42 Hunter Sir Archibald Sinclair
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ian Hunter examines the Liberal leader’s role as a critic of appeasement SIR ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR Sir Archibald Sinclair. Leader of the Liberal Party from 1935 to 1945, was the last Liberal MP to hold a Cabinet position at THE LIBERAL ANTI-APPEASER Westminster, serving as Churchill’s Air Minister from May 1940 to May 1945. He was also one of the first parliamentarians to voice concerns about the National Government’s policy of appeasement during the mid- 1930s. Historians have consistently overlooked the key role played by the Liberal Party between Sinclair 1 n the first volume of his Having then attended Sandhurst, 1936 and 1939. This speaking against war memoirs, The Gather- he became a regular soldier in appeasement ing Storm, Churchill himself 1910, and served with distinction is mainly because at the Central fails to mention the part in the Great War as Churchill’s Hall, Tollcross, th of the focus on the Edinburgh, late played by the Liberal Party, second in command of the 6 1930s. Ipainting instead a self-portrait Royal Scots Fusiliers in Flanders. internal dissent within of enormous vanity in which he He became Churchill’s private the Conservative casts himself as almost the sole secretary in 1919 when Lloyd Party and on the prophet of vision and reason to George appointed Churchill to have been warning of Hitler’s the combined War Office and particular role played threat to European peace. The Air Ministry role (1919–21) to reality was very different – and oversee demobilisation and to by Winston Churchill, the Liberal Party, and Sinclair in deal with the anti-Bolshevik from the wilderness particular, played a major role in White Russians. Sinclair contin- developing and proposing clear ued to support his mentor when of the backbenches, alternatives to the Government’s Churchill moved to the Colo- in opposing his party’s foreign policy. nial Office (1921–22) for the last Archibald Sinclair was born in eighteen months of the Coalition international policies. 1890, and was educated at Eton. Government. 30 Journal of Liberal History 42 Spring 2004 SIR ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR THE LIBERAL ANTI-APPEASER With Churchill’s encourage- that the League of Nations could our power to deflect the Gov- ment, Sinclair stood for election be relied on to intervene and ernment’s policy from its present as a Liberal in his home constitu- resolve international problems dangerous and wasteful course’.3 ency of Caithness and Sutherland, on Britain’s behalf. The Liberals Sinclair was keen to see the Gov- entering Parliament in 1922. He fought the November 1935 gen- ernment move to a defence policy climbed rapidly through the Lib- eral election on a platform that that was more reliant on the col- eral Parliamentary Party ranks, claimed ‘the national defences lective security offered by the becoming Chief Whip in 1930. must be kept efficient and large League of Nations. The next day He entered the National Govern- enough for the needs of the times, Churchill passed a note to Sinclair ment with Herbert Samuel, the but a colossal, panic expenditure which, while calling his manner of Liberal leader, where he served in upon arms is not the road to peace delivery ‘admirable’, described his the Cabinet as Secretary of State … Through strengthening the argument as ‘false’ and his purpose for Scotland in 1931–32, prior League of Nations, and through as ‘morbid’ and finished by attack- to the resignation of the Liber- international disarmament, and ing Sinclair’s anti-rearmament als over the Ottawa Trade Tariff there alone, the true path to secu- stance as ‘fatal’. Sinclair responded Agreements. When Samuel lost rity lies.’2 Although sympathetic From April to Churchill, claiming that his his seat at the 1935 general elec- to this position, Sinclair became former mentor had misjudged tion Lloyd George nominated increasingly dissatisfied with the 1935 his purpose and that as regards his Sinclair for the parliamentary viability of opposing rearmament onwards arguments Churchill should ‘think party leadership, to which he was in the face of the emergence of it over – surely better than you elected unopposed. undemocratic regimes in conti- Sinclair admit and not wholly separated Sinclair inherited a quarrel- nental Europe. from your own’.4 some, demoralised and dispa- On 14 March 1935, eight shifted his It is not clear whether further rate group of twenty-one MPs. months before the general elec- discussion took place and what, if Between 1935 and 1939 he led tion, a major debate on the naval stance and any, greater role Churchill played an effective internal reorgani- supply estimates took place in the focused in changing Sinclair’s views, but sation, redefining the role and House of Commons; it marked it is apparent