Dr J. Graham Jones Examines the Political and Personal Relationship

arcHie anD CleM Dr J. Graham Jones examines the political and personal relationship between Clement Davies, leader of the Liberal Party, 1945–56, and his predecessor Sir Archibald Sinclair, later Viscount Thurso, who led the party from 1935 until 1945. 22 Journal of Liberal History 70 Spring 2011 arcHie anD CleM rchibald Henry Mac- land and agricultural policy for- Liberal abstentions.3 Consequently donald Sinclair was mulation – to Lloyd George when the motion was narrowly defeated born in London on 22 he returned to lead the party fol- in the House by just four votes, too October 1890, the son lowing Asquith’s final retirement bitter a pill for Sinclair to swallow. of a lieutenant in the in October 1926. He also spared The chief whip promptly resigned. AScots Guards, and was educated at no effort to urge LG to continue Some Liberal MPs rejoiced at the Eton College and Sandhurst before dipping into the infamous Lloyd sudden departure of their chief entering the army in 1910 in the George Fund to sustain their whip whose approach they had 2nd Life Guards. The death of his impoverished party.1 In November considered to be rather heavy- paternal grandfather in 1912 saw 1930, a period of deep-rooted divi- handed. One of these was E. Clem- his succession to the baronetcy and sion and acrimony in the ranks of ent Davies, the rather politically inheritance of a large estate exceed- the Parliamentary Liberal Party, low-profile Liberal MP for Mont- ing 100,000 acres at the northern- Sinclair rather reluctantly suc- gomeryshire, who was later to con- most tip of Scotland. Throughout ceeded Sir Robert Hutchison as the demn what he had regarded as ‘the the World War I he served with party’s chief whip in the House of lash of Sinclair’.4 some distinction, forming a close Commons. He pleaded with Lib- At the time of the financial and bond of friendship with Winston eral MPs henceforth to behave less constitutional crisis of August 1931, Churchill, with whom he served erratically and to attempt to act Sinclair took the view of the Samu- in the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers in in greater unison, advice which elite Liberal MPs that the so-called 1916. After the hostilities were was totally ignored by his parlia- national government should be sup- over, Sinclair served as Church- mentary colleagues. His party had ported as a temporary expedient but ill’s military secretary at the War indeed by this time almost totally that the long-term independence Office from 1919 to 1921, and sub- collapsed as a political force capa- of the Liberal Party should be pro- sequently at the Colonial Office ble of acting unitedly. The PLP had tected at all costs. As a committed until 1922. While at the War Office become little more than a disor- Scottish home ruler, he accepted he played an important role in the ganised rabble. A dejected Sinclair the position of Secretary of State British attempts to nip the Bolshe- spelled out the nub of the dilemma for Scotland, initially outside the vik revolution in the bud. which faced him daily: ‘I am all for Cabinet, one of several Liberal In 1922 Sinclair was elected to the party being independent and ministerial appointments at this parliament as the ‘National Lib- having a mind of its own, but if point, including Herbert Samuel as eral’ (pro-Lloyd George) MP for individual members claim the same Home Secretary and the Marquis Caithness and Sutherland, which right, it is impossible for us to work of Reading (formerly Rufus Isaacs) he continued to represent until his effectively in the House of Com- as Foreign Secretary. In the further shock defeat in the general elec- mons’.2 In March 1931, in a vote on Cabinet reshuffle which followed tion of July 1945. Also in 1922 his a motion introduced by the Labour the October general election, Sin- old ally and mentor Churchill government to abolish all the uni- clair’s position was promoted to was defeated at Dundee. Sinclair Sir Archibald versity constituencies, official Cabinet rank, now one of twenty soon became a prominent, highly Sinclair Liberal policy was to support the such ministers. The following regarded backbench MP, lend- (1890–1970) and motion. But only nineteen Liberal January, Sinclair was one of four ing support and advice on policy Clement Davies MPs did so: ten voted against, and free trade ministers who could not revision – especially in relation to (1884–1962) there was also a large number of agree to the need to accept a policy Journal of Liberal History 70 Spring 2011 23 arcHie anD cLeM of protective tariffs; however their the party time and manner that commanded Liberal Party was profoundly widely expected resignation from no public interest or support, I demoralised, it had lost several the government was prevented by projected an doubt if we can remain