Liberalism and the National Government, 1931 – 1940

The National Government of 1931 was formed as a result of the collapse of the Labour administration in the face of economic crisis. Politicians of the three main parties came together in an atmosphere of fear: fear of a collapse in the value of the pound sterling; fear of a repetition in Britain of the hyper- oalitions in the British the Lib–Lab Pact of 1977–78.1 The inflation that had system are most likely other type of situation is the coali- wrecked the German to be the product of one tion that grows out of a national of two very different emergency – the intrusion of exter- economy in the early sorts of situation. A coa- nal factors which compel parties to litionC can, as in 2010, be the result of put their parochial differences aside 1920s. The government arithmetical necessity. Only by two and unite in the face of a common so formed was to last or more parties coming together threat from beyond Westminster, can a parliamentary majority be usually war. The coalitions of 1915 until 1940. Dr David assembled and the hazards and and 1940 self-evidently fall into instability of minority administra- this category. But so too does the Dutton examines the tion be avoided. Sometimes such National Government of 1931–40.2 impact of the National an arrangement falls some way The external threat may not in this short of full coalition as in the case case have been war, but the leading Government on the of the Liberal Party’s generally actors in the drama appear to have benevolent attitude towards the believed that the economic crisis of Liberal Party. first Labour government in 1924 or 1931 was the most serious challenge

38 Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 Liberalism and the National Government, 1931 – 1940

to have faced the country since the notwithstanding its dramatic elec- was achieved after the general elec- German spring offensive of 1918. toral setback in 1931. Even in that tions of 1923 and 1929, and, as has Politicians of the three main parties year, despite dropping to just fifty- often been pointed out, the Liberal came together in an atmosphere of two MPs, Labour held on to 30.6 per Party let itself down by failing fear: fear of a collapse in the value cent of the popular vote, marginally to use this position to extract an of the pound sterling; fear of a rep- higher than the percentage that had agreed programme of Liberal goals etition in Britain of the hyper-infla- brought the party to government from the minority Labour gov- tion that had wrecked the German after the general election of 1923. ernment that was formed on each economy in the early 1920s.3 Moreover, irrespective of the fig- occasion.8 Their problem, however, As Neville Chamberlain put it, ures, the events of 1931 confirmed was deeper and more fundamen- ‘the problem was to restore foreign a Conservative–Labour duopoly as tal. Liberals in the 1920s could not confidence in British credit. This the only two serious contenders for give a clear answer to the question could only be done by announcing power in the British polity after the of which of the two larger parties such a cut in national expenditure as brief experience of three-party pol- they would prefer to support in would convince him [the foreigner] itics in the 1920s. No, the real losers office. Indeed, not even individual that we had sufficient courage to of this time were the Liberals, even Liberal politicians of this era gave tackle the situation.’4 And, as this though the economic crisis and the consistent answers to this question. task proved beyond the capacity resulting formation of a National While Lloyd George moved from of Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour Government brought them back being the head of a Conservative– Cabinet, the three party leaders into government for the first time in Liberal coalition in the early 1920s, accepted the king’s suggestion of a almost a decade. to seeking an agreement to sustain National Government.5 For most of To understand the prob- Ramsay MacDonald’s minority its existence, however, the National lems experienced by the Liberal Labour administration at the end Government had a further, politi- Party in relation to the National Left: five Liberal of the decade, other Liberal lumi- cal, purpose – to keep the irrespon- Government, a word must be said ministers in naries moved in the opposite direc- sible Labour Party out of power. In about their experience of the previ- Downing Street tion. John Simon, who declared in some ways, therefore, it represented ous decade. During the 1920s, the in October 1931, 1922 that, when it came to practi- the belated triumph of the 1920s party, which had been the govern- just before the cal business, the immediate objects coalitionists, those who believed ing party of 1914, dropped rapidly calling of the he wanted to pursue were objects that only cooperation between to third place in the British politi- general election. which Labour men and women Conservatives and Liberals could cal system, scarcely having had From left: Sir also wanted to pursue,9 had by 1930 block Labour’s seemingly remorse- time to savour the status of being Donald Maclean, become the leading opponent of less rise – this, even though the two His Majesty’s Opposition. In such Lord Lothian, Lloyd George’s pro-Labour strat- leading Conservative architects of a position, though Liberals could Sir Archibald egy and was opening secret nego- the National Government, Stanley still talk optimistically of a future Sinclair, Sir tiations for a parliamentary pact Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain, Liberal government, in their more Herbert Samuel, with the Conservatives.10 Though had both been in the anti-coalition- sober moments they understood Lord Reading the dilemma of 1931 and beyond ist camp in the Tory split of 1922.6 that their more realistic ambition (Manchester was not occasioned by the same Yet Labour was not the real loser of was to hold the balance of power in Guardian, 3 sort of parliamentary arithmetic the era of National Government, a hung parliament.7 This, of course, October 1931). as had existed in 1923 and 1929, the

Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 39 liberalism and the national government, 1931–1940 problem was fundamentally the office, while the Labour govern- majority of Liberal candidates same. Opposition to Labour as the ment – which had caused such as National Liberals to indicate party which had run away from divisions in the Liberals’ ranks that they were supportive of the the economic crisis was not suffi- – was now consigned to history. National Government, a categori- cient to hold many Liberals within But this internal harmony did not sation which included almost all, a Conservative-dominated admin- last long, as the purpose and func- even if with varying degrees of istration. Indeed, by the time of the tion of the National Government enthusiasm, apart from the small, 1935 general election many Liberals, quickly changed. At its formation in largely family, group surround- Lloyd George included, were back August, noted Austen Chamberlain, ing Lloyd George, who unequivo- to seeing Labour as their partner of the idea was for ‘a national govt cally opposed the holding of an preference.11 to deal with the present financial election. For this minority the As I have written elsewhere, the emergency. Not a coalition but designation of ‘Liberal’ or ‘inde- chief problem for the Liberals in cooperation. Dissolved as soon as its Though pendent Liberal’ was reserved. their association with the National immediate task is accomplished and the previ- Samuel himself used the descrip- Government was the effect that it the following general election to be tion ‘Liberal and National candi- had on their unity.12 Indeed, the fought by the three Parties inde- ous period date’ in his address to the electors fragmentation of the Liberal Party pendently.’16 Within weeks, how- of Darwen in Lancashire.19 Lists did was, from the outset, an objective ever, the Tories, supported by those of Labour exist to differentiate the Samuelite of at least one leading Conservative. Liberals who looked to Simon for and Simonite camps, but even these Neville Chamberlain was deter- leadership, were pressing for a gen- government were not definitive and a few names mined that the Liberal Party should eral election fought by the National appeared on both. Samuelites were be made ‘to face up to the fiscal Government on the issue of tar- had served far more likely to be opposed by decision … The decision will split iffs. Around this proposition three Conservatives than were Simonites, it from top to bottom and … will separate Liberal factions began to to re-open but again this was not a hard and end it, the two sections going off coalesce. fast rule and there were excep- in opposite directions, and bring The Conservative Business and in some tions. Some MPs were remarkably us back nearly to the two party sys- Committee, the Shadow Cabinet of successful in misleading their elec- tem.’13 To begin with, of course, the the day, meeting on 24 September, cases to torates as to their true affiliation. entire Liberal Party gave its support were ‘all agreed as to the great Right down to 1935, Huddersfield’s to the National Government. Two importance of pitching our tariff reconfigure MP, William Mabane, managed to places in the Emergency Cabinet of demands high enough to make sure present himself as a Samuelite in ten, Herbert Samuel at the Home of getting rid of Samuel and, if pos- the divisions the constituency while behaving Office and the Marquess of Reading sible, Reading’.17 At the same time as a Simonite at Westminster.20 In a surprise appointment as Foreign Leslie Hore-Belisha took the lead in that had Dumfriesshire Dr Joseph Hunter Secretary, with additional senior organising a memorial to the prime plagued Lib- said little about his precise alle- posts for Donald Maclean, Lord minister, MacDonald, promising giance before suddenly announc- Lothian, Archie Sinclair and the unqualified support for any meas- eralism since ing in 1934 that he had accepted Marquess of Crewe, was a reason- ures necessary in the interests of the appointment as National Organiser able reward considering the respec- country. By 23 September this had the crisis for England and Wales for Simon’s tive parliamentary strengths of been signed by twenty-nine Liberal Liberal Nationals.21 Interestingly, the components to the coalition. MPs. The group invited Simon of 1916, the when these two MPs succeeded in Austen Chamberlain paid tribute to become their leader, an invita- taking their local associations with to Samuel’s efforts to look after his tion which he readily accepted. At formation of them into the Liberal National party, contrasting them with what the last moment the rupture which camp, neither association found it he regarded as Baldwin’s failure to