursuing or are com- to suggest that the National Gov- Convention in June 1936, attended mitted to pursuing in the present ernment, constructed four years by more than 700 delegates. By the parliament. Granted that there is, earlier as an emergency measure end of the year the Liberal National or at least should be, only one set to save the currency and balance Organisation had taken over addi- of coalition government policies, the national budget, was develop- tional office space in Old Queen the voters at by-elections could, in ing into something permanent. Street. ‘We shall then be in a better theory, be presented with two iden- Two general elections had resulted position’, noted the Liberal National tical sets of policies by the Conserv- in popular endorsements by the Magazine, ‘to deal with the rapidly ative and Liberal Democrat parties. electorate that were unmatched expanding work arising out of the In the wartime governments of in scale in the whole of the twen- development of our organisation the twentieth century the argument tieth century. As John Simon, the throughout the country.’5 of patriotic necessity offered ample leader of the larger of the non- Yet a major problem remained. justification for the avoidance of Conservative components of the Though the non-Conservative by-election contests, even before government, noted in his diary, elements were relatively well rep- the coalitions of May 1915 and May ‘the conception of a National Gov- resented within the government 1940 were formed. But in the cen- ernment corresponded with the – in the reconstructed Cabinet the tury’s longest period of peacetime outlook of ordinary citizens, who Liberal Nationals held four posts6 coalition, the National Govern- had come to believe that the best and the National Labour group ment that took office in August way out of our difficulties was by Preston in the three7 – the balance of strength 1931, no such imperative existed way of cooperation rather than of 1930s within the House of Commons

Journal of Liberal History 75 Summer 2012 21 the 1936 preston by-election was overwhelmingly weighted respectively. As recently as 1929 In the of the left-wing supporters of the towards the Tories. In the new the Liberal Party had attracted as National Government was becom- parliament 388 Conservatives sat much as 23.6 per cent of those who months that ing more imperative with every alongside 35 Liberal Nationals and went to the polls. By 1935, how- passing month. Otherwise, right- just 8 National Labour MPs. But ever, the independent Liberal vote followed the wing Conservatives would be able doing anything about this imbal- had dropped to just 6.6 per cent. It to argue that the Liberal Nation- ance was no easy matter, not least seemed reasonable to argue that at 1935 election, als and the National Labour group because Conservative party manag- least some of these missing Liberals did not stand for a sufficiently ers could readily take refuge behind were now supporting not just Lib- moreover, definite policy and that their influ- the autonomy of their local party eral National candidates but also, ence was therefore negative and associations. A National Co-ordi- because of their electoral partner- Simon’s Lib- their electoral usefulness doubtful. nating Committee had been set up ship with the Simonite group, the eral National Bernays called for weekly meet- in March 1933, one of whose tasks Conservatives themselves. ings of the Liberal National and was to find more opportunities for The first prominent figure to faction, once National Labour groups to decide representatives of the two minor speak out publicly on behalf of upon a common line and an agreed parties within the government. But the National Government’s jun- easily dis- spokesman on all important issues it had few tangible achievements to ior partners was Earl de la Warr, of government business. ‘A really its name, not least because it tended National Labour Parliamentary missed as a powerful group’, he judged, ‘would to draw back when confronted by Under-Secretary at the Board of revolutionize the viewpoint of the accusation that it was ‘giving Education in Stanley Baldwin’s group of self- our Conservative colleagues’ and away’ Conservative seats. Conserv- administration.9 Speaking to the perhaps ultimately attract the ative criticism of its activities was first Area Conference organised serving MPs adherence of moderate Tories and voiced at the meeting of the party’s by the National Labour Party in independent Liberals. Action was National Union Central Council Birmingham