A Very English Scandal from his creditors and was no longer and decided to take the motion head- person, however miserable and threat- available for Thorpe at a moment’s on and that, if carried, we would all ening the man in question had made notice and he realised that Thorpe was resign on the spot. The motion was his life over many years? The answer prepared to throw him to the media taken at a private session of the Assem- is that it was possible. No one, how- wolves. It happened similarly later bly and Gruff Evans was ruthless in ever apparently stable and sensible, on in the case when David Holmes, his detailing of the difficulties we had is immune from becoming mentally Thorpe’s previously close friend, real- faced over many years, which were unbalanced by the pressure of domes- ised that he was being made to take a revelation to delegates. Dr Walsh’s tic circumstances, and there is no the whole blame for what Thorpe saw motion was duly withdrawn. doubt that it is conceivable that even- as the incompetence of the execution Two questions remain. First, was tually Jeremy Thorpe could arrive at a of the whole plot to silence Scott. It not Thorpe as leader responsible for the point where he demanded, ‘Who will even extended to the wholly innocent huge rise in Liberal support at the Feb- rid me of this turbulent Scott?’ As for friend, Nadir Dinshaw, who finally ruary 1974 election? Not really. With evidence, after the trial, and after the demurred at being the conduit for his 1970 majority having dropped to death of David Holmes, Andrew New- diverting cash from Jack Hayward, just 369 votes, he was instructed firmly ton publicised recordings he had made and was then threatened by Thorpe that he was not to set foot outside his of telephone conversations he had con- who said that ‘he would be asked to constituency and he undertook no ducted with Holmes which essentially move on’, i.e. suggesting that, having leader’s tour at the election. In fact the admitted the conspiracy. an immigrant past, his residence in the general election vote was on the back of The BBC’s drama was compelling. UK might not be secure! a series of five by-election victories in The acting was remarkably good. In The film takes the simplistic media Rochdale, the Isle of Ely, Ripon, Ber- particular Hugh Grant’s absorbing view that because Peter Bessell’s affairs wick-upon-Tweed and, most remark- of Thorpe’s mannerisms and his style were in disarray, he let the party and able of all, Sutton and Cheam, won of speaking was astonishing. It was his family down by abandoning his thanks to Trevor Jones’s campaigning a well worthwhile effort to popular- parliamentary seat and by feeing Brit- skills. If anyone was responsible for the ise a political era that many of us had ain, and therefore his whole political general election vote, it was he. Before endured! career must have been a sham. In my this run of by-elections our poll rat- view this is unfair. For much of his ing barely climbed out of single figures, Michael Meadowcroft was a Leeds city time in parliament he was a loyal and whereas from August 1973 to polling councillor for fifteen years and a West York- able spokesman for the party, with day it hovered around 20 per cent. shire metropolitan county councillor for six. whom I worked on speeches and arti- Second, was it really possible that an He was the Liberal MP for West Leeds cles. He certainly became unreliable intelligent and highly regarded pub- from 1983 to 1987. He is a regular lecturer on as his personal and business affairs col- lic figure could conspire to murder a political and local history. lapsed and he was never going to be a compelling prosecution witness. His book Cover Up has some errors, but it is a far more reliable record of the whole period than is often admitted. Interview with David Steel The party’s problem with Thorpe came to a head at the 1978 Liberal Party Assembly at Southport. Knowing how n July the Journal interviewed photograph on my mobile phone to disruptive his presence would be, hav- David Steel, Liberal Chief Whip various people, saying, ‘Who’s that?’ ing just been charged with conspiracy I1970–76 and Leader of the Liberal and they all said ‘Jeremy Thorpe’. And to murder, the new party leader, David Party 1976–88, about his views of the it was Grant. Steel, had extracted a promise from BBC series and his recollections of Jer- Thorpe that he would not attend – a emy Thorpe. JLH: What kind of thing did you talk commitment he proceeded to break about? What was he interested in? and duly hijacked the conference. The JLH: You helped Hugh Grant prepare for DS: He wanted to know what Thorpe complete party confidentiality on the the filming, I believe? was like as a person. So I gave him the behaviour of Thorpe had meant that DS: Yes, he asked me to have lunch best I could of my recollections of Jer- even its candidates had been kept in with him some months before the emy, who was a very charismatic figure. the dark. One candidate, Dr James event, and we had lunch downstairs in Walsh from Hove, tabled a motion the cafeteria, introduced by Evan Har- JLH: What did you think of his portrayal of censuring the party’s officers for their ris. I’d only met him once before, but Thorpe? treatment of its leader! The then three we had quite a long chat. He wanted DS: I thought it was very, very accu- key officers, Gruff (later Lord) Evans, to know about Jeremy Thorpe. Sub- rate – astonishingly good, in fact. And, party president, Geoff (later Lord) Tor- sequently he sent me a photograph of in fact, when I’ve seen Hugh Grant in doff, chair of the party executive, and him in a shot from the film, and I was other films, he’s always played Hugh myself as chair of the Assembly Com- absolutely taken aback by how good Grant. Even in the Paddington Bear mittee, and thus in the hot seat, met the similarity was. In fact I showed the ones, it was still Hugh Grant. But this

