Radical Action and the Liberal Party during the Second World War

Radical Action was Unlike Common uring the Sec- ond World War, an influential pressure Wealth, Radical the main politi- group within the Action did not break cal parties agreed Liberal Party during free from the existing to suspend the normalD contest for seats in Par- the Second World party structure, but liament and on local councils. Well observed at first, the truce War. It questioned remained within increasingly came under chal- the necessity for the the Liberal Party. It lenge from independents of vari- ous hues and the newly created wartime electoral played a major role Common Wealth Party. Radical truce, campaigned in preserving the Action – originally known as the Liberal Action Group – was enthusiastically independence of the formed by Liberals who wished in support of the party after 1945 and to break the truce. Supported by a number of party activists, , in arguing for social including a number of sitting and urged the MPs and ‘rising stars’, Radical at a time Action also campaigned success- party leadership to when economic fully to keep the Liberals out of a post-war coalition. The group fight the post-war liberals were in the had a significant influence on general election as an ascendant. Mark Egan the Liberal Party’s attitude to the 1 Conservative Party and helped independent entity. tells its story. ensure the party’s survival as an

4 Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 Radical Action and the Liberal Party during the Second World War

independent entity in the post- July 1941, following the failure Johnson was a rebel who war era. of the even to stood against the ‘social climate Radical Action was also a debate a motion calling for the of prestige, family, tradition, manifestation of the ideological end of the party truce then in subservience, moral cowardice dispute within the party which operation in both national and and anything which militated was not finally resolved until the local politics. The moving force against political independence’.3 era of ’s leadership behind the group was Donald He had stood as an independent after 1956. The Liberal Party of Johnson, then prospective Lib- candidate at Liverpool Waver- the 1940s was predominantly eral parliamentary candidate for tree in a by-election in February concerned with , sound Bewdley, who had persuaded 1935, criticising both major par- money and ‘ownership for all’, the Bewdley Liberal Associa- ties for their attitudes towards all right-wing themes, particu- tion to sponsor the resolution the international situation. He larly in the context of the politi- opposing the truce. The resolu- out-polled the Liberal candi- cal debate of the time. Radical Radical tion was opposed by the leader- date in Liverpool but came third Action organised conferences at ship of the party, placed last on and was persuaded that he had which different visions of Brit- Action played the Assembly agenda and was to join a political party in order ain’s economic and social devel- a major role not reached before the Assem- to gain a wider hearing for his opment could be discussed and bly concluded. A small group point of view. He had family it campaigned vigorously in in preserving of mostly young attendees of ties with the Liberal Party and favour of the Beveridge Report. the Assembly met to discuss he respected their clear support the inde- what had happened and agreed for the League of Nations and pendence to form a group ‘whose com- for rearmament. Consequently, Formation mon aim will be to activate he accepted an invitation to The Liberal Action Group of the party and energise the Liberal Party become Bury’s prospective Lib- (LAG), the precursor of Radi- both as regards policy and eral parliamentary candidate cal Action, was formed on 19 after 1945. organisation’.2 in August 1935. Johnson was to

Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 5 radical action and the during the second world war remain a Liberal Party member The Liberal a set of radical policies for the membership conditions were for eight years (he later become a post-war era aimed at preventing discussed. The group had a Conservative MP) and through- Action Group the rise of fascism in the UK, but secretarial board, comprising out that period he raged against originally found that as a lone voice he was Johnson, J. A. Paton Walker and the sloth and inactivity which he unable to promote his scheme Frank Rodgers. Johnson appears felt characterised the leadership comprised effectively. Johnson’s ideas were to have been the most active of of the party, at both national and set out in a memorandum he these, circulating his own papers local levels. a small sent to the Director General of on the ‘ of Man’, interna- Two factors influenced John- the Ministry of Information, tional affairs and the economic son’s decision to form the LAG. number of Sir Walter Monckton, and the outlook. At the November First, Johnson contrasted the mostly young Liberal leader, Sir Archibald meeting a standing committee lethargy of the Liberal organi- Sinclair, and which he later was formed, to deal with day- sation with the enthusiasm Liberal expanded into a book, Safer than to-day problems. Honor Bal- with which he felt the elector- a Known Way. Sinclair expressed four, one of the founding staff of ate would receive a progressive candidates. no interest in Johnson’s ideas and and later to become political programme. John- Johnson began to make contact an eminent journalist with Time son resigned his candidature with other Liberals who felt sim- and Life magazines, was made at Bury, after polling a disap- ilarly that the Liberal hierarchy secretary. This committee, later pointing third in the 1935 elec- ought to be more receptive to known as the group’s executive tion, because he felt that the new thinking. committee, met at the Park Lane local Liberals did not relish his offices of Everett Jones, a promi- energetic approach to the role. nent member of the group. He was later involved with the Membership and Johnson’s leadership of the Oxford Liberal Association and organisation LAG ended in September 1942, urged Ivor Davies to fight the The Liberal Action Group origi- after the group failed to back a 1938 Oxford by-election even nally comprised a small number motion to the Liberal Assembly after the party leadership had of mostly young Liberal candi- which again urged the abandon- advised the local Liberals to dates. Two MPs were involved ment of the electoral truce (of back the left-wing independent, from the start – George Grey which more below). However, A. D. Lindsay. He was unim- and Sir – but the group continued to expand pressed by the state of the Lib- neither played a major role. and on 8 September 1942 Lance- eral Association at Bewdley, but Acland had already established lot Spicer was elected chairman. polled 36 per cent of the vote his own New Liberal Economic , MP for North in a by-election there in 1937 Policy Committee which was Cumberland, had originally and this, combined with other devoted to the principle of com- been approached to fill this new by-election results at the time, mon ownership and opposed to position. His pro-Republican persuaded him that the party the ‘Unrestricted Profit Motive’. stance during the Spanish Civil did have a future if it was better Acland was rapidly disengag- War had marked him out as left- organised and embraced a more ing from the Liberal Party and leaning but his close involve- radical programme. Between in September 1942 formed his ment with the Liberal Party June 1937 and July 1939 the Lib- own party, Common Wealth. Organisation precluded, in his eral Party contested 12 of the Johnson and Acland remained view, acceptance of the post.6 45 by-elections held and polled in touch, however, and Johnson Spicer was the chairman of a an average 36.2 per cent of the sent Acland some of the LAG’s paper company and the son of vote, although only four of these policy resolutions. During 1942, Sir Albert Spicer, a Liberal MP contests were three-cornered. Acland told Johnson, ‘I feel the before 1918. He had joined the In 1940, independent challeng- gap between us is closing’4 – but LAG at the start and Johnson ers to Conservative seats at by- it never did. said of him, ‘no other tiger had elections polled an average of The original LAG mem- growled more fiercely at the very 22.2 per cent between them; in bership was just 27, but by the mention of ‘action’ than had 1941 their average poll was 31.7 first formal meeting of the Lancelot Spicer’.7 It was agreed at per cent. These results suggested group, a two-day conference this time to increase the group’s that the Liberal Party could still at the membership to 100 and to con- attract anti-Conservative votes, in November 1941, member- sider the possibility of employ- in certain circumstances, and ship had risen to 50. This was ing a full-time secretary. Funds that it might be profitable for described as a ‘bare number on could not be found for this in the party to challenge the war- account of the group distribu- 1942, so two honorary secre- time truce. tion through the country’.5 A tarial assistants were engaged. Secondly, at the outset of the five-shilling subscription fee In August 1944 Wilfrid Roberts war, Johnson began formulating was proposed, and associate asked Spicer whether the group

