the suffragette revolt - liberal history...the suffragette revolt dr j. graham jones lloyd george...

The suffragette revoltThe suffragette revoltThe suffragette revoltThe suffragette revoltThe suffragette revoltDr J. Graham JonesLloyd George and the Suffragettes at LlanystumdwyLloyd George and the Suffragettes at LlanystumdwyLloyd George and the Suffragettes at LlanystumdwyLloyd George and the Suffragettes at LlanystumdwyLloyd George and the Suffragettes at Llanystumdwy

Paul MulveyThe Single-Taxers and the Future of Liberalism, 1906–14The Single-Taxers and the Future of Liberalism, 1906–14The Single-Taxers and the Future of Liberalism, 1906–14The Single-Taxers and the Future of Liberalism, 1906–14The Single-Taxers and the Future of Liberalism, 1906–14

Thomas Babington Macaulay‘Let us open to them the door of the House of Commons’ ‘Let us open to them the door of the House of Commons’ ‘Let us open to them the door of the House of Commons’ ‘Let us open to them the door of the House of Commons’ ‘Let us open to them the door of the House of Commons’ On Jewish disabilities

John DaviesKeeper of the Liberal Flame Keeper of the Liberal Flame Keeper of the Liberal Flame Keeper of the Liberal Flame Keeper of the Liberal Flame Biography of Ivor Davies

Dr J. Graham JonesGrimond’s Rival Grimond’s Rival Grimond’s Rival Grimond’s Rival Grimond’s Rival Biography of Roderic Bowen MP

Journal of

Liberal DemocratHISTORY

Liberal Democrat History Group

Issue 34/35 / Spring/Summer 2002 / £5.00Issue 34/35 / Spring/Summer 2002 / £5.00Issue 34/35 / Spring/Summer 2002 / £5.00Issue 34/35 / Spring/Summer 2002 / £5.00Issue 34/35 / Spring/Summer 2002 / £5.00

2 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35 Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35 Spring/Summer 2002

Issue 34/35: Spring/Summer 2002

Lloyd George and the Suffragettes atLlanystumdwyDr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones chronicles Lloyd George’s problems with the suffragettes

The Single-Taxers and the Future ofLiberalism, 1906–1914Paul Mulvey Paul Mulvey Paul Mulvey Paul Mulvey Paul Mulvey tells the story of the Liberal Party and the Land Tax movement

Archives: University of BristolLiberal archive sources at the University of Bristol Library; by M. T. RichardsonM. T. RichardsonM. T. RichardsonM. T. RichardsonM. T. Richardson

Macaulay on Jewish DisabilitiesTony Little Tony Little Tony Little Tony Little Tony Little introduces Thomas Babington Macaulay’s speech of 17 April 1833

Keeper of the Liberal FlameThe life and political career of Ivor Davies, by John DaviesJohn DaviesJohn DaviesJohn DaviesJohn Davies

Grimond’s RivalDr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones recounts the life and career of Roderic Bowen MP

Report: Speeches and Speech-makerswith Roy Jenkins, Max Atkinson and Paddy Ashdown; report by Duncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan Brack

Report: Public Services or StateServices? – the Liberal Legacywith Professor Peter Marsh and Dr Graham Davis; report by Neil StockleyNeil StockleyNeil StockleyNeil StockleyNeil Stockley

ReviewsDuncan Brack and Tony Little (eds): Great Liberal Speeches, reviewed by ConradConradConradConradConradRussell; Russell; Russell; Russell; Russell; Eugenio Biagini: Gladstone, reviewed by Tony Little; Tony Little; Tony Little; Tony Little; Tony Little; Richard Grayson:Liberals, International Relations and Appeasement, reviewed by Ian Hunter; Ian Hunter; Ian Hunter; Ian Hunter; Ian Hunter; PeterKilfoyle: Left Behind, reviewed by Chris Rennard; Chris Rennard; Chris Rennard; Chris Rennard; Chris Rennard; David Cecil: The YoungMelbourne & Lord M, reviewed by David Nolan; David Nolan; David Nolan; David Nolan; David Nolan; Antony Lentin: Lloyd George andthe Lost Peace, reviewed by David DuttonDavid DuttonDavid DuttonDavid DuttonDavid Dutton

3

11

15

17

22

26

34

38

40

Journal of Liberal Democrat HistoryJournal of Liberal Democrat HistoryJournal of Liberal Democrat HistoryJournal of Liberal Democrat HistoryJournal of Liberal Democrat HistoryThe Journal of Liberal Democrat History is

published quarterly by theLiberal Democrat History Group.

ISSN 1463-6557

Editor: Duncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan BrackAssistant Editor: Alison SmithAlison SmithAlison SmithAlison SmithAlison Smith

Biographies Editor: Robert InghamRobert InghamRobert InghamRobert InghamRobert InghamReviews Editor: Sam CrooksSam CrooksSam CrooksSam CrooksSam Crooks

PatronsDr Eugenio Biagini; Professor Michael Freeden;

Professor Earl Russell; Professor John Vincent

Editorial BoardDr Malcolm Baines; Dr Roy Douglas; Dr Barry

Doyle; Dr David Dutton; Professor DavidGowland; Dr Richard Grayson; Dr Michael Hart;

Peter Hellyer; Ian Hunter; Dr J. Graham Jones;Tony Little; Professor Ian Machin; Dr Mark Pack;

Dr John Powell; Iain Sharpe

Editorial/CorrespondenceContributions to the Journal – letters, articles,

and book reviews – are invited. The Journal is arefereed publication; all articles submitted willbe reviewed. Contributions should be sent to:

Duncan Brack Duncan Brack Duncan Brack Duncan Brack Duncan Brack (Editor)38 Salford Road, London SW2 4BQemail: [email protected]

All articles copyright © their authors.

AdvertisementsAdverts are welcome; please contact the Editor

for rates.

Subscriptions/MembershipAn annual subscription to the Journal of Liberal

Democrat History costs £10.00 (£5.00 unwagedrate). This includes membership of the History

Group unless you inform us otherwise.

Overseas subscribers should add £5.00; or, aspecial three-year rate is available for

£40.00 total.

Cheques (payable to ‘Liberal Democrat HistoryGroup’) should be sent to:

Patrick MitchellPatrick MitchellPatrick MitchellPatrick MitchellPatrick Mitchell 6 Palfrey Place, London SW8 1PA;

email: [email protected]

Cover design concept: Lynne FeatherstoneLynne FeatherstoneLynne FeatherstoneLynne FeatherstoneLynne Featherstone

Published by the Liberal Democrat History Group,c/o 38 Salford Road, London SW2 4BQ

Printed by Kall-Kwik,426 Chiswick High Road, London W4 5TF

June 2002

Why a double issue?Readers will notice that this issue of the Journal is a double issue, 34/35 (spring/summer 2002),containing approximately twice the material of a normal issue. The delay in producing number 33(the special issue on Liberals and Ireland) meant that we were faced with either producing threeissues in six months or doubling up on one of them, and decided to adopt the latter course. Normalservice will be resumed from issue 36, due out in September.

Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35Journal of Liberal Democrat History 34/35 Spring/Summer 2002 3

Among the Lloyd George correspondenceacquired by the National Library of Walesfrom the third Earl Lloyd-George of

Dwyfor in is a single stray letter, dated Oc-tober , from Evan William Evans (–), anative of Dolgellau, a prominent journalist, editorand publisher, and owner of the Dolgellau-basedprinting office where Y Goleuad was produced. TheGoleuad company assumed responsibility for thepublication of a number of local newspapers andjournals and several substantial volumes. Evans washimself an avid local historian and Calvinistic Meth-odist, and a diligent collector of manuscripts andprinted works. The former group now constitutesthe Frondirion Manuscripts in the custody of theNational Library.

The letter reads as follows:

The Suffragists at LlanystumdwyFrondirion

Dolgelley, Oct. ,

To the Right Hon D. Lloyd George MP

Dear Mr Lloyd George

I find in to-day’s paper that questions are to beasked in the House of Commons on Monday aboutthe treatment of the Suffragists at Llanystumdwy. Iwas present at the meeting and was quite close totwo of the women who disturbed the proceedings,and who were ejected.

The reports published in many of the newspaperswere greatly exaggerated. It has been repeatedly

Lloyd George and theLloyd George and theLloyd George and theLloyd George and theLloyd George and theSuffragettes atSuffragettes atSuffragettes atSuffragettes atSuffragettes atLlanystumdwyLlanystumdwyLlanystumdwyLlanystumdwyLlanystumdwy

SuffragettesDr J. Graham JonesDr J. Graham JonesDr J. Graham JonesDr J. Graham JonesDr J. Graham Jones re-examines the reopening by LloydGeorge in September 1912 of the village institute at his

native Llanystumdwy, when the proceedings were blightedby constant suffragette interruptions.

asserted that the hair of one of the disturbers wasactually pulled off in handfulls by the crowd. I wasclose by at the time and saw what did take place.The hat of the woman was taken off, and handfullsof hair did come off with it. A friend of minepicked up the hat, and I have it now in my posses-sion as well as a considerable quantity of the ‘hair’said to have been plucked off. But will you allowme to assure you that this woman did not on thatoccasion suffer the loss of any of her own hair! Itwas false hair that was artfully inserted inside thehat in such a way that it looked like natural hair,and of course ‘it came off in handfulls’. I have beenendeavouring to find out the name and address ofthe rightful owner of the hat and false hair, but sofar I have failed. It was I think a very clever bit ofstage acting and it came off well!

Yours sincerelyE. W. Evans

The letter casts further light on an occasion of con-siderable interest. The intensive suffragette campaignto secure the enfranchisement of women was one ofthe most prominent political themes of the years im-mediately preceding the outbreak of the First WorldWar. David Lloyd George, Liberal MP for the Caer-narfon Boroughs since , President of the Boardof Trade, –, and subsequently Asquith’s radicalChancellor of the Exchequer, was inevitably in apivotal position. Until about the end of the suf-fragette campaign was strictly constitutional, rela-tively low-key, and generally keeping well withinthe law. From that point on, however, the techniques


of disruption ever more widely em-ployed by the Women’s Social and Po-litical Union (WSPU) brought theirdemands increasingly into the publicdomain, while the eligibility of womento serve on town and county councilsfrom onwards gave the movementa powerful fillip. Moreover, the electionof a relatively left-wing Liberal govern-ment under Campbell-Bannerman inJanuary raised real expectations oflegislative change. It was estimated thatfully MPs in the new parliament,drawn from all political parties, werepledged to the principle of women’ssuffrage, while the prime minister washimself a convert to the cause. Fourmembers of the new Liberal cabinetwere said to be stalwart supporters ofthe suffragette cause – Sir Edward Grey,Haldane, Birrell and Lloyd George.

Other Liberal ministers were generallyhostile, among them Asquith (theChancellor of the Exchequer), LordLoreburn (the Lord Chancellor),Churchill, Lewis Harcourt, McKennaand Herbert Samuel. They tended toargue that women did not want thevote and did not need the vote, as theyhad no real grievances of their own andwere already adequately represented.These sharply contrasting viewpointscaused a deep rooted schism within theLiberal Party at a time when it was at-tempting to maintain a positive mantleof radicalism.

In the event, private members’ billswere introduced in the Commons in and , but, deprived of gov-ernment support, inevitably made butlittle headway. Lloyd George, who suc-ceeded Asquith as Chancellor in April, regularly faced well-orchestratedheckling during many of his publicspeeches, which he sometimes founddifficulty in completing because of theconstant interruptions. In October hewas called as a prosecution witness inthe celebrated trial at Bow Street ofMrs Pankhurst, Miss ChristabelPankhurst and Mrs Drummond. To anaudience at the Albert Hall on De-cember he was optimistic concerningthe inclusion of women’s suffrage in afuture Reform Bill. It was noted thathis speech took two hours to deliver(instead of the anticipated twenty

minutes) because of the incessant in-terruptions by militant members ofthe WSPU lodged firmly (and some-what menacingly) in front-row seats.During , fully preoccupied withthe preparation of the ‘People’sBudget’, Lloyd George was inevitablymore than happy to fall in withAsquith’s delaying tactics as a numberof imprisoned suffragettes went onhunger strike, provoking the govern-ment to institute the highly publicisedprocess of forcible feeding.

By the beginning of the suf-frage issue had attracted considerablepublic sympathy and support, and ap-preciable parliamentary backing.Asquith, however, refused to introducea women’s suffrage measure, and in theJanuary general election, the Liberalsremained committed simply to carry-ing his nebulous pledge to giveconsideration to the franchise questiongenerally into the new parliament, notto any bolder initiative. Following thepoll, the WSPU declared a truce whichlasted to some extent until . In thespring of the re-elected Liberalgovernment set up an all-party Parlia-mentary ‘Conciliation Committee’charged to draft suffrage legislation. Theoutcome was the first Conciliation Billwhich proposed that the vote should begiven to women who were £ house-holders, with the further stipulationthat married women could not qualifyin respect of the same property as theirhusbands. The measure received thecautious endorsement of the suffragesocieties on the ‘half-a-loaf ’ principle,and of Conservatives who depicted it asa means of strengthening the anti-radi-cal vote in the country. Both LloydGeorge and Churchill opposed it forthe very same reason, the former writ-ing to his brother William during thedebate on the second reading in July,‘Women’s Debate going strong. F. E.Smith delivered a crushing speechagainst. I am dead against this Bill &mean to vote against it.’ Publicly heopposed the measure as being insuffi-ciently broad and incapable of amend-ment. Both Lloyd George and Church-ill voted against, but the bill was carriedby a majority in the Commons, there-after being referred to a committee of

the whole House, temporarily blockingits progress. ‘Women Suffrage killed forthis year – killed altogether as far as yes-terday’s Bill is concerned’, wrote LloydGeorge to William, ‘The suffragettes arefor the moment concentrating theirhate on Winston, although annoyedwith me also.’ On several occasionsviolent scenes ensued.

A revised Conciliation Bill was in-troduced by a private member in thespring of , a measure which re-moved the £ householder qualifica-tion of the previous bill. In May LloydGeorge voted in favour of it, and in-deed seemed to endorse the revivedclamour in favour of ‘Votes for Women’at a time when he was fully preoccu-pied with his National Health Insur-ance commitments. By the end of thesummer he had come to endorse acomprehensive reform of the franchiseon lines which he expounded insist-ently to the Liberal Chief Whip, theMaster of Elibank:

I am very concerned about ourpledges on the Female Suffragequestion. We seem to be playingstraight into the hands of the enemy.The Conciliation Bill could, on bal-ance, add hundreds of thousands ofvotes throughout the country to thestrength of the Tory Party … Wehave never really faced the situationmanfully and courageously. I thinkthe Liberal Party ought to make upits mind as a whole that it will eitherhave an extended franchise whichwould put working men’s wives onthe Register, as well as spinsters andwidows, or that it will have no fe-male franchise at all … We are likelyto find ourselves in the position ofputting this wretched ConciliationBill through the House of Com-mons, sending it to the Lords, andeventually getting it through. Saywhat you will, that spells disaster forLiberalism.

The suffragette camp in turn becamehighly suspicious of Lloyd George’s sin-cerity and intentions, ChristabelPankhurst writing in October:

There exists a conspiracy of wreck-ers and reactionaries who are bent


upon carrying widening amend-ments in Committee in the hope ofdestroying the majority for the Bill… The particular amendment whichMr Lloyd George intends to pro-mote is one to give a vote to thewife of every elector, in virtue of herhusband’s qualification. This provi-sion would apply to no less than sixmillions of women, so that the Con-ciliation Bill, instead of enfranchis-ing one million women … wouldenfranchise seven million women.

She was fully aware that no such meas-ure stood any prospect of clearing theCommons without government sup-port, and had come to the conclusionthat the strategy of the devious LloydGeorge was ‘not, as he professes, to se-cure to women a large measure of en-franchisement, but to prevent womenfrom having the vote at all’. Withinweeks Prime Minister Asquith had an-nounced, somewhat unexpectedly, thatit was the Government’s intention dur-ing the next session to introduce ameasure providing manhood suffragefor all bona fide residents, the bill beingcapable of amendment so that it mightinclude the enfranchisement ofwomen. ‘Asquith’s declaration onmanhood suffrage has taken everyoneby surprise’, wrote Lloyd George toWilliam, ‘It is entirely my doing. But Iam amazed at the readiness & theproflitude [sic] with which he took thefence. I anticipated much more trouble.The Pankhursts are furious.’

Asquith’s announcement inevitablyheralded a return to a somewhat moremilitant attitude on the part of theWSPU, while Christabel Pankhurst’sintense fury was directed, first andforemost, at the ‘turncoat’ Chancellorof the Exchequer. In her broadsheetVotes for Women her wrathful indigna-tion knew no bounds – ‘The Govern-ment’s latest attempt to cheat womenof the vote is, of course, inspired by MrLloyd George. The whole crooked anddiscreditable scheme is characteristicof the man and of the methods he hasfrom the first employed against theSuffrage cause.’ H. N. Brailsford, thesecretary of the Conciliation Com-mittee, had already informed Liberaljournalist C. P. Scott that Christabel

‘envisaged the whole suffrage move-ment … as a gigantic duel betweenherself and Lloyd George whom shedesigned to destroy’. The energeticsuffragette campaign continued una-bated, violent outbreaks ensued regu-larly, and political meetings were ofteninterrupted. ‘Meeting a great success.No interruptions inside’, reported arelieved Lloyd George in mid-De-cember, ‘Women outside were trou-blesome flinging things at the car butno harm done. All of us delighted thisstrenuous session is over. Now for rest& recreation.’

As the new year – – dawned,feelings ran high and passions intensi-fied. Persistent conjecture ensued thatsuffragette-inspired assassinationswere being planned against bothAsquith and Lloyd George. Theformer, it was rumoured, had onlynarrowly escaped death after ahatchet had been flung into his car-

David Lloyd George in 1903

riage at Dublin. By the spring of

intense disillusionment and mountingexasperation prevailed in the suffra-gette camp because of the breakingwas compounded by occasional arsonattacks. As yet another ConciliationBill was debated in the Commonschamber during March , an exas-perated Lloyd George, still one of theministers more sympathetic to thesuffragette cause, wrote dejectedly tohis brother William:

March . Suffragettes brokenout once more. Smashed PM’s win-dows – shop windows in Oxford St& Charing X. Lunatics.

March . Suffragettes ravingmad. Another outbreak of windowsmashing in West End to day. They aredestroying the last chance of carryingtheir Bill.

March . Newydd. Bydd y


Pankhursts a’r Pethicks i gyd yn ygaol cyn y boreu – os y delir hwy.[News. The Pankhurts and the Pethickswill all be in the gaol before morning – ifthey are caught.]

The next day came the news that Sir A.A. Haworth had been narrowly de-feated in his bid to retain the tradition-ally safe Liberal division of ManchesterSouth in a by-election necessitated byhis appointment as a Lord Commis-sioner of the Treasury. Lloyd Georgewrote stoically to William:

South Manchester. Bad luck. Strike –suffragettes, undoubtedly prejudi-cially affected result, probably lost usthe seat. It was also the worst con-stituency in which to fight Insurance… We must set our teeth & fightthrough the next yrs. At the end ofthat time we war through into morefavourable country. Benefits flow in.Home Rule & Welsh Disestabt. willbe through & we can put forwardmore attractive fare. Cabinet quiteresolute.

It was rumoured in political circles thatthe third Conciliation Bill (again de-feated on its second reading at the endof March) had been torpedoed by awhispering campaign initiated byLloyd George and Churchill thatAsquith would resign following the in-troduction of a private member’s wom-en’s suffrage bill. This heartfelt fear, itwas said, led to the loss of Irish Nation-alist supporters of the suffragette cause,who looked suspiciously at any factorwhich might impede or delay theprogress of their measure. The fury ofthe more militant suffragettes knew nobounds; Lloyd George had becometheir especial bête noir. Every publicfunction which he attended saw theChancellor harried and threatened bythe ‘female lunatics’. At the end of Junehe was to address a political meeting atWalthamstow in Essex, a parliamentarydivision represented by Sir John Simon,the Solicitor General:

I am off with Llwydyn [his daugh-ter Olwen] to a meeting atWalthamstow in the Solicitor Gen-eral’s constituency. I shall probablybe harried by the female lunatics. I

am the only man in the Cabinetwho could render them effectivehelp & yet they have pursued mewith unexampled malignity. Poorold PM, he has been worried bythem these past weeks – & heminds them much more than I do.