50 Journal of Liberal History 100 Autumn 2018 A Very English Scandal time, I think it’s established him as a extraordinary book and then he signed but it was just irritating and unneces- serious actor, it was such an accurate this fatal contract with the Sunday Tele- sarily wrong. portrayal. He got his mannerisms and graph – which, of course, the lawyers his way of speaking all correct. There blew out of the water, and helped get JLH: One comment that people made was were things that were not right about Jeremy off. why on earth didn’t they manage to get Nor- the script, but that’s another matter. man Scott a National Insurance card? JLH: I think there was also a problem with DS: It’s a very good question – and I JLH: What was wrong with the script? the cars that Thorpe was shown driving? don’t know the answer. It has always DS: I can’t tell whether it was the book DS: When I received the photograph struck me as peculiar that the whole [John Preston’s A Very English Scandal: of Grant, it was supposed to be Jer- thing hinged, according to Scott, on Sex, Lies and a Murder Plot at the Heart emy Thorpe coming out of his car, and the fact that he didn’t have a National of the Establishment (Viking 2016)] that I looked at it and I said immediately, Insurance card. I mean surely, if was wrong or the film script. But, in ‘The car is wrong.’ They had him driv- Thorpe was going to all this trouble – particular, they seem to make a bit of ing a three-litre Rover and he didn’t – talking to Reginald Maudling and all a villain out of Emlyn Hooson, which he drove a Humber Super Snipe. The the rest of it – surely he could have got is not right. And the very first moment reason I remember it so well is because him a new National Insurance card? when I appear in the film, Emlyn he drove me around on polling day in Hooson is introducing me to Norman my by-election in the car – and I know JLH: As portrayed in the television series, Scott. That’s complete rubbish, because about cars! They also had him down at Thorpe says: ‘Can’t we kill him?’ Do you I remember very clearly that what his cottage driving a white Triumph think he actually said that at any point, or happened was that Scott’s landlady in Stag; in fact it should have been a white was it more like: ‘Can’t we just do something Wales was a constituent of Emlyn’s – I Rover 2000. It didn’t affect the story, to get rid of him?’ think possibly knew Emlyn, I’m not sure – and she arranged to bring him down to meet Emlyn. And of course, typical Emlyn, he was in court the day they came and asked me if I would meet them instead. He was also under the impression – because the woman had written to him about allegations against a colleague – that she was com- ing to talk about Peter Bessell. So I was ready to hear things about Peter Bessell – which wouldn’t surprise me! – and then out came this story about Thorpe. But the film got it completely wrong. The film was entertainment, so I don’t think it matters all that much. But it was a bit hard on Emlyn. The fact that he’d stood for the leadership against Thorpe was neither here nor there. The other thing that was odd was they showed a scene of me announcing that Thorpe was elected leader and he then wielded a sword and cut a cake. Well, that was all complete rubbish. No such thing ever happened.