6 Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war was taking on a full-time organ- those claimed as members were Noel Pemberton-Billing stood iser, but nothing came of this active participants. at four by-elections within initiative.8 Funds were found During 1943 the group met seven months and came close for premises and staff in Decem- at three-monthly intervals, and to winning at Dudley. Don- ber 1944, in anticipation of the Spicer reported in October 1943 ald Johnson’s opposition to the general election. The group that the group’s membership truce stemmed from his frustra- received two substantial dona- was 80.11 Johnson noted in his tion with the prosecution of the tions which enabled it to rent a autobiography, Bars and Bar- war, and wartime propaganda room at 346 Abbey House, Vic- ricades, that the group changed in particular, and from the gov- toria Street, and take on its name to Radical Action ernment’s failure to articulate a a secretary.9 However, this situ- as a result of Spicer assuming vision for post-war Britain. ‘The ation can only have lasted until the organisation’s chairman- time was ripe for the political the general election, after which ship.12 However, the name was entrepreneur who could stake the organisation was drastically not used in correspondence by a claim in the unexplained ter- reduced. Spicer until May 1943. ritory of anti-Party truce senti- The LAG’s activities con- ment’, he wrote later.13 Johnson tinued in the same vein as did not suggest that the Liberal before, despite the change of Objectives Party should break the truce in leadership from Johnson to The LAG’s original aim – to order to gain a party political Spicer. Discussion papers and activate and energise both the advantage, but he did believe long policy resolutions con- Liberal Party’s policies and its that individual Liberals, and tinued to be debated, Spicer organisation – was capable of a like-minded independents, wrote upwards of eighty such number of different interpre- could challenge the Conserva- papers himself, and there were tations and the group’s focus tives and win. occasional conferences at the changed over time, depend- However, the LAG did not National Liberal Club. A con- ing on who was most actively follow a united course on the ference was held there over involved in its work. Through- issue of the truce. A few mem- the weekend of 5–6 Decem- out the 1941–45 period, how- bers, notably Johnson, J. E. ber 1942, for example.10 Spicer ever, the group was mostly Emlyn-Jones, Ivor Davies and reported that no fewer than concerned with three issues Honor Balfour, did challenge five MPs (, within the Liberal Party: the the truce, both by argument Tom Horabin, George Grey, party’s electoral strategy, its and by standing at by-elec- and Wil- social and economic policy, and tions. However, the group as frid Roberts), five members its internal organisation and a whole adopted a less clear- of the Liberal Party executive activity in the constituencies. cut position. Spicer, writing committee and seven members in July 1942, commented that of the party council were now the ‘political truce is probably members of the LAG. Donald The electoral truce a necessity’,14 and argued that Johnson attended the confer- The issue which provided the the party whips should between ence, as did , the immediate spur for the for- them agree a government can- editor of the Huddersfield Exam- mation of the LAG was the didate to stand at by-elections, iner and a prominent Liberal, electoral truce. The idea of sus- against independents if need generally thought to be on pending political competition be. This was a plea to get ‘more the right of the party; Harold during the war predated the vigorous members of the com- Stoner, the editor of the Liberal commencement of hostilities munity’ or, in other words, Magazine; Lady Louise Glen- and was agreed without oppo- The issue more Liberals, into Parliament, Coats, one of the senior figures sition by all the main political and was unlikely to interest the in the ; parties, eventually including which pro- two major parties. At the 1942 and , treas- even the Communist Party. Liberal Assembly Emlyn-Jones urer of the group, and later This had not stopped a plethora vided the proposed a motion hostile to President of the Liberal Party. of independent candidates con- immediate the truce, but Spicer wrote later Also in attendance, although testing by-elections, the first that both he and Johnson had not as a member of the LAG, significant challenge being in spur for the agreed to withdraw the LAG’s was Thomas Balogh, later a June 1940 when an independ- support for it.15 Spicer claimed member of ’s ent Conservative, Sir Cuthbert formation of that the motion, which was ‘kitchen cabinet’. The group Headlam, gained over 70 per debated during the Assembly’s attracted some major figures cent of the vote at Newcastle the LAG was final hour, gained ‘consider- from the Liberal establishment, North. Liberals started to take the electoral able support’, but he himself which enhanced its credibility; notice of these independent did not vote for it. Emlyn-Jones but, as we shall see, not all of challengers during 1941, when truce. was the only LAG member to

Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 7 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war associate himself publicly with do so. Behind the question of MP for Grantham, was also the motion. the continuance of the truce lay organising independent candi- There were several reasons the spectre of another, prob- datures at certain by-elections. why Liberals felt uneasy about ably fatal, party split in which He put forward a supporter at the existence of the truce. The the independent Liberal Party the Newark by-election in June 1935 Parliament, which sat would be left without a leader of 1943, who was enthusiastically throughout the war, was the national standing. Furthermore, backed by Clement Davies and same body which had approved because of the support for inde- Tom Horabin. Their decision Chamberlain’s appeasement pendents in by-elections in 1942, scuppered Johnson’s hopes of policy and which had failed to the three main party leaders organising by-election cam- tackle unemployment, until agreed jointly to endorse candi- paigns which would harness the rearmament finally began in dates nominated in accordance full support of the LAG and its earnest. There were legitimate with the truce and to question parliamentary supporters. questions to be asked about the the patriotism of anyone who During 1943 both Johnson prosecution of the war effort, stood against them.19 This rein- and Balfour stood for Parlia- especially after the fall of Sin- forced the Liberal leadership’s ment, at Chippenham and Dar- gapore in early 1942; there were support for the truce, as did its wen (a Liberal seat until 1935) also those who disliked Church- opposition to a motion about respectively, and both came ill because of his record, for the truce put forward by John- exceptionally close to victory.21 example his part in the Gallipoli son and Ivor Davies at the party Despite being independently expedition, or were suspicious Assembly in 1943. organised, their campaigns were of his demagogy. Spicer noted Following the failure of their very similar. Both were pub- four criticisms of Churchill in efforts to persuade the Liberal licly opposed by the weight of 1944, including his ‘mastery of Party to abandon the truce, the official Liberal Party, which words’ and his ‘delight in the Johnson and Ivor Davies drew on both occasions backed the game of war’.16 At heart many up a list of 100 constituencies Conservative candidate. This Liberals felt that good govern- which they felt could offer a led to both Liberal associations ment required good opposition promising result for an inde- offering only limited help to and that without intelligent pendent Liberal candidate.20 the ‘Liberal’ candidates. John- opposition the government’s They agreed to contest any by- son stated that the only help he prosecution of the war and its elections in these constituen- received from the Chippenham deliberations on post-war poli- cies, with or without help from Liberals was the right to buy tics would both suffer. Thomas the LAG, Davies concentrating 38,000 addressed envelopes, Lodge summed up this strand of on the north of the country, which had been prepared in Liberal opinion in stating that Johnson on the south. Both men advance of a possible 1940 gen- the ‘principles of are Sinclair made were backed by Clement Davies, eral election.22 Balfour received absolute, and as valid in war as in who professed to be delighted at help from members of the Dar- peace.’17 it clear to LAG the idea. However, these plans wen Liberal Association after However, most Liberals also did not take into account the the association’s President, Sir admitted that there was force in members, existence of other independents Fritz Hindle, signed the nomi- the counter-arguments put for- eager to contest by-elections to nation papers of her oppo- ward by Sinclair and his Liberal at a dinner attack the government. Eight nent. Both Balfour and Johnson colleagues in the government. held in March independents originally came were, at first, strongly attacked Sinclair made it clear to LAG forward to contest the Central by the local media. Balfour was members, at a dinner held in 1942, that Bristol by-election in Febru- backed by the News Chronicle, March 1942, that if the party was ary 1943, for example, although but only after the local newspa- to break the truce the Liberal if the party only three eventually stood. pers had threatened to boycott ministers would be required to Johnson secured a provisional her campaign altogether.23 The leave the government.18 It would was to break agreement from the National Bath and Wiltshire Chronicle fired clearly be intolerable for a party the truce the Committee of Common Wealth several broadsides at Johnson, to support the government in the that they would not contest the describing him as an ‘irrespon- House of Commons but oppose Liberal min- 100 seats on Johnson’s list. How- sible adventurer’ of ‘unbalanced it in the constituencies. Sin- ever, Johnson was unable to pre- mind’ whose ‘presence is highly clair also indicated that his first isters would vent ‘independent’ independent undesired’ and whose candida- responsibility, in the instance Liberal candidates standing at ture served only to ‘divert effort of the party breaking the truce, be required Eddisbury and Daventry in April from the winning of the war for would be to the Prime Minister to leave the 1943, seats not on the list of 100. several weeks’. Furthermore, and that if Churchill wished him To complicate matters further, the newspaper described John- to remain a minister he would government. Denis Kendall, the independent son as a:

8 Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war

political beggar who wants Blackburn. N. R. Dickinson Allies and others to play him the part of the Yorkshire Liberal Fed- opponents of of glorifying him, a lone, eration summed up a growing Radical Action: unknown, untried and very grassroots feeling, ‘it is posi- Sir Archibald audacious figure who has gam- tively heart-rending to see the Sinclair, Tom Horabin, bolled on to the political plat- dissipation of energy that is Clement Davies form as if it were a music-hall going on in quarters that should and Sir Richard stage and he was a rag-tailed be united in common hostility Acland comedian out only to catch to the organised forces which laughs – for he will certainly brought our country so near to never catch votes.24 disaster at the time of the out- break of the war’.28 However, Neither candidate benefited both candidates failed to make from a substantial political a breakthrough and the truce organisation. Johnson was una- held. Radical Action failed to ble to book any indoor venues provide active support for the for his meetings and was barely candidates, despite both being able to reach any electors out- prominent members of the side the towns of Chippen- organisation. Radical Action ham, Calne and Malmesbury. offered more help to Marga- Balfour relied on an ad hoc ret Corbett-Ashby at Bury St. local committee and an enthu- Edmunds in 1944, but it was siastic band of Young Liber- ‘too little and too late’.29 als. Although both candidates received minimal support from Radical Action, they were Liberal membership of the backed by many individual Lib- Churchill government erals and others. The Labour As early as 1942 the LAG aban- Party supported the truce can- doned its fitful efforts to break didate in both by-elections. the truce and turned its atten- Johnson had argued with Com- tion to two more issues of Lib- mon Wealth and received no eral strategy – whether the party help from them; nor was he should remain part of the gov- helped by A. D. Lindsay or ernment and when the party’s . He noted independence should be reas- that Radical Action ‘discov- serted after the end of the war. ered a variety of reasons for not Tom Horabin argued at the LAG being able to back him at all’.25 conference in December 1942 Spicer wrote to both Johnson that the Liberal ministers should and Balfour and urged them first leave the government and both not to stand.26 All of John- then break the truce, as a party son’s meetings were addressed of opposition. Even if the war by a team comprising himself, was won, he suggested, the Balfour and two independ- ‘present government would lose ent, truce-breaking MPs, Bill the war for the common peo- Brown and George Reakes.27 ple’.30 Johnson supported this, Balfour received several private but Spicer was doubtful, won- messages of support. Lord Dav- dering whether Horabin was ies sent her £150 towards her suggesting that the parliamen- election expenses; Lady Violet tary party should manufacture a Bonham Carter and Sir George situation whereby it could cross Gower offered encouraging the floor.31 A motion supporting words; Clement Davies and the move into opposition was Vernon Bartlett were enthusias- backed by the conference, with tic in their private backing. The Clement Davies again an enthu- Liberal Associations in Hali- siastic supporter. fax, Lancaster and Newcastle- The idea of leaving the under-Lyme offered assistance, government was put to Sin- as did a Labour councillor from clair at a lunch shortly after the

Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 9 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war conference. Predictably, Sinclair people can be made into real- Spicer, in election should be fought by the refused to countenance the idea ity’.33 Following this exchange party ‘without any obligations and then raised the issue of the of correspondence between a letter to to any other party’.36 The Liberal Liberal Party’s position after the Spicer and Sinclair, the LAG Edward Hul- Party Council also backed this war. Sinclair felt that the war continued to argue that the Lib- approach. leaders, presumably including eral Party had a duty to oppose ton of the As late as July 1944 Sinclair himself, would not participate and embarrass the government, indicated at a luncheon with in a large way in the post-war and move into opposition if Picture Post, Sir Malcolm Stewart, the brick general election, and that there need be. Sinclair had made it manufacturer, that he wished might be more than three par- plain that he was staying in felt that this Churchill to stay in power after ties competing for power, with the government, however, and announce- the war, that he hoped Liberals a strong Communist challenge, Radical Action turned its atten- could support Churchill’s elec- and a right-wing Tory splinter tion to the matter of the party’s ment implied tion programme and that there party. In his view, this, com- status after the war. would be increased Liberal rep- bined with possible US isola- that both resentation in the government tionism, would necessitate the after the election.37 Sinclair was avoidance of party politics in The Liberal Party after the of Radical not without allies amongst his the House of Commons. This war Action’s aims parliamentary colleagues. A was interpreted as a clear signal Sinclair had suggested in 1941 few months earlier Harcourt that Sinclair was considering an that the coalition government – to secure Johnstone had said in a speech alliance with left-wing , could continue after the war, at Middlesbrough that Liber- his ministerial colleagues, in until international peace, order, the party’s als could be satisfied with the order to counteract a Commu- justice and commerce were all reform measures undertaken nist breakthrough. Spicer was restored. This process would independ- by the National Government.38 scathing: take nearer to ‘3 years’ than ‘3 ence and to However, Sinclair was also a weeks’.34 Sinclair was not simply party man and he recognised They might have well been thinking of what might be best guarantee the pressure being exerted the views of someone who had for the country; he suspected upon him by the Liberal Party spent the last two years living that an early election would be the party’s Organisation as well as by Rad- in a trance. When I reflect on to the benefit of the Conserva- ical Action. The Labour Party’s them I can now understand, at tives and to the detriment of the backing for position was also influential; last, the attitudes of the grey poorly organised Liberals. a radical continuing in a coalition with beards in the party, who seem By 1943 the political situation the Conservatives after Labour to resent the intrusion of peo- had evolved and it was becom- programme had departed would have ple who wish to set the Liberal ing clearer that the Labour Party severely compromised the Lib- Party in motion, to overtake did not wish to continue with – had been eral Party’s identity. In October the spontaneous march of pub- coalition government beyond 1944 the Liberal Parliamentary lic opinion to the left. Nothing the end of the war in Europe. achieved. Party finally stated that the which he said seemed to justify Speaking at the 1943 Assembly party would fight the election my joining the Liberal Party Sinclair said: with the maximum number instead of either the Tory or of candidates and in complete the Labour Party. I came to the I have always recoiled from the independence. Spicer, in a letter conclusion that Sinclair does prospect of a general election to Edward Hulton of the Picture not believe that the Liberal fought immediately after we Post, felt that this announce- Party will survive as a separate finish the war with Germany ment implied that both of Rad- entity.32 … [but] … consultation with ical Action’s aims – to secure the electors ought not to be the party’s independence and to Spicer suggested to Sinclair that unduly delayed.35 guarantee the party’s backing the debate over the implemen- for a radical programme – had tation of the Beveridge Report, This approach did not sat- been achieved.39 early in 1943, could be used as isfy party members at the 1943 an opportunity to make a stand Assembly, who supported John- on a radical issue and break with son’s motion opposing the con- Social and economic policy the government. Sinclair con- tinuance of the coalition after Several individual Liberals demned what he saw as a dan- the war in Europe. Sinclair offered their vision of post-war gerous game of party politics, refused to be bound by the deci- economic and social policy in arguing that ‘victory is the only sion, but the pressure on him a variety of books and pam- basis on which the Beveridge increased when a meeting of phlets published during the Report or any other plan for Liberal candidates in January war years. Johnson’s social and the betterment of the life of the 1944 urged that the forthcoming economic policy proposals,