in May 1936, de la represent- urgent. With Baldwin’s retirement in March 1934. It was always pos- Warr declared that there were mil- believed to be imminent, Bernays sible that the future electoral tide lions of men and women who were ing no more warned that his successor might would swing even more favourably determined not to hand the coun- well try to take the government to towards the government, allow- try over to Attlee’s Labour Party, than their the right.11 ing Liberal National and National but equally determined not to vote Bernays’s letter gave rise to a Labour candidates to pick up addi- for a purely Conservative govern- own per- lively debate in the correspondence tional seats in constituencies they ment. He called for the creation columns of The Times. The newspa- were already contesting. In prac- of a strong, fighting centre group, sonal inter- per itself applauded his ideas to the tice, however, the election of each which would be more than a mere ests, took extent that it recognised the impor- new Liberal National or National coalition of the supporters of the tance of the National Government Labour MP would probably require government – ‘“fighting” because on more and pursuing radical social policies, but an act of self-denial on the part of a of its realism, and “centre” because it dismissed Bernays’s fears about well-established local Conservative it abhorred equally complacency more of the the future direction of the National organisation. on the Right and irresponsibil- Government, insisting that the Not surprisingly, the existing ity on the Left’. The supporters of attributes of Conservative right wing had imbalance was a source of ongo- National Labour should cling to already been marginalised.12 Rob- ing concern and both a cause and the idealism that had taken them a traditional ert Boothby, the maverick Tory a symptom of the feeling – prob- into the Labour Party and develop MP for East Aberdeenshire, did ably universal in coalitions – that the realism that had taken them out political nothing to lessen the minor parties’ the interests and opinions of the of it.10 De la Warr’s call was taken anxiety, inviting Liberal National minor partners were receiving up by Robert Bernays, Liberal party. and National Labour members to insufficient attention within the MP for Bristol North, who was at ‘drop their present obsolete and government as a whole. The Lib- the time involved in negotiations fairly ridiculous political affilia- eral National case was underpinned that would soon take him into the tions’ and join the ‘only modern by the notion of the ‘Liberal vote’. Liberal National Party. In a letter Liberal party’, the Conservatives.13 The fortunes of the Liberal Party to The Times Bernays argued that But at least one correspondent got itself were in patent and prob- what was needed was ‘some definite to the heart of the vulnerability of ably irreversible decline; but Lib- and coherent group determined to the two minor parties – the pau- eral ideas were believed to remain work, within the ranks of the Gov- city of their parliamentary repre- firmly embedded within the Brit- ernment’s supporters, for a con- sentation. ‘As I see it’, wrote John ish electorate. The ‘Liberal vote’ tinuance of a searching programme Worthington, was impossible accurately to cal- of social reform and the support of culate and was frequently exagger- Mr Eden [Foreign Secretary] in the The Conservative Party at the ated,8 but it did seem clear that the maintenance of the greatest possible last General Election would not existence of a coalition enabled the measure of collective security’. Ber- surrender its title to any seats government to attract substantial nays complained of a lack of organ- that it could hope to win; and numbers of voters who would have isation and leadership. ‘Working in now that its candidates have been beyond the reach of the Con- isolation as we do, we are not able been returned with the help of servatives standing alone. In the to exercise our rightful influence in National votes, Mr Boothby and general elections of 1931 and 1935 shaping the programme and policy some of his friends are assess- the government had secured 67.2 of the government.’ As a result, the ing the minority groups not and 53.5 per cent of the total vote need for an effective association by the value of their support

22 Journal of Liberal History 75 Summer 2012 the 1936 preston by-election