the general election was expected, the National necessary to change name, remain- fight for his colleagues. But he did and in some minds designed, ing the Huddersfield Liberal so with the anti-Semitic bias that to precipitate was avoided. The Government Association and the Dumfriesshire was then more widespread than it is Cabinet decided on 5 October to Liberal Association respectively. now comfortable to recall. ‘Samuel’, seek authority from the electorate seemed In the year following the general he wrote, ‘like the Jew he is, grasps for whatever policies were needed election, however, the relationship all he can.’14 to restore the national finances, to offer between the two main wings of Though the previous period of the so-called ‘Doctor’s Mandate’. Liberalism and the relationship of Labour government had served The parties would be free to make hope that both to the National Government to re-open and in some cases to their separate and, in the case of was clarified. Meanwhile, the tiny reconfigure the divisions that had the Samuelite Liberals, different the party’s Lloyd George group drifted off plagued Liberalism since the cri- appeals to the country beneath the internecine into near irrelevance. The divisions sis of 1916, the formation of the umbrella of a general statement within Liberalism were confirmed National Government seemed to from MacDonald to which all min- disputes and the possibility of a Liberal Party offer hope that the party’s inter- isters would subscribe.18 of some seventy MPs giving some necine disputes could be relegated By the time of the general elec- could be rel- credence to the claim of Walter to the political long grass. A meet- tion on 27 October, the divisions Rea, the mainstream party’s new ing of MPs, peers and candidates on within the Liberal ranks were egated to the chief whip, that the Liberals were 28 August revealed ‘quite a remark- becoming somewhat clearer; but ‘now once more the second largest’ able demonstration of unity’.15 All confusion remained, not least in political long party in the land, rapidly evapo- could take pleasure in the return of the minds of the electorate. Many rated.22 With the election out of the Liberal ministers to governmental newspapers described the vast grass. way, the Samuelites took the lead

40 Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 liberalism and the national government, 1931–1940 in trying to bring about reconcilia- Divisions organisations. Liberal National MPs hand in shaping policy; on the other tion with their Simonite colleagues. continued to be listed in Liberal side there is simply barren criticism Speaking in Scarborough on 11 over the his- publications. And sitting Liberal in the face of overwhelming odds.’30 November, Ramsay Muir insisted National MPs were almost never It was, in practice, no choice at all. that the Simonites were ‘genuine toric Liberal challenged by Liberals at elections What then of the relation- Liberals’ and claimed that the split before 1945. The effect of all this ship of the two Liberal factions to in the party was not ‘really as seri- gospel of was catastrophic for the orthodox the National Government after ous as it appears to be’.23 But rather party. At a stroke its parliamentary 1932–3, one firmly within its ranks than responding positively to these free trade strength was reduced by 50 per cent. and the other outside? The posi- overtures, the Liberal Nationals Just as importantly, in most con- tion of the Liberal Nationals was began to take steps which empha- quickly con- stituencies represented by Liberal at one and the same time both sised their separateness and inde- firmed what Nationals, the local organisation deceptively strong and appallingly pendence – declining the Samuelite was taken over lock, stock and weak. Their representation in the whip, setting up committees to con- was hap- barrel by the new party. In many upper ranks of government was sider a range of policy areas and tak- cases this led to the effective disap- generous. Simon held the Foreign ing the decision to create a Liberal pening. Lord pearance of organised Liberalism. Secretaryship from 1931 to 1935. National infrastructure outside par- Not until 1939 did the Liberals of Thereafter he was successively liament. Several leading Simonites Hailsham’s Huddersfield begin to get their act Home Secretary and Chancellor spoke privately, and often with con- together to counter Mabane’s take- of the Exchequer, becoming the siderable apprehension, of ‘crossing famous over.26 In Dumfriesshire the posi- acknowledged number two in the Rubicon’, recognising that the tion was even more difficult. ‘This Neville Chamberlain’s government reunion of the old party was now ‘agreement is a Liberal constituency’, the local from 1937 to 1940. Runciman was unlikely to be achieved and that newspaper repeatedly trumpeted.27 ensconced at the Board of Trade their own destiny lay firmly in close to differ’, But until the late 1950s there was until May 1937 and was recalled to parliamentary and electoral part- little in the way of infrastructure the Cabinet as Lord President fol- nership with the Conservatives.24 anticipating to support this contention. In the lowing his unsuccessful mission As is well known, divisions over country at large, a genuine battle to Czechoslovakia in the sum- the historic Liberal gospel of free by eighty took place between the two factions mer of 1938. After the resignation trade quickly confirmed what was