Journal of Liberal Democrat History

issue 17 Winter 1997–98 £3.00 Liberals Unite The Origins of Liberal International

Scottish Devolution Reports The Grimond Years Religion and the Liberal Party From Beveridge to Blair: Reform of the Young Liberals Welfare State The ‘Red Guard’ Era Reviews Harry Willcock The Liberal Democrats The Forgotten Champion of Liberalism The Strange Death of Liberal England

Liberal Democrat History Group Issue 17: Winter 1997–98 The Journal of Liberal Democrat 3 Liberals Unite The Origins Of Liberal International History 1997 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of The Journal of Liberal Democrat Liberal International. Dr Julie Smith traces the events of History is published quarterly by 1947. the Liberal Democrat History Group. 6 Scottish Devolution: The Grimond Years The History Group promotes the After almost 300 years, Scotland is to have a Parliament discussion and research of historical again. Dr Geoffrey Sell examines the role of Jo Grimond topics, particularly those relating to the histories of the Liberal Demo- in the story of Scottish devolution. crats, Liberal Party and the SDP. Contributions to the Journal – 10 Report: Religion and the Liberal Party letters, articles, and book reviews – Evening meeting, July 1997, with Alan Beith MP and are invited. Please type them and if Jonathan Parry. Report by Nick South. possible enclose a computer file on disc. Contributions should be sent to the Editor at the address below. 12 Report: From Beveridge to Blair Fringe meeting, September 1997, with Frank Field MP and For more information on the Liberal Democrat History Group, Nick Timmins. Report by David Cloke. including details of back issues of the Newsletter, tape records of 14 Young Liberals: the ‘Red Guard’ Era meetings. ‘Mediawatch’, Peter Hellyer argues that foreign policy issues had a ‘Thesiswatch’ and Research in Progress services, see our web site: crucial role to play in the growth of the Young Liberals in http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/ the 1960s and ’70s. ~dbrack/ldhg/index.html

16 Harry Willcock Editorial/Correspondence Duncan Brack (Editor) The Forgotten Champion of Liberalism Flat 9, 6 Hopton Road, Mark Egan remembers the Liberal who helped ensure that London SW16 2EQ. British citizens today are not compelled to carry identity email: [email protected]. cards. Subscriptions/Membership A subscription to the Journal of 18 Review: Who Did It? Liberal Democrat History costs George Dangerfield: The Strange Death of Liberal £7.50 (£4.00 unwaged rate); this England. Reviewed by Graham Lippiatt. includes membership of the History Group unless you inform us other- wise. Send a cheques (payable to 19 Review: Building the Party ‘Liberal Democrat History Group’) Don MacIver (ed), The Liberal Democrats. to Patrick Mitchell, 6 Palfrey Place, Reviewed by Tony Little. London SW8 1PA. Published by Liberal Democrat History Group, c/o Flat 9, 6 Hopton Road, London Front page photo: SW16 2EQ. The founders of Liberal International at Wadham College, Printed by Kall-Kwik, 426 Chiswick Oxford, April 1947. High Road, London W4 5TF. Reproduced with the kind permission of Liberal International. January 1998.

2 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 Liberals Unite The Origins Of Liberal International 1997 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of Liberal International. Dr Julie Smith traces the events of 1947.

History is made by those who follow a political ideal. position in the headquarters of the Allied Land Forces in Oslo. MacCallum Scott was keen to Sceptics merely look on. set up some sort of international liberal organi- Roger Motz, Opening Address at the Mondorf-les- sation and so, equipped with the names of some Bains Congress, 19 August 1953. Norwegian liberals, he soon made contact with, inter alia, former members of the Norwegian In November  liberals from around the world resistance Halfdan Christophersen and Johan Andresen. MacCallum Scott explained his de- descended on Oxford to celebrate the fiftieth sire to initiate international cooperation and anniversary of the Liberal International (World quickly won support from his Norwegian con- Liberal Union). Some of the participants were tacts, who offered to host a meeting with Brit- ish liberals to discuss the matter further. returning personally to the place where they had MacCallum Scott wrote to the British Lib- helped to found LI in April . eral Party to announce the Norwegian offer, but the party was preoccupied by domestic politics Liberal International was established in the in the aftermath of the disastrous results of the wake of the Second World War, but interna-  election. He also, however, wrote to  in- tional liberal contact can be traced back much dividual liberals and the response was far more further. In particular, European liberals met positive. In particular, Sir Percy Harris, who had from , and in  the Entente des Partis been Liberal Chief Whip until he lost his seat Libéraux et Démocratiques similaires was formally in , offered a great deal of support. Sir Percy established. The Entente met regularly suggested resurrecting the Entente, but throughout the next decade, bringing together MacCallum Scott wanted the new organisation liberals from across Europe, including British to have a much stronger administrative capacity Prime Minister David Lloyd George and than the Entente had had. Thus, the first stage in French premier Edouard Herriot, but ceased the project was the creation of the British Lib- to meet in , when the international situ- eral International Council (BLIC) – subse- ation made cooperation too complex. Inter- quently renamed Liberal International (British national cooperation among young liberals Group) – with Sir Percy as its President. took place within the Union of Radical and The Belgian Liberal Party celebrated its cen- Democratic Youth, which was established in tenary in . Its leader, Senator Roger Motz, . The Union in particular fostered liberal also supported the idea of international liberal contacts which were later to be of use in set- cooperation. He therefore invited many liberals ting up Liberal International. from across Europe to the centenary celebra- In the aftermath of the Second World War, tions held in June , when he took the op- renewed ideas for liberal cooperation emerged portunity to discuss closer cooperation. Repre- from two sources, one Anglo-Norwegian and sentatives of the Belgian, British, Danish, Dutch, one Belgian. They were in part a response to French, Italian, Swedish and Swiss liberal par- increasing globalisation and a sense that the ties attended the lavish gathering in Brussels. nation state was becoming outdated; in part a Among those present were Spanish exile Salva- reaction to international insecurity and the au- dor de Madariaga, Danish liberal Hermod thoritarianism of the left and of the right which Lannung and the Anglo-Italian Max Salvadori, had led to two world wars. all of whom were later to play a large part in In  John MacCallum Scott took up a Liberal International.

journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 3 One difficulty which had eral Party, the actual organisation of ent of parties and open to people emerged in Oslo – that there were the Conference fell to MacCallum who were not members of political usually as many different opinions as Scott and the British Liberal Inter- parties. The Italian Professor Giovanni there were liberals present – also national Council. Wadham College, Cassandro rejected this view, saying proved true in Brussels. Neverthe- Oxford, the alma mater of both that liberal principles in the form of less, there was enough consensus for MacCallum Scott and Halfdan a manifesto should be ‘entrusted to agreement to be reached on the Christopherson, was chosen as the political groups organised in the Declaration of Brussels, which set venue, since it was hoped that the form of a party’. Dr Pavel Tigrid, a out basic liberal principles. There was Oxford setting might mask the aus- Czechoslovak delegate, pointed out further progress towards cooperation terity measures still prevailing in Brit- that this would impede growth since when, at the end of the celebrations, ain. Representatives from nineteen while individuals living in totalitar- British Liberal leader Clement Davies countries – Austria, Belgium, Canada, ian regimes might be able to form announced: ‘And next year we shall Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, groups, there was little hope of lib- eral parties emerging and affiliating. A sub-committee was set up to The manifesto appears uncontentious in consider the question and a compro- the 1990s. However, in the 1940s its mise solution was adopted to the ef- fect that each country should deter- opposition to totalitarianism was extremely mine the constitution of its own significant. group, thus allowing group and party affiliation. This question prefigured a long-running tension within LI all meet again to resume our labours. Finland, France, Germany, Great over the relative merits of individual On behalf of my colleagues here and Britain, Hungary, Italy, Norway, versus party membership. Since my party at home, I invite you all, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Swit- many of those present in Oxford, in- and many, many more, to join us in zerland, Turkey and the United States cluding MacCallum Scott, had only Britain at a conference of Liberals – attended the Conference. Del- loose ties with their national parties, of the World.’ This was one of the egates included such eminent figures there was strong support for the con- few occasions when the British Lib- as Theodor Heuss, Roger Motz, cept of an organisation based on eral Party, as opposed to active and René Pleven and Viscount Samuel. group affiliation. However, over the enthusiastic individual British liber- Among the main topics consid- years this position shifted. The last- als, helped set the agenda for LI. The ered in Oxford was the organisation ever individual member, the then offer was immediately accepted and of the proposed international body Bulgarian President Zheliou Zhelev, led to the Oxford Congress of – and the drafting of a manifesto. The joined in ; in  he became a  April . Congress considered the Oslo draft patron and hence, no longer tech- The conference planned for Au- manifesto, which was partly based on nically an individual member. LI gust  in Oslo became essentially the Declaration of Brussels, and also groups have continued, but over the a preparatory meeting for the Oxford a Belgian draft, in turn based on the years liberal parties have come to Congress. It was a select group who Oslo draft and the Declaration of play a much larger part. met in Rasjøen, north of Oslo: five Brussels. In terms of organisation The Congress finally adopted the Norwegians, four Britons and Mrs J. there was a tension between those name Liberal International (World Borden Harriman, the former US who favoured cooperation between Liberal Union) and a Provisional Ex- Ambassador to Norway, were present. liberal parties and those who ecutive Committee was elected. As Halfdan Christophersen stated, the thought such cooperation should be Among those on the Executive were aims of the conference were: ‘first of among individuals or groups. Roger Sir Percy Harris, Don Salvador de all to define liberalism, and secondly Motz suggested the British example, Madariaga, Roger Motz and John to consider the practical means by where the British Liberal Interna- MacCallum Scott. Willi Bretscher, the which the liberal outlook could be tional Council worked with the Lib- editor of the Swiss liberal newspaper spread more widely throughout the eral Party. However, Sir Percy Harris Neue Zürcher Zeitung, joined the ex- world’. A British draft manifesto had pointed out that the BLIC was quite ecutive in January  following the been prepared in advance and this was independent of the Liberal Party. death of the Swiss representative discussed at Rasjøen, leading to the The majority of the delegates sup- Dietrich Schindler. De Madariaga be- adoption of an Oslo draft manifesto, ported Sir Percy’s argument that the came the first President of Liberal In- which provided a starting point for new organisation (the name Liberal ternational, while Sir Percy Harris discussion in Oxford. International had not yet been and Willi Bretscher both played a key Although Clement Davies had is- adopted) should be independent of role in the early years. Representa- sued the invitation for the  Con- parties, with the councils or groups tives of some of the larger liberal par- ference on behalf of the British Lib- set up in other countries independ- ties also pledged financial support.