in the constituencies but by at present to be some doubt as to Conservative Party and the Preston their numerical weakness in the whether such an understanding can Liberal National Association had House.14 be arrived at’. Meeting on 19 Octo- been arranged for 26 October. Col- ber, the Emergency Committee of lison insisted that there was no split It was against this background that the Preston Conservative Associa- between his party and the Con- a parliamentary vacancy occurred tion considered ‘certain names’, but servatives. ‘We are all activated by in Preston when the sitting Con- eventually agreed to postpone their the desire to retain the seat for the servative MP, William Kirkpatrick, decision.16 Their Liberal National National Government and the dis- resigned upon his appointment counterparts clearly saw this delay cussions between the two sides are as Representative in China of the as an opportunity to seize the ini- of the friendliest character.’21 The Export Credits Guarantee Depart- tiative themselves. They believed official report of the joint meeting ment.15 For two reasons the result- that the case for a Liberal National spoke of a ‘frank and open discus- ing by-election, scheduled for 25 candidate was compelling. Accord- sion’. First accounts suggested that November 1936, offered a clear ing to Levi Collison, leader of the proceedings had been adjourned opportunity to do something Preston Liberal Nationals and once until such time as Barlow came to to redress the interparty imbal- Liberal MP for Penrith, ‘We have Preston and addressed both asso- ance within the National Govern- consistently and wholeheartedly ciations. ‘This seems to show’, ment. On the one hand, Preston supported the National Govern- suggested the Liverpool Daily Post was a two-member constituency. ment since the crisis of 1931. It was ‘that there is hope of a united front Although single-member constitu- only with our help that the two against the Socialist nominee.’22 It encies had been the norm since the Conservative National candidates soon emerged, however, that, at the redistribution of seats in 1885, two- secured election. We consider we adjournment of the joint meeting, member constituencies were not are entitled to select the candi- the Conservative Emergency Com- finally eliminated until 1950. Fif- date. We have been expecting this mittee had gone into private session teen such constituencies remained opportunity would come along and and decided that they would not in at the end of the First World War we are ready with a good man.’17 fact be inviting Barlow to address and offered an obvious and visible The identity of that ‘good man’ them. ‘I am greatly disappointed at chance for coalition parties to dis- soon became known. On the even- the decision’, commented Collison, play their cooperation and part- ing of 20 October the Liberal ‘and that feeling I know is shared by nership to the electorate. Thus the Nationals decided to invite Sir John every member of my executive.’23 two-member seats of Norwich and Barlow to address them with a view Now it was the turn of the Pres- Southampton had offered a joint A public to his adoption as ‘National’ can- ton Conservatives to take unilateral Conservative–Liberal National didate at the by-election.18 Barlow action. Sir Norman Seddon Brown, ticket at both the general elections dispute was in some ways an ideal choice. chairman of the Preston Conserva- of 1931 and 1935, while Oldham between the A member of a well-known Lanca- tive Association, announced that and Sunderland, having fielded shire family, he was engaged in the a meeting of the Conservative two Tories in 1931, both conceded component cotton industry upon which Pres- Council would be held in the near one seat to the Liberal Nationals in ton was still largely dependent. But future at which a National candi- 1935. The second factor was that parts of the he was not a Conservative. With date would be recommended for a reasonably strong Liberal tradi- what turned out to be misplaced adoption. Invitations would be sent tion clearly persisted in Preston. National confidence, Collison declared that to the Liberal Nationals to send Liberal candidates had taken one ‘we have been promised the full representatives to the adoption of the Preston seats at each of the Government backing of the Liberal National meeting. Collison quickly made it general elections of 1922, 1923 and Organisation in London’. Mean- known that it was ‘not likely’ that 1929. Significantly, however, and could only while, the Preston Conservative Liberal Nationals would attend unusually, these Liberal successes Association declined, for the time such a meeting. He ‘could not say’ had been achieved