to establish which of them had the of the Liberal free traders in 1932, happening. Lord Hailsham’s famous years the stronger claim to be the voice of Godfrey Collins was appointed to ‘agreement to differ’, anticipating traditional Liberalism, even if this the Scottish Office, bringing the by eighty years the leeway given to leeway battle was not fought at the polls. Liberal National contingent in the Nick Clegg’s MPs over raising uni- given to Nick If Liberals had been more success- Cabinet up to three, while several versity tuition fees, averted a split ful in the 1920s in establishing their others such as Leslie Hore-Belisha over the Import Duties Bill early in Clegg’s MPs own political identity, the outcome and Leslie Burgin secured promo- 1932.25 But the Ottawa Agreements of this contest might have been tion within the junior ministerial concluded later that summer proved over raising easier to predict. As it was, much ranks. The elevation of the Tory, too large a protectionist pill to depended on propaganda and the Baldwin, to the premiership in June for the gullets of most orthodox university power of the press. In Huddersfield 1935 was balanced by the addition Liberals. The Samuelites, already the Examiner under Elliott Dodds of an extra Liberal National, Ernest under much pressure from disgrun- tuition fees, held true to the mainstream party. Brown, to the Cabinet as Minister tled Liberal associations up and But in Dumfries the Standard, of Labour. As late as September 1939 down the country, resigned from averted a whose editor, James Reid, also there were two Liberal Nationals in the National Government at the end presided over the Dumfriesshire Neville Chamberlain’s War Cabinet of September 1932 and, after a year split over Liberal Association, was insist- of nine members. In the Commons, of fence-sitting which did nothing ent that not only Hunter, but also by contrast, the imbalance between to enhance their credibility, crossed the Import his two Liberal National succes- the partners to the coalition was to the opposition benches in the sors, Henry Fildes28 and Niall stark. Even after the 1935 general autumn of the following year. Duties Bill Macpherson29 were fully fledged election, which saw some reduc- With the benefit of hindsight Liberals. Coming from a newspa- tion of the massed Tory ranks, just we now know that, although Lloyd early in 1932. per whose radical credentials went thirty-two Liberal National MPs George and his band of followers back to its pro-Boer stance at the were set alongside almost 400 suc- returned to the mainstream party turn of the century and beyond, this cessful Conservatives. In the con- in 1935, the Samuelite–Simonite must have been a difficult claim for text of a hung parliament these split proved permanent. It was many Liberals to challenge. Above thirty-two Liberal Nationals could an outcome that the Samuelites all, the Liberal Nationals had a com- have exercised a decisive impact; seemed reluctant to accept. Though pelling argument that, with the but the overwhelming Tory major- many unkind words were now mainstream party seemingly set on ity meant that, in the last resort, exchanged, at heart Liberals con- a path that would lead eventually they were always dispensable. tinued to view Liberal Nationals to political extinction, the option After its first weeks the National as errant children who were bound of trying to influence a larger party Government developed into a one day to return to the family fold from within made sound sense. coalition of choice rather than of and for whose return the fatted calf The choice, suggested the Dumfries necessity. Yet, ironically, this was was waiting. Liberal Nationals such Standard, was clear. ‘On the one side also a source of Liberal National as Simon and Runciman retained there is the opportunity presented strength. Baldwin and, after honorary positions within Liberal to Liberal statesmen of having a some misgivings, Chamberlain

Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 41 liberalism and the national government, 1931–1940 too saw in the preservation of Despite Few Liberal National MPs could it is not clear where Samuel is going National Government the means face the prospect of Conservative to crash in with a separate identity of locating the dominant strand of leaving the opposition in their constituencies and policy’.37 It might have been Conservatism where they wanted with any degree of confidence. As different if the Liberals themselves it to be – on the centre-right of government observers across the political spec- had come up with a progressive and the political spectrum. When in trum increasingly predicted, their imaginative range of policies, but 1936 Robert Bernays, himself in over a con- fate seemed destined to be the same the mini-intellectual renaissance of the process of transferring his alle- as that which had overtaken the the 1920s was not sustained. Short giance to the Liberal Nationals, crete issue Liberal Unionists in the last years of both money and ideas, the party expressed concern that a post-Bald- before the First World War – total tended to seek refuge in its success- win Conservative Party might veer of policy, absorption within the Conservative ful recipes of an earlier age. 1939 significantly to the right, The Times the Liberals Party.33 That fate was a long time in found J. L. Hammond commend- responded, reasonably enough, coming, delayed at least in terms ing Lord Crewe for his