JLH: What did you think of the portrayal of Peter Bessell? DS: I thought it was again remarkably good. Bessell was always regarded by his colleagues as a bit of a charlatan, and I thought that came across well.

JLH: So it wasn’t a surprise that Bessell turned up as a witness against Thorpe in the court case? DS: Nothing about Bessell would David Steel and Jeremy Thorpe at the unveiling of Thorpe’s portrait in the surprise anybody. He wrote that National Liberal Club

Journal of Liberal History 100 Autumn 2018 51 A Liberal Democrat History Group fringe meeting Europe: The Liberal commitment The historical origins of the Liberal commitment to Europe, and the Liberal Party’s, SDP’s and Liberal Democrats’ support for the European project and the EU, stretch back to the nineteenth century.

This fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats’ autumn conference will feature a discussion on the origins of the Liberal commitment to Europe with Anthony Howe (Professor of Modern History, University of East Anglia; author of Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846-1946 and editor of the collected letters of Richard Cobden) and Eugenio Biagini (Professor of Modern and Contemporary History, University of Cambridge; author of works on Gladstonian liberalism, the Italian Risorgimento, and Ireland).

Chair: Baroness Julie Smith (Director of the European Centre and Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Cambridge).

6.15pm, Sunday 16 September Sandringham Suite, Hilton Brighton Metropole (no conference pass necessary)

DS: I have no idea. It is possible. Jere- tour in southern England that, ‘You JLH: On the negative side, there were the my’s downside was that he was a bit of a know, we had all the details about allegations about secret funds. fantasist, and it could be that he might what colour wellingtons we had and DS: Yes, he was very casual with have said that. But certainly I was umbrellas and all the rest of it …’. And money, to put it mildly. And of course totally unaware of any such conver- at the last minute he said to Jeremy, that was how we fell out in the end – I sations. Again, one of the things that ‘But what are we going to say?’ Jeremy said he had to resign when I discov- was wrong in the film was that they hadn’t actually decided what the mes- ered that £10,000 had gone from the showed him and Peter Bessell sitting at sage was going to be. Hayward donation to pay for buy- a table for two in the Members’ Din- ing off the Scott letters. After he had ing Room. Well that’s nonsense: they JLH: He comes over in the series, at least been acquitted, the party executive always sat at the oval table which the in the first episode, as being genuinely moti- wanted to pursue him for the return Liberal MPs occupied in the middle of vated by anti-colonialism. of the money. I had a meeting with the dining room, and that was where DS: Oh, yes. Despite his background, Geoff Tordoff, who was chairman of a lot of the conversations took place. which was very conservative, he was a the executive at the time, and I said, Certainly not a table for two. genuine radical. It wasn’t put on; it was ‘Look, please don’t do this. We’ve had quite genuine. He was ferocious on Ian months and months of the Thorpe JLH: What did you think of Thorpe as Smith’s rebellion in Rhodesia. Any- thing and this will go on and on. If leader? thing to do with the underdogs, he was you can persuade the executive not to DS: I was a great supporter and fol- on the side of the less well-off. pursue him for the money, I will give lower of Jeremy Thorpe and I thought you the undertaking that he won’t play he was a very good leader in that he JLH: Was European unity a particular any part in the public life of the party enthused people, he was a great cam- cause of his? again.’ In other words, no peerage. paigner. I suppose the main criticism DS: Yes. He led the party into the That was the deal, and Geoff persuaded that can be levelled at him was that he Division Lobby at a time when it was the executive. Subsequently Thorpe wasn’t really interested in developing very important and our votes made wrote to every one of my successors, the party’s policy in the way that Jo all the difference. My recollection is right up to Nick Clegg, asking for a Grimond had. I remember John Pardoe that somebody tried to hit him in the peerage, and I had to brief every one of telling me after Thorpe’s hovercraft chamber! my successors about the deal.