Two weeks later, about to deliver aspeech at Kensington, Lloyd Georgewas attacked by a male suffragist sup-porter who came close to striking himon the head, provoking a scuffle whichresulted in the Chancellor being pulledto the ground. On another occasionPrime Minister Asquith was clutchedby the lapels of his suit and shakenforcefully. Such tactics caused some-thing of a rift in the ranks of the suffra-gette sympathisers; at the end of AugustMrs Fawcett asserted that the militantfaction had a ‘large share’ in causing thedefeat of the third Conciliation Bill inMarch, and had become ‘the chief ob-stacles in the way of the success of thesuffrage movement in the House ofCommons, and far more formidableopponents of it than Mr. Asquith or Mr.Harcourt’.

Further violent outbursts inevitablyensued. Upon his return from a latesummer vacation at Marienbad(which he had at least ostensibly takenfor the sake of his health), LloydGeorge attended the National Ei-steddfod at Wrexham where on Sep-tember his speech was interrupted bypersistent heckling – ‘When are yougoing to give votes for women?’ Heresponded, ‘I do not know what thesefoolish people gain for their cause.(Here another male interrupter wasput out.) I was saying that I fail to seewhat they think they gain by insultinga whole nation in the national festivalof its democracy (Applause).’ Violentscenes ensued outside the EisteddfodPavilion as the suffragette sympathiserswere mobbed by the crowd:

An auburn-haired lady had several ofher tresses torn out by the roots. Inspite of the protection afforded by thepolice the terror-stricken suffragetteswere hustled and knocked about, andto protect them from the violence ofthe angry crowd the police eventu-ally rushed them into one of the

ante-rooms behind the building. Oneof the constables remonstrated withthe crowd and a suffragette, whoseblouse was in tatters, and whose hairhung across her shoulders replied,‘We will go on doing it until we getthe vote!’ A man in the crowd washeard to explain, ‘They are in Walesnow. They are among ancient Britons,and we will show them how to dealwith suffragettes.’

Only two weeks later even greater sav-agery attended the opening of the vil-lage institute presented by the Chan-cellor to his native Llanystumdwy. Tofinance the munificent gesture he hadmade use of libel damages of £,

paid to him in by The Peoplenewspaper which had printed a seriesof articles suggesting that LloydGeorge was about to have been citedas a co-respondent in a divorce action,but that the would-be plaintiff hadbeen bought off for £,. TheChancellor sued the newspaper, mak-ing use of the professional services ofRufus Isaacs, Raymond Asquith (sonof the prime minister) and F. E. Smith.Damages of £, were eventuallypaid to Lloyd George which, three anda half years later, he contributed to thebuilding of the village institute.

Ironically, by the time of the institute’sopening in September , theChancellor was embroiled in an evenmore menacing affair – the infamousMarconi scandal – which again threat-ened to destroy his political career.

The opening of the institute was anotably high-profile occasion. Theouter gates of the grounds were to beunlocked by Winston Churchill, theFirst Lord of the Admiralty, and thedoor of the institute by Sir Rufus Isaacs,the Attorney General. Both ministerswere then to deliver short speeches, fol-lowed by Lloyd George and his closepolitical associate C. F. G. Masterman.The Chancellor and his wife were thento give tea to the village schoolchildrenand old age pensioners, while the newinstitute was to be the venue of anevening concert with Isaacs presidingand Masterman conducting. A weekbefore the occasion, fully aware thatsuffragette interruptions were almostcertain, the officials of the Criccieth


branch of the National Union forWomen’s Suffrage had communicatedwith the WSPU:

The suffrage cause is progressingsteadily here under the auspices ofthe NUWSS [National Union ofWomen’s Suffrage Societies]. Mili-tant methods will only injure thecause which both societies have atheart. Personal attacks on and abuseof Mr Lloyd George on the part ofstrangers in his native village willnaturally not be tolerated, especiallyon an occasion such as this, which isnot even political. Serious damagewill be done to the Suffrage cause ifany attempt is made to prevent MrLloyd George and his guests fromspeaking.

An evasive reply was received: ‘We begto acknowledge the receipt of your let-ter. Speculation as to possible antics ofladies to-day is now all the more in-tense, as the reply is a polite intimationto wait and see.’ Mrs Pankhurst, it wasreported, was unwilling to comment.

On the morning preceding theopening, Lloyd George and C. F. G.Masterman played golf on theCriccieth golf links against Sir RufusIsaacs and G. P. Williams of Criccieth.An autumn picnic on the banks of theChancellor’s beloved River Dwyforfollowed in the afternoon. For theopening ceremony itself the Chancel-lor was accompanied by his wife, chil-dren and brother William, togetherwith political associates like Ellis W.Davies (Caernarfonshire Eifion), J.Herbert Lewis (Flintshire), Ellis JonesGriffith (Anglesey) and H. J. EllisNanney, his Conservative opponent inthe Caernarfon Boroughs in and. Lloyd George’s brotherWilliam was responsible for presentingthe deed of gift of the land andpremises to the institute trustees, not-ing that the gift was subject to twoconditions: no intoxicating liquorswere to be sold or consumed on thepremises, and it should never be madea condition of membership that mem-bers should belong to a particular sect

or party in religion or politics. MrMasterman delivered the only Englishspeech of the afternoon:

As I am the only Englishman speak-ing this afternoon, perhaps I might beallowed to say in the name of a fewhundred thousand Englishmen I amvery glad to join in the demonstra-tion. We are grateful to you for havingbrought him up and taught him theway he should go – with some diffi-culties perhaps – (laughter) – andgiven him to us – (cries of ‘Oh, no’) –for the comfort of some, for the dis-turbance of others, and for the inter-est and excitement of all (Laughterand cheers). I think you will all agreewith me, whatever our politics are,and perhaps with different motives inyour hearts, when I say that Mr LloydGeorge is one of the few men givento us during a century of whom itmay be said that his life has changedthe world a little. (Cheers)

Lloyd George’s opening sentenceswere immediately drowned by a cry of

Violent treatment of WSPU hecklers, Llanystumdwy, 21 September 1912


‘Votes for Women’ from a woman nearthe platform. ‘Put her in the river’, re-torted the crowd as she was escortedaway by a police constable and buf-feted by the bystanders. As the Chan-cellor urged his listeners not to harmthe suffragette sympathisers who weredisrupting the meeting, a succession ofinterruptions followed. In the words ofone of the press correspondents, ‘Theirtreatment on the outskirts of thecrowd was, however, the reverse ofmild. Each was assaulted in turn, and itwas only through the intervention of apolice constable and the congestion atthat particular spot that one womanwas saved being placed under the vil-lage pump.’ Lloyd George spoke asfollows:

I have now been nearly a quarter ofa century in political life, and I thinkI may say that, whether locally or na-tionally, I have during that periodgenerally been in the hottest of theconflict, and I am glad to be able togive you my observations aftertwenty-five years … I am very anx-ious that this institute should pro-vide at least one meeting place inthe village where the villagers, with-out distinctions of creed, can cometogether to promote common ob-jects and find joy in the same com-mon entertainments.

It was noted in the local press that theprotestors had been stripped naked by agang of local rowdies. The Londonpapers, too, reported these alleged inci-dents graphically and in detail. One ofthe women present described theevents as a ‘revelation of the latent beastin man’, while, in the words of SylviaPankhurst, ‘Men and women werebeaten, kicked and stripped almost na-ked. The hair of the women was tornout in handfuls.’ It was further re-ported that the shirts of the protestingwomen were mercilessly cut up anddistributed among the crowd as souve-nirs of the momentous occasion. Lu-rid press publicity inevitably ensued; alarge picture of the women being as-saulted and mauled dominated thefront page of the Daily Mirror, and simi-lar photographs occupied a full page inthe Illustrated London News.

Two of the Liberal politicianspresent recorded the events in theirpersonal diaries. Sir John HerbertLewis’ description of the occasion waspredictably bland: ‘Went by early trainto Carnarvon & motored thence toLlanystumdwy for the opening of theInstitute by the Chancellor. A hugecrowd, a great suffragette disturbancefollowed by calm & an excellent meet-ing. In the evening a rollicking Concertin the Hall – Rufus Isaacs in the chair,Masterman conducting. That was abrilliant idea of LG’s for the attempts topronounce the various items causedendless fun.’ Ellis W. Davies outlinedthe scene in greater detail:

The crowd was dense but very well-behaved & was representative of allparties & sects, the only exceptionbeing the local landowners. Theywere noticeably absent save Sir HughEllis Nanney, who fought an electionwith Lloyd George. One felt it a pitythat political and social bitternessprevented others from being presentat a function to do honour to themost eminent of living Welshmen &one wondered how narrow and pettytheir minds must be. Is it any wonderthat as a class they are held in suchcontempt by the people?

He proceeded to describe the eventswhich he had witnessed:

When the Chancellor got up tospeak he had a great ovation but nosooner had he appealed to the crowdin Welsh to be gentle with any suffra-gettes present than one of the womenquite near the stage shouted ‘Votesfor Women’ & in the attempt to leadher out – she herself fighting & kick-ing those who tried to protect her –the crowd pressed down & [an] uglyrush was made for the platform. Nosooner was one disposed of thanother women cried in other parts ofthe field & whilst no doubt in thecrush – at times dangerous – feelinggot the better of some men, the ac-counts in the paper were untrue & onthe whole the women came well outof a row into which they deliberatelyentered with a view of breaking up asocial gathering & judging by their

appearance no one would concludethat they were other than paid row-dies of a low class who did their workmerely because they were paid. Intime peace was restored but the ex-citement made it impossible for theChancellor to speak effectively.

Davies’ words confirm the opinion ofE. W. Evans in his letter sent to LloydGeorge a month later. One of LloydGeorge’s earliest biographers, Herbertdu Parcq, who penned his work closeto the events which he was describing,made exactly the same point: ‘They gotsome rough handling, which Mr LloydGeorge did all in his power to restrain.There is, however, fortunately, no doubtthat the attack which they provokedwas very far from being as savage or aseffective as many accounts in the news-papers led the public to believe. The la-dies, expecting, as they were bound toexpect, a summary retribution, hadbeen prudent enough to put on oldclothes, and these were badly torn; butthe personal injuries which they suf-fered were happily slight.’

These more moderate, dispassionateaccounts give a more balanced versionof the events at Llanystumdwy in Sep-tember . At the time, however, theexaggerated language of those involvedinevitably received widespread cur-rency in both the local and nationalpress. The London Evening News pub-lished a lengthy account of an inter-view with Mrs S. Watson, one of theagitators attacked by the crowd, whoclaimed:

I am bruised all down my side andarms and have had the skin kickedoff my ankles. I still can hear thenoise which was made by the tear-ing out of my hair in handfuls … Ireceived a violent blow from behind,and my hat was torn off. In mypocket I had a dozen banneretteswith the sticks in a bundle. Someone snatched these from my pocketand struck me fiercely on the head.At that I became half unconscious,but I realised that I was being at-tacked from all sides. My hair wasbeing torn out in handfuls. Once Iwas beaten down to the ground, buttwo constables and two other men


succeeded in getting me up and outfrom among the hooligans. I wastaken to a cottage, but the womanrefused to give me admittance. Thesame thing happened at another cot-tage, but at the third, with the helpof the police, I succeeded in gettinginside. I was driven miles in a trap toget away from a remote railway sta-tion. The guard put me in his van,and told me that had I gone into oneof the ordinary carriages the menwould have thought nothing offlinging me on the line. He told methat the hair which had been tornfrom my head was distributedamong the men as a souvenir of themeeting. Nearly all my clothing wastorn to pieces.

The Conservative Western Mail, too,published detailed accounts of the pro-ceedings, concluding:

The Welshmen behaved like fiends,and but for the heroic action of theWelsh policemen they would un-doubtedly have been killed. One ofthem informed me that, though themen were bad, she had most to fearfrom the Welsh women, who tooktheir hatpins out of their hats andmade every attempt to use them. Nei-ther would the Welsh women allowthe suffragettes to take refuge in theircottages. Wales just now is in the verybad books of those suffragettes whoseek relaxation from their domesticduties to cry “Votes for Women”, onany and every occasion.

Subsequently the press was bombardedwith impassioned epistles from iratesuffragette sympathisers, enraged bytheir view of the events atLlanystumdwy. The following letter istypical of dozens published in variousnewspapers during the weeks immedi-ately following the attacks:

Llanystumdwy: A Woman’s Protest

To the editor

Sir, - When women ask Cabinet min-isters about the vote, it is called bynewspapers ‘suffragette tactics’. Whenthey are hustled, trampled upon, andfinally thrown out to a kindred crowdof ‘wild beasts’, their hair torn out in

handfulls, bereft of their garments,and even indecently assaulted, thenewspapers term it ‘retaliation’. ‘Re-taliation’, forsooth! When will news-paper leader-writers realise a sense offairness, and teach men to be manlytowards his counter-part woman?

In his speech on Saturday Mr LloydGeorge declared: ‘There is no coun-try in the world where political war-fare is fought under stricter and morehonourable rules of fair play thanGreat Britain.’

When has fair play ever been ac-corded to women since the begin-ning of their political agitation? Themilitant methods adopted by theWomen’s Social and Political Unionsix years ago consisted simply inquestioning Cabinet Ministers afterpolitical meetings and in sendingdeputations to the Prime Minister atWestminster. Their legitimate askingof questions was answered by theirviolent ejection and the decision ofCabinet Ministers that thenceforwardpolitical meetings should be held formen only … Is this the ‘fair play’ thatMr Lloyd George talks about? Theonly negative comfort that I couldglean after reading about theLlanystumdwy horrors in this morn-ing’s paper is that such dastardly out-rages could not be perpetuated any-where outside the area in NorthWales that suffers delirium each timethe Chancellor visits that district. Itwas all very well for him to have saidon Saturday ‘No violence!’ This ac-cords ill with the hint he gave themrecently about ‘the little Eisteddfodsticks being useful’. It is full time thatwe had ministers sincere enough tobe fair to women and to concede tothem in this country what women inother parts of the Empire (such asAustralia and New Zealand) use forhuman betterment, namely the vote,I am, &c.

Margaret FinlayStow Park – Terrace, Newport, Mon.

Sept. rd.

Ironically, the Llanystumdwy Institute,like many other such buildings in Eng-land and Wales, had been hailed in the

North Wales press as a focal point of thevillage designed ‘to break the mo-notony of rural life. The LlanystumdwyInstitute will do a great deal to supplyrecreation for the folk of that parish,and make country life there more gen-ial to the young people.’

The opening sentence of the lettersent by E. W. Evans to Lloyd Georgealso referred to the questions about tobe asked in the House of Commonsconcerning the Llanystumdwy distur-bances. Lord Robert Cecil had in factalready asked the Home Secretary forhis reaction to the ‘serious assaults’which had occurred on September,only to be told that ‘the police were un-able to identify any of the assailants …Many of the persons at the meetingcame from outside the county, andwere strangers to the police who werethere on duty, and who were fully oc-cupied in affording protection to thewomen.’

Lord Robert persisted, referring tothe photographs published in thenewspapers, but was again given anevasive reply. The matter was againraised the following day, and againmore forcefully on October byLord Robert Cecil and Mr HaroldSmith who demanded to knowwhether ‘as a result of investigationsinto the recent disturbances atWrexham and Llanystumdwy, any in-formation [had] been obtained as tothe pulling out of women’s hair; and, ifso, whether any action [was] to betaken’. The Home Secretary repliedthat evidence of two cases of assaulthad been gathered by the Chief Con-stable, but he refused to elucidate fur-ther as criminal proceedings werelikely. A further pertinent question on‘the pulling out of the women’s hair’provoked no response. Finally, MrSmith asked pointedly, ‘May I ask ifthis is an attempt to whitewash theChancellor of the Exchequer?’ ‘Thereis not the slightest ground for any sug-gestion of that sort’, retorted ReginaldMcKenna, the Home Secretary.

By this time the cause of ‘Votes forWomen’ had been effectively blockedwithin parliament. The Liberal govern-ment was really in no position to pushthrough any such measure; it was far


from united on the matter, and PrimeMinister Asquith was firmly in the anti-suffragist camp. The subject largely van-ished from parliamentary debate duringwhat remained of the pre-war period.It re-surfaced briefly in January

during the debate on the government’sFranchise and Registration Bill. ‘Insur-ance & Women’s Suffrage engaging myattention today’, wrote Lloyd Georgeto his brother, ‘Although I hate themilitants one must not allow that to de-flect his judgement on a great questionof principle.’ ‘Have no idea what willhappen in the voting’, he went on aweek later, ‘except that I think we shallbe beaten by a small majority. It is en-tirely the fault of the militant section’.

In the event, the Speaker of theHouse of Commons, James Lowther,ruled that the measure could not beamended to include women’s suffrageclauses. Claiming betrayal, the WSPUimmediately embarked upon anothercampaign of destruction. ChristabelPankhurst allegedly designed a strategywhich included the ‘pouring of acidsinto pillar boxes, the cutting of tel-egraph wires, and the slashing of pic-tures in public galleries … [suffragettes]set fire to empty houses, they destroyedgolf courses, they threw bombs atchurches’. On February the housewhich was being built for LloydGeorge near the golf course at WaltonHeath was blown up, and MrsPankhurst immediately claimed re-sponsibility, and, charged with incite-ment to commit a felony, was in duecourse sentenced to three months’ pe-nal servitude. The Chancellor was alsothe recipient of regular assassinationthreats, and Scotland Yard detectiveswere assigned to shadow him, followerswhich irked him somewhat when hetook a late summer holiday atMarienbad together with Sir RufusIsaacs. He continued to be a major tar-get for suffragette violence rightthrough until the outbreak of war.

One writer argues that the women’ssuffrage cause during the immediatepre-war years fell victim to the Chan-cellor’s loss of influence which in turnhe attributes to the impact of the Mar-coni scandal:

At a time when the Government waspressing a Franchise Bill and was spliton suffrage, the only man with politi-cal force enough to secure the inclu-sion of suffrage, and prevent thebreak-up of the Government, wasbeing embarrassed by charges of cor-ruption … At the very time when hispolitical instincts told him that theLiberals must break out of the steril-ity of coercion on suffrage, he was acaptive of the chief architect of thatpolicy – the Prime Minister … TheMarconi affair is the crucial back-cloth to the struggle that, at least inpublic, went on to amend the Gov-ernment’s Franchise Bill.

But it should also be noted that LloydGeorge’s freedom of manoeuvre wasseverely restricted, too, by Asquith’simplaccable opposition to the cause,and by the fact that his fellow radical parexcellence within the Cabinet, WinstonChurchill, was at best equivocal onwomen’s suffrage. Whatever the reasons,it is difficult to resist the conclusion thatthe failure of the pre-war Liberal gov-ernments to enfranchise women wasone of the worst blots on their record.

Dr J. Graham Jones is an assistant archivistof the Welsh Political Archive at the Depart-ment of Manuscripts and records, the Na-tional Library of Wales, Aberystwyth.

1 Dictionary of Welsh Biography down to 1940(London, 1959), p. 234.

2 NLW MS 21,790E, f. 352, E. W. Evans to D.Lloyd George, 19 October 1912.

3 M. G. Fawcett, Women’s Suffrage (Londonand Edinburgh, 1911), p. 69.

4 Constance Rover, Women’s Suffrage andParty Politics in Britain, 1866–1914 (Londonand Toronto, 1967), pp. 64-65

5 D. Lloyd George, speech at the Albert Hall, 5December 1908: The Times, 7 December1908.

6 NLW, William George Papers 2403, D. LloydGeorge to William George, 11 July 1910.

7 Ibid. 2404, DLG to WG, 13 July 1910.8 National Library of Scotland, Murray of Elibank

MSS 8802, f. 308, Lloyd George to Elibank, 5September 1910.

9 Votes for Women, 6 October 1911.10 Ibid.11 The Times, 8 November 1911.12 NLW, William George Papers 2524, DLG to

WG, 8 November 1911.13 Votes for Women, 10 November 1911.14 Trevor Wilson (ed.), The Political Diaries of

C.P. Scott, 1911–1928 (London, 1970), p. 57.