4 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 A sub-committee was also ap- nomic liberalism. The importance of to improve LI’s finances, with some pointed to produce a new draft mani- international cooperation as a way of success. Despite being involved in festo taking the views expressed by averting war was also considered. national political life, however, the delegates into consideration. The Liberal International was born in Malagodi was not a world figure, and results of their deliberations were the aftermath of world war and grew LI’s salience remained limited. adopted in the form of the Oxford up in the shadow of the Cold War. With the election to the presi- Manifesto. Liberal International had The aim was to bring together lib- dency in  of the then leader of been created. erals from all parts of the globe, but the German Free Democrats, Dr The manifesto signed by the in the early years its membership was Otto Graf Lamsdorff, LI finally had founders of Liberal International ap- primarily European and the main a leader of world standing – a factor pears uncontentious in the s. focus of its work was on European which also helped former British However, in the s its opposition affairs. In the early years a great deal Liberal leader Sir David (now Lord) to totalitarianism was extremely sig- of time and effort were devoted to Steel conduct a highly successful nificant. Changes in the international questions concerning European secu- presidency from  to . environment in the last fifty years rity and the dangers of communism Lambsdorff and the FDP viewed his have led LI to draw up other mani- and the majority of its members were presidency as part of his work as festos: the Oxford Declaration of (West) European. As its name suggests, party leader, with mutual benefits; he , the  Rome Appeal, and a however, LI was intended to be a thus benefited from support from his new manifesto drafted by Liberal world organisation and over the years political advisers. Similarly, the cur- Democrat peer Lord Wallace of it evolved substantially. Decolonisation rent president and Dutch VVD Saltaire and widely discussed by all and the emergence of new democ- leader, Frits Bolkestein, is supported LI member parties, for adoption at racies across the world offered scope by the party’s International Officer. the Fiftieth Anniversary Congress. for expansion, and Liberal Interna- Such party involvement in the presi- Nevertheless, the basic principles es- tional made concerted efforts to at- dency inevitably gives it greater poused in the  manifesto remain tract liberal parties in Latin America, weight. Over the years, however, na- as valid in the s as in the s. Africa and Asia. Moreover, with the tional parties have gradually become Among its most salient points collapse of communism in Europe more aware of LI and its potential, were a commitment to freedom and in  a large number of new lib- which has helped expand the mem- the fundamental rights of citizens, eral parties emerged, mainly of bership and also encouraged parties with particular emphasis laid on the which sought membership of LI. to play a more active part once in- need for ‘true democracy’, which the Liberal International has also be- side LI. These changes have been en- manifesto asserts is: ‘inseparable from come a more professional body dur- hanced by the work of Belgian lib- political liberty and is based on the ing its first half century. Initially it was eral Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, conscious, free and enlightened con- dominated by individuals with few now Deputy President, but for sev- sent of the majority, expressed party links. MacCallum Scott was a eral years Treasurer, who recognised through a free and secret ballot, with prime example, and Don Salvador de the need to put the organisation of due respect for the liberties and Madariaga, LI’s first president, was a a sound footing, and by the mid- opinions of minorities’. Similarly, the Spanish liberal exile with little politi- s had achieved her aim. Now, in , Liberal Interna- tional is a truly worldwide organi- Inseparable from political liberty and sation, with a sound operational and based on the conscious, free and financial structure, able to help fos- ter the forces of liberalism and de- enlightened consent of the majority, mocracy around the world – as its expressed through a free and secret ballot, founders envisaged  years ago. with due respect for the liberties and Dr Julie Smith is a Teaching Fellow at opinions of minorities. the Centre of International Studies, Cambridge, and Fellow of Robinson College, Cambridge. manifesto stressed the importance of cal clout. De Madariaga’s successor, economic freedom, without which Roger Motz, was very much an ex- This article is based on the author’s book, political freedom was rendered im- ception in the early period of LI as A Sense of Liberty: The History of possible. The signatories rejected ex- an active national party leader. The the Liberal International –, cessive power, be it of states or busi- Italian liberal Giovanni Malagodi, published by Liberal International in No- ness monopolies; nor was public who was LI president twice (– vember . welfare ignored. Thus the manifesto  and –), attempted to inte- reflected aspects of social and eco- grate national parties more fully, and Concluded on page . journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 5 Scottish Devolution The Grimond Years After 300 years, Scotland is to have a Parliament again. Dr Geoffrey Sell examines the role of Jo Grimond in the story of Scottish devolution.

For the first time since the Act of Union of , encouraged some to demand the same thing for Scotland. Between  and , Scottish Scotland will soon have its own directly-elected home rule was debated  times in Parliament. Parliament. The part played by the Liberal Party in A Liberal Bill for Scottish Home Rule reached and passed a second reading in ; the war, bringing this to fruition, and specifically that of Jo    however, interrupted its further passage. In Grimond, its leader from to , repays a federalist Scottish Home Rule Bill, supported examination. by Scotland’s Labour MPs, failed in the Com- Devolution, or home rule, is a very old issue mons. In  a Government of Scotland Bill in Scottish politics. It dates back at least to was talked out. the middle of the nineteenth century, and was The Labour Party, initially favourable to adopted as a policy by the Liberal Party in Liberal ideas on devolution, lost interest in the Scotland in . There has always been some s. For years Labour was seen as the party dissatisfaction with the Union and with the of the centralist state; in , Hugh Gaitskell way it worked. It was muted when govern- finally confirmed what had been clear for years, ment was minimal and when, in Sir Walter and told the Scottish Labour Party that Labour Scott’s words, Scotland was left ‘under the was now unionist and against home rule for guardianship of her own institutions, to win the Scots. It was against this failure that radical her silent way to national wealth and conse- Liberalism organised – for some  years, up quence’. But Scott also protested against what to , the most consistently distinctive fea- he saw as a ‘gradual and progressive system’ ture of its general election manifestos was the of assuming that Scottish interests were always regular call for Scottish and Welsh devolution. identical with English ones. Under Grimond’s leadership, the Liberal Contentment with the Union lasted until Party offered a critique of the British state that Gladstone’s proposal to give Ireland home rule focused on the erosion of the constitutional checks and balances necessary to provide safe- guards against executive dominance. Eccleshall suggests that the Liberals’ common anti-statist position gave them a distinctive ideological role in post-war Britain. Individuality required a centrifugal dispersal of power, involving elec- toral reform, devolution and a reform of local government, demonstrating a commitment to political pluralism. If socialism was about equal- ity then liberalism, for Grimond, was about freedom and participation. Participation was the carat of modern Liberal politics, standing in contradistinction to the bureaucratic elitism of socialism and the social elitism of the major strands of conservatism. Grimond appreciated that the extent to which the state embodied trust, participation and inclusion was the ex- tent to which those values were diffused through society at large.