10 Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war outlined in Safer than a Known and that Liberals should guard 1943.46 Another former group Way, stemmed from his per- against ‘the kind of planning member went further, stating of ception that the pre-eminent which would establish a regime Horabin, ‘we had no firm con- post-war concern would be the of totalitarian or bureaucratic tact with him and certainly were prevention of the re-emergence tyranny’.42 Horabin led the not linked to the policies he put of fascism. He advocated the opposition to this orthodoxy forward in his book’. Spicer was redistribution of wages and prof- and the group’s policy took on a forced to make the same point its, industrial co-partnership, more radical tone as a result. The to Sinclair, when the latter sug- improved credit facilities to questions of whether monopo- gested that Radical Action was aid the improvement of indus- lies were all bad and which pressing the Liberal Party to try, and the eventual creation industries should be nationalised accept wide-scale economic of a federal world government, were referred to a committee, planning: which would bring with it free headed by Dr Balogh, and an trade and international peace amendment suggesting that the Radical Action was not formed and harmony. In the context of state should decide ‘in which by a group who have the same the war years, this did not consti- spheres restricted private enter- views on economic questions, tute an especially radical agenda. prise can continue to operate’ it was formed by a group of Johnson was followed into print was passed. people who were dissatisfied by by two Liberal MPs, Sir Richard The LAG’s enthusiasm for the inertia of the Liberal Party Acland and Tom Horabin, who considering economic solutions organisation and were deter- both set out far more extreme which were anathema to the mined to try and get some life positions. In What It Will be Liberal hierarchy did cause the into it.47 Like in the New Britain, Acland party’s leadership some concern. suggested that the nation’s eco- After Spicer and Everett Jones Radical Action’s main objec- nomic problems would be solved lunched with Sir Archibald Sin- tive in the economic sphere was by the ‘’ of clair in December 1942, Spicer to persuade the Liberal Party land and property and went as wrote to Sinclair, ‘I inferred leadership to adopt a thorough far as to claim that, ‘we, with- from several of the remarks you programme of post-war eco- out forecasting any of the details made that you feel that mem- nomic reform and reconstruc- of Common Ownership, can bers of the Liberal Action Group tion, which could form the basis be certain that it must be better have been largely dominated by of a popular appeal to the elec- than giant ’.40 Horabin, one or two members of Parlia- torate. As early as December in Politics Made Plain, argued ment. One in particular.’43 That 1942, Spicer sent Sinclair a LAG that Radical Action wanted to Radical one was Horabin, who was motion which stated: use ‘the power of the State to Action’s main widely regarded within the Lib- build a Britain fit for ordinary eral Party as a left-wing extrem- That the war can only be won decent people’,41 and this would objective in ist.44 Horabin become involved in the shortest time, and the involve the abolition of the pub- with the LAG late in 1942,45 and opportunities of victory be lic schools, the nationalisation the economic his claim to speak for Radical realised if a substantial meas- of power, transport, coal, land Action was a result of his regular ure of reform is embodied in and the banking industry, and sphere was attendance at the group’s meet- legislation now. It considers the implementation of the Bev- to persuade ings. However, he was never that a firm assurance to the eridge Report in full. closely involved with the run- people of Great Britain of the The bulk of the Liberal the Liberal ning of the group. Although kind of economic and social Party, Radical Action included, he was vocal in the discussion life which will be open to was sceptical of policies which Party leader- of the group’s policy resolu- them at the close of hostilities is involved the dramatic exten- tions, Radical Action never indispensable.48 sion of the power of the state. ship to adopt supported resolutions which The LAG meeting in December went as far as Horabin desired Spicer argued that the other 1942 was primarily concerned a thorough in extending the state’s eco- two parties would not be able with an economic policy motion programme nomic role. Spicer, in an ongo- to tackle adequately the chal- which was initially close to the ing correspondence with Harold lenges of peace because both position of the Liberal Party as of post-war Stoner, regularly expressed his would be too tired at the end a whole. Although it sought the exasperation with Horabin and of the war and both represented nationalisation of the natural economic his political ally Clement Dav- constituencies which were dia- monopolies and transport it also ies. ‘We were unusually free of metrically opposed to each made clear that there should be a reform and personalities (Horabin, Balogh other. Consequently, post-war ‘framework of law within which reconstruc- and Clem Davies were none of reconstruction offered enor- there will be the widest pos- them present)’, noted Spicer of a mous electoral potential to the sible scope for free enterprise’ tion. Radical Action meeting in June Liberal Party.49

Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 11 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war