15 NLW, William George Papers 2543, DLG toWG, 16 December 1911.

16 Cited in Rover, op. cit., p. 166.17 NLW, William George Papers 2561, DLG to

WG, 1 March 1912.18 Ibid. 2562, DLG to WG, 4 March 1912.19 Ibid. 2564, DLG to WG, 5 March 1912.20 Ibid. 2565, DLG to WG, 6 March 1912.21 Rover, op. cit., p. 130.22 NLW, William George Papers 2615, DLG to

WG, 29 June 1912. The next day he wrote,‘Yesterday’s meeting was a very great success.Never saw suffragettes better handled – a littletoo roughly – but that you cannot help whenpeople are enraged’. (Ibid. 2616, DLG to WG,30 June 1912).

23 Lord Riddell, More Pages from my Diary,1908–1914 (London, 1934), pp. 81-82, entryfor 14 July 1912.

24 Evening Standard, 22 August 1912.25 See NLW MS 20,431C, DLG to Margaret Lloyd

George, 17 and 28 August 1912.26 North Wales Weekly News, 13 September

1912.27 Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald, 6 September

1912; North Wales Chronicle, 6 September1912.

28 See The Times, 23 September 1912, 6c.29 Ibid., 12 September 1912, 8e, and 21 Septem-

ber 1912, 9a.30 Ibid., 20 September 1912, 5e.31 South Wales Daily News, 21 September 1912.32 This account is based on ibid., 23 September

1912, and the North Wales Weekly News, 27September 1912.

33 South Wales Daily News, 23 September 1912.34 North Wales Weekly News, 27 September

1912.35 North Wales Observer and Express, 27 Sep-

tember 1912.36 Sylvia Pankhurst, The suffragette Movement

(London, 1977), p. 392.37 See the Daily Telegraph, 23 September 1912,

and the Daily Mirror, 23 September 1912.38 NLW, Sir John Herbert Lewis Papers B26 , diary

entry for 21 September 1912.39 NLW, Ellis W. Davies Papers 7, diary entry for

21 September 1912.40 Herbert du Parcq, Life of David Lloyd George,

Vol. III (London, no date), p. 607.41 Cited in the South Wales Daily News, 24 Sep-

tember 1912.42 Western Mail, 24 September 1912.43 South Wales Daily News, 24 September 1912.44 Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald, 27 September

1912.45 House of Commons Debates, 5th series, Vol.

XLII, cc. 1061–62 (15 October 1912).46 Ibid. c. 1248 (16 October 1912).47 Ibid. cc. 1717-18 (21 October 1912).48 NLW, William George Papers 2674, DLG to

William George, 16 January 1913.49 Ibid. 2680, DLG to WG, 23 January 1913.50 Susan Kingsley Kent, Sex and Suffrage in Brit-

ain, 1860-1914 (London, 1990), p. 202.51 David Morgan, Suffragists and Liberals: the

Politics of Women Suffrage in England (Ox-ford, 1975), pp. 108–09.


The Single-Taxers were one of those politicalpressure groups, so typical of EdwardianBritain, whose adherents believed that they

had found a relatively simple way to cure the ills ofsociety. Their inspiration was the American eco-nomic theorist, Henry George, who in the shad blamed the persistence of poverty, in spite ofeconomic growth, on the rapacious exaction of rentby landlords on land which, in truth, was the birth-right of all men. The cure to this injustice, Georgeargued, was the appropriation by the community ofall rent on the unimproved value of the land.

Around a core of committed advocates of the‘Single Tax’, as it was called, there grew a wider LandTax movement that supported the introduction ofproperty taxes based on site value. These, they hoped,would improve the efficiency of land use and dis-tribute the tax burden more fairly. The Single-Taxersthemselves hoped for much more. Firmly in the lib-ertarian tradition, they hoped George’s schemewould bring about a new society – one withoutpoverty, crime, or the exploitation of the weak bythe strong. They had little time for the collectivistmeasures advocated by other progressive reformers.They were suspicious of state power, and hoped thattheir reform would shrink government, rather thanincrease it. They saw their theories as the naturalprogression of the Victorian radical ideals of liberty,laissez-faire and retrenchment, as true Liberalism infact. Although few in number, they enjoyed a dispro-portionate voice in pre- Liberal activism andthe extent of their influence on Liberal support inthe country, for good or bad, was a matter of disputeat the time, as it has been since.

The politics of land was central to pre-

radicalism. Aristocratic landowners were still pow-erful enough to prompt radical indignation. Thegrowing awareness of urban and rural squaloraroused radical compassion, while the massive in-creases in the rates over the previous generation, hithard at radical wallets. An attack on the landlordsseemed to offer a solution to all three problems,and in doing so would hopefully win working-classsupport for the Liberals without splitting the elec-torate on class lines. But although radicals couldagree that land reforms were needed, they couldnot agree on which ones.

The debate took place largely in the arena of lo-cal taxation where, by the end of the Edwardianperiod, rates and taxes took up some % of theannual rental value of property, and in some areasexceeded %. Rates were widely seen as unfair,disproportionately hitting the poor, while the im-provements they were used to fund – public trans-port, drainage, better roads – enhanced the value ofland at little or no direct cost to the benefited land-owners, as such windfall profits, or unearned incre-ments, were not taxed.

Several groups campaigned to improve matters.The two most significant were the LandNationalisers and the Land-Taxers, both of whichcontained a core of committed ideologues and a pe-numbra, overlapping between the groups, of lessdogmatic supporters. The Land Nationalisers wanteda greater degree of government control over land.The Land-Taxers sought, as a minimum, a more eq-uitable distribution of the tax burden between largelandowners and small ratepayers.

The Single-Taxers andThe Single-Taxers andThe Single-Taxers andThe Single-Taxers andThe Single-Taxers andthe Future ofthe Future ofthe Future ofthe Future ofthe Future ofLiberalism, 1906–1914Liberalism, 1906–1914Liberalism, 1906–1914Liberalism, 1906–1914Liberalism, 1906–1914

Land value taxPaul Mulvey Paul Mulvey Paul Mulvey Paul Mulvey Paul Mulvey examines what was hailed, in the early years of

the twentieth century, as the radical alternative tocollectivism and even the New Liberalism.


The most committed Land-Taxerswere the Single-Taxers, followers ofHenry George, whose book,Progress and Poverty, had inspired move-ments for land reform in NorthAmerica, Europe and the British Em-pire. George argued that land, and theminerals in it, which God had createdfor the whole community, was the es-sential prerequisite to the creation of allother forms of wealth. For those whoowned no land, rent became a tax ontheir production. As population grew,competition for land increased, raisingrents and suppressing real wages –which were driven to subsistence levels.Landlords withheld land from the mar-ket to drive prices yet higher, and sofurther increased overcrowding anddestitution. George saw the evidencefor this in the cities of North Americaand Europe, where sky-high propertyprices existed alongside empty lots andsevere poverty.

His remedy was to tax the unim-proved value of land and minerals, soreclaiming for the community any risein value that was not due to the land-lord’s own efforts. This would also en-courage the efficient use of land by tax-ing it on its re-sale value whether it wasbeing used effectively or not. As moreland came into production, its pricewould fall, giving every man the op-portunity to work on the land if he sowished. With this alternative to accept-ing starvation wages, employers would

be forced to pay more to keep theirworkers. They would be able to affordthis because the proceeds of the landtax would allow for the abolition of allother taxes.

George, unlike his socialist contem-poraries, saw the fundamental socialbattle as not between labour and capital,but between their combined forces andthe landowners. He assumed that oncethe land monopoly was removed, menwould be free and social harmonywould prevail. His arguments weremade with passion and style and wereinfused with religious sentiment. TheSingle Tax would, he claimed:

Raise wages, increase the earnings ofcapital, extirpate pauperism, abolishpoverty, give remunerative employmentto whoever wishes it, afford free scopeto human powers, lessen crime, elevatemorals, and taste, and intelligence, pu-rify government and carry civilisationto yet nobler heights.

George visited the British Isles fivetimes between and . In hiswake, Land Restoration Leagues wereestablished and a journal, The Single Tax(later renamed Land Values), wasfounded, which by had a circula-tion of ,. The movement soon be-came identified with the radical wingof the Liberal Party and from on-wards, the National Liberal Federationendorsed the taxation of land valuesevery year.

Site value rating was well supported

by local authorities, the Liberal leader-ship and Members of Parliament, theLabour movement, and even by someTories, and in and , bills toeffect it, introduced by CharlesTrevelyan, comfortably passed theirsecond readings. The Liberal landslideof further swelled the ranks ofsupporters and the Parliamentary LandValues Group, which campaigned fortaxes based on site value, grew to

members. Most of these were notSingle-Taxers; many supported landnationalisation, but all of them wantedto see the introduction of a valuationmechanism as a precursor to furtherreforms.

The Single-Tax centre of the move-ment was small. One of its leaders, theRadical MP, Josiah Wedgwood, claimedit was seven MPs in , includinghimself, Philip Morrell, CharlesTrevelyan and the Scottish Lord Advo-cate, Alexander Ure. However, theywere committed campaigners insideParliament, and outside it via the vari-ous Land Values leagues. Membershipof the leagues was modest – the totalnumber of activists did not exceed afew thousand – but though relativelyfew in number, the movement’s sup-porters were very enthusiastic. J. A.Hobson later helped to explain whatmotivated them:

Henry George … was able to drivean abstract notion, that of economicrent, into the minds of a large numberof ‘practical’ men, and so generatetherefrom a social movement …George had all the popular gifts ofthe American orator and journalist,with something more. Sincerity rangout of every utterance.

George’s mixture of simple economicsand moral certainty, delivered in anevangelical style, filled a gap for some inan otherwise increasingly secular age.As Wedgwood said of his first encoun-ter with George’s work: ‘Ever since I have known “that there was aman from God, and his name wasHenry George.” I had no need hence-forth for any other faith.’

George’s ideas fitted in well withpopular romantic notions of a freepeasantry deprived of their birthrightby foreign oppressors. They also offered

The lid of a cigar box showing Henry George, author of Progress and Poverty.


a conceptually simple and fiscally cheapway of returning population to the land– an aim widely supported right acrossthe political spectrum. By removing theoppression of the landlord and reveal-ing the inner goodness of men, society’sills would be cured without recourse tothe bureaucratic meddling and concur-rent limitations on personal freedomwhich came with the reforms advo-cated by socialists and, of course, bymany other Liberals. Indeed, it was aradical vision that competed with thecollectivist ideas of ‘New Liberalism’ orof the Labour Party, and which its ad-vocates claimed was more dynamicthan either. Writing in the ChristianCommonwealth of February , forexample, Wedgwood claimed that theSingle-Taxers embodied the extraordi-nary spirit of rebellion that was abroadin the country, while the Labour Partywas becoming more and more con-servative. Labour men were essentiallybureaucratic socialists, while his move-ment was individualistic:

We believe that The State Has NoRight to take from the individualanything that the individual creates.All that the State has a right to take iswhat the community creates – for in-stance, the economic rent of land.

Such language was not best suited toappeal to cautious voters, and through-out their campaign, the Single-Taxershad a constant problem in distinguish-ing the revolutionary implications ofGeorge’s idea – an effective end to pri-vate property in land and much re-duced government revenues – from themodest improvements in land use thatthey claimed site value rating wouldbring. The ambiguity over the real aimsof the movement played directly intothe hands of their opponents, as theSingle-Taxers well knew. EdwardHemmerde, another Georgeite MP, forexample, warned a Land Values confer-ence in to avoid any suggestion ofthe Single Tax when pushing for ratesbased on site value.

Government bills to introduce sitevalue rating in Scotland were twice re-jected, in and , by the Houseof Lords, making futile any similar at-tempt for England. To overcome thisproblem, the Land-Taxers urged the

Government to tack the measure intothe Budget. Asquith’s assurance, in Oc-tober , that this was indeed theplan prompted a countrywide cam-paign in which the Government wasdeluged with petitions asking for avaluation and land taxes. The DailyChronicle, Daily News, Morning Leaderand Manchester Guardian all ran sympa-thetic articles.

Lloyd George’s final land taxationproposals were very modest, but theLand-Taxers were sanguine about that,for the Chancellor had agreed to a landvaluation – the first step on the road totaxing land values. They and otherland reformers celebrated at the GreatLand Reform Demonstration in July at Hyde Park, which was attendedby up to , people.

The Budget was, of course, initiallyrejected by the Lords, and between thetwo general elections which fol-lowed Land Values listed the Land-Taxers’ demands:

. To abolish rates … replacing themwith a tax on the unimproved valueof land.

. To help rural districts by making‘national’ services a national burdenpaid for by a national land value tax… [and]

. To abolish taxes on all foods andcomforts of the people.

Meanwhile, the campaign continued inthe country with a scheme to send outten million sets of leaflets, one for everyhousehold.

By May , the legal and admin-istrative complexity of the valuationmeant that it was not now expected tobe completed until . The

members of the Parliamentary LandValues Group (out of Liberal andLabour MPs), frustrated by the de-lays, all signed a memorial listing theirdemands, which was presented toAsquith and Lloyd George. In re-sponse, the Chancellor appointed aDepartmental Committee on LocalTaxation. Not satisfied with this, theSingle-Taxers decided to make thetaxation of land values the principle is-sue in two by-elections – at North-West Norfolk in May and atHanley two months later. They won

both, and saw this as proof of thepopularity of their cause.

It was not necessarily so. In ruralNorth-West Norfolk, EdwardHemmerde, who held the seat for theLiberals with a reduced majority, hadargued that taxing land values wouldraise agricultural wages and had calledfor a minimum wage for farm workers.What the Land-Taxers saw as a greatvictory for their policy may simplyhave been a vote for higher pay. AtHanley, very much Wedgwood terri-tory, the Land-Taxers ran a candidate,Leonard Outhwaite, against the wishesof Liberal headquarters, and in defianceof Labour claims for a free run at theseat. Taxation of land values was an is-sue that played well in an urban con-stituency where the rates were elevenshillings in the pound. As Outhwaitebegan to outpace the uninspiring La-bour candidate, Asquith and LloydGeorge jumped on the bandwagonwith messages of support, though thesedid not specifically mention land tax.

In the last days of the campaign, La-bour’s support collapsed andOuthwaite won a surprising victory,which Land Values claimed as a greatachievement, but which The Times putdown to anti-Labour tactical voting.

A month after his victory,Hemmerde was made a member ofLloyd George’s new Land Enquiry, setup to look into rural conditions and ur-ban rating reform. This, alongside the

Charles Trevelyan MP, one of the strongestLiberal supporters of the Land Taxmovement


by-election victories, gave the Single-Taxers great confidence, and even morethan usual they claimed to be speakingfor Liberalism as a whole. As early asJuly , Wedgwood, in urging theGovernment to get on with the valua-tion, talked of the need to ‘bring Liber-alism in this House more into line withLiberalism in the country’. Speakingto Land Taxers in July , FrankNeilson, by now the most active Sin-gle-Tax MP, dismissed the significanceof Home Rule, franchise reform andWelsh disestablishment and added:

When the decks are cleared of ‘tradi-tional Liberalism’ what is the LiberalParty going to do? What is its policyto be? The ‘new Liberalism’ that is ris-ing in this country today is movingunder various names. It will wantsomething very radical, very funda-mental; something new that is goingdown to the bottom of things.

It wanted taxation of land values. Themonomania of the Land-Taxers was bynow causing concern in more moder-ate Liberal circles. Victory at Hanleyhad a price – the Land-Taxers had bro-ken the unofficial Gladstone-MacDonald electoral pact, costing La-bour a safe seat and they, in retaliation,ran a candidate in the Crewe by-elec-tion of July , who took nineteenper cent of the vote and so prevented aLiberal victory. Wedgwood andOuthwaite got a very offhand recep-tion at a Liberal conference in Edin-burgh at the end of August, and theChief Whip warned Lloyd George ofthe dangers of supporting too radical apolicy – something most of the Cabi-net agreed with. In October, to ap-pease these concerns, both Asquith andLloyd George publicly denied that theywere Single Taxers. Land Values wasnot concerned, however, asserting that:

The repudiation of the Single Tax bythe Prime Minister and other Liber-als means nothing. It leaves the prac-tical steps toward that policy supremein the Liberal programme, for theparty is pledged to the hilt to theRating and Taxation of Land Values.

This view seemed to be endorsedwhen, on October , LloydGeorge sent a message of support to

the delegates at a Land TaxingConference at Cardiff, wishing themGod’s speed to every effort to put anend to the land monopoly. They, in re-turn, strongly supported the LiberalParty – and booed an activist who sug-gested that the Chancellor was not tobe trusted. Lloyd George, though,continued to play hot and cold – hisSwindon speech on October pro-posed an agricultural minimum wage,a new bureaucracy and state land pur-chase, but made no mention of landvalue taxation.

Wedgwood, who saw this as sympto-matic of a government whose actionsgot ever more ‘Whiggish’, flew a kitein the Glasgow Forward to see if theRadicals could establish a joint landpolicy with Labour. This was soondropped, however, as it became appar-ent that Lloyd George had not aban-doned site value rating after all, accept-ing its partial application in principle ina speech on February .

In the May Budget, the Chan-cellor offered £ million in grants inrelief of rates if valuation and revenuebills were passed in the next session al-lowing for the introduction of sitevalue rating. The grants were popular –they were equivalent to nine pence offthe rates – but the Budget’s noveltyin making current expenditure con-tingent on future revenue legislationprompted opposition from a ‘cave’ ofabout forty fiscally conservative Lib-eral MPs, and with the deadline forpassing a Finance Act approaching, theGovernment was forced to drop thegrants and postpone the requisite leg-islation until the autumn, by whichtime, of course, it had other matters todeal with.

In the summer of , the Land-Taxers were more optimistic of successthan at any time since . The Gov-ernment had at last agreed to introducesite value rating, and the legislation wasdue in a few months’ time. The move-ment was solidly, if not always enthusi-astically, behind the Liberal Party, andtheir by-election successes seemed toshow that they did have a viable andradical alternative to the collectivistproposals and class appeal of the LabourParty. If they wanted to cooperate withLabour, and most of them did, it was to

avoid the risk of splitting the progres-sive vote, and not because they fearedlosing seats directly to Labour.

Did the Single-Taxers help or ahinder the Liberals? Bentley Gilbert hasargued that land reform divided andembittered the Liberals as tariff reformhad the Tories, and as we have seen,the Single-Taxers certainly did promptdisquiet in the Liberal ranks, but on thewhole the evidence presented heresuggests that they helped the party.They offered a radical and non-collectivist alternative to socialism, andtheir belief in individualism and aminimalist state appealed to manyworking-class voters who were un-happy with the increased tax burdenand element of compulsion that camewith such New Liberal measures as theNational Insurance Act. Not least, theirplan for site value rating had wide ap-peal to those who lived in rented ac-commodation and paid high rates.

They provided the Liberal leader-ship with a tool with which to balancethe more conservative wing of theirparty, and both Asquith and LloydGeorge played the game of encourag-ing the Single-Taxers while denyingany Georgeite aspirations themselves.The Single-Taxers often sniped at theLiberal leadership and threatened re-volt, but they had nowhere else to go,certainly not to a Labour Party that re-fused to accept the principles of HenryGeorge and saw the future incollectivist terms. Certainly, in the sum-mer of , the Single-Taxers hadevery reason to believe that they wouldcontinue to play an important, andgrowing, part in Liberal and progressivepolitics for the foreseeable future.

AfterthoughtIn , on the verge of seeing a mod-est version of their hoped for-tax intro-duced, the Single-Taxers were defeatedby the advent of war. The war destroyedthe Land Tax movement as it destroyedthe Liberal Party, because it provided anissue that divided Land Taxers morethan their pre-war ideology had unitedthem. Wedgwood, for example, wentoff to fight almost immediately, whileTrevelyan opposed entry to the war andOuthwaite was an outright pacifist. As


The Liberal Party collections atthe University of BristolLibrary originate from the

acquisition in of the GladstoneLibrary of the National Liberal Club.

The Club was founded in tofocus political energies in an era ofwidening political involvement and,from the earliest days, it was intendedto develop at the Club a political andhistorical library, a fitting tribute to thenational services of one of the most

bookish of British statesmen. Survivingcollections demonstrate that thefounders’ enthusiasm was channelledeffectively and imaginatively into thecreation of a library addressing notonly matters of historical record butalso current political issues, an aimshared by its custodians today. Thus thecollection of the election addresses ofcandidates in London County Counciland general elections began in

and respectively. The series of

LCC addresses covers elections until, with the exception of , andrecords, inter alia, the early involvementof women in the political process.