6 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 Grimond’s commitment to devo- tish Covenant movement had man- lution continued unabated after he as- lution was in evidence from the be- aged to secure over a million signa- sumed the Liberal leadership in . ginning of his political career. As Ork- tures in favour of a Scottish Parlia- Asked in  if had a chance to ney and Shetland’s prospective can- ment. The movement never pen- bring one new Act of Parliament into didate in , he detected a lack of etrated national politics, however, being, what it would be, he replied enthusiasm in the country and a pes- and after  even this small flame unhesitatingly that it would be one simism about the future. This was be- began to gutter. It was not until the calling for some measure of devolu- cause people no longer felt responsi- early s that the issue began to tion. At the  Edinburgh Assem- ble for their own destinies; their lives attract significant support. bly a motion urging the early estab- were subject to controls which Undeterred, Grimond repeated lishment of a Scottish Parliament for seemed arbitrary and exasperating. ‘It his pledge to campaign for a Scottish Scottish affairs was passed. The mo- was not strong government we Parliament during the  election tion provided for the maximum needed,’ Grimond commented dur- campaign. It was necessary to ease amount of fiscal power in a Scottish ing the  general election, ‘but less the burden on the Westminster Par- Parliament consistent with close co- government, better government and government nearer home.’ That Grimond chose to devote It was not strong government we needed, his maiden speech to devolution is significant, for it distinguished him but less government, better government from most other Scottish MPs. Many and government nearer home. people, he believed, felt that the gov- ernment ‘was a remote and even a fairly hostile affair which is not their liament, and it was a step forward in operation in the UK and the Com- concern.’ The solution was to bring freedom which would not weaken, mon Market, and a Scottish Treasury government nearer to ordinary peo- but strengthen, the unity of the to levy taxation. (Significantly, despite ple. Opponents, he argued, ‘can soft Kingdom. Grimond was not a na- Liberal protestations, the Callaghan pedal the issue as much as they like, tionalist; he had no desire to sepa- government refused to entertain a but the feeling for it is growing. These rate from England. Liberals did not Scottish Assembly having any inde- sentiments found favour with the believe that devolution was another pendent powers of taxation in its Kilbrandon Report some  years word for nationalism; it was a logi- Scotland Bill of November .) later, which stated that it was widely cal response to the growing feeling To what extent did the Liberal felt that government was remote, in- of alienation in parts of the UK. Party’s espousal of devolution find a sensitive to the feelings of the peo- Grimond did not particularly like resonance amongst the Scottish elec- ple, and had inadequate machinery the word ‘devolution’, as it implied torate? During the  general elec- for the expression of grievances. that power rested at Westminster, tion campaign, Grimond was con- Grimond claimed that devolu- from ‘which centre some may be vinced that one of the big issues tion would never have been raised graciously devolved’. Enoch Powell’s would be the debate between cen- in the Debate on the Address in  aphorism, ‘power devolved is power tralisation and decentralisation. This had it not been for him and A. J. F. retained’, sums up that side of the concern was reflected in the Liberal Macdonald (Liberal MP for Rox- affair. Grimond would rather begin manifesto. It proposed a national plan, the keystone of which would be the If socialism was about equality then decentralisation of power and wealth from London. It believed there were liberalism, for Grimond, was about plenty of able men and women in Scotland who could make a bigger freedom and participation. contribution to the running of their own affairs. Launching the Scottish burghshire and Selkirkshire). The by assuming that power should rest Liberal Party’s supplement to the Liberal Party, Grimond argued, not with the people who entrusted it to manifesto, Grimond claimed that only thought of it first, but ‘we alone their representatives to discharge the Scots were faced with the decision have the plans for its practical appli- essential tasks of government. Once as to whether they were going to re- cation. We’ll punch that home it was accepted that Scotland was a tain or lose their identity as a nation. whenever we get the chance’. Al- nation, then it had to be accorded a More and more of the top level de- though the Party pursued a rather parliament with all the normal pow- cisions were taken in London and the lonely parliamentary furrow in its ers of government except for those whole tradition of Scottish democ- commitment to devolution, Grimond delegated to the United Kingdom racy was in danger of being swamped. detected a groundswell of support in government or the EEC. The Scottish Highlands were Scotland: in the late s the Scot- Grimond’s commitment to devo- perceived as fertile Liberal territory, journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 7 were confused about where the Party stood. An opinion poll taken in the Kelvingrove and Woodside ar- eas of Glasgow at the  election showed that only % of respond- ents thought that Liberals were in favour of giving Scotland home rule. % thought they were against and % didn’t know. These figures were disappointing, but Glasgow was a traditionally weak area for Liberals. During the latter part of the Grimond’s leadership, the SNP be- gan to make an electoral impact. It perhaps unconsciously positioned it- self as a classic protest party, as natu- ral a haven for those disillusioned with the two-party system, as was the Liberal Party. Its political philosophy, other than nationalism, was of a fa- miliar ‘plague on both your houses’ sort. It evolved during the s into a mixture of individualistic and anti- state leftism that mirrored the Lib- eral revival in England. The real SNP threat to Liberal hopes became ap- parent when William Wolfe, the par- ty’s chairman, polled nearly , votes in the  West Lothian byelection, and the Liberal candidate lost his deposit. The Liberal result was a ‘sharp reminder to the party of the fruits of years of neglect’ It was disturbing for it showed that the SNP had an ability to reach a sec- and Liberal commitment to devo- be more generously treated.’ In an tion of the electorate – the indus- lution was particularly stressed there. eve-of-poll message to Highland trial working class – where the Lib- An election advertisement in the electors he stated that ‘if you feel pa- eral Party was traditionally weak. Northern Times pictured two young triotism in yozU own land and the At the  general election the women school teachers. They be- North, you must vote Liberal tomor- SNP fielded  candidates and ob- lieved that Scotland had to run her row.’ This reference to colonialism tained .% of the Scottish vote. This own affairs in order to achieve the was repeated at the  Assembly increased to  candidates and .% prosperity of which she was capa- by leading Scottish Liberal John of the vote in . This had a trau- ble. The Liberal Party, they added, ‘in Bannerman. Occasionally, he re- matic effect on Scottish Liberals who offering a measure of Home Rule, marked, ‘we get visits from Tories had regarded the nationalists in the appeals to us, and therefore we want who like to see the natives. They early days as slightly errant Liberals a Liberal in Sutherland this time.’ come on safari from London.’ who tended to extremism on the That the Liberals were perceived With the Liberals acting as the home rule issue. The form of the re- as the most nationalist of the main pacesetter for devolution, why were lationship between the two parties parties was undoubtedly a factor be- they unable to prevent the rise of the bitterly divided Scottish Liberals. Just hind their electoral success in . Scottish National Party? Part of the before the  election there were Grimond was not slow to play the problem, Budge & Urwin suggest, attempts to reach an arrangement. nationalist card. He told Sutherland was a lack of communication with Wolfe persuaded the Scottish Na- Liberals that ‘we are in an area not the electorate. As was the case with tionalists to offer the Liberals an elec- only far from London generally but other pioneering Liberal policies toral pact if they would give top pri- also far from the thinking of people such as entry into the EEC, or the ority to their declared policy of a in London. If this was colonial ter- abolition of Britain’s independent federal Britain. The move foundered ritory I sometimes think we would nuclear deterrent, many electors as the SNP set impossibly rigid con-

8 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 ditions and the Liberals denounced Nevertheless, with his advocacy of Peebles in , and James Davidson’s separation. In March  the Scot- devolution and the creation of a victory in West Aberdeenshire in the tish Liberal Party issued the follow- Highlands and Islands Development  election, as had those in Russell ing statement: Board, Grimond was able to plant Johnston’s pamphlet Highland Develop- roots that have lasted until the present ment in . Nowhere is there a place in Liberal day. With the success in  of Ironically, Liberals MPs’ enthusi- policy for any separatism of the extreme Russell Johnston at Inverness, Alasdair asm for giving the Scottish people a character advocated by the Scottish Na- Mackenzie in Ross and Cromarty greater say in their own affairs did not always find an echo with their own electorates. The referendum re- ‘Occasionally,’ Bannerman remarked, ‘we sult of March  showed that both get visits from Tories who like to see the the Borders and Orkney and Shet- land voted against the Government’s natives. They come on safari from London.’ devolution plans. Fear of domination by a Labour-controlled central belt is still a powerful emotion. tionalists. For that reason there is no and George Mackie in Caithness and possibility of a pact with the National- Dr Geoffrey Sell is a college lecturer and Sutherland there was now a High- ists unless they agree to travel the Lib- a member of the History Group’s Com- land bloc of Liberal MPs who would eral road of federal home rule for the mittee. He recently completed his Ph.D champion their region’s interest at United Kingdom. thesis on ‘Liberal revival: British Liber- Westminster. The voice of the High- alism and Jo Grimond –.’ James Davidson, Liberal candi- lands would be clearly and forcefully date and subsequently MP for West heard; the periphery had struck back. Notes: Aberdeenshire, recalls that whereas The Liberal flag was hoisted in tri-  R. Eccleshall, British Liberalism (London: Grimond and Bannerman were in umph over , square miles of Longman, ) p. .    favour of maximum cooperation, Highland territory. Mackie exulted The Orcadian March .  Parl. Debs., vol. , col. ,  March Russell Johnston and George that it was now Liberal country all . Mackie took the diametrically op- the way from Muckle Flugga in the  Jo Grimond, A Personal Manifesto (Ox- posite point of view. John Mackay, Shetlands to Ballachulish in South- ford: Martin Robertson, ), p. . Liberal candidate for Argyll in  ern Invernesshire.  Northern Times  September , p. .  and  comments that it was the Further electoral success took place I. Budge and D. Urwin, Scottish Political Behaviour (Longman, ) ‘ever-closer moving to the SNP in against a background of policy work,  The Guardian  June .  and ’ that was the final in which the Party developed a re-  Completed questionnaire ( November straw in leading him to defect to the gional strategy. The ideas contained in ) received from J. Davidson, Liberal Conservatives. Incidentally, it was the pamphlets Boost for the Borders and candidate for West Aberdeenshire    not until the October  general A Plan for the North East played an im- and MP for the constituency – .  Completed questionnaire, ( Novem- election that the SNP first fielded a portant part in the dramatic byelection ber ) from Lord Mackay of candidate against Grimond. victory in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Ardbrecknish.