in tandem with work to the being, to comment on the situation whether they would go ahead with Labour candidates. There was, that had arisen.19 a candidate of their own. Mean- therefore, apart from 1931 itself, lit- advantage A public dispute between the while, however, rumours grew tle recent tradition of Liberal–Con- component parts of the National that the orthodox Liberal Party in servative cooperation upon which of Labour Government could only work to Preston would come forward with to build. the advantage of Labour and, if their own candidate in the hope The Lancashire Daily Post and, if they they decided to put forward a can- of attracting the support of those reported the situation at the end didate of their own, the independ- Liberals and Liberal Nationals who of October 1936. The ‘interesting decided to ent Liberals. Douglas Hacking, had backed the Conservatives at the question of the moment’, it sug- put forward newly appointed Conservative general election.24 gested, was whether it would be Party chairman, speaking in neigh- By the end of October it was possible for an agreement to be a candidate bouring Leyland, called for unity clear that the Conservatives reached between the Conservatives between the National parties. intended to nominate Captain and ‘those Liberals who support of their own, ‘They are not yet ready’, he sug- Edward Cobb. Born in the Falkland the National Government’ to run a gested, ‘to have differences of opin- Islands and educated at Sandhurst, Liberal National candidate. Infor- the inde- ion.’20 The possibility of the sort of Cobb had served with distinc- mal discussions were known to compromise that Hacking hoped tion in the First World War before have taken place between the local pendent for seemed to have increased when becoming a member of the London leaders of the two parties, but ‘so it was announced that a joint meet- County Council in 1925. There he far as can be ascertained there seems Liberals. ing of the executives of the Preston had interested himself mainly in

Journal of Liberal History 75 Summer 2012 23 the 1936 preston by-election questions of education and slum be influenced by a few extremists this object. Offering an assurance clearance, serving for a time as who are least able to judge what is that, by the time of the next gen- chairman of the Council’s Educa- best in the interests of the National eral election, ‘an extended list’ of tion Committee. An experienced Government in this by-election’.28 Liberal Nationals would be seek- platform speaker and wholehearted In response Seddon Brown merely ing the endorsement of the elector- supporter of the National Gov- insisted that the Conservative ate, he insisted that the immediate ernment, he had no obvious con- choice had been determined solely need was for Conservative, Liberal nection with Preston apart from by the need to select a candidate National and National Labour sup- serving on the London County capable of holding the seat. That porters to unite behind Cobb to Council alongside Adrian Moreing, being the case, ‘the preference for ensure that a candidate support- now the other sitting Conservative Feelings ran Captain Cobb was inevitable’.29 ing the National Government was MP for Preston.25 As Cobb opened his campaign, returned to parliament.33 Feelings ran high among the high among rifts among the Liberal Nation- If Blindell’s visit had been Liberal Nationals of Preston that the Liberal als became apparent. No Liberal designed to draw a line under the they had to make a stand. The out- Nationals signed Cobb’s nomina- spat between Liberal Nationals and come, suggested one activist, would Nationals tion papers, but one member of Conservatives in Preston, it evi- provide an acid test not only of the the local party’s executive, Coun- dently failed. After a meeting on honesty of the Conservatives’ pro- of Preston cillor J. J. Ward, appeared on the 17 November, the Liberal National fessions of good faith and goodwill platform at Cobb’s first election executive announced that it had towards their Liberal allies, but also that they meeting and spoke on his behalf. been unanimously agreed that the of the ability of those allies to stand Meanwhile it was announced that party would take no public part in up for their reasonable rights. If the had to make the Liberal National chief whip, Sir the by-election. The only advice Tories succeeded in enforcing their James Blindell, would be making they were prepared to give to the will, this would mean that ‘never a stand. The an early appearance in the constitu- ‘Liberals