General election coverage continuesto the present day. Every declaredcandidate is requested to submit to theLibrary an address and any othersupporting material thought suitable.In addition, the Library attempts togarner a full range of party manifestos.A similar tradition has developed in the

Archive SourcesArchive SourcesArchive SourcesArchive SourcesArchive SourcesUniversity of Bristol LibraryBy M. T. Richardson

the Liberal Party divided, so did theLand Taxers. In the election, of thefourteen pre-war MPs most closely as-sociated with the movement, four re-ceived the ‘coupon’, eight stood asAsquithians, one as an independentLiberal, and one, Wedgwood, as an In-dependent.

Although there were later attemptsto tax land value, most notably inPhilip Snowden’s budget of ,never again was George’s Single Taxtaken as a serious political idea in Brit-ain. The movement shrank to insignifi-cance as differences over the war frac-tured its membership and as the costsof the war, both financial and in termsof personal liberty, undermined theirarguments and marginalised theirpolicies. Without big government anda wide tax base, Britain would nothave won the war. There was to be noreturn to small government.

Paul Mulvey is a Ph.D. student at the Lon-don School of Economics, researching the lifeand political career of Josiah Clement Wedg-wood, –.

1 Avner Offer, Property and Politics 1870–1914,(Cambridge, 1981), p.161.

2 Henry George, Progress and Poverty, (London,1908), p.288.

3 Elwood P. Lawrence, Henry George in the Brit-ish Isles (East Lansing, 1957), p.122.

4 Offer, pp.317–18.5 Josiah C. Wedgwood, Memoirs of a Fighting

Life, (London, 1940), p.67.6 Sadie Ward, Land Reform in England 1880–

1914, unpublished PhD thesis (Reading Univer-sity, 1976), pp.552–53.

7 Quoted in G.R. Geiger, The Philosophy ofHenry George (Grand Forks, Dakota, 1931),p.174, according to Ursula Vogel, ‘The LandQuestion: A Liberal Theory of Communal Prop-erty’, History Workshop, (1989), vol.27,pp.106–35, 129.

8 Wedgwood, Memoirs, p.60.9 See Francis Neilson, My Life in Two Worlds,

vol.1 1867–1915 & vol.2 1915–1952,(Appleton, Wisconsin, 1952), p.241 & p.248and Francis Neilson, ‘What Progress and Pov-erty did for me’, American Journal of Economics& Sociology, vol.14 [1], (1954), p.214 and J.C.and Ethel Wedgwood, The Road to Freedomand what lies Beyond, (London, 1913), p.35.First published in The Open Road, 1912.

10 Hanley Library, JCW Newscuttings, volume 1,The Christian Commonwealth, 11 February1914.

11 The Times, 8 October 1912, p.8, col. D.12 Ward, pp.491–92.13 Land Values, May 1909, p.232.14 Ward, p.497; though the sceptical Daily Mail

estimated the numbers around the speakers’platforms at a more modest 36–39,000, HanleyLibrary, JCW Newscuttings, volume 1, DailyMail, 26 July [1909].

15 Land Values, July 1910, p.26.16 ibid., p.37.17 Ward, p.513.

18 Land Values, June 1911, p.1.19 Wedgwood, Memoirs, pp.83–84.20 The Times, 9 July 1912, p.8, col.B.21 ibid., 12 July 1912, p.11, col. D and 13 July

1912, p.10, col. D.22 Land Values, August 1912, p.98.23 The Times, 15 July 1912, p.7, col. B.24 Parliamentary Debates, Fifth series, Vol.28,

col.s 1549–50, 25 July 1911.25 Land Values, August 1912, p.139.26 Kinloch Papers 1/31, Wedgwood Correspond-

ence, Ethel Wedgwood to J.L. Kinloch, 30 Au-gust 1912.

27 H.V. Emy, ‘The Land Campaign: Lloyd Georgeas a Social Reformer, 1909–14’, in A.J.P. Taylor(ed.), Lloyd George: Twelve Essays (London,1971), pp.48.

28 Roy Douglas, Land, People and Politics (Lon-don, 1976), p.158.

29 Land Values, November 1912, p.262.30 ibid., November 1913, p.229.31 Hanley Library, JCW Newscuttings, volume 1,

Manchester Guardian, letter to the editor, 13November 1913.

32 Forward, 27 December 1913, p.1, col. E. – Toinclude the abolition of game laws, site valuerating, State purchase of all land valued at lessthan ten pounds an acre, and free use of thepoorest land

33 A minority report from the Departmental Com-mittee on Local Taxation in March and the Ur-ban Report of the Land Enquiry in April alsosupported the idea.

34 Bruce K. Murray, ‘Battered and Shattered:Lloyd George and the 1914 Budget fiasco’,Albion, vol. 23[3], (1991), p.495.

35 Bentley B. Gilbert, ‘David Lloyd George: the reformof British land holding and the Budget of 1914’, TheHistorical Journal, vol. 21[1], (1978), p.141.

36 Douglas, p.172.


monitoring of the UK elections to theEuropean Parliament and the recentScottish and Welsh elections werecovered as well. Some retrospective butpiecemeal acquisition of electionephemera, chiefly posters and hand-bills, went on at the Gladstone Libraryand this tradition is also honoured inBristol. The earliest material is asubstantial collection of posters andbills from the Durham County elec-tion of , in which the Whiginterest was triumphant and smallcaches survive for Plymouth (–); Bristol (); and Shaftesbury(). One group of papers charts theinvolvement of the Stanton family inthe Stroud constituency and includeselection materials dating from

through to . An early start was made at the

Gladstone Library in the accumula-tion of pamphlet literature. Muchcame from the library of CharlesBradlaugh (–), the freethinkerand ‘member for India’. To date wellover , records have been addedto the University of Bristol Library’scatalogue, thanks to grants from theHigher Education Funding Councilfor England and the Research Sup-port Libraries Programme. Theserecords include over , itemsissued by the Liberal Party Publica-tion Department. The Department’sannual accumulation of publications,the Pamphlets and Leaflets series, hasbeen catalogued item by item from until . As yet the annualvolumes for the period – havenot been so catalogued but somepamphlets from the period havesurvived separately and have beenentered on the catalogue. Naturally,the Library holds other importantserials issued by the PublicationDepartment, including the LiberalMagazine (–); the LiberalYearbook (–, –, –);and the Liberal Agent (–,–). The online catalogue isfreely available at: www.lib.bris.ac.uk/ALEPH.

In a substantial part of thearchive of the National Liberal Clubitself was returned to the Club onpermanent loan. The University Libraryhas retained materials principally

relating to the proceedings of theCobden Club, the Eighty Club and thePolitical and Economic Circle. Docu-ments concerning Liberalism beyondthe confines of the Club have remainedin Bristol and have been augmentedthrough the good offices of local andnational associations and interestedindividuals.

Thanks to a magnanimous gestureon the part of the British Library ofPolitical and Economic Science, intransferring Minute Book of theLiberal Central Association to Bristol,there now exists a run of the minutesof this body from , at the verybeginning of the Liberal Party, throughto . Other national bodies forwhich minute books have survived inthe collection include the LiberalCouncil (Executive Committee,–); the Liberal Social Council (Com-mittee,– and –, andExecutive Committee, – and–, in incomplete form); theNational League of Young Liberals(Executive Committee, –,General Purposes Committee, –, and Joint Political Planning Com-mittee with the Union of LiberalStudents, –); and the Union ofLiberal Students (Executive Commit-tee, –).

The Women’s Liberal Federation hasgenerously deposited its archive, amajor collection, including ExecutiveCommittee minutes (– and–), agendas for Council, corre-spondence, and many of its publica-tions. The National Liberal Federationis represented through the printedproceedings of its council, –,and the correspondence of its galvanicsecretary, Francis Schnadhorst (–), in the form of copies of lettersapparently prepared for a publicationwhich never saw the light of day.Resolutions, memoranda and otherpapers of the Liberal Party Organisa-tion Executive it is thought havesurvived routine disposal in the case ofa single decade, –, and havebeen sorted roughly under suchheadings as constituency and parlia-mentary strategy, trade unions, andCommonwealth and colonial affairs.

Looking to the provincial presenceof Liberalism, the Association of

Liberal Councillors has given paperscovering not only the operation of theassociation but also a formidablerecord of local party publications inthe period –. These papers arecomplemented by a presentation fromthe Yorkshire Region of the LiberalParty of records from the s. In theBristol region the Bristol West LiberalDemocrats papers, relating to theLiberals and the Social Democratsfrom the s through to the ’swere deposited as recently as July

but under a rule of thirty years’ closurefrom the date of creation of eachdocument. The focus of the collectionis local government. They have joinedthe minute books and ledgers of theWestern Counties Liberal Federation(–). Among the remainingsmall collections originating in localassociations mention should be madeof an album of letters and postcardsfrom the Accrington Liberal Associa-tion (–).

Caches of personal papers housedin the library include letters ofCharles Geake, head of the LiberalPublication Department; Sir GeoffreyLe Mesurier Mander, MP for Wolver-hampton East; James White, MP forBrighton; and Alfred Austin, the poetlaureate. There are political papers(approximately –) belongingto Derick Mirfin, who was involvedwith the Union of University LiberalSocieties and there is a substantialcollection of letters to Jane CobdenUnwin, accompanied by pamphletsand ephemera, covering the period to . The chief subjects areIrish independence, Eastern Europe,anti-slavery agitation and theAboriginees Protection Society.

An overview of the Liberal andother holdings of the Special Collec-tions Department of the UniversityLibrary may be consulted atwww.bris.ac.uk/is/services. Theseholdings are made available to all,subject to appointment and theproduction of proof of identity. Thehours of opening are . – .

Monday to Wednesday; . – . onThursdays and . – . on Fridays.The Department is located in the Artsand Social Sciences Library, TyndallAvenue, Bristol, BS TJ.


Thomas Babington Macaulay was born onOctober , , the son of the Evangelical philanthropist Zachary Macaulay, a lead-

ing opponent of the slave trade. A precocious child,he began writing poetry and history before he wasten. At Trinity College, Cambridge, he developed hisskills as a debater. His essay on the English poet JohnMilton, published in the Edinburgh Review in ,was the foundation of his fame. Although called tothe bar he preferred politics and entered the House,ironically given his support for parliamentary re-form, as the member for Lord Lansdowne’s pocketborough of Calne.

The speech that made Macaulay’s parliamentaryreputation occurred early in his career, on March, and is included in Great Liberal Speeches underthe title ‘Reform that you may preserve’; it paved theway for the Great Reform Act of . But Macaulaywas a classic Whig reformer, and also fought againstreligious intolerance, the subject of the speech we re-produce here.

In the nineteenth century the critical battleagainst discrimination was fought not on the groundof race or sexual orientation but of religion. Al-though a small minority of the population in Brit-ain, Roman Catholics were the overwhelming ma-jority in Ireland, which had been part of the UnitedKingdom since and was subject to British legaldiscrimination. By winning a seat in parliament thathe could not occupy, Daniel O’Connell forced the

issue to the forefront. In the face of a threat of revo-lution in Ireland, Catholic Emancipation was con-ceded, but this still left the Church of England in aprivileged position against which the dissentingchurches were to campaign for most of the century.

It also left Jewish people unable to obtain high of-fice. Macaulay spoke against the civil disadvantagingof Jews – ‘Jewish disabilities’ – several times, andwrote one of his more impassioned essays on thesubject. As is very clear from the speech featuredhere, the case for full citizenship for Jews is the sameas for tolerance for any other minority group. Hewas fighting the same bigotry which opposedCatholic Emancipation and he powerfully arguesthe case for the inclusion of all groups in civil soci-ety. Although resolutions were passed in the Com-mons from the s, it was Disraeli, as part of LordDerby’s government, who delivered Jewish emanci-pation in . The Liberal Lionel de Rothschild,who had been winning elections for the City ofLondon since but had felt unable to take theoath of office as a matter of conscience, was finallyable to occupy his seat.

After holding various government posts,Macaulay lost his own seat in , partly as a resultof his views on religious tolerance. His attack on theconcept of leaving education to philanthropists (thesubject of the second speech of his included in GreatLiberal Speeches) and his defence of funding Anglicanschools both antagonised nonconformists, and for

‘Let us open to them the‘Let us open to them the‘Let us open to them the‘Let us open to them the‘Let us open to them thedoor of the House ofdoor of the House ofdoor of the House ofdoor of the House ofdoor of the House ofCommons’Commons’Commons’Commons’Commons’Thomas Babington Macaulay on Jewish Disabilities (Houseof Commons, 17 April 1833)

SpeechTony Little introduces one of the speeches not included in

Great Liberal Speeches because of shortage of space.


his Edinburgh constituents, this com-pounded the offence of his support forthe funding of the Catholic College atMaynooth in Ireland.

The first two volumes of the Historyof England from the Accession of KingJames II were finished in and atonce achieved success. In

Macaulay returned to Parliament, butbecause of a weak heart he refused of-fice. He was created Baron Macaulayof Rothley in , a very early liter-ary peerage, and died on December. He is buried in Westminster Ab-bey. Macaulay is best known, now, forhis History, which is the epitome of theWhig view of history as progress but itis best read as great Victorian literature,for Macaulay’s opinionated, rhetorical,driving narrative style.

On th April , the House of Com-mons resolved itself into a committee to con-sider the civil disabilities of the Jews. MrWarburton took the chair. Mr Robert Grantmoved the following resolution:

‘That it is the opinion of this committeethat it is expedient to remove all civil dis-abilities at present existing with respect ofHis Majesty’s subjects professing the Jewishreligion, with the like exceptions as are pro-vided with respect to His Majesty’s subjectsprofessing the Roman Catholic religion.’

The resolution was passed in the Com-mons but rejected by the House of Lords.Jews were eventually allowed to enter theCommons in .

Mr Warburton, I recollect and my hon-ourable friend the Member for theUniversity of Oxford will recollect,

that, when this subject was discussedthree years ago, it was remarked, by onewhom we both loved and whom weboth regret, that the strength of the caseof the Jews was a serious inconvenienceto their advocate, for that it was hardlypossible to make a speech for themwithout wearying the audience by re-peating truths which were universallyadmitted. If Sir James Mackintosh feltthis difficulty when the question wasfirst brought forward in this House, Imay well despair of being able now tooffer any arguments which have a pre-tence to novelty.

My honourable friend, the Memberfor the University of Oxford, began hisspeech by declaring he had no intentionof calling in question the principles ofreligious liberty. He utterly disclaimspersecution, that is to say, persecution asdefined by himself. It would, in his opin-ion, be persecution to hang a Jew, or toflay him, or draw his teeth, or to im-prison him, or to fine him; for every manwho conducts himself peaceably has aright to his life and his limbs, to his per-sonal liberty and his property. But it isnot persecution, says my honourablefriend, to exclude any individual or anyclass from office; for nobody has a rightto office: in every country official ap-pointments must be subject to suchregulations as the supreme authoritymay choose to make; nor can any suchregulations be reasonably complained ofby any member of society as unjust. Hewho obtains any office, obtains it not as amatter of right, but as a matter of favour.He who does not obtain an office is notwronged; he is only in that situation inwhich the vast majority of every coun-try must necessarily be. There are in theUnited Kingdom five and twenty mil-lion Christians without places; and, ifthey do not complain, why should fiveand twenty thousand Jews complain ofbeing in the same case? In this way myhonourable friend has convinced him-self that, as it would be most absurd inhim and me to say that we arewronged because we are not Secretar-ies of State, so it is most absurd in theJews to say that they are wronged be-cause they are, as a people, excludedfrom public employment.

‘Those conclusions are somonstrous’Now, surely, my honourable friend can-not have considered to what conclu-sions his reasoning leads. Those conclu-sions are so monstrous that he would, Iam certain, shrink from them. Does hereally mean that it would not be wrongin the legislature to enact that no manshould be a judge unless he weighedtwelve stone, or that no man should sitin parliament unless he were six feethigh? We are about to bring in a bill forthe government of India. Suppose thatwe were to insert in that bill a clauseproviding that no graduate of the Uni-versity of Oxford should be GovernorGeneral or Governor of any Presidency,would not my honourable friend cryout against such a clause as most unjustto the learned body he represents? Andwould he think himself sufficiently an-swered by being told, in his own words,that appointment to office is a merematter of favour, and that to exclude anindividual or a class from office is no in-jury? Surely on consideration, he mustadmit that official appointments oughtnot to be subject to regulations purelyarbitrary, to regulations for which noreason can be given but mere caprice,and that those who would exclude anyclass from public employment arebound to show some special reason forthe exclusion.

My honourable friend has appealedto us as Christians. Let me then ask himhow he understands the great com-mandment which comprises the lawand the prophets. Can we be said to dounto others as we would that theyshould do unto us if we wantonly in-flict on them even the smallest pain? AsChristians, surely we are bound to con-sider first, whether by excluding theJews from all public trust, we give thempain; and secondly, whether it be neces-sary to give them that pain in order toavert some greater evil. That by exclud-ing them from public trust we inflictpain on them my honourable friendwill not dispute. As a Christian, there-fore, he is bound to relieve them fromthat pain, unless he can show what I amsure he has not yet shown, that it is nec-essary to the general good that theyshould continue to suffer.

Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–59)


‘The intolerance whichhe thinks a duty’But where, he says, are you to stop, ifonce you admit into the House ofCommons people who deny the au-thority of the Gospels? Will you let in aMussulman? Will you let in a Parsee?Will you let in a Hindoo, who worshipsa lump of stone with seven heads? I willanswer my honourable friend’s ques-tion by another. Where does he meanto stop? Is he ready to roast unbelieversat slow fires? If not, let him tell us why– and I will engage to prove his reasonis just as decisive against the intolerancewhich he thinks a duty as against theintolerance which he thinks a crime.Once admit that we are bound to inflictpain on a man because he is not of ourreligion, and where are you to stop?Why stop at the point fixed by my hon-ourable friend rather than at the pointfixed by the honourable Member forOldham (Mr Cobbett), who wouldmake the Jews incapable of holdingland? And why stop at the point fixedby the honourable Member forOldham rather than at a point whichwould have been fixed by a Spanish In-quisitor of the sixteenth century? Whenonce you enter on a course of persecu-tion, I defy you to find any reason formaking a halt till you have reached theextreme point. When my honourablefriend tells us that he will allow theJews to possess property to any amount,but that he will not allow them to pos-sess the smallest political power, he usescontradictory language. Property ispower. The honourable Member forOldham sees very clearly that it is im-possible to deprive a man of politicalpower if you suffer him to be the pro-prietor of half a county, and thereforevery consistently proposes to confiscatethe landed estates of the Jews.

But even the honourable Member forOldham does not go far enough. He hasnot proposed to confiscate the personalproperty of the Jews. Yet it is perfectlycertain that any Jew who has a millionmay easily make himself very importantin the state. By such steps we pass fromofficial power to landed property, andfrom landed property to personal prop-erty, and from personal property to lib-erty and from liberty to life. In truth,

those persecutors who use the rack andstake have much to say for themselves.They are convinced that their end isgood; and it must be admitted that theyemploy means which are not unlikely toattain their end. Religious dissent has re-peatedly been put down by sanguinarypersecution. In that way the Albigenseswere put down. In that way Protestant-ism was suppressed in Spain and Italy, sothat it has never since reared its head. ButI defy anybody to produce an instance inwhich disabilities such as we are nowconsidering have produced any other ef-fect than that of making the sufferers an-gry and obstinate.

My honourable friend should eitherpersecute to some purpose or not per-secute at all. He dislikes the word perse-cution. He will not admit that the Jewsare persecuted. And yet I am confidentthat he would rather be sent to theKing’s Bench Prison for three monthsor be fined a hundred pounds than besubject to the disabilities under whichthe Jews lie. How can he then say thatto impose such disabilities is not perse-cution, and that to fine and imprison ispersecution? All his reasoning consistsin drawing arbitrary lines. What he doesnot wish to inflict he calls persecution.What he does wish to inflict he will notcall persecution. What he takes from theJews he calls political power. What he istoo good-natured to take from the Jewshe will not call political power. The Jewmust not sit in Parliament, but he maybe the proprietor of all the ten-poundhouses in a borough. He may havemore fifty-pound tenants than any peerin the kingdom. He may give the voterstreats to please their palates, and hirebands of gypsies to break their heads, asif he were a Christian and a marquess.All the rest of this system is of a piece.