Research in Progress This column aims to assist research projects in progress. If you can help any of the individuals listed below with sources, contacts, or any other helpful information – or if you know anyone who can – please pass on details to them. If you know of any other research project in progress for inclusion in this column, please send details to the Editor at the address on page 2.

The Liberal Party and foreign and defence The grass roots organisation of the Liberal policy, 1922–88. Book and articles; of particular Party 1945–64; the role of local activists in the late interest is the 1920s and ’30s; and also the possibility of 1950s revival of the Liberal Party. Mark Egan, First Floor interviewing anyone involved in formulating the foreign Flat, 16 Oldfields Circus, Northolt, Middlesex UB5 4RR. and defence policies of the Liberal Party. Dr R. S. Grayson, 8 Millway Close, Oxford OX2 8BJ. The political and electoral strategy of the Liberal Party 1970–79. Individual constituency The Liberal Party 1945–56. Contact with members papers from this period, and contact with individuals who (or opponents) of the Radical Reform Group during the were members of the Party’s policy committees and/or the 1950s, and anyone with recollections of the leadership of Party Council, particularly welcome. Ruth Fox, 7 Mulberry Clement Davies, sought. Graham Lippiatt, 24 Balmoral Court, Bishop’s Stortford, Herts CM23 3JW. Road, South Harrow, HA2 8TD. journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 9 This, Parry argued, was the main reason for the Tory revival towards the end of the s. But the die had Reports been cast. While some lower mid- dle-class dissenters, suspicious of the political establishment which in- Religion and the Liberal Party cluded the Whigs, devoted their en- ergies to voluntarism, for the next Evening meeting, July 1997,  years the broad body of dissent- ers found themselves allied to the with Alan Beith MP and Jonathan Parry Liberal Party. Report by Nick South If, pre-, political liberals and religious dissenters were brought together by the latter’s practical In The Optimists, his study of Victorian Liberalism, Ian Bradley grievances, post-, with most of these resolved, the bond between begins his chapter on ‘The Nonconformist Conscience’ with nonconformists and Gladstone’s Gladstone’s comment in 1877 that ‘nonconformity supplies Liberal Party was increasingly built the backbone of English liberalism’ – and suggests that this around the shared language of con- science, morality and the crusade. In view would have been shared by supporters and critics of some ways, the pattern of this sec- Victorian nonconformity alike. ond period was similar to that of the first. The broadening of the Some Liberals, however, believed vided on the key issues of the day, franchise in  excited radicals, that their political creed had been by far the most controversial of and dissenters sprang to life, particu- made too ‘puritanical and provincial’ these issues were religious. By the larly over the issue of disestab- by the nonconformists; some non- end of the s, the Whigs were lishment. Gladstone’s commitment conformists believed their religion identified with dissenters and Irish in  to disestablishment of the had been compromised and subor- Catholics, and the Tories with die- Church of Ireland was seen by dis- dinated to the demands of politicians. hard churchmen. As the influence senters as a prelude to the disest- Nonconformists and Liberals may of the middle classes grew after ablishment of the Church in Eng- have been bound together by a ‘mu- , so did the influence of dis- land, Scotland and Wales. tual need and a certain mutual re- senters in the majority of large But this did not happen, for two spect’, but the relationship, Bradley towns. They had real grievances – reasons. The first success, in England suggests, was not always an easy one. over church rates, their exclusion at least, was that the dissenters’ in- This tension lay at the heart of the from Oxford and Cambridge, com- creasing enthusiasm and activism on historian Jonathan Parry’s analysis of pulsory Anglican marriage rites, and the issue frightened middle class An- the relationship between Liberals and the social stigma that flowed from glicans. Combined with the  dissenters when he spoke at the His- this discrimination. Education Act, this roused the An- tory Group AGM in July. But Parry’s Whig leaders were most sympa- glican community, revived the Con- conclusion was more damning: that thetic to these dissenting concerns, servatives, and led, in , to the all through the nineteenth century, at least in the abstract. The Whig my- Conservatives’ first clear-cut election the Liberal Party had to appeal to thology of the state as a sink of cor- victory since the s. more than just radical nonconform- ruption – a self-sustaining belief The second reason for the fail- ists, and that religion was a divisive through the years of opposition at ure of disestablishment, Parry argued, force, hindering party unity and dam- the start of the nineteenth century was that nonconformists themselves aging its electoral prospects. Indeed, – gave Whigs and dissenters a shared were unenthusiastic about legislation he argued, the Liberal Party’s worst disdain for the power and social in general in the second half of the electoral experiences in the nine- stranglehold of church and state, nineteenth century. In part, this was teenth century occurred when the squire and parson. There was also a because so many dissenters were middle classes were frightened away younger, more intellectual group of locked into an attitude that every- by radical dissent. Whigs, who admired the rational thing the state did was bad. In part, His analysis began in the s. and intellectual vigour of dissenters, it was simply because, by the late The broadening of the political class especially on education. The most nineteenth century, there were so after the Great Reform Act made prominent of these was Lord John few practical dissenting grievances new coalition-building essential. As Russell, who led the attempts at re- left. Marriage, deaths, university en- the two-party system firmed up in ligious and educational reform in the trance tests – all had been dealt with. the s, and Tories and Whigs di- s. Disestablishment was still there as an