The publication of the Bev- being the party of Beveridge was the ‘best living argument I eridge Report in November and his report, it was lost in know against having women in 1942, and its immediate popu- 1943, when the party failed to politics’.56 larity with the general pub- stake out its position with suffi- Initially the LAG formed lic, galvanised those Liberals cient clarity to make an impact no coherent plan to tackle this most concerned with post-war on the electorate. oligarchy. However, Radical reconstruction issues. Spicer Action did launch one assault called for the Liberal Parlia- on the make-up of the party’s mentary Party to back the Party organisation leadership, by submitting a slate report, almost immediately Johnson described the Liberal of candidates to the elections for after it was published, but leadership as the ‘most out- the LPO officerships in 1944. received an equivocal reply standing example of nepotism Leonard Harris spelt out the from Sinclair on the subject, of any institution I have ever group’s intentions in a letter to to the effect that the ‘govern- known’.54 The higher echelons Arthur Worsley, one of the par- ment is doing a great deal about of the party were dominated ty’s senior agents: social reform and reconstruc- by individuals who owed their tion after the war’.50 In Febru- positions to their family con- Try to consider what I should ary 1943, with the House of nections, their money or both. think of a business which had Commons about to divide on The Cadburys, Seelys, Foots, on its board of directors men a Labour amendment urging and, of course, the Bonham of the age and temperament of the government to implement Carters, formed the quasi-aris- Rea, [H.] Worsley and John- the report’s recommendations, tocratic Asquithian hierarchy stone. My objection to the the LAG sent a telegram to Sin- which outsiders found diffi- latter is chiefly his conserva- clair and Sir (who cult to penetrate. All the Lib- tism, not his age. I should not led the Liberal backbenchers in eral ministers in the coalition be inclined to put money into the Commons) urging them to government – Sinclair, Dingle such a company.57 back the amendment. Sinclair Foot, Seely, Rothschild and supported the government, but Johnstone – belonged to the Four Radical Action candidates only three backbench Liberal same dining club as Churchill, were advanced. J. E. Emlyn- MPs backed him up, while nine .55 The LAG may Jones and A. P. Marshall were voted against the government.51 have been formed to achieve put forward for the vice-pres- Sinclair’s decision to support certain ill-defined politi- idential vacancies; Spicer and the government and oppose the cal ends, but it also reflected Harris stood for the three vacan- immediate implementation of the frustration felt by young, cies for the position of treasurer. the Beveridge Report caused a ambitious candidates to ‘get Spicer, who by this time had great deal of disquiet amongst on’ in the party and to assume been invited on to a committee Radical Action members. the positions of responsibility whose remit was to re-fashion Spicer later wrote that, ‘Sin- which they were largely denied the machinery of the LPO, was clair should have resigned on by dint of their background. appalled at the complacent atti- the third day of the Beveridge In 1944, Stephen Bonarjee, tude of some of its members. He Report debate’.52 who had been an officer of the asked Marshall: Beveridge himself was Johnson National League of Young Lib- elected as Liberal MP for Ber- erals before the war, complained if you want to revive the party, wick in 1944, under the terms described of the snobbery of the senior do you honestly think it can be of the truce, following the figures in the party, remark- done by having as officers, men death in action of George Grey. the Liberal ing how easily Mark Bonham of the age and temperament as This allowed Spicer to conclude Carter had been selected as Lord Rea, Harcourt Johnstone that Radical Action had suc- leadership candidate for the promising and ? Do you really ceeded in infusing the party as the ‘most Barnstaple constituency, and think Wilfrid Roberts has the with a militant, radical policy.53 how Philip Rea had revived his vigour to infuse dynamic into Beveridge was prominent in the outstanding interest in standing for Darwen the organisation throughout Liberal Party’s campaign during in 1945, in the light of Balfour’s the country? When you look the 1945 general election and example of by-election performance. Vio- round the council, whilst I most Liberal candidates made let Bonham Carter attracted a have the greatest respect for reference to his report and to nepotism of large part of Radical Action’s the Viscountess Gladstone and the party’s commitment to any institu- censures, because, to some, her the Marchioness of Crewe, I fight want, ignorance, idleness, prominence in the party was at cannot believe that they are squalor and disease. However, if tion I have least as much due to her fam- capable, at their age, of reviv- there was any advantage to be ily connections as to her ability. ing the Liberal Party. Lord gained from the Liberal Party ever known’. Bonarjee commented that she Stanmore is up for the peers;

12 Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war

do you think he will help Radical Action members who The relation- A major issue for the Lib- revive the Liberal party? Sir could have stood in the 1945 eral leadership during the war George Paish is sincere, but election (excluding sitting MPs) ship between was the possibility of reunit- will he be a potent force in the put themselves forward at the Radical ing the Liberal and Liberal Liberal Party?58 poll. Radical Action members National parties. Ernest Brown, performed slightly better than Action and the Liberal National leader, Radical Action’s challenge Liberal candidates as a whole in approached Sinclair on the sub- failed, but it had been a half- 1945, but 31 of the 40 finished the leader- ject of Liberal reunion in July hearted one at best. The group third and one Radical Action 1943 and negotiations were only turned its attention to member finished fourth. More ship of the conducted for eighteen months organisational matters after it strikingly, 24 of the 40 Radi- Liberal Party before it was decided that agree- was clear that pressure to aban- cal Action members who stood ment could not be reached.62 A don the electoral truce, pull the for Parliament in 1945 failed to was always Radical Action pamphlet cited Liberal ministers out of the gov- stand in 1950, despite the fact ‘ending attempts at union with ernment or force Sinclair’s hand that the party was desperate for strained, the Liberal Nationals’ as an aim over the matter of the party’s candidates and even advertised of the group.63 A letter from independence were futile. The in the press to secure them. but at least Everett Jones was published 1944 Assembly was the only there was a in The Guardian in November occasion on which Radical 1943 opposing Liberal reunion Action used the LPO machinery Radical Action and the relationship. and Spicer concluded that the to challenge the leadership, but Liberal Party Liberal Nationals represented the group’s failure to build links The relationship between Radi- nothing which was ‘not more with the party rank and file (as cal Action and the leadership honestly represented by the will be seen below) cost it dear. of the Liberal Party was always Tories’.64 In October 1944 Spicer wrote a strained, but at least there was a There was virtually no com- paper entitled ‘Liberals must lead relationship. Sinclair was willing munication between Radical a radical revival’, which stated occasionally to engage with the Action and Liberal ministers that an immediate goal of Radi- group, and Radical Action was such as Rothschild, Seely and cal Action must be to ensure allowed to affiliate to the party Johnstone. What is perhaps sur- that all the officers and members as an independent organisa- prising is that two of the war- of committees throughout the tion. Radical Action therefore time Liberal MPs who later party were radical in outlook enjoyed the same status within defected to Labour – Dingle and active in the constituen- the party as the Liberal Social Foot and Sir Geoffrey Mander – cies.59 At the national level, this Council or the Liberal Candi- took no part in the activities of was not achieved. dates’ Association.61 the group.65 In August 1944 Spicer Sinclair appears to have Although Clement Davies declared that, ‘Radical Action met the leadership of the Lib- and Horabin, the ‘twin spirits as a unit and members of Radi- eral Action Group on only one of Liberal oppositionism in the cal Action individually are occasion, at a luncheon on 16 wartime parliament’,66 were doing all they can to get con- December 1942. It was at this regularly involved in Radi- stituencies active’.60 This indi- occasion that Sinclair spelt out cal Action’s activities, other cated a further rationale for why he would not lead the Lib- parliamentarian members of the group’s existence. If Radi- eral Party out of the electoral the group – Granville and cal Action could galvanise truce or out of the government. Megan Lloyd George – seem the constituency associations, Sinclair and Spicer exchanged to have been members in name by encouraging the activities correspondence throughout the only. Wilfrid Roberts had an of radical, young candidates winter of 1942–43 but, as has ambiguous relationship with throughout the country, then been noted, Sinclair refused to the group. Roberts joined the it might have been possible for alter his position on these issues LAG at its inception but was the group to achieve its objec- and the correspondence ceased. always heavily involved with tive of giving the party a ‘left- After February 1943 only one the Liberal Party Organisation wards tendency’ by ensuring other exchange of correspond- and consequently had a semi- that a bloc of radical Liberal ence appears to have taken place detached attitude towards the MPs was returned to the House between the two men, in Janu- group’s concerns.67 of Commons. ary 1944 on economic issues. When the Liberal Action The evidence to suggest that Clearly, Sinclair did not care for Group was set up, it was delib- Radical Action played a part Radical Action’s views and felt erately established as a small in galvanising constituency that having communicated his group. Its membership was associations, however, is thin. position to them, he could safely restricted to MPs, parliamen- Only 40 of the 99 identifiable ignore them. tary candidates and party

Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 13 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war officials. For all Spicer’s exhor- the Beveridge Report in full.70 The group is best understood as tations for the group to get Altrincham & Sale Liberal Asso- a player in internal Liberal Party involved in the constituencies, ciation wrote to the government politics, not as a body which the contact between the group to express its dissatisfaction at was prepared to step out on the and the rank-and-file member- how the Beveridge Report had national political stage. Thirdly, ship of the Liberal Party was been handled.71 Radical Action did not possess minimal. A number of Lib- a set of policies which it could eral Party members from the expound and to which members 1940s were interviewed during Conclusion could subscribe. Unlike Com- the course of this research and Seen within the context of war- mon Wealth, which had a doc- none appeared to realise that time politics, the formation of trinaire approach to economic the electoral truce was ever a the Liberal Action Group, later questions, Radical Action was bone of contention within the Radical Action, was not a sur- a forum for discussion. It was party.68 prising event. With the normal never fashioned as a body for The Liberal Assembly was the outlets of political expression putting coherent political prin- only forum in which non-mem- closed for the duration of the ciples across to the electorate. bers of the group could have hostilities, political activists The influence of Radical come into contact with Radi- dissatisfied with the course of Action on the direction taken cal Action, but assembles were the war or the government’s by the Liberal Party in the mid- held in London throughout the proposed policies of post-war 1940s was significant, in two war and only a relatively small reconstruction had nowhere respects in particular. Firstly, its number of constituency asso- to turn. New political groups strong support for the immedi- ciations sent delegates to them, sprang up as a consequence ate implementation of the Bev- compared to the assemblies of and independents enjoyed a eridge Report, and its pressure the immediate post-war period. field day in dozens of by-elec- on the party leadership to back Only one motion proposed by tions. What is perhaps surpris- the radical blueprints for post- Radical Action members was ing is that Radical Action kept war reconstruction, were highly carried, and that, on the party’s its faith with the Liberal Party influential. Secondly, Radical post-war independence, could throughout the war. In conclu- Action consistently pressed the have been expected to have The development of Com- Liberal Party to fight the post- attracted widespread support. mon Wealth into an independ- sion, Radical war general election on an inde- As might be expected, Lib- ent political party suggested pendent basis, and helped force eral regional and constituency one path for the development Action had a Sir Archibald Sinclair to agree organisations were practically of Radical Action. There were to that course of action late in moribund during the war and, as three reasons why this did not significant 1944. On both issues, Radical a result, there are few indications happen. First, the group’s leaders role to play Action struck a chord with the of what rank-and-file members felt very strongly that Radical party rank and file and was suc- thought about Radical Action or Action should be a constitution- in ensuring cessful in achieving its objectives the views it espoused. Spicer was ally recognised element of the only after other influential, and a member of the executive com- Liberal Party and that it should that the more formal, bodies within the mittee of the London Liberal not do anything which would Liberal Party had expressed the Federation and this may have not be approved by the party as Liberal Party same views. Nevertheless, it was been the reason why the Lon- a whole. There was little chal- entered the Radical Action which raised don Liberal Federation passed lenge to this conception of the these issues first and continued a motion in 1944 noting ‘with group’s role. The LAG applied to post-war to do so clearly and persuasively. regret that Radical Action is become a recognised unit of the On issues where most Liberal now canvassing Liberals every- Liberal Party as early as 1941, and era as an activists did not share the views where to join their group’.69 The mindful of the ‘schisms and dis- of Radical Action, such as the federation opposed the group’s tractions of the last twenty four entirely participation of Liberal ministers formal affiliation to the party on years’, it was made clear from independent in the Churchill government, the grounds that it was ‘resolved the start that it was ‘in no way the group made little headway. in certain particulars in direct intended to usurp’ the proper party, free Radical Action was able to ini- conflict with the majority deci- functions of the Liberal Party.72 tiate and lead debate within the sions of the Assembly and the Secondly, Radical Action served from ties to Liberal Party on such matters, LPO Council’. In contrast, the as a vehicle by which young, but could not overcome the Scottish Liberal Council called radical parliamentary candi- Churchill’s opposition of the party estab- in September 1943 for the end- dates and members of the party’s Conservative lishment without the support ing of the truce after the end council and executive could of the Liberal Council or other of the war and the adoption of challenge the Liberal leadership. Party. bodies of activists.

14 Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war

Radical Action cannot claim to have revived the con- Bibliography stituencies, and the electoral performance of its members Books and monographs was decidedly average. Nei- Acland, Sir R., What it will be like in the New Britain (Victor Gollancz, 1942).Davies, I., Trial by Ballot (Christo- ther the group nor its members pher Johnson, 1950). were involved in the publica- de Groot, G., Liberal Crusader: The Life of Sir Archibald Sinclair (London: Hurst, 1993). Douglas, R., Liberals: The History of the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Parties (London: Hambledon, 2005). tion of the report of the post- Harris, Sir P., Forty Years in and out of Parliament (1947). war reconstruction committee, Horabin, T., Politics made Plain (Penguin, 1944). Coats Off For The Future!, and Johnson, D. [writing as Odysseus], Safer than a Known Way (London: Jonathan Cape, 1941). the initiative resulted from the –––, Bars and Barricades (Christopher Johnson, 1952). outcome of the election, not Jones, M., A Radical Life: The Biography of Megan Lloyd George 1902–66 (London: Hutchinson, 1991). from any events or suggestions Norris, P., British By-elections (Clarendon Press, 1990). made beforehand. Rasmussen, J. S., The Liberal Party: a study of retrenchment and revival (Constable, 1965). The Times’ Guides to the House of Commons 1945–64. It is worth examining whether the Liberal Party would have been better off if Radical Journal articles Action members had been able Baines, M., ‘The Liberal Party and the 1945 General Election’, Contemporary Record, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 48–61. to gain control of the party dur- Greaves, T., ‘Liberals and the 1945 Election: comment’, Liberal Democrat History Group Newsletter, No. 9. ing the war and run it according Ingham R., ‘Battle of Ideas of Absence of Leadership?’, Journal of Liberal History, 47, Summer 2005. Ingham, R., and Wright, M., ‘Tom Horabin Remembered’, Journal of Liberal History, 53, Winter 2006. to their aims, or if Sinclair had Joyce, P., ‘The Liberal Party and the 1945 General Election’, Liberal Democrat History Group, 1995. been persuaded by the group’s Reynolds, J., and Hunter, I., ‘Liberal Class Warrior’, Journal of Liberal History, 28, Autumn 2000, pp. 17–21. arguments. Firstly, both Ivor Thorn, J. D., and R., ‘The Liberal Party and the 1945 General Election’, Liberal Democrat History Group Davies and Donald Johnson Newsletter, No. 11. claimed that the Liberal Party would have benefited elector- Unpublished material ally from ending the truce. London Liberal Federation papers, 1446/4, Greater London Record Office. Davies wrote in 1950 that the Scottish Liberal Federation papers, University Library. ‘position in the middle of 1943 Altrincham and Sale Liberal Association, DDX 387,Cheshire Record Office. Honor Balfour papers, Bodleian Library. provided the best opportunity for the creation of a new Liberal bloc in the House of Commons that had taken place for twenty Liberals in the few seats the lat- 1945 general election. By 1945, years’.73 Sinclair stated that end- ter held. It is difficult to appre- however, the party was une- ing the truce would require the ciate the basis on which Davies quivocally backing the report Liberal ministers to leave the believed the Liberal Party could and many other measures of government, and he would con- have benefited from ‘seizing post-war reform. Furthermore, template doing this only in the the initiative’ in 1942–43 by Beveridge himself campaigned unlikely event of the govern- fighting by-elections. Only extensively in the Liberal inter- ment compromising an essential if an issue arose on which the est. For causes of the Liber- Liberal principle. Leaving the whole Liberal Party could leave als’ embarrassment in the 1945 government on a lesser matter the government would such election, one must look else- than Sinclair envisaged would an opportunity have existed; where, particularly towards the undoubtedly have split the party without such an issue, any for- party’s weak organisation in the and a considerable number of mal attempt to end the truce constituencies. senior figures and constituency would have split the party and In conclusion, Radical members would have remained probably killed off independent Action had a significant role to loyal to the government. The Liberalism. play in ensuring that the Liberal remaining ‘independent’ Lib- Secondly, it could be argued Party entered the post-war era eral Party would have been very that had the Liberal Party as as an entirely independent party, weak, but it would have been a whole, and its ministers in free from ties to Churchill’s well placed to pick up a hand- particular, embraced the Bev- Conservative Party. Historians ful of seats in by-elections before eridge Report immediately on have tended to identify Clement 1945. However, it is difficult to its publication and pressed the Davies’ refusal of office in the envisage how a post-war general government for the immedi- 1951 Conservative government election would have brought ate implementation of its rec- as a key moment in the survival anything but electoral disaster, ommendations, then the party of the Liberal Party;74 Archibald especially if Tory-backed Lib- would have benefited from the Sinclair’s reluctant decision to erals stood against independent leftwards swing evinced at the indicate that the party would

Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 15 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war fight the 1945 general elec- Action to Balfour, 14.12.44. Johnson by 195. Hulton, 10.11.44. tion on an independent 10 Ibid., Liberal Action Group, 22 Johnson, Bars and Barricades, p. 40 Acland, Sir R., What it will be basis, which followed a sus- report of meeting at National 236. like in the New Britain, p. 10. tained campaign by Radical Liberal Club, 5.12.42 and 19 23 The Guardian 11.12.43 and 41 Horabin, T., Politics made Plain, Action, was perhaps equally New Bridge Street 6.12.42. interview with Honor Balfour. pp. 125–26. significant. Furthermore, 11 It is worth noting that one 24 Johnson, Bars and Barricades, pp. 42 Balfour papers, ‘Liberal Action in leading the campaign non-Liberal MP joined Radi- 238–39. Group, report of meeting at in favour of the Beveridge cal Action prior to 1945: Ver- 25 Ibid., pp. 234–5. National Liberal Club, 5.12.42 Report, Radical Action non Bartlett, the independent 26 Balfour papers, letter Spicer to and 19 New Bridge Street took up arms against the member for Bridgwater, who Johnson, 21.7.43 and Spicer to 6.12.42’. economic liberals who were had previously been associated Balfour, 26.11.43. 43 Ibid., letter Spicer to Sinclair, in the ascendant in terms of with Acland. 27 Johnson, Bars and Barricades, p. 17.12.42. the Liberal Party’s ideologi- 12 Johnson, Bars and Barricades, p. 241. 44 Reynolds and Hunter, ‘Liberal cal direction in the 1930s and 218. 28 Balfour papers, letters to Class Warrior’, and Ingham 1940s. In this, the group 13 Ibid., p. 220. Balfour from: Lord Davies, and Wright, ‘Tom Horabin presaged the ideological bat- 14 Balfour papers, ‘Some thoughts 27.11.43, Lady Bonham Carter, Remembered’. tles of the 1950s, which were on the present political and war 18.12.43, Sir George Gower, 45 Balfour papers, letter Spicer to only finally resolved when situations’, 6.7.42. 17.12.43, C. Davies, 10.12.43, H. Stoner 10.12.42, ‘Horabin Jo Grimond became party 15 Ibid., letters Spicer to W. Rob- V. Bartlett, 7.12.43, Halifax has been a very frustrated per- leader in 1956.75 erts, 13.8.42, and Spicer to D. Liberal Association, 11.12.43, son … [I am] hopeful that when Foot, 8.9.42. Cllr A. E. Turner, undated, M. he has got a place in which [he] Mark Egan, a political historian, 16 Ibid., ‘Political Reflections’, Jackson, 8.12.43, T. McNamee, can express himself, he may be has recently published Coming No. 61, 26–27.3.44. undated and N. R. Dickinson, nothing like as extreme as you into Focus: The Transfor- 17 Ibid., memorandum by T. 8.12.43. seem to fear.’ mation of the Liberal Party Lodge, no. 43, 19.8.43. 29 Johnson, Bars and Barricades, p. 46 Ibid., letter Spicer to H. Stoner, 1945–64 (VDM Verlag , 2009). 18 Ibid., note from dinner by 248. 8.6.43. Radical Action to Sinclair, 30 Balfour papers, Liberal Action 47 Ibid., letter Spicer to Sinclair, 1 This article is principally 9.3.42. Group, report of meet- 12.1.44. based on the papers of Honor 19 Davies, I., Trial by Ballot, p. 156. ing at National Liberal Club 48 Ibid., LAG resolution sent by Balfour, which Miss Balfour The coupon was tremendously 5.12.42, and 19 New Bridge Spicer to Sinclair and to Sir. P. kindly allowed me to consult unpopular amongst many Lib- Street, 6.12.42 – second day’s Harris, 18.2.43. in the years before her death erals. Honor Balfour received proceedings. 49 Ibid., memorandum on lunch in 2002. The papers have now several letters on the subject 31 Ibid., letter Spicer to Sir A. Sin- with Sinclair, 16.12.42. been deposited with the Bod- during her by-election cam- clair, 30.12.42, ‘I would never 50 Ibid., letter Sinclair to Spicer leian Library, Oxford. paign, including one from Lord advocate leaving the govern- 22.12.42. 2 Johnson, D., Bars and Barricades, Davies, who threatened to ment in order to build up the 51 Voting with the government p. 211. resign from the party because strength of the Party in the were , Harcourt 3 Ibid., p. 49. For more informa- of it. (Balfour papers, letter country’. Johnstone, Sir Geoffrey Man- tion about Johnson see Ingham Davies to Balfour, 31.12.43). 32 Ibid., memorandum on lunch der, James de Rothschild, Sir R., ‘Donald Johnson: the last 20 Johnson, D., Bars and Barri- with Sinclair, 16.12.42. Archibald Sinclair and H. Gra- Liberal Imperialist’, Journal of cades, pp. 221–25. Johnson may 33 Ibid., letter Sinclair to Spicer, ham White. Voting against the Liberal History, No. 25, Winter have hoped that opposition to 22.12.42. government were Clement 1999–2000, pp. 31–33. Sinclair could have crystallised 34 Liberal Pamphlets, National Davies, George Grey, Edgar 4 Ibid., p. 215. around a suitable by-election Museum of Labour History, Granville, W. J. Gruffydd, 5 Balfour papers, resolutions campaign and that Sinclair 329,72: ‘Speech by Sinclair at Sir Percy Harris, Thomas passed by Liberal Action Group could have been forced to National Liberal Club 19.3.41’. Horabin, , at various meetings, 23.11.41, resign if a significant number 35 Ibid.: ‘The Party of Youth Megan Lloyd George and Wil- resolution no. 3. of MPs and prominent Lib- – Sinclair Speech to Liberal frid Roberts. 6 Ibid., Liberal Action Group eral members had opposed a Assembly 17.7.43’. 52 Balfour papers, ‘Politi- memorandum, 8.9.42. coupon being issued to John- 36 Joyce, P., ‘The Liberal Party cal Reflections’, No. 61, 7 Johnson, Bars and Barricades, p. son’s or Ivor Davies’ opponent. and the 1945 General Election’, 26–27.3.44. 217. Without the support of Clem- pp. 1–2. 53 Ibid., letter Spicer to E. Hul- 8 Balfour papers, letter W. Rob- ent Davies and Horabin it was 37 Balfour papers, ‘Note made ton, 10.11.44. erts to Spicer, 7.8.44. Roberts obvious that such a plan would after luncheon 11.7.44 given by 54 Johnson, Bars and Barricades, p. also accused Radical Action lack the backing required to Mr. E. H. Gilpin to Sir Mal- 217. of plotting to overthrow Sir force the issue. Hence John- colm Stewart’. 55 Harris, Sir P., Forty Years in and Archibald Sinclair in favour of son’s disappointment at Clem- 38 Ibid., ‘Radical Action and Lib- out of Parliament, p. 151. Clement Davies. ent Davies’ actions. eral Survival’, March 1944. 56 Balfour papers, letter S. Bonar- 9 Ibid., letter from Radical 21 Balfour lost by 70 votes, 39 Ibid., letter Spicer to E. jee to Spicer, 20.5.44. For more