The Jew may be a juryman, but not ajudge. He may decide issues of fact, butnot issues of law. He may give a hun-dred thousand pounds’ damages, but hemay not in the most trivial case grant anew trial. He may rule the money mar-ket; he may influence the exchanges; hemay be summoned to congresses ofemperors and kings. Great potentates,instead of negotiating a loan with himby tying him in a chair and pulling outhis grinders, may treat with him as witha great potentate, and may postpone the

declaring of war or the signing of atreaty till they have conferred with him.All this is as it should be; but he mustnot be a Privy Councillor. He must notbe called the Right Honourable, forthat is political power. And who is it weare trying to cheat in this way? EvenOmniscience. Yes, sir; we have beengravely told that the Jews are under thedivine displeasure, and that, if we givethem political power, God will visit usin judgement.

Do we think that God cannot distin-guish between substance and form?Does not He know that, while wewithhold from the Jews the semblanceand name of political power, we sufferthem to possess the substance? Theplain truth is that my honourable friendis drawn in one direction by his opin-ions and in a directly opposite directionby his excellent heart. He halts betweenthe two opinions. He tries to make acompromise between principles whichadmit of no compromise. He goes acertain way in intolerance. Then hestops, without being able to give a rea-son for stopping. But I know the rea-son. It is his humanity. Those who for-merly dragged the Jew at a horse’s tail,and singed his beard with blazing furzebushes, were much worse men than myhonourable friend; but they were moreconsistent than he.

‘Not for differing from usin opinion’It has been said that it would be mon-strous to see a Jewish judge try a manfor blasphemy. In my opinion it ismonstrous to see any judge try a manfor blasphemy under the present law.But if the law on that subject were ina sound state, I do not see why a con-scientious Jew might not try a blas-phemer. Every man, I think, ought tobe at liberty to discuss the evidencesof religion, but no man ought to be atliberty to force on the unwilling earsand eyes of others sounds and sightswhich must cause annoyance and ir-ritation. The distinction is clear. Ithink it is wrong to punish a man forselling Paine’s Age of Reason in a backshop to those who choose to buy orfor delivering a Deistical lecture in aprivate room to those who choose to


listen. But if a man exhibits at a win-dow in the Strand a hideous carica-ture of that which is an object of aweand adoration to nine hundred andninety nine out of every thousand ofthe people who pass up and downthat great thoroughfare; if a man, in aplace of public resort, applies oppro-brious epithets to names held in rev-erence by all Christians; such a manought, in my opinion, to be severelypunished, not for differing from us inopinion, but for committing a nui-sance which gives us pain and disgust.He is no more entitled to outrage ourfeelings by obtruding his impiety onus, and to say that he is exercising hisright of discussion, than to establish ayard for butchering horses close toour houses and to say he is exercisinghis right of property, or to run nakedup and down the public streets and tosay that he is exercising his right oflocomotion. He has a right of discus-sion, no doubt, as he has a right ofproperty and a right of locomotion.But he must use all his rights so as notto infringe the rights of others.

These, Sir, are the principles onwhich I would frame the law of blas-phemy; and if the law were so framed, Iam at a loss to understand why a Jewmight not enforce it as well as a Chris-tian. I am not a Roman Catholic, but ifI were a judge at Malta, I should haveno scruple about punishing a bigotedProtestant who should burn the Popein effigy before the eyes of thousands ofRoman Catholics. I am not aMussulman; but if I were a judge in In-dia, I should have no scruple aboutpunishing a Christian who should pol-lute a mosque. Why, then, should Idoubt that a Jew, raised by his ability,learning, and integrity to the judicialbench, would deal properly with anyperson who in a Christian countryshould insult the Christian religion?

‘Are we to exclude allmillenarians fromoffice?’But, says my honourable friend, it hasbeen prophesied that the Jews are to bewanderers on the face of the earth, andthat they are not to mix on terms ofequality with the peoples of the coun-

tries in which they sojourn. Now, Sir, Iam confident that I can demonstratethat this is not the sense of any proph-ecy which is part of Holy Writ. For it isan undoubted fact that, in the UnitedStates of America, Jewish citizens dopossess all the privileges possessed byChristian citizens. Therefore, if theprophecies mean that the Jews nevershall, during their wanderings, be ad-mitted by other nations to equal par-ticipation of political rights, the proph-ecies are false. But the prophecies arecertainly not false. Therefore theirmeaning cannot be that which is attrib-uted to them by my honourable friend.

Another objection which has beenmade to this motion is that the Jewslook forward to the coming of a greatdeliverer, to their return to Palestine, tothe rebuilding of their temple, to therevival of their ancient worship, andthat therefore they will always considerEngland, not their country, but merelytheir place of exile. But, surely, Sir, itwould be the grossest ignorance of hu-man nature to imagine that the antici-pation of an event which is to happenat some time altogether indefinite, of anevent which has been vainly expectedduring many centuries, of an eventwhich even those who confidently ex-pect that it will happen do not confi-dently expect that that they or theirchildren or their grandchildren will see,can ever occupy the minds of men tosuch a degree as to make them regard-less of what is near and present and cer-tain. Indeed Christians, as well as Jews,believe that the existing order of thingswill come to an end. Many Christiansbelieve that Jesus will visibly reign onearth during a thousand years. Exposi-tors of prophecy have gone so far as tofix the year when the millenial period isto commence. The prevailing opinionis, I think in favour of the year ;but, according to some commentators,the time is close at hand. Are we to ex-clude all millenarians from parliamentand office, on the ground that they areimpatiently looking forward to the mi-raculous monarchy which is to super-sede the present dynasty and thepresent constitution of England, andthat therefore they cannot be heartilyloyal to King William?

In one important point, Sir, my

honourable friend, the Member forthe University of Oxford, must ac-knowledge that the Jewish religion isof all erroneous religions the least mis-chievous. There is not the slightestchance that the Jewish religion willspread. The Jew does not wish to makeproselytes. He may be said to rejectthem. He thinks it almost culpable inone who does not belong to his raceto presume to belong to his religion. Itis therefore not strange that a conver-sion from Christianity to Judaismshould be a rarer occurrence than a to-tal eclipse of the sun. There was onedistinguished convert in the last cen-tury, Lord George Gordon; and thehistory of his conversion deserves tobe remembered. For if ever there was aproselyte of whom a proselytising sectwould have been proud, it was LordGeorge, not only because he was aman of high birth and rank; not onlybecause he had been a member of thelegislature, but also because he hadbeen distinguished by the intolerance,nay, the ferocity, of his zeal for his ownform of Christianity. But was he al-lured into the synagogue? Was he evenwelcomed to it? No, Sir, he was coldlyand reluctantly permitted to share thereproach and suffering of the chosenpeople; but he was sternly shut outfrom their privileges. He underwentthe painful rite which their law en-joins. But when, on his deathbed, hebegged to be buried among them ac-cording to their ceremonial, he wastold that his request could not begranted.

I understand that cry of ‘Hear’. Itreminds me that one of the argumentsagainst this motion is that the Jews arean unsocial people, that they drawclose to each other, and stand alooffrom strangers. Really, Sir, it is amusingto compare the manner in which thequestion of Catholic emancipationwas argued formerly by some gentle-men with the manner in which thequestion of Jewish emancipation is ar-gued by the same gentlemen. Whenthe question was about Catholicemancipation, the cry was, ‘See howrestless, how versatile, how encroach-ing, how insinuating, is the spirit of theChurch of Rome. See how her priestscompass earth and sea to make one


proselyte. How indefatigably they toil,how attentively they study the weakand strong points of every character,how skilfully they employ literature,arts, sciences, as engines for the propa-gation of their faith. You find them inevery region and under every disguise,collating manuscripts in the Bodleian,fixing telescopes in the observatory ofPekin, teaching the use of the ploughand the spinning wheel to the savagesof Paraguay. Will you give power tothe members of a Church so busy, soaggressive, so insatiable?’ Well, now thequestion is about people who nevertry to seduce any stranger to jointhem, and who do not wish any bodyto be of their faith who is not also oftheir blood. And now you exclaim,‘Will you give power to the membersof a sect which remains sullenly apartfrom other sects, which does not in-vite, nay, which hardly even admitsneophytes?’

The truth is, that bigotry will neverwant a pretence. Whatever the sect bewhich it is proposed to tolerate, the pe-culiarities of that sect will, for the time,be pronounced by intolerant men to bethe most odious and dangerous that canbe conceived. As to the Jews, that theyare unsocial as respects religion is true;and so much the better: for surely, asChristians, we cannot wish that theyshould bestir themselves to pervert usfrom our own faith. But that the Jewswould be unsocial members of the civilcommunity, if the civil community didits duty by them, has never been proved.My honourable friend who made themotion we are discussing has produced agreat body of evidence to show that theyhave been grossly misrepresented; andthat evidence has not been refuted bymy honourable friend the Member forthe University of Oxford. But what if itwere true that the Jews are unsocial?What if it were true that they do not re-gard England as their country? Wouldnot the treatment that they have under-gone explain and excuse their antipathyto the society in which they live?

While the bloody code of Elizabethwas enforced against English RomanCatholics, what was the patriotism ofRoman Catholics? Oliver Cromwellsaid that in his time they wereEspaniolised. At a later period it might

have been said that they were Gallicised.It was the same with the Calvinists. Whatmore deadly enemies had France in thedays of Louis the Fourteenth than thepersecuted Huguenots? But would anyrational man infer from these facts thateither the Roman Catholic as such, orthe Calvinist as such, is incapable of lov-ing the land of his birth? If England werenow invaded by Roman Catholics, howmany English Roman Catholics wouldgo over to the invader? If France werenow attacked by a Protestant enemy,how many French Protestants wouldlend him help? Why not try what effectwould be produced on the Jews by thattolerant policy which has made the Eng-lish Roman Catholic a good English-man, and the French Calvinist a goodFrenchman.

‘Such has in every agebeen the reasoning ofbigots’Another charge has been broughtagainst the Jews, not by my honourablefriend the Member for the Universityof Oxford – he has too much learningand too much good feeling to makesuch a charge – but by the honourableMember for Oldham, who has, I amsorry to say, quitted his place. The hon-ourable Member for Oldham tells usthat the Jews are naturally a mean race,a sordid race, a money-getting race; thatthey are averse to all honourablecallings; that they neither sow nor reap;that they have neither flocks nor herds;that usury is the only pursuit for whichthey are fit; that they are destitute of allelevated and amiable sentiments. Such,sir, has in every age been the reasoningof bigots. They never fail to plead injustification of persecution the viceswhich persecution has engendered.England has been to the Jews less thanhalf a country; and we revile them be-cause they do not feel for Englandmore than half patriotism. We treatthem as slaves, and wonder that they donot regard us as brethren. We drivethem to mean occupations, and thenreproach them for not embracing hon-ourable professions. We long forbadethem to possess land; and we complainthat they chiefly occupy themselves intrade. We shut them out from all the

paths of ambition; and then we despisethem for taking refuge in avarice.

During many ages we have, in allour dealings with them, abused ourimmense superiority of force; andthen we are disgusted because theyhave recourse to that cunning which isthe natural and universal defence ofthe weak against the violence of thestrong. But were they always a meremoney-changing, money-getting,money-hoarding race? Nobodyknows better than my honourablefriend the Member for the Universityof Oxford that there is nothing in theirnational character which unfits themfor the highest duties of citizens. Heknows that, in the infancy of civiliza-tion, when our island was as savage asNew Guinea, when letters and artswere still unknown to Athens, whenscarcely a thatched hut stood on whatwas afterwards the site of Rome, thiscontemned people had their fencedcities and cedar palaces, their splendidTemple, their fleets of merchant ships,their schools of sacred learning, theirgreat statesmen and soldiers, theirnatural philosophers, their historiansand their poets.

‘Let not us fight thebattle of truth with theweapons of error’What nation ever contended moremanfully against overwhelming oddsfor its independence and religion?What nation ever, in its last agonies,gave such signal proofs of what may beaccomplished by a brave despair? Andif, in the course of many centuries, theoppressed descendants of warriors andsages have degenerated from the quali-ties of their fathers, if, while excludedfrom the blessings of law, and boweddown under the yoke of slavery, theyhave contracted some of the vices ofoutlaws and of slaves, shall we considerthis as a matter of reproach to them?Shall we not rather consider it as amatter of shame and remorse to our-selves? Let us do justice to them. Let usopen the door of the House of Com-mons. Let us open to them every ca-reer in which ability and energy can

concluded on page 47


In the late s, Ivor Davies was one of thebrightest of the Liberal Party’s rising youngstars. For the leadership of the Union of Uni-

versity Liberal Students and for the candidacy inCentral Aberdeenshire he was preferred respec-tively to Frank Byers and Jo Grimond, who be-came two of the most noted Liberals of that gen-eration. He was three times elected President of hisuniversity Liberal Club and a profile in the studentmagazine concluded that ‘he has many of the po-tentialities of a great man’. He was certainly seenas a coming man in the Liberal Party and constitu-encies were almost queuing up for the services ofthis eloquent and personable young Liberal. Heturned down a far from unpromising candidacy inBewdley. His celebrity within the party was suchthat it came as no surprise when he was chosen tofight a by-election of the highest profile in Oxfordat the time of the Munich Crisis.

Davies came from the Celtic, nonconformisttradition of many of the Liberal activists of that pe-riod. His political beliefs were in the main radicaland to the left of the Liberal Party of the day. Hiselection addresses frequently led on world peaceand support for the United Nations. He supportedunilateral nuclear disarmament and opposed con-scription and German rearmament. He was an ar-dent free trader and advocate of separate Parlia-ments for Scotland and Wales. He pressed continu-ally for the full implementation of the BeveridgeReport, for affordable housing for those on low in-comes and for Keynesian programmes of publicworks. He was very strongly anti-racist. His agendaincluded profit sharing and partial nationalisation.He wished to reduce indirect taxation and reformpurchase tax, leasehold obligations and industrialrates of taxation. He was opposed to comprehen-sive schools and farm subsidies.

It was Davies’ misfortune that the years of his po-litical prime coincided with the bleakest period ofthe Liberal Party’s electoral fortunes, culminating,after the Carmarthen by-election, in its reduc-tion to five Members of Parliament with the major-ity of those dependent to an extent on the formal orinformal agreement of the Conservatives not to fielda candidate. Consequently he was never afforded theopportunity to serve in Parliament, which manythought to be his due. Drawing words from the oldhymn, One Church, One Faith, One Lord, he was inthe habit of referring to himself and his small bandof supporters as ‘the faithful few’. The present LiberalParty has every reason to be grateful to these fewwho kept the flame burning in its darkest days andmaintained and developed bases from which it waspossible to elect Liberal Members of Parliament inhappier times for the party.

Ivor Davies was born in Pontrhydygroes,Cardiganshire, on August . He was the sec-ond son of Roderick Glyn Davies, a noted Ministerof the Congregationalist Church and ElizabethFlorence, neé Morgan, daughter of the local doctor.In those days, this area of Wales was undisputed Lib-eral territory and Ivor became a convinced and pas-sionate Liberal in the radical Welsh tradition. His po-litical hero was David Lloyd George, with whom hisfamily was acquainted. Throughout his whole life,his home was full of books, pictures and memora-bilia connected with the great Welsh statesman.

His father’s ministries took him first to Kent andthen to Shepherds Bush and to Acton in London,where Ivor received his early education. The familythen moved to Morningside in Edinburgh and Ivorcompleted his education at George Watson’s Collegeand Edinburgh University.

While at University he edited the undergraduatemagazine The Student and quickly gained a reputation

Keeper of the LiberalKeeper of the LiberalKeeper of the LiberalKeeper of the LiberalKeeper of the LiberalFlameFlameFlameFlameFlame

BiographyJohn Davies John Davies John Davies John Davies John Davies examines the life of Ivor Davies (1915–1986),who would have been the Liberal candidate at the Oxford

by-election in 1938.


as an outstanding debater in the Liberalcause. He was elected President of theUnion of University Liberal Societies.On leaving university, he worked as ajournalist on the Liberal News Chronicle.His writings for this and for other news-papers and magazines added to hisstanding within the party and he wassoon adopted as Liberal candidate forCentral Aberdeenshire.

In October , a by-election oc-curred in Oxford as a result of the deathof the sitting Conservative member, andIvor Davies was chosen by the local Lib-eral Association to fight the seat. TheConservative candidate was QuintinHogg and the Labour candidate PatrickGordon-Walker, both later CabinetMinisters for their respective parties. .The Munich Agreement had beensigned at the end of September and theissue of appeasement dominated thecampaign. This was the first and mostfamous in a series of by-elections inwhich a Popular Front was formedagainst the Government’s foreign policy.

The Labour Party opposed any co-operation with the Liberal Party, butthe Liberal Party Executive passed aresolution in October declaringthat ‘because of the present emergencyit is ready to subordinate party consid-erations and to cooperate wholeheart-edly with men and women of all par-ties, who realise the gravity of the time.’Davies entered the campaign againstthe wishes of the Liberal Party leader-ship, and received no support from thenational party organisation.

According to Davies’s own account:

The contest had not been in progresslong before it became quite clear thatthe Liberals were succeeding beyondtheir most sanguine expectations. Theprospect of success was small but theLabour candidate seemed destined tobe a bad third. In view of the interna-tional situation, Davies offered early inthe contest to withdraw, if Gordon-Walker would do the same, to allowan independent anti-Munich candi-date to go forward. The offer wastreated with scorn, but as the patternbecame plain, the local Socialists intheir alarm reconsidered the positionquickly. Their leaders … FrankPakenham and R.H.S. Crossman …

made representations to Labour PartyHeadquarters and were met with ablank refusal. It was not until TransportHouse agents came into the Divisionand saw the exact position that someprogress was made. Mr Gordon-Walker was most reluctant to with-draw, but three days before nomina-tion day he agreed to do so and amove was promoted to persuade MrA.D. Lindsay, the Master of Balliol, togo forward.

He required little persuasion; fewcandidates can have manifested agreater enthusiasm to be adopted. Bythis time the local Liberal Association,and even their candidate, were disap-pointed that their sound work was tobe in vain and took some persuadingto withdraw from the fight. After anemotional and fervid meeting, theircorrect course of action became plain

and Davies stood aside and handedover his organisation to Lindsay …The election itself came as somethingof an anti-climax after the historicpreliminaries. Hogg was a first-ratecandidate and made rings roundLindsay, whose classroom style anduninspiring delivery were ill-fittedfor the hustings … An unusual fea-ture of the contest was that a numberof prominent Liberals, who had de-clared their inability to speak for theirown candidate, found it convenientto visit Oxford to support Lindsay.

Ivor Davies said that during the nego-tiations he formed a high opinion ofPakenham’s integrity and a poor opin-ion of his ability, and vice versa forCrossman.

One of the arguments put forward foradopting Lindsay as candidate was that‘everyone knew him’. Because he was a


great figure in the university, his donnishsupporters assumed that everyone in thetown would know him as well. They didnot. Over half the electorate had no ideawho he was. There was great interest inthe by-election among undergraduates,many of whom did not have a vote, anda fair amount of apathy among towns-people, who had. The Popular Frontcandidate and some of his supporterswere, however, unwilling to campaign ina way that would win the popular vote.The street slogan was ‘Oxford WantsLindsay. Hitler wants Hogg’, but, cam-paigning in the city, Lindsay palpablylacked the common touch. As a distin-guished philosophy don and Lindsaysupporter put it: ‘If he can’t win on hisown merits, without being vulgar, betterto lose’. Hogg was elected by just under, votes.

Ivor Davies had always been a strongadvocate of the League of Nations andan opponent of fascism and had been in-volved in some fierce demonstrationsagainst Sir Oswald Mosley. When theSecond World War was declared, he en-listed in the Royal Air Force on the firstday and rose through the ranks to be-come Flying Officer, acting Flight Lieu-tenant. He served in Burma and waswounded in the drive for Rangoon. In he married Jean McLeod, whohad been a fellow student at Edinburgh,in his father’s church. They had threechildren who followed them in theirinterest in politics. His daughter Mary,prior to her tragic early death in ,had followed her father as President ofEdinburgh University Liberal Club andhad been elected a Liberal councillor inthe London Borough of Havering. Hisson John was Parliamentary candidatefor Labour against Mrs Thatcher inFinchley in and councillor andGroup Leader in the London Boroughof Barnet.

Both Ivor and his wife were oppo-nents of the party truce that prevailedduring the war. Jean acted as agent tothe journalist Honor Balfour in the cel-ebrated Darwen by-election of

when, standing as an Independent Lib-eral, she came within seventy votes ofdefeating the National Governmentcandidate.