of Preston’ was to act under any circumstances’ could the ency to support the Conservative according to their own judgement. small number of Liberal National outcome, candidate.30 At the same time Bar- The official statement of the meet- MPs be increased.26 Collison moved low finally withdrew from the con- ing continued: quickly to dispel the idea that the suggested test ‘because of the inadvisability of nomination of Sir John Barlow had splitting the National vote’. He did, We consider that we have not, as been designed to bounce the Con- one activist, however, put on record his view Liberals, had a fair deal … It did servatives into submission. There that, granted the support given by not seem unreasonable on our had, he insisted, been no intention would pro- ‘Preston Liberals’ to the two Con- part to ask that we might on this to embarrass the Tories by put- servative candidates in both the occasion, in a double-barrelled ting a Liberal National into the vide an acid general elections of 1931 and 1935, seat, have the opportunity of field. Indeed, several meetings had test not only it was ‘very unfortunate that you nominating a Liberal National been held between the leaders of should receive such unsympathetic and more especially when we the two parties to discuss the pos- of the hon- treatment at the present time’.31 had offered to us the services of sibility of Barlow’s candidature, Such actions by the Conservatives so able a man as Sir John Barlow, and it was not until the idea was esty of the ‘cannot enthuse would-be Liberal who has spent all his life in the brought before the Conservatives’ supporters’.32 cotton trade, and who would Emergency Committee, when they Conserva- Prior to his appearance in the have made an admirable member ‘refused absolutely to consider any constituency, Blindell met Preston for a constituency dependent on candidate but a Tory’, that Barlow’s tives’ pro- Liberal National leaders in Man- the cotton trade and whose only name was first published and then chester. He denied, however, that disqualification was that he was only to the Executive Committee fessions of the meeting had been used to try not a Tory. of the Liberal Nationals. According to persuade him not to speak in to Collison, ever since the general good faith the by-election campaign. Yet the The Conservatives had sacrificed election the Liberal Nationals had absence of Liberal National officials a ‘unique opportunity’ of making been encouraged to believe that, in and goodwill when the chief whip delivered his the government ‘more National’. In the event of a vacancy, the Tories speech in Preston on 10 November the whole of the North-West area, would look favourably upon a Lib- towards their did not go unnoticed and offered consisting of Lancashire, Westmor- eral National candidate in recogni- an ironic commentary on his plea land, Cheshire and the High Peak tion of the loyal support given to Liberal allies, to maintain a spirit of cooperation division of Derbyshire, Liberal Conservative candidates at both between the parties to ensure that Nationals held just two seats out of the general elections of 1931 and but also of the National Government contin- a total of eighty-three. ‘We do not 1935. ‘We do not think it unreason- the ability of ued for many years to come. Blin- question for a moment the wisdom able on our part’, he concluded, ‘to dell declared that that cooperation of the National Government, but ask that Sir John Barlow should those allies could be extended by giving the we consider that if we are expected be the National candidate in this smaller parties a larger representa- to continue supporting the Gov- by-election.’27 With Cobb duly to stand up tion in the House of Commons, but ernment as Liberals we ought to adopted, there was now a grave had to admit that, notwithstanding have more adequate representa- danger, Collison predicted, that the for their the ‘utmost measure of goodwill’ tion in the House of Commons.’34 seat would be lost. In that situation prevailing between the Conserva- The freedom in which Liberals the blame would lie not with the reasonable tive and Liberal National organisa- in the constituency were thus left Liberal Nationals but with ‘those tions, it had not proved possible to was emphasised when the main- who have allowed themselves to rights. utilise the by-election to achieve stream party, which had by now