10 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 issue, but it was an abstract one, not conformist concerns – such as tem- preoccupied with running their a practical one, and the most re- perance reform – this was usually at own congregations in a declining spected dissenters were not particu- the expense of support from other denomination. Nonconformists larly committed. quarters. In the final analysis, the whose backgrounds led them natu- Parry went on to argue that, in only way Gladstone could keep the rally into trade unionism had little the absence of practical dissenting different groups of Liberal support- affinity with the Liberal Party – and grievances, what is interesting about ers together was by quashing the the drift of Methodists, in particu- the second half of the nineteenth radical dissenter demands, and rely- lar, into the Labour movement via century is how often the established ing on moral tone and language to the unions was increased by the at- church and nonconformists seemed keep them on board. tractions of the Christian Socialist to find themselves on the same side Alan Beith then took up the movement. – for example, in urban communi- story, concentrating on religion and For all these reasons, the influ- ties. Disestablishment, many felt, the Liberal Party in the twentieth ence of nonconformity in the Lib- would actually weaken the ability of century. He began by emphasising eral Party diminished. And yet non- the Christian church as a whole to the party’s appeal, not just to non- conformists remained extremely important in the survival and revival of the party. On one level, this was The bond between nonconformists and due to the basis for recruitment Gladstone’s Liberal Party was increasingly which the chapels provided, espe- cially in the west country. Alan built around the shared language of Beith recalled his decision to join the party, as a young teenager after conscience, morality and the crusade. the Torrington byelection. He looked up who to contact and dis- be a missionary force. So in England, conformists, but also to other reli- covered that it was the Sunday at least, pressure for disestablishment gious denominations, and then fo- School supervisor. When he ap- weakened – though it endured in cused on how the party’s ‘special re- proached him and asked to join, the Scotland and Wales, where it was tied lationship’ with nonconformists had supervisor commented that ‘no-one up with other issues. fared over the last  years. has done that for a while’! To build In the s, Parry argued, there The  Liberal landslide re- up branches, they went round the was little that dissenters actually sulted from many factors. But the chapels which were known not to wanted from the Liberal Party – a party’s nonconformist supporters, have links with the Labour Party. good job, he suggested, since the fired up by the education issue, put There was an important affinity party was led by then by Gladstone, a lot of passion into the election, and on another level, too, and that was a great churchman who was highly saw the victory very much as theirs. through the Biblical idea of the dubious about disestablishment. The Their enthusiasm after  dimin- ‘righteous remnant’ (Isaiah , Ro- rapport between Liberals and non- ished somewhat, and they saw the mans ) – a natural attitude among conformists by then was less to do loss of the Birrell reforms as a seri- post-war Liberals, and characteristic with sharing the same grievances, ous setback in the new government. of nonconformists’ view of their and more to do with sharing the After World War One, the influ- own religious status. same language – not the language of ence of nonconformists in the party Finally, Beith argued that in dissent, but of the crusade. It was diminished significantly. In part, of policy and ideological terms, non- evangelical politics which lay at the course, this was due to the post- conformists in the party played an heart of the Liberal Party’s relation-  decline of the Liberal Party; important role in asserting the dis- ship with dissenters in this phase – in part due to the decline of non- tinctiveness of liberalism from so- most notably, of course, over the conformity from its peak of support cialism. While the main ideological Bulgarian atrocities, but on a wide around –. Nonconformity influence on twentieth century lib- range of other issues as well. provided an increasingly weak ref- eralism may have been the ‘social Gladstone’s affinity with noncon- erence point in a period when the liberal’ agenda, this was not an ex- formists, Parry suggested, was not religious division that dominated clusive agenda. Those nonconform- because of the issues, but because he politics was between Irish Protes- ists who had not gone over to the talked about them. His speeches tants and Catholics. Labour Party, and who remained were like nonconformist sermons – As the numbers of nonconform- with the Liberals, knew why they and he bonded with his noncon- ists declined, so distinctly Liberal had done so. In socialism, they saw formist audience because he told groups such as the Scottish Free a statism to which they were deeply them how virtuous they were! Church and the United Methodist hostile, on religious as well as po- But as the Liberal Party found, Church disappeared – and active litical grounds – and this hostility whenever it got too close to non- nonconformists were increasingly was rooted in the nineteenth cen- journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 11 tury and in beliefs which fostered that nonconformists in the party of the problems arose from the way such an affinity between noncon- were still a strong force in empha- the Labour government implemented formists and the Gladstonian Lib- sising the Liberal Democrats’ dis- the Report’s proposals. For example, eral Party. It was probably not with- tinctiveness from the Labour Party Beveridge proposed phasing in the out coincidence, Beith concluded, today. pensions scheme and a flat rate for benefits to meet the costs of rent. According to Timmins, Beveridge designed the welfare state to meet From Beveridge to Blair the needs of the norm: two-parent families with the husband at work Fringe meeting, September 1997, and the woman in the home at a time of full employment. He as- with Frank Field MP and Nick Timmins sumed that, as had been the case af- Report by David Cloke ter the First World War, women would give up their jobs and return to the home after the Second. As a At the autumn party conference, over  Liberal Democrats result of the findings of the  census, he was concerned about a met in the rather bizarre surroundings of Eastbourne’s Tennis declining population, not an ageing Centre to consider the history of the welfare state and to one. Furthermore, there were a peer into its future. They were welcomed by Archy Kirkwood whole range of changes to society that Beveridge could not have fore- MP, Chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Social sees that have had an impact on the Security – the first member of the party, or its predecessors, effectiveness of the welfare state: the to hold such a post. The meeting was an historic occasion postwar baby boom, the rise in lone parents, the growing need for dis- for another reason: it was the first Liberal Democrat fringe ability benefits and the return of high meeting ever to be addressed by a government minister. levels of unemployment. In essence Nick Timmins ap- It fell to Nick Timmins, the public see was how wrong it would be for peared to be arguing that the norms policy editor of the Financial Times our time. Nonetheless, he argued of society had changed, but that the and author of a key work on the that Beveridge was extremely con- welfare state had not changed to welfare state, The Five Giants, to cerned to preserve incentives to meet them, and that therefore a re- outline the role of William Beveridge work and to save. Hence he did not design is necessary. However, he also as midwife to the welfare state and want a system that preserved an in- argued that it was not all Beveridge’s to discuss what responsibility, if any, dividual’s income at the level they fault, as many of the changes could he had for the problems that have were previously earning (a ‘Santa not have been foreseen when the arisen in recent years. Whilst he said Claus’ system) but one based on na- Report was written. that he came to praise Beveridge and tional insurance, creating a national Frank Field MP, Minister of State not to bury him, Timmins acknowl- minimum below which an indi- at the Department of Social Secu- edged that it was not an easy thing vidual would not fall. rity, perhaps rather dashing some of to do. Beveridge was not an easy Whilst he recognised that the hopes of the audience by declar- man, he was vain and arrogant and Beveridge did get much right (not ing that he was not able to give de- could be cranky. His, often strongly least the creation of a welfare system tails of the government’s new poli- held, views were not consistent with massive popular support which cies as yet, but would pose some throughout his life. Just four years served the country for nearly  questions to the meeting. For him, prior to the publication of his Re- years), Timmins focused most of his the purpose of looking back was not port he was calling for the ‘whip- remarks on what, for our time, it is to apportion blame but to learn. He lash of starvation’ to force the un- thought Beveridge got wrong. These also informed the meeting that he employed back into work. included the creation of an annual bill drew an important lesson from Nick The Beveridge Report itself was for pensions of £ billion, a tradi- Timmins’ book, that the develop- an attempt to reconcile two irrec- tional view of the role of women and ment of the welfare state was a con- oncilable values: individual freedom of the structure of family life, the de- tinuing journey. and compulsion. It was Nick struction of friendly and mutual so- Field’s starting point on that jour- Timmins’ view that, for its time, the cieties and the granting of too many ney was the late nineteenth and early report managed to achieve the nec- rights without the expectation of in- twentieth century, spurred on by the essary balance to a remarkable de- creased responsibilities. There was enormous enthusiasm of the social gree. What the Report couldn’t fore- some evidence to suggest that some reformers of the time, such as those

12 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 involved in the Poor Law Reform seek a new consensus in these is- Party should not forget the many Commission. They had seen the suc- sues and where should the bal- concerns expressed by Liberals dur- cess of many members of the skilled ance lie between a top-down ap- ing its development and expansion and semi-skilled working classes and proach and developing support during the late s and s. attempted to understand the reasons. from the grassroots? Finally, I would like to draw at- It was their, and his, view that it came In some small way the search for tention to a piece by Nick Timmins from the spread of mutual aid. As consensus began as soon as Frank in the Financial Times on  Septem- mutuality became a way of life, it Field sat down, with a lively ex- ber . In it he reports on the taught civic values. Frank Field ar- change of views between the repre- ‘plethora of panaceas’ to Britain’s gued that the franchise was con- sentatives at the meeting and the welfare problems being considered ceded to these groups for this rea- minister. Discussion ranged from sin- by the government. He quotes the son: it was a public recognition of gle mothers to the role of local gov- research director of the Fabian So- the full citizenship they had already ernment and on to how to tackle the ciety, Ian Corfield, who states that obtained. ‘hardening of hearts’ that was one of ‘Labour’s problem is not a shortage With this background in mind, for the legacies of the Thatcher era. Per- of ideas. Rather it appears to have Field Lloyd George should be viewed haps uniquely for a meeting of the too many – and it doesn’t know as a villain in the story of the welfare History Group, there was much which ones to choose.’ He adds that state. As a result of pressure from the looking to the future. Whilst this is ‘everyone is running around very commercial societies he let them to be welcomed, ultimately the meet- energetically, but no one has a shared compete on an equal basis with the ing was somewhat unsatisfactory in view of the role of the state in all mutual societies. From then on there that it failed to provide a uniquely this.’ It would seem to me that the was a state-organised attempt to drive Liberal view and critique of the wel- Liberal Democrats, including the out the mutuals, despite mutual and fare state. Although many Liberal History Group, should lead the dis- friendly societies having more mem- Democrats are deeply committed to cussion in determining the role of bers than trade unions. the principles of the welfare state, the the state in the welfare system. Whilst Beveridge was not exactly a villain, according to Field he did try to have it both ways with regard to the mutuals. He wanted to estab- In this month ... lish state provision very quickly, but All extracts from the Liberal Magazine, December 1947: with mutual societies providing a ‘top up’. However, as they were not It is fairly obvious now that the Direction and Control of Labour Bill would made part of the delivery system have been thrown out if the men and women in Parliament had been free. mutuals were eased out and the role What a farce! The leaders of the Liberal Party have recently issued a long of private welfare was extended. In statement on this subject. The statement ends: ‘The most urgent constitutional Field’s view the extension of the role reform is to ensure that a minority in the constituencies shall no longer be able of the state and of the private sector to obtain a majority in the legislature.’ had long-term damaging effects on George E. Buckland society. In their anxiety to force the pace of change both Lloyd George ‘Only Liberals can prevent a Liberal Government next time’, so we are told. and Beveridge lost sight of the key We had three rehearsals for the General Election, and one has been wasted; starting point for any welfare system: three chances to build up our machine, and one has been wasted; three the establishment of mechanisms for chances to inculcate the habit of voting Liberal, and one has been wasted. secure social advance. The nation was ready to turn to us, and we refused to give them leadership. Frank Field’s concern that the Do we deserve to win? .... By not putting up candidates, or by putting up pace of change should be a meas- Independents, you cause your colleagues who do stand to lose. The only way ured one was perhaps reflected in his to build up a political machine is to fight elections. unwillingness to announce any gov- Harold T. Kay (on local elections) ernment policies in this area, though he offered three key questions: It is obvious that there has been a complete division of opinion in the  How can opportunities for Government with regard to policy. The Minister for Economic Affairs, when change be built in to the welfare he was President of the Board of Trade, was all the time warning the system? country but what has been happening? The speech he delivered yesterday was followed almost immediately by a speech from one of his colleagues  As it is now recognised that wel- flatly contradicting him! How can we possibly have confidence in His fare does affect people’s behaviour, Majesty’s Government when there is obviously a division of opinion on how do we build a welfare sys- policy in the Government? tem that enhances civil society? Clement Davies MP, in the Debate on the Address  How should the government journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 13 Young Liberals The ‘Red Guard’ Era Peter Hellyer argues that foreign policy issues had a crucial role to play in the growth of the Young Liberals in the 1960s and ’70s.