16 Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 radical action and the liberal party during the second world war

on Bonarjee see his obituary (Hurst, 1993), p. 212. Record Office 1446/4) various meetings’, 23.11.41, in The Independent, 7 October 63 Radical Action: its policy and pur- 70 Scottish Liberal Federation, resolution no. 15. 2003. pose, undated. Council minutes, 13.9.43 73 Davies, Trial by Ballot, p. 160. 57 Ibid., letter L. Harris to A. 64 The Guardian 11 November (Edinburgh University 74 For example, Douglas, Liberals, Worsley, 14.4.44. 1943 and Balfour papers, Spicer Library). p. 259. 58 Ibid., letter Spicer to A. P. Mar- memorandum No. 56, 30 71 Altrincham & Sale Liberal 75 Ingham, R., ‘Battle of Ideas or shall, 8.5.44. November 1943. Association, General Council Absence of Leadership?’, Journal 59 Ibid., ‘Liberals Must Lead 65 Foot was a Minister during the Minute Book, 20.4.44, (Chesh- of Liberal History, No. 47, sum- a Radical Revival’, No. 67, war and Mander was Sinclair’s ire Record Office, DDX 387). mer 2005. October 1944 PPS. The resolution read, ‘Altrin- 60 Ibid., letter Spicer to W. Rob- 66 Johnson, Bars and Barricades, p. cham & Sale Liberal Asso- erts 18.8.44. 217. ciation, being dissatisfied with 61 Radical Action was disaffiliated 67 For example, see Balfour the government’s policy with as a result of the constitutional papers, letters W. Roberts to reference to the Beveridge changes following the publica- Spicer 30.12.43 and 3.8.45. Report, urges the government tion of Coats Off for the Future! 68 Twenty-seven people who had to accept all the main principles in 1946. Balfour papers, letter joined the Liberal Party before of the report, and the introduc- Spicer to G. Naylor, 12.1.49, or during the Second World tion at the earliest possible date in which Spicer criticises the War were interviewed. of the legislation necessary to party’s decision. 69 London Liberal Federation, give effect to the same.’ 62 De Groot, G., Liberal Crusader: executive committee min- 72 Ibid., ‘Resolutions passed The life of Sir Archibald Sinclair utes, 11.3.44 (Greater London by Liberal Action Group at

RESEARCH IN PROGRESS If you can help any of the individuals listed below with sources, contacts, or any other information — or if you know anyone who can — please pass on details to them. Details of other research projects in progress should be sent to the Editor (see page 3) for inclusion here.

Letters of (1804–65) The Liberal Party in the West Midlands December 1916 – 1923 election Knowledge of the whereabouts of any letters written by Cobden in Focusing on the fortunes of the party in Birmingham, Coventry, Walsall private hands, autograph collections, and obscure locations in the UK and . Looking to explore the effects of the party split and abroad for a complete edition of his letters. (For further details of at local level. Also looking to uncover the steps towards temporary the Cobden Letters Project, please see www.uea.ac.uk/his/research/ reunification for the 1923 general election.Neil Fisher, 42 Bowden Way, projects/cobden). Dr Anthony Howe, School of History, University of East Binley, Coventry CV3 2HU ; [email protected]. Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ; [email protected]. The Lib-Lab Pact ‘’ and the Liberal (Democrat) Party, 1937–2004 The period of political co-operation which took place in Britain between A study of the role of ‘economic liberalism’ in the Liberal Party and the 1977 and 1978; PhD research project at Cardiff University.Jonny Kirkup, 29 Liberal Democrats. Of particular interest would be any private papers Mount Earl, Bridgend, Bridgend County CF31 3EY; [email protected]. relating to 1937’s Ownership For All report and the activities of the Unservile State Group. Oral history submissions also welcome. Matthew Recruitment of Liberals into the Conservative Party, 1906–1935 Francis; [email protected]. Aims to suggest reasons for defections of individuals and develop an understanding of changes in electoral alignment. Sources include The Liberal Party’s political communication, 1945–2002 personal papers and newspapers; suggestions about how to get hold of PhD thesis. Cynthia Messeleka-Boyer, 12 bis chemin Vaysse, 81150 Terssac, the papers of more obscure Liberal defectors welcome. Cllr Nick Cott, 1a France; +33 6 10 09 72 46; [email protected]. Henry Street, Gosforth, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE3 1DQ; [email protected].

Liberal policy towards Austria-Hungary, 1905–16 The political career of Edward Strutt, 1st Baron Belper Andrew Gardner, 17 Upper Ramsey Walk, Canonbury, London N1 2RP; Strutt was Whig/Liberal MP for (1830-49), later Arundel and [email protected]. Nottingham; in 1856 he was created Lord Belper and built Kingston Hall (1842-46) in the village of Kingston-on-Soar, Notts. He was a Liberal Unionists friend of and a supporter of free trade and reform, A study of the as a discrete political entity. Help and held government office as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with identifying party records before 1903 particularly welcome. Ian and Commissioner of Railways. Any information, location of papers or Cawood, Newman University Colllege, Birmingham; i.cawood@newman. references welcome. Brian Smith; [email protected] ac.uk.

Journal of Liberal History 63 Summer 2009 17