24 Journal of Liberal History 75 Summer 2012 the 1936 preston by-election decided not to field a candidate, the Conservatives involved the The whole weeks later. In an article in the Lib- also declared that it would give no possibility of electoral annihila- eral National Magazine he argued guidance to its supporters on how tion that could not be risked. Simon episode was that interparty cooperation would to vote.35 himself sent Cobb an eve-of-poll only be real if, in appropriate These developments created message of support. Yet he too must grist to the constituencies, the banner of the considerable uncertainty over the have hoped that the Preston result National Government was car- outcome of the by-election itself. would emphasise the indispensa- mill of the ried by Liberals and not by Con- As one newspaper put it on poll- bility of his party, no matter what servatives. So far, Conservatives ing day, ‘guessing at the verdict its strength in the House of Com- mainstream had paid lip service to this idea, is rendered especially difficult, mons. And the whole episode was but done little about it.42 Later that mainly because the Liberal force is grist to the mill of the mainstream Liberal Party. year, at the conference of the Scot- an unknown quantity, both as to Liberal Party. Writing in the West- Writing in tish Liberal Nationals in Peebles, actual strength and as to the direc- minster Newsletter, Ramsay Muir considerable discussion arose over a tion in which it will be exerted’.36 claimed that the Liberal Nationals the Westmin- resolution moved by the chairman The ‘Liberal vote’ in Preston was had been ‘brutally turned down’ by of the Edinburgh Area Council on variously estimated at anything the Conservatives and now knew ster Newslet- the subject of the party’s represen- between 3,000 and 10,000 votes – or ought to know – ‘what treat- tation in parliament. It declared and, while both the Conservative ment they may expect from their ter, Ramsay that the number of Liberal National and Labour candidates expressed masters’. 40 members was in no way propor- confidence that they would pick Liberal Nationals were unlikely Muir claimed tionate to the volume of Liberal up the majority of it, the Liverpool to let the issue of their under-rep- supporters of the National Govern- Daily Post suspected that ‘a big pro- resentation in the House of Com- that the Lib- ment throughout the country and portion’ would opt for Labour, ‘if mons drop. Bernays returned to the requested that measures be taken only “in revenge” for the rejection question at the beginning of 1937. eral Nation- to ensure the return of an increased of a Liberal National nominee in If the National Government were number of MPs. Significantly, from this by-election’.37 to be other than a ‘fraud on the als had the platform, Lord Hutchison, In the circumstances the result electorate’, he insisted, a separate chairman of the Liberal National was something of an anti-climax Liberal National identity must be been ‘bru- Council, suggested that more pro- with Cobb holding on to the seat preserved. For this to be guaran- gress might be made by winning for the government with a narrow teed a change in the present imbal- tally turned new seats rather than taking over but clear majority of 1,605 votes ance of forces in the Commons was existing government seats from the over F. G. Bowles, the Labour can- a prerequisite: down’ by the Conservatives.43 didate.38 Significantly, Miss Flor- Conserva- Over the remaining years before ence White of Bradford, standing The two-member constituencies the outbreak of the Second World as a single-issue Independent can- afford an obvious opportunity tives and War (or, to put it another way, didate in support of spinsters’ pen- to increase Liberal representa- before the anticipated date of the sions, secured as many as 3,221 tion and a chance was lost of now knew next general election), it appeared votes, enough to determine the increasing Liberal representation that some progress was being outcome of the contest. The result at the recent Preston by-elec- – or ought made. The Liberal National Maga- was a clear disappointment for tion. I realise the difficulty of zine reported that Liberal National Labour. ‘The truth is’, suggested persuading local Conservative to know – candidates had been selected to the Liverpool Post, that Labour was associations to make any sacri- fight a number of constituencies ‘in a very weak state in the coun- fice in Party representation, but ‘what treat- at the next general election, none try just now … It is distracted and a plain and unequivocal recom- of which had been contested by divided and therefore is making no mendation by the Leader of the ment they the party in 1935. The