I was interested to read in Newsletter  (March argue for , rather than for ), I also be-  lieve that Ruth Fox underestimates the impor- ) the article by Ruth Fox on ‘Young Liberal tance of foreign policy issues in the growth of Influence and its Effects, –’. While I would the YLs. not disagree with many of her conclusions, I do, When the ‘Red Guards’ first came to pub- lic attention at the  Brighton Assembly, a however, query her starting point, and, in particular, key factor was YL sponsorship of an anti- her statement that: ‘The Young Liberals were first NATO resolution. Over the next few years, a catapulted on to the national stage in  through number of foreign policy issues came to the fore, not just inside the Liberal Party but also their involvement in the “Stop The Seventy Tour” in the country at large, of which the most sig- of the South African cricket team’. nificant were the question of how to end the UDI by Ian Smith in Rhodesia, this issue link- The phenomenon of a radical and large Young ing up with the broader topic of opposition to Liberal Movement, including both the National apartheid, and growing American involvement League of Young Liberals and the Union of Lib- in the Vietnam war. eral Students, which, incidentally, she fails to On both these issues, the Wilson govern- mention, began to emerge significantly earlier, ment adopted policies that were perceived as as might be deduced from the printing with being either insufficiently radical, or pro- the paper of a Guardian cartoon from the  American, or both. Opposition to government Brighton Assembly, showing the ‘Red Guards,’ policy on these issues was seen by many young led by George Kiloh, then NLYL Chairman, people as a way of expressing their own dissat- assaulting a barricade defended by Grimond, isfaction with government. Thorpe and others of the parliamentary party. At the same time, the Labour Party Young By summer , the YLs were already well in Socialists, then controlled by the forerunners the public eye, partly because of the skills of of Militant, and other groups such as the In- Kiloh and others, such as Terry Lacey, Phil Kelly, ternational Marxist Group and International and Louis Eaks, in attracting press attention. Socialism were often perceived as being radi- Good copy for the tabloid press could always cal, but steeped in an unfamiliar – dare I say be guaranteed. boring? – Marxist rhetoric. Perhaps, too, they There are also a number of factual errors. often were simply not ‘fun.’ STST, for example, did not commence sabo- The Young Liberals, on the other hand, not tage of cricket grounds in January ; that only offered radical policies, but ‘fun’ as well, began in the summer. In the winter of – being closer to the ‘flower power’ culture of , when STST began, with YL support, it was the so-called hippies, and adopting a far less the rugby grounds that attracted attention. The puritanical approach than the various conflict between the YLs and the party lead- Trotskyist groups to the s sexual revolu- ership over the Israel/Palestine issue began not tion and the widespread availability for the after the  general election but in , first time of cannabis. Those groups viewed the sparked off by a letter written to the journal most popular of the YL lapel badges, ‘Make Free Palestine by a YL officer. Love Not War,’ with distaste, but thousands were Quite apart from the question of precisely sold to non-YLs. when the YLs began ‘to be catapulted on to Although the YLs may have had an image the national stage’ (and, as a participant, I would that was lacking in ‘seriousness,’ that was by

14 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 no means unattractive. Still under the label of the Liberal Party, and therefore less susceptible to the smear of being called communist at a time when Cold War rhetoric still had a powerful hold, rebellious youth could be rebellious and still remain to some extent within con- ventional political norms, including campaigning in local and parlia- mentary elections. The YLs (both NLYL and ULS) gained substantial experience in working with single-issue campaigns, such as those on Southern Africa and Vietnam. They were, for example, granted representation as an organi- sation on the National Council of the Anti-Apartheid Movement from around , with individual YLs sub- sequently being elected for several Young Liberals as the press saw them: the cover of the Guardian report on the years to the AAM Executive. YL of- Liberal Assembly, 1966. ficers were also on the organising committees for the major anti-Viet- STST would have attracted neither Many of those who were more nam War demonstrations in London media interest nor the support it so preoccupied with community poli- in March and October , both of quickly gathered. tics, however, have stayed the course which were attended by many YLs. While Kiloh, Lacey, Eaks, Phil within the party, spreading that ap- In contrast, contrary to Ruth Fox’s Kelly (and, I would claim, myself) may proach throughout the party. That is suggestion, the YLs played a relatively have been particularly involved in perhaps why Ruth Fox has over- small part in the Campaign for Nu- foreign policy issues, there were other looked the role of foreign policy is- clear Disarmament, although opposed strands of YL thought that were more sues in the growth of NLYL and to nuclear weapons. One reason, in involved in developing the commu- ULS. part at least, was the feeling that CND nity politics approach. Among NLYL Peter Hellyer is a journalist living in was too uncritical of the Soviet Un- and ULS leaders in the late s Abu Dhabi; he was International Vice ion. During the summer of , a were people like Tony Greaves and Chairman of the NLYL from  to number of YL Executive members Gordon Lishman (like Lacey and . and other leading activists had expe- Kelly, both officers both of ULS and rienced Soviet bloc repression at first NLYL), David Penhaligon and hand, first at a World Youth Festival Howard Legg, who developed the in Bulgaria, and then in Czechoslo- combination of a radical YL approach Reviewers vakia during the  August Soviet in- and involvement in community poli- vasion – convincing evidence of the tics out of which many of the changes needed! need to oppose the Soviet bloc as that so revolutionised the party in the Would you like you to review firmly as the United States, and a later s grew, and which Ruth Fox articles submitted to the Journal policy distinguishing them from the well describes. of Liberal Democrat History for various Marxist groups, in particular Finally, while YL activism on for- content and accuracy? the Young Communists. eign policy issues may have given the We are looking for reviewers By the late s, the YLs were movement a major boost in the late  with background knowledge of able to take a lead in starting ‘Stop s, many of those most involved any of the various topics or The Seventy Tour’, a lead welcomed moved on either to join the Labour periods covered by Journal by Anti-Apartheid, more concerned Party, as did Kiloh, Lacey, Kelly and articles. Comments made are with staying inside the law. Had the later Hain, or to leave party politics relayed, anonymously, to the YLs not already achieved recogni- altogether, as did Eaks. (I think I was authors. tion in previous years as a cam- something of an exception, although paigning force on Southern Africa scarcely typical, since, apart from re- If you would like to help, please and other foreign policy issues, the turning for every general election but write to the Editor (see page 2 lead taken by Eaks and Hain (as well one since , I have been resident for address) with details of as others who were not YLs), on abroad for most of the last  years.) expertise and interest. journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 15 Harry Willcock The Forgotten Champion of Liberalism Mark Egan remembers the Liberal who helped ensure that British citizens today are not compelled to carry identity cards.