adherence that the Conservative right had struggled of the preservation of a name and to ‘Mr Gladstone’s principles’ with- been effectively sidelined and was nominal party organisation until as out apparently understanding that in no position to recover its former in the years late as 1968, but come it did. this ongoing commitment to the influence.31 Rather than seeking a What then of the relationship Liberalism of a previous century direct Liberal National influence that fol- between the independent Liberals was part of the party’s problems.38 over the politics and policies of the and the National Government? Later in the decade, Liberal oppo- National Government, therefore, lowed to Despite leaving the government sition to Chamberlain’s foreign we should see in that government’s over a concrete issue of policy, the policy did place some clear yellow doings a series of measures which establish Liberals struggled in the years that or orange water between the party the Conservative leadership could followed to establish their own and the government, but the pic- justify to its own right wing by their own distinct political identity. Even ture was not straightforward even reference to the need to keep the the apparently clear dividing line then.39 Criticism of appeasement Tories’ Liberal allies on board. Such distinct polit- between free trade and protection prompted further defections to the a situation gave rise, as is perhaps was misleading. For many Liberals Liberal Nationals, including the MP an inevitable consequence of coa- ical identity. who did not follow Simon into the Herbert Holdsworth, while not all lition government, to complaints Liberal National ranks, free trade of those who remained within the from the rank and file of both par- was not the litmus test of true faith party rallied behind its new stance. ties. Liberal Nationals complained that it had been before 1914. The Well-known figures such as the that they were given insufficient unrelated E. D. Simon, MP for journalist J. A. Spender and even credit for delivering the not incon- Withington in Manchester, was the former leader, Lord Samuel, siderable ‘Liberal vote’. Right-wing among the first Liberals openly to openly supported the prime min- Tories complained that the govern- question the prevailing orthodoxy. ister. Chamberlain even offered ment was pursuing an emasculated He was congratulated for doing so Samuel a seat in the Cabinet in his and effete Conservatism for which by the Liberal economist, Hubert post-Munich reshuffle.40 there was no need in terms of parlia- Henderson, while even Keynes was By the end of the decade, then, mentary arithmetic. That both sides ready by 1931 to explain that only Liberalism was in a bad way. If were dissatisfied suggests that, in tariffs offered the protection needed anything, the Liberal National some strange way, the coalition was against a falling exchange rate and contingent had more cause for working as it should. Certainly, at a collapse of business confidence.34 optimism, although, as has been its heart the National Government By the middle of the decade Lloyd seen, they too had their problems. did not operate in the manner of a George himself was dabbling with Outside the National Government normal party administration. At protection. As one scholar has put the mainstream party had largely least until the middle of the decade it, ‘the decline of Free Trade as a failed, as many of its members pri- and arguably beyond, there existed secular religion was well under way vately admitted,41 to establish a an informal group of six senior when the depression hit Britain and viable non-socialist alternative to ministers, acting as a sort of inner recovery after 1932 did not bring the Conservatives. Reduced by the Cabinet and drawn equally from it back’.35 More generally, Liberals 1935 general election to just twenty- the three component parts of the such as Ramsay Muir might rail one MPs, its local power bases administration – the Conservatives, against the performance of the crumbling away, devoid of funds the Liberal Nationals and the tiny National Government,36 but it was and lacking charismatic leadership, National Labour group.32 But per- never as bad and certainly not as only a combination of blind faith haps the greatest weakness of the illiberal as they suggested. In fact, and irrational optimism could con- Liberal Nationals was their lack for much of the decade the Liberals vince the dwindling band of Liberal of an exit strategy. The longer the experienced some difficulty in dif- adherents that better days would National Government lasted, the ferentiating themselves from the eventually return. more remote became the prospect government. The latter took over of Liberal reunion, and the harder it the traditional Liberal rallying cries David Dutton is the author of A was to justify the Liberal Nationals’ of retrenchment and sound finance, History of the Liberal Party in separate existence and to say pre- but without appearing unduly reac- the Twentieth Century (Palgrave cisely what it was that gave them tionary. As Lloyd George’s former Macmillan, 2004), a second edi- a distinct and definite identity. press secretary put it, ‘so long as tion of which, bringing the story up to Any attempt to ‘go it alone’ would Baldwin presses so far to the mid- the formation of the Cameron-Clegg probably result in electoral suicide. dle and is at war with his Diehards, Coalition, will be published in 2012.