where we seats in by-elections since 1931, the adoption of the so-called ‘agree- are for long without witnessing and in November 1935 just twenty- ment to differ’.5 By this time, Sin- increasingly the complete disintegration of the one mainstream Liberal MPs were clair was widely viewed, together party’.7 Samuel could only – reluc- returned. The party projected an with Samuel, as constituting the conservative tantly – concur with Sinclair’s pes- increasingly conservative image, Liberal ‘high command’. Sinclair simistic assessment. He conceded being identified with free trade had undoubtedly savoured his first image, being that, if the current state of affairs and an outdated economic out- taste of ministerial office, but agreed continued, ‘The party would fade look – in such striking contrast to totally with Samuel that the inde- identified away’.8 On 16 November, Samuel the Liberal summer school move- pendence of their party and the ulti- with free made a broadcast speech which ment of the 1920s and the dramatic mate restoration of free trade should was a broad attack on the National (if ultimately abortive) revival led be their top priorities. Both men trade and Government’s policies and recent so flamboyantly by Lloyd George were also painfully conscious that conduct, and announced his fol- in 1927–29. The radical initiative their party’s future development an outdated lowers’ intention belatedly to cross was not totally forgotten. It was was ever likely to be jeopardised by the floor of the House of Com- expressed in Ramsay Muir’s The its chronic financial problems, now economic mons. But, inevitably, not all of Liberal Way published in 1934 and exacerbated still further by the dry- them followed him to the opposi- again in Lloyd George’s quasi- ing up of handouts from the Lloyd outlook – in tion benches.9 sensational ‘New Deal’ proposals George Fund which had hitherto Herbert Samuel had walked a (modelled on those of Franklin provided resources to pay for some such striking political tightrope with great skill D. Roosevelt in the USA) which two-thirds of the recurrent annual and diplomacy, but in the general were unveiled to his Bangor con- running costs of the party’s parlia- contrast to election of November 1935 he went stituents in January 1935. But mentary organisation. Following down to defeat at Darwen. In his such worthy initiatives were by the inevitable severe financial strain the Liberal Caithness and Sutherland con- now very much on the periphery of the recent general election, Sin- stituency, where the Labour Party of the Liberal Party; they did not clair warned Samuel, ‘Unless cer- summer resolved not to put up a candidate occupy the centre ground. Sinclair, tain steps are taken immediately against him, Sir Archibald Sinclair an astute, experienced politician, we shall be unable to maintain the school move- easily defeated his sole opponent was fully sensitive to the array of present structure of the Party – William Bruce, a Liberal National, interrelated difficulties power- apart from any question of enlarg- ment of the by 12,071 votes to 4,621. His was fully undermining his party’s ing or strengthening it’.6 1920s and evidently one of the safest Liberal well-being. In the wake of the During the high summer of seats in the whole of the country. announcement of Lloyd George’s 1932, Sinclair’s Caithness home was the dramatic Following the general election, ‘New Deal’ proposals in January, the venue for a protracted series of Lloyd George (still heading his tiny he had repeatedly warned Samuel, deliberations which ultimately led (if ultimately parliamentary grouping of just four ‘There is real danger that the Lib- to the resignation from the gov- MPs – all of them members of his eral Party may cease to be regarded ernment of the Samuelite Liberals abortive) own family – and consequently as an effective political force’. The in September – as a protest against somewhat estranged from the main- ongoing chronic lack of financial the conclusion of the so-called revival led stream Liberal Party) was persuaded resources and deficiency of per- Ottawa agreements. This grand to preside over the first meeting of sonnel together had rendered it gesture, however, still left them so flamboy- the newly elected Liberal MPs – nigh on impossible to ‘maintain … in an extremely anomalous posi- although he still adamantly refused activities at a high level of intensity tion. They were no longer part of antly by to stand for the chairmanship of the over a prolonged period’. Conse- the national government, and yet Parliamentary Liberal Party. On quently he considered it imperative they still continued to occupy the Lloyd George LG’s proposal, Sinclair was elected that the party ‘make a big effort government benches in the House the new Liberal Party leader in suc- to arrest public attention and to of Commons.

Load more