A leader article in Liberal Democrat News last year of a serious crime. In practice the police often   demanded to see the ID card of anyone they (LDN August ) argued that ‘ID cards are dealt with, no matter how trivial the offence insidious’ and that ‘sometimes conscience dictates a they had committed. In total  people were higher law than the latest bigoted intolerant missive prosecuted for failing to produce an ID card within two days of the police demanding it, from Westminster’. Clarence Harry Willcock would the last of whom was Harry Willcock. have wholeheartedly agreed. In  Willcock took In December  Willcock was stopped on the police and the government in a famous court by the police for speeding along Ballard’s Lane, Finchley. He refused to show the police his ID case which paved the way for the abolition of card, stating: ‘I am a Liberal, and I am against identity cards the following year. this sort of thing’. Willcock had twice stood for Parliament as a Liberal, at Barking in  The case of Willcock v. Muckle is now largely and in . He was a Yorkshireman, and had forgotten, but the evidence and arguments pre- served as a Liberal councillor and as a magis- sented in the case illustrate the issues which trate in Horsforth for many years before the are bound to re-emerge if the government – war. In the magistrate’s court he argued that following their postwar predecessors – takes up the emergency legislation introducing ID cards Michael Howard’s pre-election intention to was now redundant, because the ‘emergency’ introduce a photocard driving licence. was clearly at an end, and thus he had com- ID cards were introduced in Britain by mitted no offence. His counsel urged the mag- emergency legislation immediately on the out- istrates to ‘say with pleasure and with pride that break of war in . The cards remained in we need not be governed by restrictive rules use after the war to facilitate the administra- any longer.’ The magistrates were impressed by tion of food rationing. Aneurin Bevan de- Willcock’s case and, although convicting him, scribed them as ‘distasteful’ and ‘repugnant’ but, gave him an absolute discharge. Willcock de- he argued, the cards were necessary as long as cided to test the law in the High Court. an estimated , deserters were at large in Willcock assembled a team of prominent the country. It was assumed that these desert- Liberal lawyers, comprising Basil (now Lord) ers would be unable to acquire food without Wigoder, Emrys Roberts MP, A. P. Marshall and an ID card and that the cards could be abol- Lucien Fior, to fight his case. The case was heard ished once the deserters were captured. by seven senior judges, including the Lord Chief This justification for the continued use of Justice. Willcock’s appeal was dismissed on  ID cards was a fiction. ID cards were easily June  after the Attorney General, Sir Frank forged and the droves of starving deserters Soskice, successfully argued that in  Parlia- whom the government expected to surrender ment had legislated to deal not with one emer- to the authorities never materialised. By  gency but with several, undefined emergencies, Labour ministers argued that the cards should and that consequently the legislation requiring be retained for administrative purposes. Appli- the carrying of ID cards remained valid. cations for medical treatment, for new passports, Despite ruling against Willcock the Lord and even withdrawals from Post Office savings Chief Justice was sharply critical of the govern- accounts all required the production of an ID ment. He suggested that the definition of the card. The police also had powers to ask to see ‘emergency’ was ambiguous and concluded that an ID card, although supposedly only when ‘to use Acts of Parliament passed in war-time they had grounds to suspect the commission for particular purposes now that the war had

16 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 ceased tended to turn law-abiding In August  a well-attended pub- porters of the cards because they rep- subjects into law-breakers.’ Within the lic meeting was held in Hyde Park resented the triumph of bureaucratic week new guidelines were drawn up to launch a petition to Parliament socialism over individual rights. Tory by the Metropolitan Police to ensure calling for an end to  emergency MPs generally opposed ID cards on that police officers could only de- measures which had continued de- the grounds of their inefficiency. mand the production of ID cards in spite the end of the war. Some Tories called for more sophis- exceptional circumstances, and other The campaign failed to generate ticated ID cards to be introduced so police forces were encouraged to fol- any further momentum. The  that everybody could have one low suit. Liberal manifesto did not even men- number identifying them to the gov- The government came under tion ID cards, and in the heat of the ernment from birth to death. Only pressure in Parliament to abolish ID election campaign in the autumn of Liberals objected to the cards be- cards. A number of both Labour and that year the issue was all but forgot- cause they infringed the fundamen- Conservative MPs, particularly Sir ten. The incoming Tory government tal liberties of the individual. William Darling, Lt-Col Lipton and Lt-Cmdr Hutchison, had regularly urged the government to scrap ID He refused to show the police his ID card, cards during the preceding six years. Following the Willcock case the Lib- stating: ‘I am a Liberal, and I am against eral MPs, particularly Clement this sort of thing’. Davies, also began to call for reform. The Liberal Party had not previously campaigned on the issue, although initially refused to commit itself to a It is also instructive to observe the during the war Sir Archibald Sinclair policy on ID cards. However, on  ways in which ID cards were abused had extracted a promise from the February  the Secretary of State by state officials. Post Office staff had government that it would discontinue for Health, H. Crookshank, finally the right to demand the production its emergency powers at the end of announced that the public no longer of an ID card and this caused wide- the war. In the House of Lords the needed to carry the cards. The deci- spread resentment. Some police Marquess of Reading proposed a mo- sion was presented as a budgetary one, forces did arbitrarily demand to see tion, ‘that the use of identity cards is with the government saving £ mil- ID cards. In  it was reported in unnecessary and oppressive, and lion as a result. Clement Davies asked Parliament that the police regularly should be discontinued without de- whether the government would rounded up and questioned girls in lay’. It was passed by  votes to . compensate Willcock’s court costs the West End of London who could A campaign was also commenced but, predictably, no help was forth- not prove their identity. Anyone outside Parliament, headed by coming. Willcock, the Liberal hero, without an identity card was imme- Willcock and supported by several was dead within the year. diately assumed to be an army de- Liberal MPs and candidates. The Looking back, it is interesting to serter or a criminal and this left some Freedom Defence Committee was note that only individual Liberal groups, such as gypsies, especially launched by Willcock ceremonially members and candidates spoke out vulnerable to harassment. Comically, destroying his own identity card in on grounds of principle against the there was also a case of a vicar re- front of press photographers on the use of ID cards. Labour MPs were fusing to baptise an infant until his steps of the National Liberal Club. amongst the most enthusiastic sup- parents procured an ID card for him. In practice ID cards were easily forged, so criminals were barely af- fected by their existence. Ordinary Membership Services citizens were affected, having to pay The following listings are available to History Group members: to replace lost cards and risking pros- ecution if they failed to do so. With- Mediawatch: a bibliography of major articles on the Liberal Democrats out a written constitution or Bill of appearing in the broadsheet papers, major magazines and academic Rights to which to appeal, citizens journals from 1988; plus articles of historical interest appearing in the had no redress from the abuse of the major Liberal Democrat journals from 1995. law by government officials and the Thesiswatch: all higher degree theses listed in the Bulletin of the Institute police. Were ID cards to be reintro- of Historical Research under the titles ‘Liberal Party’ or ‘liberalism’ (none yet duced we would again face the in- under SDP or Liberal Democrats). justices Harry Willcock stood up to and, ultimately, triumphed over. Any member is entitled to receive a copy of either listing free; send an A4 SSAE to the address on page 2. Up to date versions can also be found on Mark Egan is a clerk in the House of our web site (http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~dbrack/index.html). Commons, and a member of the History Group’s committee. journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 17 the Orient Express-like conclusion, that it was the work, not of a single perpetrator, but of four groups of Reviews conspirators. Dangerfield’s analysis is that Lib- eral England’s consensus politics, a Who Did It? consensus based upon the Liberal virtues of rationality and tolerance, George Dangerfield: was cut down by the rise of politi- cal violence and protest against the The Strange Death of Liberal England state. He identified the main actors in this rebellion as the Tory peers, (Serif, 1997) the suffragettes, the trade unions and Reviewed by Graham Lippiatt the Ulster Unionists. He explores this thesis with great style and an im- mense readability. He sets out how ‘Stands the Church clock at ten to three? the great election landslide of  And is there honey still for tea?’ was something of an anomaly, ‘built of showy but not very durable stuff’. These are the famous concluding lines of Rupert Brooke’s Liberal England was doomed by an inherent inability to deal with – per- nostalgia-fest, the poem The Old Vicarage, Grantchester. Every haps even to understand – the generation believes the world was once a better, gentler place. growth in the violence and disorder We search for the lost golden age of long warm summers of industrial unrest, the methods and resistance of the women’s movement like those Brooke remembered in the same poem: and the threat of civil conflict in Protestant Ireland over Home Rule. ‘.... when the day is young and sweet, I found Dangerfield at his most Gild gloriously the bare feet, readable in dealing with the Tory re- That run to bathe ....’ bellion, the House of Lords’ opposi- tion to the Parliament Bill and Con- George Dangerfield’s masterpiece The resented – that idealised golden age, servative support of Sir Edward Strange Death of Liberal England, first its life so mysteriously cut short at the Carson’s organisation of volunteers to published in 1935 in New York and height of its powers. fight Home Rule. Here is a story now reissued in paperback by Serif, When Dangerfield wrote, how- within a story, with a beginning, a is one of the reasons why so many ever, he wrote not poetry or novels middle and an end – and fortunately English people have located our but history. In  he won the all in that order. The starting points mythical golden age in Edwardian Pulitzer Prize for American History are Lloyd George’s People’s Budget times. This is a truly classic book. How and published works on American of 1909 and the Home Rule Bill of many other commentaries or aca- nationalism and the Anglo-Irish 1912. The first, rejected by the Tory demic treatises on politics and soci- question. His literary background majority in the Lords, led to the pro- ety written 60 years ago would bear and the era in which he studied gave posal to take away the Lords’ right to republishing today, or find their way him an approach to the writing of amend money bills and ended when on to undergraduate reading lists? history which drew on the tradition the threat to flood the Upper House Dangerfield’s primary interest was of history as a branch of literature, with Liberal Peers was accepted by literature. He read English at Hert- in the footsteps of writers such as G. the King. The second, the fruition of ford College, Oxford, then went to M. Trevelyan. As A. J. P. Taylor was a long-held Liberal cause and a con- the USA where he worked as a critic fond of pointing out, the words for sequence of the dependence of the and became the literary editor of Van- story and history are the same in a Liberals in Parliament on the votes ity Fair. The Strange Death of Liberal number of languages. Perhaps this is of the Irish Nationalists after the two England has an epilogue entitled ‘The why The Strange Death of Liberal Eng- inconclusive general elections of Lofty Shade’, inspired by a quotation land has the feel of a political thriller 1910, ended when the outbreak of from A. E. Housman, dealing with the – a kind of historical Agatha Christie. the First World War meant the Bill work of the so-called Georgian Po- Just who did leave those stab wounds had to be put to one side. Subsequent ets who first met in  and whose in the body of the Liberal Party events made sure that other routes to leading light was Rupert Brooke. found bleeding to death in ? Irish independence and Ulster Prot- Brooke’s death seemed to Dangerfield Dangerfield lines up the leading sus- estant autonomy were taken. a metaphor for the England he rep- pects and invites us to a Murder on Dangerfield seems less assured on his