42 Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 liberalism and the national government, 1931–1940

1 D. Dutton, ‘Holding the Balance: the Thorpe, The British General Election of Liberal National MP for Dumfries- Liberal Party and Hung Parliaments’, 1931 (Clarendon Press, 1991). shire, 1935–45. Journal of Liberal History 48 (2005), pp. 19 R. Douglas, Liberals: The History of 29 Niall Macpherson (1908–87), Liberal 8–19. the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Parties National and (from 1950) National Lib- 2 There appears to have been a conscious (Hambledon & London, 2005), p. 228. eral-Unionist MP for Dumfriesshire effort to avoid describing the National 20 D. Dutton, ‘William Mabane and 1945–63. Created Baron Drumalbyn Government as a coalition – by the Huddersfield Politics, 1931–1947: “By 1963. Junior ministerial posts 1955–63. Conservatives because of memories Any Other Name a Liberal”’, Northern Minister without Portfolio (Conserva- of the Lloyd George Coalition which History, 43/1 (2006), pp. 137–53. tive) 1970–74. had ended in 1922, and by the gov- 21 Dumfries and Galloway Standard and 30 Dumfries and Galloway Standard and ernment’s opponents because of their Advertiser, 26 May 1934. Advertiser, 4 Nov. 1931. insistence that it was no more than a 22 Williamson, National Crisis, p. 483. 31 The Times, 20 May 1936. Conservative administration in dis- 23 Liverpool Post and Mercury, 12 Nov. 1931. 32 J. Ramsden, The Age of Balfour and Bald- guise. But a coalition it was. 24 See, for example, University of win 1902–1940 (Longman, 1978), p. 326. 3 I am grateful to Professor Vernon Newcastle, Runciman MSS 254, G. 33 See, for example, Baldwin quoted in Bogdanor for this observation. Shakespeare to Simon, 23 Sept. 1932, the Scotsman 23 May 1936 and Samuel 4 University of Birmingham, Chamber- and Churchill Archive Centre, Cam- in the House of Lords, H of L Debs, lain MSS, NC2/22, diary 22 Aug. 1931. bridge, Hore-Belisha MSS, HOBE 1/1, vol. CLXIV, col. 254. 5 For the circumstances surrounding Hore-Belisha to N. Chamberlain, 23 34 R. Skidelsky, Politicians and the Slump the formation of the National Gov- Sept. 1932. (Macmillan, 1967), p. 292. ernment, see P. Williamson, National 25 D. Wrench, ‘The Needs of the Time: 35 F. Trentmann, Free Trade Nation Crisis and National Government: Brit- the National Government and the (Oxford University Press, 2008), p. ish Politics, the Economy and Empire “Agreement to Differ”, 1932’, Par- 333. 1926–1932 (Cambridge University liamentary History, 23/2 (2004), pp. 36 R. Muir, The Record of the National Gov- Press, 1992). For the disputed issue 249–64. ernment (Allen & Unwin, 1936). of the king’s role, see V. Bogdanor, 26 D. Dutton, ‘Liberalism Reunited: The 37 Parliamentary Archives, Lloyd George ‘1931 Revisited: The Constitutional Huddersfield Experience, 1945–47’, MSS, G/19/7/6, notes on the political Aspects’, Twentieth Century British His- Journal of Liberal History, 52 (2006), pp. situation, 26 Nov. 1933. tory 2/1 (1991), pp. 1–25 and P. Wil- 32–37. 38 Hammond to Crewe, 13 Jan. 1939, liamson, ‘1931 Revisited: The Political 27 When he stepped down as chair- cited in M. Hart, ‘The Decline of the Realities’, Twentieth Century British man from what was, in all but name, Liberal Party in Parliament and in History 2/3 (1991), pp. 328–38. the Dumfriesshire Liberal National the Constituencies’, Oxford D. Phil. 6 S. Ball, ‘The Legacy of Coalition: Fear Association in July 1947, James Reid (1982), p. 91. and Loathing in Conservative Politics, insisted that his ‘enthusiasm for Lib- 39 R. Grayson, Liberals, International 1922–1931’, Contemporary British History eralism had not waned in the slightest Relations and Appeasement (Frank Cass, 23/1 (2011), pp. 65–82. degree’. ‘The Liberal Party had glori- 2001). 