list included progress. It looks, in short, as if it Conservative Party on occa- Manchester (Clayton), Chesterfield, has reached its ultimate strength.’39 sion, when the Liberal Nationals may expect Dewsbury, Doncaster, Gower, But the result was also a blow for have obvious claims to the seat, Hackney South, Hanley, Moth- the Liberal Nationals. The Pres- would be unlikely to be ignored. from their erwell, Sheffield (Hillsborough), ton party must have hoped that South Shields and Swansea East. their abstention from the campaign But, Bernays argued, the Liberal masters’. But the degree of Conservative would lead to clear evidence of Nationals themselves could not concession involved in this exercise their crucial value to the govern- escape a share of the responsibility was very limited. Two of these seats ment. This wish had not been ful- for their present inadequate repre- had been contested by National filled. The implications of this went sentation. They should be far more Labour candidates in 1935 and a way beyond Preston. Those Con- ready than they were to take on third by a ‘National’ candidate servatives who had always been hopeless contests. Their claim to without further qualification; in uneasy about the ‘coalition’ which the Preston seat would have been a fourth the Labour Party had not the National Government involved much stronger had they been will- been opposed. The remaining seven could now argue that their party ing to fight the earlier by-election had previously fielded a Conserva- was fully capable of securing a par- at Clay Cross where the govern- tive, but in none of the eleven seats liamentary majority on its own. ment had faced a Labour majority had the government candidate been The Liberal National hierarchy in of 15,000.41 successful. In other words, it would London had had no alternative but William Mabane, Liberal probably require a stronger over- to disown their Preston colleagues. National MP for Huddersfield, all performance by the National They knew that a serious rift with took up the same theme a few Government at the next general

Journal of Liberal History 75 Summer 2012 25 the 1936 preston by-election election compared to 1935 for that the Labour Party was unfit 10 The Times, 18 May 1936. 33 Manchester Guardian, 11 Nov. the Liberal Nationals to secure to govern. 11 Ibid., 20 May 1936. 1936. any increase in their parliamen- 12 Ibid. 34 Liverpool Daily Post, 18 Nov. 1936. tary representation. Granted David Dutton’s History of the 13 Ibid., 27 May 1936. 35 Ibid., 20 Nov. 1936. that the earlier contest had itself Liberal Party since 1900 (Pal- 14 Ibid., 30 May 1936. 36 Ibid., 25 Nov. 1936. produced a government major- grave Macmillan) is scheduled 15 The result of the 1935 general 37 The Times, 20 Nov. 1936; Liver- ity of 248, this was inherently for publication at the end of 2012. election was as follows: pool Daily Post, 23 and 25 Nov. unlikely. His book Liberals in Schism: A A. C. Moreing (Con.) 37,219 1936. Fighting hopeless seats as a History of the National Lib- W. M. Kirkpatrick (Con.) 36,797 38 The full result was preliminary to laying claim to eral Party (I.B. Tauris) is to be R. A. Lyster (Lab.) 32,225 E. C. Cobb (Con.) 32,575 more promising constituen- re-issued in paperback at around the R. L. Reiss (Lab.) 31,827. F. G. Bowles (Lab.) 30,970 cies had, of course, been part of same time. 16 Lancashire Daily Post, 20 Oct. Miss F. White (Independent) Bernays’s suggested strategy. 1936. 3,221 But it meant postponing any 1 I am grateful to Professor Ver- 17 Liverpool Daily Post, 21 Oct. 1936. Cobb represented Preston until adjustment to the Conserva- non Bogdanor for this insight. 18 Ibid., 22 Oct. 1936. standing down at the general tive–Liberal National parlia- 2 In 1935 Sir Ian Macpherson, 19 Lancashire Daily Post, 21 Oct. election of 1945, at which he mentary imbalance into the Liberal National MP for Ross 1936. unsuccessfully contested Eton indefinite future. Securing Lib- and Cromarty, was elevated to 20 Ibid. and Slough. At Moreing’s death eral National nominations at the peerage as Baron Strathcar- 21 Ibid., 23 Oct. 1936. in 1940 he protested, to no avail, the expense of local Conserva- ron. In the resulting by-elec- 22 Liverpool Daily Post, 27 Oct. 1936. against the nomination of Win- tive parties which believed they tion Malcolm MacDonald was 23 Lancashire Daily Post, 27 Oct. ston Churchill’s son, Randolph, had themselves a reasonable elected as National Labour MP, 1936. as Conservative candidate. prospect of electoral success despite the intervention of Win- 24 Liverpool