that from April responsibilities of the Liberal Par- the last time that Sinclair opposed increas- 1935 onwards Sinclair shifted ty’s central organisation, and initi- increased spending on the armed his stance and focused increas- ated a number of policy reviews. services. Sinclair made a lengthy ingly on ingly on the dangers that political However, the issue on which he speech attacking the Govern- extremism raised in continental was to find a national voice was ment’s policy of increasing naval the dan- Europe. Certainly this was the his early support for rearmament, spending, arguing that over £660 gers that last occasion on which he was often speaking in Parliament as million had been spent during to attack any government pro- one of the first opponents of the the preceding ten years, to lit- political posal for rearmament. Instead, by National Government’s policy tle value. Concluding his attack, May 1935, Sinclair was arguing of appeasing Hitler’s territorial he argued that ‘in the absence of extremism in support of the Government’s ambitions in Central Europe. any clear relation between this proposals to increase air defences Sinclair inherited from Her- country’s armament policy and a raised in as ‘an emergency contribution bert Samuel a policy position that policy for a collective system, we continental to the collective system of peace opposed rearmament and was on these benches will feel bound under the League of Nations’. over-reliant on the supposition by speech and vote to do all in Europe. This position was to form one of Journal of Liberal History 42 Spring 2004 31 SIR ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: THE LIBERAL ANTI-APPEASER the central planks of party policy Britain’s armed forces. In tandem, June 1936. Incensed by the Gov- under Sinclair. At its simplest, at every available opportunity, ernment’s refusal to stand up to Sinclair threw Liberal support he criticised the Government Italy over its invasion of Abyssinia, behind the need for collective for failing to demonstrate its he made one of the first parlia- security through the Covenant commitment to the League of mentary attacks on what was to of the League of Nations and Nations as the route for curtail- become the policy of appease- pressed the Government to target ing the ambitions of aggressor ment. ‘The Foreign Secretary expenditure on building a first- nations. Sinclair’s outrage at the [Eden] knows that aggression is rate Royal Air Force and secure announcement of the Hoare- an appetite that grows by what it naval defences.5 In this policy the Laval Pact, which overturned feeds on. The Government’s pol- Liberals were offering a genu- Britain’s support for the League icy puts a premium on successful ine alternative to Chamberlain’s of Nations’ policy of applying aggression and makes the world counsels of despair. sanctions to persuade Mussolini safe for dictatorship.’10 Together The Liberals were also able to to withdraw from Abyssinia, was with his colleague Geoffrey offer a policy in distinct contrast trumpeted in the House of Com- Mander, Liberal MP for Wolver- to the refusal of Attlee and the mons on 19 December 1935. hampton East, Sinclair harassed Labour Party to face up to grow- Sinclair claimed that the Govern- the Government for shedding ing threats from abroad. Between ment had failed in its obligations one potential ally after another 1931 and 1937 Labour adopted to give a lead to the League of and for refusing to use the powers what can only be described as a Nations and had turned its back of the League of Nations to resist policy of unilateral disarmament on its original proposals for deal- aggression effectively. and isolation. The Labour Party ing with Italian aggression. He During 1936 Sinclair came Conference in 1932 unanimously asserted that, thanks to Baldwin, under pressure from his colleagues passed a motion pledging the ‘the British Empire is now neuter in the Parliamentary Liberal Party party to ‘take no part in war and in the counsels of the League’.8 to consider forming a closer tie to resist it with the whole force When Sin- He urged that the Government with the Popular Front organi- of the Labour movement’. In the should stand firm in support of sation which had been set up to key defence spending votes of clair took sanctions or else be seen to have encourage non-Conservative the mid-1930s (the March 1935 been party to rewarding aggres- parties to cooperate against the debate on the Defence White over the sion. domestic policy of the National Paper, the 1935 and 1936 army, Liberal The German reoccupation Government. There was much navy and air estimates, and the of the demilitarised Rhineland feeling that the Popular Front 1937 Defence Loans Bill) the leader- in March 1936 and the resulting platform should be extended to Labour Party consistently voted concerns about the extent of Ger- international policy.