7 For a debate on the pros and cons of ous traditions in Dumfries and it was 40 Parliamentary Archives, Samuel MSS, holding the parliamentary balance, see the desire and intention of the Asso- A/111/1, memorandum by Samuel, 26 R. Douglas and D. Brack, ‘Holding ciation … to see that tradition main- Oct. 1938. the Balance’, Journal of Liberal History, tained.’ (emphasis added), Dumfries 41 See, for example, Lord Lothian quoted 64 (2009), pp. 28–31. and Galloway Standard and Advertiser, 12 in T. Wilson, The Downfall of the Lib- 8 See, for example, C. Cook, A Short July 1947. Reid remained editor of the eral Party 1914–1935 (Collins, 1966), pp. History of the Liberal Party: The Road Standard until 1954. 377–8. Back to Power (Palgrave Macmillan, 28 Henry Fildes (1870–1948), Coalition 2010), pp. 94–5, 111–12. Liberal MP for Stockport, 1920–23; 9 Speeches in Cleckheaton, reported in the Cleckheaton Guardian, 10 Nov. 1922 and the Yorkshire Observer, 14 Nov. 1922. CELEBRATING JOHN BRIGHT 10 D. Dutton, Simon: a Political Biography A study day to consider the life and achievements of John Bright MP (1811–1889 ) of Sir John Simon (Aurum, 1992), p. 104. 11 A. J. Sylvester, Life with Lloyd George Saturday 19 November 2011, 1000 – 1700, Birmingham City Art Gallery (Macmillan, 1975), p. 134: ‘He is mov- John Bright was born on 16 November 1811, a Quaker son of a Rochdale mill-owner. He became ing heaven and earth to get electors to the most famous orator and politician of his day, a champion of the rights of the ordinary man, a vote Labour where there is no Liberal.’ (A. J. Sylvester diary, 13 Nov. 1935) peacemaker and parliamentary reformer, who was not afraid to take the unpopular view, sometimes at 12 D. Dutton, ‘1932: A Neglected Date in great personal cost. the History of the Decline of the Brit- This study day seeks to bring together some of the writers and politicians who are most knowledgeable ish Liberal Party’, Twentieth Century about John Bright’s life and career and to assess his importance as a reformer, with particular reference British History 14/1 (2003), pp. 43–60. 13 Chamberlain to E. Grigg, 16 Sept. to his time as Birmingham’s MP. We shall be looking at his work as a peace protagonist and its relevance 1931, cited in R. Self (ed.), The Neville for today and asking the question `How best can we build on his legacy?’ Chamberlain Diary Letters (Ashgate, Speakers include Cllr Paul Tilsley, Bill Cash MP, Chris Upton, Howard Gregg, Antony Wood, Ian Cawood, 2002), vol. iii, p. 30. Cllr Martin Mullaney and Rae Street. 14 A. Chamberlain to Ivy Chamberlain, 26 Aug. 1931, Chamberlain MSS, Booking AC6/1/803. 15 R. Bassett, 1931: Political Crisis (Mac- Venue: Gas Hall (AV room), Birmingham City Art Gallery (BMAG), Edmund St., Birmingham B3 3DH. The millan, 1958), p. 187. venue is within easy walking distance of New Street rail station. 16 A. Chamberlain to Ivy Chamber- The charge for the day is £10.00 per person, including refreshments mid-morning and afternoon. Lunch lain, 24 Aug. 1931, Chamberlain MSS, AC6/1/800. may be bought at the Edwardian Restaurant at BMAG or a number of cafes/restaurants nearby. 17 J. Barnes and D. Nicholson (eds.), The Please send your booking and payment to Mrs Janet King, 110 Linthurst Newtown, Blackwell, Empire at Bay: the Leo Amery Diaries Bromsgrove, Worcs. B60 1BS (tel 0121 445 2802; email [email protected]) 1929–1945 (Hutchinson, 1988), p. 204. 18 For the 1931 general election, see A. Closing date for applications is 19 October.

Journal of Liberal History 72 Autumn 2011 43