At the end of the war, Ivor returnedto fight Central Aberdeenshire. With

John Junor, later editor of the SundayExpress, who was fighting the neigh-bouring constituency, he toured theHighlands and Islands speaking for theLiberal cause. The Scottish LabourParty was interested in attracting hispolitical talents to their ranks, and it wassuggested that he might be offered thesafe seat of Dunfermline Burghs, butIvor was a resolute Liberal and spurnedthese advances.

In the streets of Central Aberdeen-shire, local schoolchildren who sup-ported the Liberals sang this rhymeabout the three candidates:

Vote for SpenceAnd you’ll get no pence.Vote for HayAnd you’ll get no pay.Vote for IvorAnd you’ll get a fiver.

– not to be taken literally, of course! Inwhat proved to be a poor general elec-tion for the Liberals, Ivor finishedstrongly in third place, very close be-hind the Labour candidate.

Following the election, his in-terest in international affairs and worldpeace led to him taking the post of Re-gional Officer for the United NationsAssociation in the North East of Eng-land. He returned to Scotland in tocontest what was now West Aberdeen-shire. He increased his vote but again justfailed to overtake the Labour candidate.He had, however, established the strongbase that contributed to Liberal electoralvictories later in the century.

In , he moved his family to Ox-ford to work in partnership with DonaldMcIntosh Johnson, an old friend fromthe days of the wartime party truce, whohad come very close to winningChippenham in as an IndependentLiberal but later became ConservativeMP for Carlisle. It was reported that atone time Johnson and Davies had de-vised a scheme whereby they would di-vide the country in two and each fightall by-elections in their respective halves.Ivor Davies never allowed politics to in-terfere with friendship and he retainedstrong and lasting links with those likeJohnson and Honor Balfour who left theLiberal Party. In fact, he supportedJohnson in the particular campaigns hepursued in Parliament on such issues as

mental health, drug abuse, aid to travel-lers and the winding up of the NationalLiberals. Johnson had an eccentric streakand at one time mounted furious oppo-sition to the dangers he saw in the intro-duction of winking indicators on cars,insisting that arm-operated indicatorsshould continue. The situation that wewould now face on modern motorwayshad he prevailed can barely be imagined.

Johnson owned the MarlboroughArms Hotel in Woodstock but later con-centrated his energies on his small pub-lishing firm Christopher Johnson (laterJohnson Publications). Ivor was his co-di-rector and in published his ownbook, Trial by Ballot, a political history ofthe years to , regarded by aca-demics as one of the best accounts of theperiod. He was also heavily involved inwriting and editing the best-selling I wasChurchill’s Shadow by Detective Chief In-spector W. H. Thompson, who hadguarded Churchill during the war. Helater moved to become Chairman andManaging Director of the book distribu-tion company Trade Counter which ex-panded and prospered under his leader-ship. He served for many years on theDistribution and Methods Committee ofthe Publishers Association and was Secre-tary of the Independent PublishersGuild. Both his sons also worked inpublishing. John was a Director of thePublishers Association for twenty-fouryears. His second son, Michael, workedinitially with his father at Trade Counter,was a co-founder of Wordsworth Editions

Ivor Davies in 1955


and later established his own book busi-ness in Ware, Hertfordshire.

Back in Oxford, Davies quicklythrew himself into local Liberal politicsand was selected as parliamentary candi-date for the election. The Liberalshad not contested Oxford in , andhe lost his deposit, polling just above votes. He fought the seat again in and in and by then had raisedthe Liberal vote to a creditable .

Ivor Davies first stood for OxfordCity Council in in the East Ward

where he finished bottom of the poll.For many years thereafter there was noset of council elections at which he wasnot a candidate. After several efforts inthe North Ward, he concentrated on hishome ward of Summertown &Wolvercote. He was diligent and consci-entious on local issues, from the build-ing of motorways to the removal of theinfamous Cutteslowe Wall and built up aconsiderable local following. At thattime, the Labour Party rarely contestedthe seat. In , aided by a swing to theLiberals in the wake of the remarkableOrpington by-election victory, hegained the Summertown & Wolvercoteseat on Oxford City Council, beingamong the first Liberals to serve on thatcouncil for many years. He becameVice-Chairman of the Libraries Com-mittee. He lost the seat in . Here, asever, politics did not impede friendship.He built strong and enduring relation-ships with the Oxford builder and Con-servative councillor, Harry Bowdery, theChief Clerk of the Council, GilbertPhipps, and the left-wing Labour coun-cillors Olive and Edmund Gibbs. In herautobiography, Olive Gibbs, twiceLord Mayor of Oxford, Chair of Ox-fordshire County Council and of the na-tional CND, praised his ‘life-long politi-cal and personal integrity’ and describedIvor and Jean as ‘close personal friends’.Ivor Davies’s last redoubtable campaignfor election to what was then Oxford-shire County Council was in the NorthWard in , at the age of sixty-six.

He remained on the radical side ofLiberalism. At the Liberal Party Assem-bly in Edinburgh in , he led a re-volt against the platform on the recog-nition of East Berlin and was elected tothe Liberal Party Council. Although hebecame a hero to many of the rank and

file, this action did not endear him tothe party hierarchy. He was also scath-ingly attacked in the press by BernardLevin, who described him as ‘the star-ing-eyed idiot from Oxford’. None-theless, his contribution to the PartyCouncil and committees was suffi-ciently valued for him to be seen as oneof the front figures in the generalelection campaign.

He chaired the Oxford Campaign forNuclear Disarmament. He developedstrong links with the University LiberalClub, particularly when his son John wasat Christ Church, and was appointedhonorary Vice-President. Good friendsand supporters in Oxford included Lordand Lady Beveridge, Lord and LadyFranks and Bob Hawke, later LabourPrime Minister of Australia.

The links with the University Lib-eral Club proved his undoing. A groupof dons, led by Max Beloff, pressed forone of their number to be the Parlia-mentary candidate and Ivor was not re-selected for the election. He wasdeeply disappointed by this decision.Those who voted against him claimedhe was ‘too old and past it’. The refer-ence to his age was unfair, for he wasstill some months short of fifty, butclearly, after four candidatures, therewas pressure from some quarters for achange. In essence, this was a contestbetween Town and Gown of the typefor which Oxford is renowned. Al-though university-educated, Davies as-sociated himself much more with thepeople of the city than the dons in thecolleges. Beloff was right wing in hisviews, hated CND and later became anardent Thatcherite and Conservativelife peer. Davies’ hero in an Oxfordcontext was the populist former LiberalMP Frank Gray. The conflict may besummed up in the response of the out-spoken Ted Rosser, former Morris carworker and successful Oxford business-man, who stood in tandem with IvorDavies on many occasions, to Beloff af-ter the selection: ‘They may call youBeloff, but all I say is bugger off ’.Rosser and the other regulars of theCity Liberal Association showed theirappreciation of Ivor Davies’ services bymaking him their President, a post fromwhich he continued to enthuse theLiberal cause for many years.

With his wife Jean, he also builtupon his interests in the Oxford com-munity, chairing the North OxfordGrove House Club and the Victim Sup-port Group. Jean was a magistrate inOxford for fifteen years and a founderof Norreys House, a residential homefor young women. Ivor adhered firmlyto the Christian faith of his father andwas a deacon and secretary ofSummertown United Reform Church.In , the Liberal leader, David Steel,nominated Ivor for the award of theCBE for political and public service.He died two years later and is buried inthe family grave at Strata Florida,Cardiganshire, with his wife Jean, whodied eighteen months afterwards.

Ivor and Jean Davies gave a greatdeal to the people of Oxford, whoshowed their recognition by packinginto the church in Summertown fortheir funerals. At Ivor’s, the Minister,Donald Norwood, told the congrega-tion ‘how proud we have all been ofour Ivor’. Cwm Rhondda was sung andthe parting blessing was given in Welsh.At Jean’s funeral, Olive Gibbs read thelesson and Honor Balfour gave the val-edictory address, in which she spokemovingly of the bright young womanwho had come with her to Darwen andserved so valiantly in the momentousby-election forty-five years before.Tributes flowed in the local press.

Ivor Davies was an able and eloquentman, both on the political platform andin the pulpit, where he was a tireless laypreacher. His was a fine life, guided bythe deepest Liberal principles. Hewould have loved to have been a Lib-eral Member of Parliament and oftensaid with complete sincerity and hon-esty that he would literally have givenhis right arm for six months in theHouse of Commons in the Liberalcause. He would have been delighted tohave lived to see the outcome of the and general elections and tosee the results of all his hard work in hisold stamping grounds come to fruition,when the constituencies of OxfordWest & Abingdon and Gordon in Ab-erdeenshire both returned LiberalDemocrat MPs.

concluded on page 47


Evan Roderic Bowen was born at the smallmarket town of Cardigan on the coast ofwest Wales on August , the son of a re-

tired businessman who had been much involved inlocal Liberal politics. He always proudly recalled hisfamily’s active involvement in local Liberal politicseven when he was a small boy when he had dyed hispet terrier in the Liberal colours. Educated at Cardi-gan Council School and Cardigan County School,he graduated with first class honours in law at boththe University College of Wales, Aberystwyth (fortymiles from his home), and St John’s College, Cam-bridge. Periods at the Inns of Court and on the con-tinent led to the call to the bar by the Middle Tem-ple in . Bar practice commenced in ,Bowen taking chambers at Cardiff and practising onthe South Wales circuit. At the outbreak of hostilities,he twice volunteered for military service, but was re-jected on medical grounds before, in , at histhird dogged attempt, securing acceptance as a pri-vate, in which capacity he served for eighteenmonths. Securing a commission in the autumn of, he was an officer for six months before beingappointed chief instructor in administration of payduties at a school for officers under the SouthernCommand. Bowen was later seconded to the staff ofthe Judge-Advocate General to the Forces, and to-wards the end of the war participated in duties asso-ciated with Courts Martial, Courts for Prisoners ofWar and the preparation of cases against NationalWar Criminals.

As a barrister, his work often focused on work-men’s compensation and he took a particular inter-est in local government administration. His devotionto Welsh culture was reflected in his involvement inthe activities of the Honourable Society ofCymmrodorion and Urdd Gobaith Cymru (the WelshLeague of Youth), while he also served as legal advi-sor to the local Teifi Net Fishermen’s Association.Bowen’s Liberal antecedents were notable. He ad-dressed a number of political meetings in support ofD. O. Evans, his predecessor as Liberal MP for

Cardiganshire since , and R. Hopkin Morris,Independent Liberal MP for the county, –,who subsequently re-entered the Commons as Lib-eral MP for neighbouring Carmarthenshire in .He was also approached in connection with the Lib-eral vacancy at Brecon & Radnor. He played somepart in Liberal activities in south Wales and cameinto contact with the leading Liberals in the area.

In June , after the wholly unexpected deathof county MP D. O. Evans, Bowen was chosen, per-haps surprisingly, as the Liberal candidate for his na-tive Cardiganshire over the heads of a number ofprominent local Liberals. In the ensuing generalelection campaign no Conservative contender ap-peared, and the Liberal platform focused primarilyon an attack on ‘the rigid and inflexible policy ofSocialism’. The Labour candidate in the county wasIwan Morgan, an economist and Cardiff universitylecturer with strong Cardiganshire connections. Al-though the absence of a Tory candidate meant thatBowen’s election to parliament was nigh on certain,D. O. Evans, in his last public appearance in thecounty shortly before his death, had warned localLiberals that, ‘It would be very unwise to be over-confident. That attitude of mind would only breedcomplacency.’ In the event he was probably over-cautious, for Bowen defeated Morgan by the widemargin of votes, by far the highest majority ofthe twelve Liberal MPs returned in , the newMP immediately describing the outcome as ‘a vic-tory for personal and political freedom … a defeatfor bureaucracy and state control’. ‘The young up-start’, chosen against the odds only a few weeks ear-lier, had, it seemed, already proved his worth. At thesame time veteran Liberal Sir Rhys Hopkin Morrisnarrowly captured highly marginal Carmarthen-shire, the only Labour loss in the whole of theUnited Kingdom, and an enormous personal tri-umph for him.

Short, stout, bespectacled and balding, RodericBowen entered the House of Commons in asone of a tiny fragment of twelve Liberal MPs, no

Grimond’s RivalGrimond’s RivalGrimond’s RivalGrimond’s RivalGrimond’s Rival

BiographyDr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones Dr J. Graham Jones looks at the life and political career ofthe contentious, individualistic, right-wing Liberal MP for

Cardiganshire from 1945 until 1966, Captain E. RodericBowen MP (1913–2001)


fewer than seven of whom representedWelsh divisions. Morale within theirranks was inevitably at an all-time low,for the party had been ravaged beyondbelief at the recent poll in a socialistlandslide which had engulfed evenparty leader Sir Archibald Sinclair (bythe agonisingly slim margin of votes)at Caithness & Sutherland, and its chiefwhip, Sir Percy Harris, at BethnalGreen South-West. Other casualties in-cluded Sir William Beveridge at Ber-wick-upon-Tweed, James deRothschild on the Isle of Ely and vet-eran Sir Goronwy Owen atCaernarfonshire. Even so, some long-serving Liberal MPs remained at West-minster, and initially Bowen wasdwarfed in stature by such figures asClement Davies (Montgomeryshire),soon to be elected ‘chairman’ (if notleader) of the fragmented Parliamen-tary Liberal Party, Lady Megan LloydGeorge (Anglesey), self-appointedchampion of the party’s left wing, herbrother Major Gwilym Lloyd George(Pembrokeshire), a notable politicalmaverick moving swiftly to the right,Tom Horabin (North Cornwall), an-other left-wing radical and the newLiberal chief whip, and Edgar Granville(Eye). They were indeed ‘a motleygroup’, totally lacking in cohesion,with no common political philosophyor parliamentary strategy, ever ready todissent, even rebel, some of its membersperched on opposing poles of the po-litical spectrum.

Bowen was soon to make his markin the Commons as a dextrous, amusingdebater, but clearly on the right wing ofhis tiny party, and generally reluctant tobreak ranks with the party leadership,always adhering closely to the officialparty line – ‘the plump Welshman withthe polished manner’. Lord EmlynHooson has written of both RodericBowen and R. Hopkin Morris in the– parliament as determined to‘have nothing whatever to do with theLabour Party and socialism and wereregarded as being of the right’. Thenovice MP for Cardiganshire partici-pated only occasionally in parliamen-tary debate, generally speaking onWelsh affairs, often on matters of directrelevance to his constituency. From theoutset of his political career, however,

Bowen was generally well-liked atWestminster. His sole critics at theCommons, it seems, were verbatim re-porters; when he moved a motion in to appoint a royal commission onwar pensions, it took him all of sixty-eight minutes.

Generally Roderic Bowen tended tobe critical of the policies and conductof the Attlee administrations. As severeeconomic depression hit the countryduring the winter of –, he toldhis local Liberal Association that theonset of slump was ‘because the Gov-ernment had concentrated on politicaldogma rather than on facing immediateeconomic difficulties’, warning thatboth Aneurin Bevan’s embryonic Na-tional Health Service and the NationalInsurance Act were ‘being threatenedby the growing danger of inflation’.

As the members of the fractious Parlia-mentary Liberal Party displayed highlyinconsistent, even bizarre, votingrecords in the Commons lobbies, Bo-wen’s personal performance at theHouse came under scrutiny, provokinghim to retort that ‘he had always votedas his judgement dictated’, and to pointto his support for the setting up of theNational Health Service. He assertedthat, by following their consciences oneach major issue, the small group ofLiberal MPs constituted ‘a far morecritical opposition to the Governmentthan the Official Opposition did’. Yet,although highly critical of doctrinairesocialism, Bowen doggedly renouncedan overture from the local ConservativeParty that a joint candidate might standat the next general election, rejoicing inthe decision of the Cardiganshire Lib-eral Party to reject out-of-hand an ap-proach from Sir Arthur Harford, chair-man of the Cardiganshire Conserva-tives, that the two parties might field ajoint candidate at the forthcomingelection. Ironically, in the neighbouringPembrokeshire constituency a formal‘Lib–Con’ pact was formed to supportthe re-election of National Liberal (orLiberal and Conservative) MP MajorGwilym Lloyd-George.

Failure to conclude such an agree-ment in Cardiganshire meant that akeenly contested three-cornered fraywas likely in , Bowen fearing forhis political future and sensing that

Cardiganshire Tories and local social-ists were ‘collaborating in their effortsto oust the Liberal member’. Hisheartfelt pessimism was clearly sharedby party leader Clement Davies, whodejectedly wrote to his predecessor, SirArchibald Sinclair, in the early days ofthe new year, ‘I do not know whetherI shall be back here … Even if I dopull it off, it will be “a damned nearthing”. … Each of us in Wales willhave a very tough fight.’ ‘No-oneknows who will be here’ was his pessi-mistic conclusion only days later.

Again Iwan Morgan, reluctantly re-se-lected by the Cardiganshire LabourParty as its candidate, could point thefinger at Roderic Bowen’s unimpres-sive and inconsistent voting record inthe Commons lobbies. An intensethree-cornered fray threatened to un-dermine Bowen’s position; in his care-fully phrased election address hepointedly noted ‘the intervention of athird candidate’ which, he felt, had‘subsequently increased the danger ofthe socialist being returned’. In theevent, his personal anxiety was mis-placed, for he was re-elected by a ma-jority of no fewer than , votesover Morgan, again the highest marginenjoyed by any of the nine LiberalMPs returned. Bowen had captured

per cent of the Cardiganshire vote, andhis was the only division apart fromMontgomeryshire where the Liberalshad secured an absolute majority in athree-cornered contest. Thereafter hewas not to face a Conservative oppo-nent until October .

When the second Attlee administra-tion, with its much reduced overall ma-jority, was compelled to go to the coun-try again in the autumn of ,Roderic Bowen, now facing a sole La-bour opponent, Revd. BrynmorWilliams, vicar of Llansamlet, was sure ofre-election, increasing his majority to,, again the highest of the six Lib-eral MPs returned to Westminster, al-though the turnout in Cardiganshireplummeted sharply. In his election ad-dress the Liberal candidate urged hisconstituents ‘to resist any attempts to im-pose Nationalisation upon our Agricul-tural Industry and to take land unreason-ably for non-agricultural purposes’.

But the total number of Liberal MPs


now shrank to an all-time low of six,while the defeats of Lady Megan LloydGeorge (Anglesey) and Emrys O.Roberts (Merionethshire) meant thatthe three Liberal MPs who remained inWales – Bowen, Clement Davies and SirRhys Hopkin Morris – were all seen asright-wingers, having much in commonwith Churchill’s Conservatives. Nonehad faced a Tory opponent in , sug-gesting that their political philosophywas acceptable to Conservative Partyheadquarters. As Conservative local or-ganisation remained relatively weak inthese three constituencies, Central Of-fice was generally happy to endorse there-election of sitting Liberal MPsperched on the right of their tiny partyrather than see the seats fall to the La-bour Party in three-cornered contests.All three MPs increased their majoritiesin , but none was the beneficiary ofa formal ‘Lib–Con’ electoral pact as wasDonald Wade at Huddersfield West (aperpetuation of the ‘Huddersfield ar-rangement’ instituted in ) andArthur Holt at Bolton West. It was gen-erally felt, however, that Clement Daviesand Roderic Bowen would have heldon even if they had faced Conservative

opponents. Rumours circulated dur-ing the election campaign thatDavies might well be offered ministerialoffice in the event of a Tory victory atthe polls (as, in fact, he soon was).

The defeats of Lady Megan andEmrys Roberts also reduced sharply theinvolvement of Welsh Liberals in the te-nacious Parliament for Wales agitationinaugurated in July . In reply to anewspaper questionnaire circulated dur-ing October which included thequestion, ‘Are you in favour of a WelshParliament and does your party officiallysupport that view?’, Bowen replied, ‘Yes,to deal with the domestic problems ofWales, but not in substitution for, but inaddition to, Welsh representation atWestminster.’ Yet none of the three re-maining Welsh Liberal MPs actively en-dorsed the campaign’s activities, Bowenyears later attributing his reluctance toparticipate to his view that ‘there weretoo many political viewpoints repre-sented’ within the movement. Gener-ally Bowen had tended to favour thegrant of Dominion status to Wales. Pre-sumably Clem Davies’s taxing role asparty leader during the years of theWelsh Parliament movement prevented

his active involvement, although he wasa consistent vocal advocate of the na-tional rights of Wales. But there wassome substance to Plaid Cymru gibesthat Liberal support for the agitation wasat best ‘anaemic’.