18 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 other areas of suffragette violence and something else – presumably one Strictly speaking this is a work of industrial unrest, as though he knows based upon the collective identity and contemporary politics rather than of there is a good tale to tell but gets a ideology of class. Dangerfield conflates history but since the editor of this bit confused in the telling. these wider social questions with the Journal is a contributor it would Dangerfield’s analysis has of course narrower electoral fate of one politi- seem churlish not to mention it. But been discredited by more recent his- cal party and its problems in govern- like every collection of essays, some torians. The period from – has ment. Of course the issues are linked; parts are tastier than others. The in- been recognised as a time of funda- the one illuminates the other, but they troduction is a sound summary of mental strength for the Liberal Party, are not the same thing and the background to the party, the tra- with the emergence of the New Lib- Dangerfield keeps mixing them up. ditions it inherits and the dilemmas eralism and the implementation of a Here is Dangerfield on social change: it faces. The book list at the end is reforming legislative programme af- comprehensive and would serve any ‘In the streets of London the last horse- ter . The Liberal vote remained new or old member as a solid pro- bus clattered towards extinction. The aero- strong in areas of traditional support, gramme for their leisure hours. plane .... called forth exclamations of rap- despite the growth of the Labour The two chapters by Jones and ture and alarm .... There was talk of wild Party. Focus has shifted away from Steed on the thought and tradition young people .... of night clubs; of negroid analysis of the prewar era to explain of the party both lay out the roots dances. People gazed in horror at the Liberal decline. The effects of the war of the party in New Liberal think- paintings of Gauguin, and listened with itself, the internal Asquith/Lloyd ing, from the turn of the century, and delighted alarm to the barbaric measures George split and the emergence of something of the contribution made of Stravinsky. The old order, the old bland mass democracy after  have come by social democrat thought. As world was dying fast .... and the Parlia- to be seen as the competing elements someone from a Liberal background, ment Act was its not too premature obitu- in the demise of the Liberal Party. I felt slightly disappointed at the lim- ary.’ (pp –). And therein also lies one of the ited attention both paid to the so- problems with Dangerfield’s book. Is It is prose like this, the literary legacy cial democrat side. The threat from he just dealing with the electoral of history in Dangerfield’s era, which Dr Owen meant that the new party eclipse of the Liberal Party? Or, per- makes this book so readable. The had to be tough and more practical haps, just the failure of the Liberal analysis may be flawed and the con- in its policies than historically Lib- government? He seems to be search- clusions out of date, but like all good eral assemblies had been, but, philo- ing for something more, trying to history it contains truths and insights sophically, what did the social demo- chart a fundamental change in Brit- which endure. This new edition pro- crats bring to the party? ish politics and society, from a liberal vides a very welcome opportunity I was more seriously disappointed society based upon reason, toleration for Dangerfield’s work to be revis- that neither of these two authors fo- and the primacy of the individual to ited by all students of liberal history. cused more on the Gladstonian tra- ditions of the party. The political agenda in the s and s has been driven by a Thatcherite per- version of that tradition. Even the Building the Party Labour government has adapted to it. So has Paddy Ashdown and the Don MacIver (ed), The Liberal Democrats party’s economic spokesmen, but it goes against the grain of a Liberal (Prentice Hall, 1996) Democrat conference and activists Reviewed by Tony Little who began their careers under Butskellism. Brack’s piece on policy- making highlights some of the ten- The strained birth of the Liberal Democrats ensured that sions this creates and has benefited the infant party struggled over its first few years and it enjoyed from an ability to speak openly now that he does not bear official respon- little of the glow of the limelight which blessed the arrival sibility for policy creation. of the SDP. In consequence, there seems to have been little The strength of the collection lies study of how the new party was put together and how it with those who have had practical experience of politics, and the weak- has developed. Consequently, this collection of essays is very ness is with the purer academics. The welcome and would serve as a sound introduction to any Bennie, Curtice and Rudig survey of membership is fascinating in an ‘I new member who wanted some background as to how the never knew that’ sort of way and party ticks. highlights the need to recruit across journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98 19 a wider spectrum of ages and back- grounds if we are to break out of a Archive Sources middle class, middle age, public sec- tor support system. To my mind, The Liberal Democrat History Group aims to develop and publish a guide to McKee’s essay on factions and archive sources for students of the history of the Liberal Democrats and its groups in the party has relied too predecessor parties. heavily on official briefings, recog- We would like to hear from anyone knowing the whereabouts of any nising but not fully understanding relevant archive material, including the records of local and regional parties the tolerance extended by one part and internal groups. Please write to Dr Geoffrey Sell at the address below. of the party for the others, underes- timating the importance of ALDC Recently we have received information on two sources: and making too much of the noisy • Records deposited in the Dorset County Record Office: including but ineffective Chard Group. minute books, year books, newsletters, election publications and As always with a work on con- Focus leaflets. Most of the material dates from the 1960s, ’70s and temporary politics the publishing ’80s, but some goes as far back as 1906. schedule has meant that some items are already stale, such as the Tower • Records deposited in the Dundee City archives; contains material Hamlets case, and the emphasis dating back to Winston Churchill’s period as MP for the city. placed on balanced councils rather Any researcher needing more information should contact Dr Geoffrey Sell at than those where Lib Dems enjoy a 5 Spencer Close, Stansted, Essex CM24 8AS. majority. Even so, while the survey of balanced councils must reflect the accuracy of the answers given, I felt work well as press spokesmen for the it would be churlish not to commend that Temple might have spent more party and, I am sure, as community MacIver and his team for getting this time covering a smaller sample of politicians in their constituencies. book written and more importantly, councils in more depth, to convey They are effective cheerleaders for the published. Members should buy their some of the sweat of the committee membership but what do they do all own and order copies through their room, the passion of the council day at Westminster and what good is local library to help stimulate inter- chamber and the frustration of it for the country or the party? This est in the party. members and officers alike in man- question is the more important now aging a hung council. that we are more substantially repre- A somewhat bigger omission is in sented in Parliament. I am sure there the coverage of the parliamentary is scope for MPs to learn from the party. MacIver makes us acutely aware strategies of effective council groups Liberals Unite  of the difficulties of formulating an which have grown and consolidated continued from page effective electoral strategy for winning their electoral strength. If there is ever For further details contact Liberal Inter- parliamentary seats, but the book a hung parliament I hope they will national,  Whitehall Place, London needs a survey of the strategies open draw on the extensive council expe- SWA HD; tel: +   ; to the parliamentary party within rience available. fax: +    ; email: Westminster and of the work of our It is easy to criticise any book with [email protected]. parliamentarians. Currently they such a wide range of contributors, but Notes: 1 This research is based primarily on ma- terial in the LI archive held in the Ar- A Liberal Democrat History Group Fringe Meeting chives of the Theodor Heuss Akademie in Gummersbach, but also draws on John H. MacCallum Scott, Experiment in In- The Struggle for Women’s Rights ternationalism – A Study in International Politics (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1967). with 2 See Michael Steed, ‘The Liberal Parties Johanna Alberti (Newcastle University) in Italy, France, Germany and the UK’ in Roger Morgan and Stefano Silvestri, and eds., Moderates and Conservatives in West- Shirley Williams ern Europe: Political Parties, the European Community and the Atlantic Alliance (Lon- don: Heinemann Educational Books, 8.00–9.30pm, Friday 13 March 1982). 3 Owing to their respective domestic situ- Royal Clifton Hotel, Southport ations, the representatives from Estonia, Hungary and Spain were all exiles.

20 journal of liberal democrat history 17: Winter 1997–98