Daily Post, 28 Oct. 1936. Churchill was duly elected, was never going to be easy. The ston Churchill’s son, Randolph, 25 Manchester Guardian, 31 Oct. unopposed, under the terms of Tory MP, Cuthbert Headlam, as an ‘Independent Conserva- 1936. the wartime electoral truce, but who had captured the marginal tive’. B. Roberts, Randolph: a 26 Lancashire Daily Post, 2 Nov. Cobb threatened to stand down seat of Barnard Castle in Co. Study of Churchill’s Son (London, 1936, letter from Frederick at the next general election. The Durham from Labour in 1924, 1984), pp. 152–6; E. A. Cam- Hindle. two men clashed openly in Sep- lost it in 1929 and won it back eron, ‘“Rival foundlings”: the 27 Ibid., 3 Nov. 1936. tember 1942 after Churchill pub- again in 1931, recorded a meet- Ross and Cromarty by-elec- 28 Liverpool Daily Post, 4 Nov. 1936. licly criticised the Conservative ing with the Conservative chief tion, 10 February 1936’, His- 29 Manchester Guardian, 5 Nov. Party. Cobb now made it clear whip, David Margesson: torical Research 81, 213 (2008), pp. 1936. that he would not run in harness 507–30. 30 Ibid., 7 Nov. 1936. with someone who had been dis- I had ‘an interview’ with 3 Bodleian Library, Oxford, 31 Liverpool Daily Post, 10 Nov. 1936. loyal to the party, but he had in David Margesson in the Simon MSS 7, diary 5 Dec. 1935. 32 Letter from Barlow to Colli- fact already agreed to resign his evening and talked to him 4 Ibid., diary 22 Oct. 1935. son, published in Liverpool Daily seat because he lived too far from about his ‘Co-ordinating’ 5 Liberal National Magazine, vol. 2, Post, 10 Nov. 1936. Barlow’s Preston to give his constituency committee (the body which no. 1, Nov. 1936. troubled relationship with the the attention it merited. Rob- gives away seats to the Nat. 6 John Simon (Home Secretary), Liberal National Party contin- erts, Churchill, pp. 193, 233–4. Lab. and Lib. Nat. candi- Walter Runciman (President ued. In 1943 he was passed over 39 Liverpool Daily Post, 26 Nov. 1936. dates) – I told him exactly of the Board of Trade), God- as candidate for a by-election 40 Manchester Guardian, 10 Dec. what would be the effect of frey Collins (Scottish Secretary) at Eddisbury in Cheshire when 1936. giving away seats in Dur- and Ernest Brown (Minister of local Tory farmers succeeded 41 Liberal National Magazine, vol. 2, ham. He was civil enough Labour). in championing the claims of no. 3, Jan. 1937. and appeared to understand 7 Ramsay MacDonald (Lord Pres- Thomas Peacock. The latter 42 Ibid., vol. 2, no. 5, April 1937. me, even admitting that he ident of the Council), Malcolm stood as a Liberal National, but 43 Dumfries and Galloway Standard had wished he had consulted MacDonald (Dominions Secre- was not known to have had any and Advertiser, 6 Oct. 1937. me before playing the fool.44 tary) and Jimmy Thomas (Colo- previous association with the 44 S. Ball (ed.), Parliament and Politics nial Secretary). party. Peacock lost the seat to in the Age of Baldwin and MacDon- When the next general elec- 8 When Lord Hutchison suggested the Common Wealth candidate, ald: the Headlam Diaries 1921–1935 tion, postponed by six years of that Liberal Nationals might be John Loverseed. Barlow did suc- (Historians’ Press, 1992), p. 330. war, was finally held in 1945, attracting as many as four mil- ceed in recapturing Eddisbury many of these pre-war arrange- lion votes to the government’s for the Liberal Nationals in the ments were honoured and Lib- total, his calculations were ridi- general election of 1945, only to eral National candidates duly culed by Archibald Sinclair, the see the constituency disappear went into battle. In the face, new leader of the Liberal Party. as a result of boundary changes however, of a marked pro- Liberal Magazine, vol. XLIV, no. in 1950. Perhaps sensing that Labour swing, none was suc- 513, June 1936. life was easier as a Tory, Barlow cessful. By that time, of course, 9 Herbrand Edward Dundonald was elected as Conservative MP the National Government itself Brassey Sackville, 9th Earl de la for Middleton and Prestwich was a thing of the past, at least Warr (1900–76), Lord Privy Seal at the general election of 1951 in the sense that it had been (1937–8), President of the Board and evolved into an archetypal conceived in 1931, and the elec- of Education (1938–40), First ‘knight of the shire’. He held the torate was ready decisively to Commissioner of Works (1940), seat until defeated in the general reject that government’s mantra Postmaster-General (1951–5). election of 1966.

26 Journal of Liberal History 75 Summer 2012