By the mid s Roderic Bowenwas firmly entrenched in hisCardiganshire citadel, the impressivevictor of three parliamentary electionsby a wide margin. At the end of afull-time secretary-organiser to theCardiganshire Liberal Association, inthe person of J. Parry Williams, a formeremployee of the Ministry of Labour,was appointed. The position had previ-ously been vacant for a full eighteenmonths. The nomination of DavidJones Davies, a native of Tregaronwithin the county, who had served asfurther education officer for Caer-narfonshire, as the county’s next Labourcandidate spurred county Liberals tooverhaul their organisation. ‘We are in-clined to be slack in our efforts be-tween elections’, warned local organ-iser Mrs Arthian Davies, ‘Why shouldwe worry? Mr Bowen is sure to get in,and it is in that attitude that the dangerlies.’ During a concerted effortwas made to streamline local organisa-tion and increase support for Bowen.

At the end of May there was wide-spread rejoicing in Welsh Liberal circlesas Clement Davies celebrated his silverjubilee as Liberal MP for Mont-gomeryshire. Major J. Parry Brown,chairman of the Liberal Party of Wales,in a major speech assured his listenersthat a ‘tremendous Liberal revival’ wasabout to happen, triggered by the re-cent re-establishment of local Liberalassociations in many parts of Wales. Asyet another election campaigneddawned, intense rumours pervadedCardiganshire that ill health might wellcompel Bowen to retire from politicallife, conjecture which was emphaticallyrepudiated by the Member.

In May Roderic Bowen facedthe Cardiganshire electorate for thefourth general election in succession,again opposed only by a Labour con-tender, in the person of D. J. Davies. Butthe campaign was a more heatedaffair than the previous contests, char-acterised by notably venomous per-sonal attacks. Bowen had represented

Roderic Bowen in 1950


the county in parliament for nigh onten years. Almost immediately upon hisfirst election in , however, he hadresumed his practice at the Bar and hadbuilt up an extensive and lucrative legalbusiness in south Wales. In , atbarely thirty-nine years of age, he tooksilk, an accolade all the more notablebecause he was the first Welshman tobecome a QC for fully sixty years. Hehad been appointed Recorder of Car-diff in and Recorder of MerthyrTydfil in . His appearances in hisconstituency declined, he became slackat attending to correspondence andspoke in the Commons only sparingly,generally on legal matters or Welsh af-fairs, subjects of especial interest to him.He was absent from many debates ofimportance to his constituents, andgenerally seemed to support the Con-servative government in the divisionlobbies. Although he had becomePresident of the Liberal Party of Walesin , and was to be elected chairmanof the Welsh Parliamentary Party in, there was a widespread feelingthat in his heart of hearts Bowen pre-ferred his highly lucrative legal careerto his political and parliamentary work.

At D. J. Davies’s adoption meeting atthe end of April , D. J. Jones, thepresident of the Cardiganshire LabourParty, accused Bowen of being the latestin a long line of ‘playboy’ MPs to repre-sent Cardiganshire: ‘No man can pursue aprivate career and do justice to his con-stituents at the same time. No man can bein Cardiff and Westminster at the sametime.’ Bowen responded at his adoptionmeeting by quoting from the Year-book of the Cardiganshire branch of theNational Farmers’ Union: ‘Cardiganshireis extremely fortunate in its MP, he wasfirst elected in , and the trust reposedin him by the electors has been amply re-warded for he has always served thecounty well.’ In a straight fight with La-bour, the outcome was never in any realdoubt, although Bowen’s majority wasreduced somewhat to ,. Somehow, inspite of an appalling Gallup rating of only per cent at the beginning of the electioncampaign, and a total of no more than candidates, all six Liberal MPs heldon, although only one of these – JoGrimond (Orkney & Shetland) – sur-vived a three-cornered contest, an

impressive personal victory. No Con-servative contender appeared in the otherfive Liberal seats (the only divisions in thewhole of the United Kingdom whichthey did not contest), again the result of a‘Lib–Con’ electoral pact at Bolton Westand Huddersfield West. Once againBowen recorded the highest majority ofthe six Liberals, just ahead of veteran partyleader Clement Davies, who polled ,

more votes than his sole Labour oppo-nent. None of the six had experienced anespecially close shave.

During the winter of –

Clement Davies had suffered a seriousillness and had been forced to spendmuch of the ensuing spring recuperat-ing. His involvement in the elec-tion campaign, both nationally and inMontgomeryshire, was minimal.Thereafter he faced mounting pressureto retire from the party leadership, forit was widely felt throughout the Lib-eral Party that more assertive, radical,dynamic helmsmanship was essential.

Davies at first seemed reluctant toyield, but eventually announced his re-tirement at the October party as-sembly at Folkestone. The natural suc-cessor, by background, temperamentand dedication, was Jo Grimond. SirRhys Hopkin Morris, now fully sixty-eight years of age, totally lacking inpolitical ambition, and hamstrung byhis official position as Deputy Chair-man of Ways and Means, was immedi-ately ruled out of the succession. BothArthur Holt and Donald Wade owedtheir continued re-election to localConservative support within theirconstituencies, and should this bewithdrawn, they faced electoral defeat,a situation clearly wholly unacceptablefor the leader of a national party. Thatleft only Grimond and Bowen.

Many Welsh Liberals began to pressRoderic Bowen’s claims as the cham-pion of the tiny party’s right wing, everextolling as he did the virtues of privateenterprise and the re-introduction offlogging, strikingly at odds withGrimond’s radical anti-Conservativeleanings which had led to his frequentlyadvocating a ‘Lib–Lab’ pact. Most of theparty faithful, however, felt that a Bowenleadership, like that of Clement Davies,would have been ‘soft and round, andenveloped in a cloud of words’.

Grimond, who had come to promi-nence at Westminster as his party’s chiefwhip since , was considered gener-ally ‘craggier and capable of stirring thefaithful with dramatic conferencespeeches’. Indeed, Davies may wellhave held on until the autumn of

against his better judgement to allowGrimond an opportunity to serve hisapprenticeship and win his spurs as partywhip. At the party assembly Grimondfirst nominated Bowen for the partyleadership, but Bowen, sensing that hisrival was the popular choice of the vastmajority of delegates, promptly nomi-nated him for the top job. Predictably itwas Grimond who won the day, butBowen still appears to have harboured agrudge, pointedly boycotting the nextLiberal Party assembly by taking advan-tage of a free trip to the United States.Thereafter relations between the twomen were distinctly frosty – Grimonddid not once even refer to Bowen in hisextensive Memoirs published in –and, when he accepted the position ofDeputy Chairman of Ways and Means(ex officio the second Deputy Speaker ofthe Commons) years later in ,Bowen may have been motivated tosome extent by feelings of revengeagainst Grimond and the Liberal Partyhierarchy.

Moreover, murmurs of discontent in-tensified within Cardiganshire. Early in some members of the AberystwythTown Council expressed their concernthat Bowen did not participate in thedebate on the Rating and Valuation Bill,thus failing to advance the claims of thecounty and borough, local councillorElfed Williams protesting, ‘Unfortu-nately the Member for Cardiganshirewas not there, and Cardiganshire’s viewswere not pressed.’ Again rumours cir-culated both in the constituency and atWestminster that the Member wouldnot seek the Liberal nomination at thenext general election. The conjecturewas sharply repudiated by RodericBowen: ‘It’s all twaddle and nonsense. It’sa hardy annual put up by the Labourboys when things are quiet. Where didyou hear about it?’ Soon he foundhimself one of only five Liberal MPs atthe Commons as Carmarthenshire fellto Labour after a hotly contested by-election in February following the


death of Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris. Thepain for the Liberals was all the greater asthe Labour victor was Lady MeganLloyd George, Liberal MP for Angleseyuntil October and a convert to so-cialism only since April . WithinLiberal ranks she was widely viewed as a‘defector’; during the intense by-elec-tion campaign respected party elderstatesman Lord Samuel had felt impelledto warn Carmarthenshire Liberals not tosupport Lady Megan.

The all-time low point of five LiberalMPs remained for more than a year. Inmany constituencies the party’s organi-sation was stagnant, financial resourceswere hopelessly inadequate, there wereonly thirty salaried party agentsthroughout Britain, and there remaineda desperate need for the strengtheningand overhaul of the party’s research de-partment to devise radical and progres-sive new policies. At the end of April Jo Grimond spoke at Aberystwyth,a rousing speech which underlined theneed for a measure of electoral reform toenable support for the Liberal Party tobe reflected in the composition of theCommons, but, revealing his left-wingleanings, he went on, ‘It would be disas-trous for this country if all non-Socialistssimply made a “cynical pact” to keep theLabour Party out of office.’

As yet another general electionloomed, the secretary of the South WalesLiberal Federation wrote to the party’scounty organiser in Cardiganshire, ‘I amvery glad to know … that there is somuch activity in your Constituencywhich might well be described as thesafest seat held by a Liberal member.’

Again, for the third general election insuccession, local Conservatives resolvedto stand aside, almost assuring RodericBowen of re-election. But local Social-ists had secured a formidable and viva-cious candidate in Mrs Loti ReesHughes, a long-serving member of theCarmarthenshire County Council,whose husband, Alderman W. DouglasHughes, was the local political agent toJim Griffiths MP for Llanelli. Onceagain there was criticism of RodericBowen for taking a ‘part-time’ attitudeto his political work, county LabourParty president D. J. Davies asserting tohis party’s annual general meeting at theend of February that:

It is my belief that the time has comewhen we should ask the Member ofParliament to give all his time to Par-liament for the benefit of the peopleof Cardiganshire. In these days whenthe tempo of all things has increasedso much, the value of a Member ofParliament to his constituents lies inhis being part of a pressure group, andhis influence in that group depends inno small measure on the amount ofhard work he puts in on behalf of hisconstituents.

In order that MPs can do this, theirsalaries have been raised to £,

per year and expenses. Parliament isthe only place where a person can get£, and expenses, and turn up forwork when he likes or not at all. Ifany other worker did that he wouldget the sack.

The time has come when MPs shouldbe asked to give their whole time toParliament or not at all. No man canserve two masters; he will neglect onemaster, and love the other.

One of the questions the LabourParty asked our Prospective Candi-date was: ‘Are you prepared to devotethe whole of your time to Parliamentif you are elected?’ Mrs Loti ReesHughes has given a firm promise thatshe would do so.

So I say to you in Cardiganshire,when the General Election comes,vote for Loti Hughes and get a full-time MP for Cardiganshire.

Again Bowen’s disappointing and in-consistent voting record in the Com-mons lobbies was carefully scrutinised;during the – parliamentary ses-sion he had voted in only out of atotal possible divisions, he had sup-ported the government on occasionsand the Labour opposition on . Itwould appear that the Labour Party or-ganisation in Cardiganshire and nation-ally entertained genuine aspirations ofvictory; in the words of local partyagent Ron Bundock, ‘We are going toshock Cardiganshire, the country andTransport House. I am extremely confi-dent and the reports coming in each dayare encouraging. The feeling in thecounty is different to any I have known

in previous elections.’ A novel dimen-sion was provided by the first-everPlaid Cymru candidature inCardiganshire’s history, in the person ofDr Gareth Evans, a native of the countyand a Swansea lecturer. But the Labourcampaign did not receive the recogni-tion at the polls so widely anticipated,and Roderic Bowen was again re-elected by a majority of , votesover Labour. Like other Liberal MPssuch as Arthur Holt and Donald Wade,he had been returned, for the third timein succession, with the tacit support oflocal Conservative sympathisers. Thiswas, however, to be the last occasion onwhich this happened. Local socialists,although grievously disappointed at theoutcome of the election, realisti-cally saw the presence of at least ‘a hardcore of , Labour voters’ inCardiganshire and were spurred to re-double their efforts.

As a new decade – the s – be-gan, the political life of remote, largelyrural Cardiganshire inevitably becamemuch less insular. The influence ofnonconformity and temperance de-mands seemed much less relevant to thenew generation. Distinctive local andregional problems came to the fore,crystallised in proposals for the reor-ganisation of Welsh local governmentand calls for a development corporationfor mid-Wales. In the wake of the infa-mous ‘Beeching axe’, the key Aberyst-wyth–Carmarthen railway line, a vitallife-line in mid-Wales, ceased to carrypassengers. Nationalist impulses crystal-lised locally in the earliest protests dur-ing of the fledgling Cymdeithas yrIaith Gymraeg (the Welsh Language So-ciety), blocking the traffic over thebridge near Aberystwyth and plasteringthe town’s main post office with noticesdemanding official status for the Welshlanguage. A contrary view soon sur-faced in protests from non-Welshspeakers at the increasing preponder-ance of Welsh language televisionbroadcasts which they could not avoid.

Roderic Bowen did not change hisstyle of representation one iota. His ap-pearances in the constituency were fewand fleeting, his participation in Com-mons debates a rarity, his political lifeclearly taking at best second place to hisever-increasing legal activities. During the


– parliamentary session he tookpart in only out of a total of divi-sions. In the latter year he took up the po-sition of Recorder of Swansea, and in was appointed Recorder of Cardiff.From , following in the footsteps ofClement Davies QC, he also becamechairman of the MontgomeryshireQuarter Sessions, a position he held until. When he was present in the Com-mons, his attention was absorbed prima-rily by his strong anti-nuclear views andhis opposition to the British invasion ofEgypt in .

Described by the Manchester Guard-ian in as ‘one of the most success-ful advocates at the Welsh bar’, his po-litical impact was much less. Indeedby the early s Bowen seemed tomany to be the last in a long line of suc-cessful Welsh barristers who simplydoubled up as a Liberal MP. In August and again in June he spokebriefly in the Commons on the need tointroduce industrial initiatives intomid-Wales, strengthen the authority ofthe Development Commissioners andtackle the vexed problem of rural de-population. But such interventionswere rare, brief and made little lastingimpression. In August the secre-tary of the North Wales Liberal Federa-tion wrote critically of Emlyn Hooson,who in May had succeededClement Davies as MP forMontgomeryshire, ‘I am inclined tothink he ought to spend more time onhis job as Member of Parliament or elsewe shall have another Roderic Bowen… one who does not spend much timein his constituency.’

As disenchantment with Bowengrew, Labour were spurred to redoubletheir local efforts, opening a newcounty headquarters at Aberystwythand chosing long-serving local presi-dent David John Davies as their pro-spective parliamentary candidate. InOctober Cardiganshire became amarginal constituency. The decision ofthe Conservatives to put up their owncandidate for the first time since ,coupled with the national swing to La-bour, cut Bowen’s majority sharply to. Of the five Liberal MPs who hadstood successfully for re-election –Bowen, Jo Grimond, Emlyn Hooson,Eric Lubbock (the Orpington victor of

March ) and Jeremy Thorpe – theMP for Cardiganshire now enjoyed byfar the smallest majority. In the samecontest, Tory intervention simultane-ously unseated Arthur Holt at BoltonWest and Donald Wade at HuddersfieldWest. Bowen’s total poll had fallen bymore than , votes and Labourcould scent the prospect of victory. TheMP for Cardiganshire was unlikely, itwas felt, to mend his ways.

Events soon took a bizarre turn withthe sudden death of the Speaker of theHouse of Commons, Sir Harry Hylton-Foster, as he walked along Duke Street,St James’s, London SW, on September. The question of his successorcaused a crisis for Harold Wilson’s La-bour government, which had a tinyoverall majority of only three seats in theCommons. It was widely anticipated

that the Deputy Speaker, Dr HoraceKing (Labour, Itchen), would succeed,and that the Deputy Chairman of Waysand Means, Sir Samuel Storey (Con-servative, Stretford), would in turn be-come Deputy Speaker. This would thenleave vacant the position of DeputyChairman of Ways and Means (who wasex officio the second Deputy Speaker).The ideal solution for the beleagueredLabour administration was to persuade aLiberal MP to accept the position. Mostof these lacked the long experience nec-essary of Commons procedures, but twodid not – the party leader, Jo Grimond,and Roderic Bowen, veteran MP ofnigh on twenty years.

It was considered unthinkable forGrimond even to countenance the va-cancy; he had no successor as LiberalParty leader. But Bowen demurred.


He had much to lose – he still enjoyed aflourishing, highly lucrative practice atthe Bar as a QC and Leader of theWales and Chester Circuit and the sta-tus and salary of Recorder of Swansea.Discussions followed between TedShort and Eric Lubbock, the govern-ment and Liberal chief whips. Bowen’sname was mooted, but most prominentLiberals did not disguise their annoy-ance, reluctant ‘to run the risk of losingtheir electoral identity by consenting toan expedient arrangement in whichthey would take the responsibility ofprolonging the Government’s life with-out having any say in what the Govern-ment does’. It was well known thatthere was little love lost between thetwo senior Liberal MPs, Grimondcommenting pointedly that the deci-sion was purely a personal one forBowen. Desperately anxious to avoidan early general election at an unfa-vourable time for his government,Harold Wilson (who had just toldGeorge Brown, his secretary of state foreconomic affairs, that their govern-ment’s economic policies amounted to‘a pretty dismal and gloomy set ofsqueezes’, necessitating the introduc-tion of measures ‘of a popular andheart-warming character’) probablycajoled Bowen into accepting the va-cant position.

The decision horrified most of Bo-wen’s Liberal colleagues at Westminster,and many staunch Liberals inCardiganshire, where his motives werekeenly debated during the ensuing general election campaign. Herewas a firmly right-wing MP, his policiesclose to the Tories in many respects,propping up an ailing Labour govern-ment clearly up against the ropes, everliable to collapse. ‘The Prime Ministerhas brought off his coup’, rejoiced La-bour Minister of Housing and diaristRichard Crossman, ‘Our majority ofthree has not been cut to one!’ Bo-wen’s decision immediately nourishedspeculation about a possible ‘Lib–Lab’pact at Westminster and confirmed thePrime Minister’s well established repu-tation as a dextrous political manipula-tor, capable of out-manoeuvring thenewly elected Conservative leader TedHeath and the opposition, a master parexcellence of the ‘politics of survival’.

After all, what had Bowen to gainpersonally? He had made enormousmaterial sacrifices in return for a mod-est parliamentary salary of £,, plusthe standard parliamentary allowance of£, which was available to all MPs.To add insult to injury, he had acceptedWilson’s offer without even consultingJo Grimond, and had angered most ofhis fellow Liberal MPs whose votingstrength was consequently reducedfrom ten to nine. Of the ParliamentaryLiberal Party, only fellow WelshmanEmlyn Hooson and David Steel, thenewest Liberal MP, came out in supportof his decision to accept the office.Bowen may have been looking to gethis own back on Grimond for takingthe party leadership nine years earlier.He may have been eyeing the Speaker’schair, for which he was reasonably wellsuited, or he may have hoped thatHarold Wilson would one day rewardhim with a judgeship, perhaps even apeerage on his eventual retirementfrom the House of Commons. If so, hemiscalculated badly; only very minorrewards, in the form of service on pub-lic bodies in his later career, lay ahead.The peerage which many expectedhim to receive never materialised.

Roderic Bowen’s decision came at aparticularly vexed time for his party, es-pecially in its relationship with the La-bour government, a theme which haddominated the Liberal assembly only theprevious month. Jo Grimond, ever readyto consider any amicable working ar-rangement with Labour, anticipatedpossible ‘real enthusiasm’ for ‘commonaims behind which a majority couldunite’, but, he went on, ‘The throwing oflife-belts to a sinking Government is nota job I would welcome.’ Bowen, it ap-peared, had indeed thrown a life-belt toWilson’s government.

In any case, his parliamentary careerwas drawing to a close. Ever since Oc-tober the Labour Party hierarchyhad considered Cardiganshire a crucialmarginal which lay within their grasp.Their new parliamentary candidate wasElystan Morgan, an articulate younglawyer who had actually stood as thePlaid Cymru candidate at Wrexham in and and Merionethshire in, and who had changed partiesonly in August , shortly before his

selection as the Labour candidate forCardiganshire. He enjoyed a networkof family contacts throughout thenorth of the county, and appeared toenjoy extensive Plaid Cymru supportin spite of his change of allegiance.Bowen seemed to make even less effortthan in previous election campaigns,undertook but little canvassing, and wascontent to rely on the county’s Liberaltradition and his bedrock of loyal sup-porters. Ominously, Jo Grimond re-fused to send his colleague a personalletter of support during the crucialelection campaign although asked to doso by the president of the CardiganshireLiberal Association, and this becamewell known in the constituency duringthe campaign. On this occasion La-bour swept to victory by votes,capturing no fewer than of the

Welsh constituencies, a record highnever repeated before or since, its dra-matic breakthrough in Cardiganshireextending its hegemony over all theconstituencies of the western seaboardof Wales. Cardiganshire was one ofeleven constituencies captured by La-bour in which it had never previ-ously held. To some extent the loss ofCardiganshire, held continuously by theLiberals ever since , was offset byfour Liberal gains, among them ColneValley (Richard Wainwright), NorthCornwall (John Pardoe) and Cheadle(Dr Michael Winstanley).

Although the writing had been onthe wall since at least October ,Roderic Bowen was, it seems, still disap-pointed by his defeat. At only fifty-twoyears of age, at the height of his powersand political maturity, with more thanthirty-five years of life still ahead of him,he shunned party politics thereafter,rarely venturing to the county.

In the wake of his defeat, he was sentby Foreign Secretary George Brown toAden to investigate interrogation pro-cedures in the British colony, whichhad been subject to international criti-cism, notably by Amnesty International.His report found, by implication, thatthe claims were exaggerated, thoughnot baseless, and proposed a number ofchanges to ensure that they did not re-cur. Bowen’s report was admirable as faras it went. Its terms of reference, how-ever, were perhaps too limited. He was


asked to decide whether particularcases of alleged ill-treatment were trueor not, and he did hear the point ofview of the former investigators.

In Bowen became National In-surance Commissioner for Wales, re-signing his position as Recorder ofCardiff, and he remained in the postuntil . In the spring of he wasappointed chairman of a governmentalcommittee charged to examine roadsigns policy in Wales set up by PeterThomas, Secretary of State for Wales inthe Heath Government, in response toa campaign for bilingualism spear-headed by Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg(the Welsh Language Society). Thecommittee took its work seriously, eventravelling to Finland and other coun-tries to contrast the situation there, andits majority report, which appeared inthe autumn of , was generally infavour of bilingual signs: ‘The chief ar-guments hinge on the place of Welsh inWales, on the principle of “natural jus-tice” for the Welsh language.’ From to Bowen also served as aconscientious president of St David’sUniversity College, Lampeter.

Apart from his brief brushes withfame in and , Roderic Bo-wen’s impact at Westminster was mini-mal, yet he was generally popular withpoliticians of all parties and his relaxedbonhomie and quick repartee in thesmoking rooms of the Commons stoodin striking contrast to his serious, tight-lipped professional demeanour whenacting in the courts. A potentiallyamusing and clever debater, capable ofgracing Liberal platforms with wit anddistinction, he was much sought after asan after-dinner speaker. He remained aLiberal MP throughout the long, ardu-ous years of Clement Davies’s leader-ship of the party from , but had lit-tle rapport with Davies’s successor JoGrimond who, in Bowen’s view,seemed intent on seeking ‘a realign-ment of the Left’ in British politics. Alack of mutual understanding and ad-miration between these two senior Lib-eral MPs resulted. Hence Bowen be-came increasingly aloof and detachedfrom the vortex of political life at West-minster, rather on a limb from themainstream of the Parliamentary Lib-eral Party, attending the Commons at

best irregularly, participating in debatebut rarely.

A warm admirer of Sir Rhys HopkinMorris, Bowen’s Liberal credentialswere impeccable, reflected in his unwa-vering belief in the responsibility of theindividual and the duty of each one tocontribute to the betterment of society.Although veering generally to the rightin the political spectrum, sharply op-posed to socialism and communism, hewas just as dismissive of the claims ofthose vested interests championed bythe Conservative Party. Bowen’s Welshpatriotism was beyond question, re-flected in his stalwart support for equal-ity for Wales with Scotland and forWelsh representation in the Cabinet, acommitment recognised by both theNational Eisteddfod, which he at-tended regularly, and the University ofWales. An individual of deep religiousconvictions, he became a deacon of thePresbyterian church. A life-long bach-elor, tending in his last years to be a rec-luse living frugally in a small flat in theWelsh capital and suffering from dete-riorating health, Roderic Bowen diedat Cardiff on July .

Dr J. Graham Jones is an assistant archivistof the Welsh Political Archive at the Depart-ment of Manuscripts and records, the Na-tional Library of Wales, Aberystwyth.

The author is grateful to Robert Ingham forreading an earlier draft of this article withmeticulous care and for making a number ofmost helpful suggestions for its revision; andis indebted to him for sending me a detailedsummary of his interview with RodericBowen on July .

1 National Library of Wales (hereafter NLW),Cardiganshire Liberal Association Records, no. 1,minute book, 1923–50, minutes of special meet-ing, 16 June 1945.

2 Cambrian News, 29 June 1945.3 Cambrian News, 29 June 1945.4 Cambrian News, 3 August 1945.5 The phrase is that used in NLW, Clement Davies

Papers Q4/126, ‘Ifor’, Cambridge, to StanleyClement-Davies, 20 June 1945. I am most grate-ful to Mr Stanley Clement-Davies, London, forpermission to make use of his father’s papers.

6 See David M. Roberts, ‘Clement Davies and theLiberal Party, 1929–56’, unpublished Universityof Wales MA thesis, 1975, pp. 87–92; J. GrahamJones, ‘The Liberal Party and Wales, 1945–79’,Welsh History Review, Vol. 16, no. 3 (June 1993),329–33.

7 The phrase is that used in Roberts, ‘ClementDavies’, p. 87.

8 Victor Thompson in the Daily Herald, 18 March

1950.9 Lord Hooson, Rebirth or Death? Liberalism in

Wales in the Second Half of the Twentieth Cen-tury, the 1993 Welsh Political Archive Lecture(Aberystwyth: the National Library of Wales,1994), p. 2.

10 NLW, Cardiganshire Liberal Association Records,no. 1, minute book, 1923–50, AGM minutes, 8November 1947.

11 Ibid., executive committee minutes, 19 February1949.

12 NLW, Cardiganshire Liberal Association Records,no. 1, minute book, 1923–50, executive commit-tee minutes, 28 May 1949, AGM minutes, 29 Oc-tober 1949.

13 NLW, Clement Davies Papers J3/10 and J3/12,Davies to Sinclair, 6 and 17 January 1950 (copies).

14 Cambrian News, 17 February 1950.15 Election address of E. R. Bowen, February 1950.16 Election address of E. R. Bowen, October 1951.17 The Times, 31 March 1951, p. 4. On election

‘pacts’ in 1951 and reactions to them, see alsoRoy Douglas, The History of the Liberal Party,1895–1970 (London, 1971), p. 262.

18 Cambrian News, 19 October 1951.19 Alan Butt Philip, The Welsh Question: National-

ism in Welsh Politics, 1945–1970 (Cardiff, 1975),p. 259.

20 Welsh Nation, May 1956.21 Western Mail, 1 December 1952.22 Welsh Gazette, 5 November 1953.23 NLW, Cardiganshire Liberal Association Records,

file 56, memorandum entitled ‘The Importance ofthe Next Six Months’, dated 1954.

24 Welsh Gazette, 29 July 1954.25 Western Mail, 19 April 1955.26 Cambrian News, 29 April 1955.27 Welsh Gazette, 13 May 1955.28 For a somewhat negative view of Liberal Party at-

titudes to Clement Davies at this time, seeGeoffrey Sell, ‘”A sad business”: The resignationof Clement Davies’, Journal of Liberal DemocratHistory 24 (Autumn 1999), 14–17.

29 The phrases are taken from Bowen’s obituary byAndrew Roth in The Guardian, 25 July 2001, p.20. Douglas, op. cit., p. 268, dismisses Bowen as‘too busy with his legal practice’ even to considerthe vacant party leadership.

30 Cambrian News, 15 February 1957.31 NLW, Cardiganshire Liberal Association Records,

file 135, unlabelled press cutting.32 See NLW, Clement Davies Papers C1/107, W. H.

Grey to Lord Byers, 10 March 1958 (copy). JoGrimond’s decisive contribution was to set up anumber of new policy committees, each withspecific areas of responsibility, to devise radicalnovel policies.

33 Cambrian News, 2 May 1958.34 NLW, Cardiganshire Liberal Association Records,

file 56, J. Ellis Williams, honorary secretary of theSouth Wales Liberal Federation, to E. Jones, 11February 1959.

35 J. Graham Jones, ‘The Cardiganshire election of1959’, Ceredigion, Vol. 12, no. 2 (1994), 84–105.There is much valuable material on this intriguingcontest in the Deian R. Hopkin Papers at the Na-tional Library of Wales.

36 Welsh Gazette, 5 March 1959.37 NLW, Deian R. Hopkin Papers, file 135, John

Milwood, Labour Party research department, toJames Griffiths, 20 October 1959.

38 Ibid., R. J. Bundock to W. Douglas Hughes, 26September 1959.

39 Ibid., file 136, Cardiganshire Labour Party minutebook, 1958–65, entry for 31 October 1959. Cf.


the Welsh Gazette, 14 November 1959, for a de-tailed account of the 1959 AGM of theCardiganshire Liberal Association and its reactionto the outcome of the recent general election.

40 Cited in Bowen’s obituary in The Guardian, 25July 2001, p. 20.

41 See the reports in The Times, 3 August 1962, p.6, col. g, and ibid., 26 June 1964, p. 15, col. e.

42 NLW, Lord Ogmore Papers, file 3, Margaret J.Lawson, secretary of the North Wales LiberalFederation, to Lord Ogmore, 3 August 1964.

43 See The Times, 3 September 1965, p. 10, cols.a–b.

44 Liberal News, 17 September 1965, p. 1.45 The Times, 14 September 1965, p. 10, cols. c–e.46 Cited in Bowen’s obituary in the Daily Telegraph,

23 July 2001.47 Richard Crossman, The Diaries of a Cabinet Min-

ister, Vol. 1: Minister of Housing, 1964–66 (Lon-don, 1975), p. 362, diary entry for 26 October1965.

48 The phrase is that used in Kenneth O. Morgan,The People’s Peace: British History, 1945–1989(London, 1990), p. 250.

49 Jo Grimond, ‘The Liberals and the Government’,Guardian, 20 September 1965. See also AlanWatkins, ‘Mr Grimond spells it out’, The Specta-tor, 24 September 1965, for an astute commen-tary on the Liberal leader’s views and policies.There is a perspicacious analysis of the problemsfacing the Liberal Party during these years in ‘TheLiberal predicament’, chapter IV of D. E. Butler

The party agent and English electoral culture, c.1880 – c.1906. The party agent and English electoral culture, c.1880 – c.1906. The party agent and English electoral culture, c.1880 – c.1906. The party agent and English electoral culture, c.1880 – c.1906. The party agent and English electoral culture, c.1880 – c.1906. Thedevelopment of political agency as a profession, the role of theelection agent in managing election campaigns during this period,and the changing nature of elections, as increased use was made ofthe press and the platform. Kathryn Rix, Christ's College,Cambridge, CB2 2BU; [email protected].

Liberal policy towards Austria-Hungary, 1905–16. Liberal policy towards Austria-Hungary, 1905–16. Liberal policy towards Austria-Hungary, 1905–16. Liberal policy towards Austria-Hungary, 1905–16. Liberal policy towards Austria-Hungary, 1905–16. AndrewGardner, 22 Birdbrook House, Popham Road, Islington, London N18TA; [email protected].

The Hon H. G. Beaumont (MP for Eastbourne 1906–10). The Hon H. G. Beaumont (MP for Eastbourne 1906–10). The Hon H. G. Beaumont (MP for Eastbourne 1906–10). The Hon H. G. Beaumont (MP for Eastbourne 1906–10). The Hon H. G. Beaumont (MP for Eastbourne 1906–10). Anyinformation welcome, particularly on his political views (he stood asa Radical). Tim Beaumont, 40 Elms Road, London SW4 9EX.

Edmund Lamb (Liberal MP for Leominster 1906–10). Edmund Lamb (Liberal MP for Leominster 1906–10). Edmund Lamb (Liberal MP for Leominster 1906–10). Edmund Lamb (Liberal MP for Leominster 1906–10). Edmund Lamb (Liberal MP for Leominster 1906–10). Anyinformation on his election and period as MP; wanted for biographyof his daughter, Winfred Lamb. Dr David Gill,[email protected].

Joseph King (Liberal MP for North Somerset during the Great War).Joseph King (Liberal MP for North Somerset during the Great War).Joseph King (Liberal MP for North Somerset during the Great War).Joseph King (Liberal MP for North Somerset during the Great War).Joseph King (Liberal MP for North Somerset during the Great War).Any information welcome, particularly on his links with the Unionof Democratic Control and other opponents of the war (includinghis friend George Raffalovich). Colin Houlding;[email protected]

The political life and times of Josiah Wedgwood MP. The political life and times of Josiah Wedgwood MP. The political life and times of Josiah Wedgwood MP. The political life and times of Josiah Wedgwood MP. The political life and times of Josiah Wedgwood MP. Study of thepolitical life of this radical MP, hoping to shed light on the questionof why the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as the primarypopular representatives of radicalism in the 1920s.Paul Mulvey, 112 Richmond Avenue, London N1 0LS;[email protected].

Recruitment of Liberals into the Conservative Party, 1906–1935.Recruitment of Liberals into the Conservative Party, 1906–1935.Recruitment of Liberals into the Conservative Party, 1906–1935.Recruitment of Liberals into the Conservative Party, 1906–1935.Recruitment of Liberals into the Conservative Party, 1906–1935.Aims to suggest reasons for defections of individuals and developan understanding of changes in electoral alignment. Sourcesinclude personal papers and newspapers; suggestions about howto get hold of the papers of more obscure Liberal defectorswelcome. Cllr Nick Cott, 1a Henry Street, Gosforth, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE3 1DQ; [email protected].

Liberals and the local government of London 1919–39. Liberals and the local government of London 1919–39. Liberals and the local government of London 1919–39. Liberals and the local government of London 1919–39. Liberals and the local government of London 1919–39. Chris Fox,173 Worplesdon Road, Guildford GU2 6XD;[email protected].

Research in ProgressIf 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 2) for inclusion here.

Crouch End or Hornsey Liberal Association or Young Liberals in theCrouch End or Hornsey Liberal Association or Young Liberals in theCrouch End or Hornsey Liberal Association or Young Liberals in theCrouch End or Hornsey Liberal Association or Young Liberals in theCrouch End or Hornsey Liberal Association or Young Liberals in the1920s and 1930s;1920s and 1930s;1920s and 1930s;1920s and 1930s;1920s and 1930s; especially any details of James Gleeson or PatrickMoir, who are believed to have been Chairmen. Tony Marriott, FlatA, 13 Coleridge Road, Crouch End, London N8 8EH.

Liberal foreign policy in the 1930s. Liberal foreign policy in the 1930s. Liberal foreign policy in the 1930s. Liberal foreign policy in the 1930s. Liberal foreign policy in the 1930s. Focussing particularly on Liberalanti-appeasers. Michael Kelly, 12 Collinbridge Road, Whitewell,Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim BT36 7SN

The Liberal Party and the wartime coalition 1940–45. The Liberal Party and the wartime coalition 1940–45. The Liberal Party and the wartime coalition 1940–45. The Liberal Party and the wartime coalition 1940–45. The Liberal Party and the wartime coalition 1940–45. Sources,particularly on Sinclair as Air Minister, and on Harcourt Johnstone,Dingle Foot, Lord Sherwood and Sir Geoffrey Maunder (Sinclair'sPPS) particularly welcome. Ian Hunter, 9 Defoe Avenue, Kew,Richmond TW9 4DL; [email protected].

Clement Davies – research for the first full biography. Clement Davies – research for the first full biography. Clement Davies – research for the first full biography. Clement Davies – research for the first full biography. Clement Davies – research for the first full biography. Of particularinterest are the activities of government departments whereClement Davies worked in the First World War, including EnemyActivities in Neutral Countries, Economic Warfare and Trading withthe Enemy; also the period 1939–42, after Davies left the LiberalNationals but before he rejoined the independent Liberals, and hisrelationships with MacDonald, Boothby, Attlee and Churchill. AlunWyburn-Powell; [email protected].

The Unservile State Group, 1953–1970s. The Unservile State Group, 1953–1970s. The Unservile State Group, 1953–1970s. The Unservile State Group, 1953–1970s. The Unservile State Group, 1953–1970s. Dr Peter Barberis, 24Lime Avenue, Flixton, Manchester M41 5DE.

The Young Liberal Movement 1959–1985; The Young Liberal Movement 1959–1985; The Young Liberal Movement 1959–1985; The Young Liberal Movement 1959–1985; The Young Liberal Movement 1959–1985; including in particularrelations with the leadership, and between NLYL and ULS. CarriePark, 89 Coombe Lane, Bristol BS9 2AR;[email protected].

The revival of the Liberal Party in the 1960s and ‘70s; The revival of the Liberal Party in the 1960s and ‘70s; The revival of the Liberal Party in the 1960s and ‘70s; The revival of the Liberal Party in the 1960s and ‘70s; The revival of the Liberal Party in the 1960s and ‘70s; including therelationships between local and parliamentary electoralperformance. Access to party records (constituency- and ward-level) relating to local activity in London and Birmingham, andinterviews with key activists of particular interest. Paul Lambe,University of Plymouth; [email protected].

The political and electoral strategy of the Liberal Party 1970–79.The political and electoral strategy of the Liberal Party 1970–79.The political and electoral strategy of the Liberal Party 1970–79.The political and electoral strategy of the Liberal Party 1970–79.The political and electoral strategy of the Liberal Party 1970–79.Individual constituency papers, and contact with members of theParty’s policy committees and/or the Party Council, particularlywelcome. Ruth Fox, 7 Mulberry Court, Bishop’s Stortford, HertsCM23 3JW.

and Anthony King, The British General Electionof 1966 (London, 1966), pp. 74–84.

50 Howard C. Jones, ‘The Labour Party inCardiganshire’, Ceredigion, Vol. 9, no. 2 (1981),160.

51 See the reflections on the 1966 contest of Dr. E.G. Millward, the Plaid Cymru candidate, inGolwg, vol. 13, no. 46 (26 July 2001), 6. See alsothe text of the Robert Ingham interview withRoderic Bowen, 26 July 1995.

52 See Liberal News, 7 April 1966, and The Times, 1April 1966, p. 12, col. a.

53 The Times, 30 November 1972, p. 4, col. f.54 There is a thoughtful and warm tribute penned

by Lord (Emlyn) Hooson in Liberal DemocratNews, no. 675 (7 September 2001), 4.


The Liberal Democrat HistoryGroup’s latest publication,Great Liberal Speeches (re-

viewed in this issue of the Journal ofLiberal Democrat History by ConradRussell), was launched at the LiberalDemocrat autumn conference inBournemouth.

Ably chaired and introduced byPaddy Ashdown, a capacity audiencewas addressed first by Max Atkinson, afreelance communications consultantand Visiting Professor at HenleyManagement College, and author ofthe excellent book on political rheto-ric, Our Masters’ Voices. His talk was aconcise version of his introduction toGreat Liberal Speeches, ‘Mere rhetoric?’,so we do not summarise it here – buythe book and read it!

Essentially he argued that politicalrhetoric was an important communica-tions skill; furthermore, although somepoliticians have an innate talent for it,everyone can study and learn it, andimprove their ability to put over theirmessage. He lamented the propensity ofmodern broadcasters to downplay theimportance of speeches and to transmitonly soundbites and their own interpre-tations of the speakers’ words – and alsoto play up the importance of interviews,‘however sterile and tedious they maybe’. As he argued:

One piece of evidence to which theirattention should be drawn is the factthat editors and publishers of booksdo not seem to find televisedinterviews interesting, inspiring orprovocative enough to merit thepublication of collections of GreatInterviews, whether Liberal or of any

other kind. Rhetoric and oratory maywell have had a bad press in recentyears, but readers of this book willsurely be thankful that it consists ofspeeches rather than transcripts ofinterviews. They can therefore lookforward to reading carefully devel-oped arguments in language robustenough to have survived the immedi-ate moment of delivery to become aform of historical literature.

Roy Jenkins’ speech, fulsomely ad-mired in The Times by Matthew Parris,is reproduced here verbatim:

I’m going to talk about Liberal oratory,in a reflective historical context. I beginwith , when the Liberal Party waseffectively founded, in Willis’ Rooms inLondon. The great scene there was thatLord Palmerston shook hands withLord John Russell – he hadn’t done fora long time past. John Bright was alsothere. The great beneficiary of thatcoming together was Gladstone, thoughGladstone, ironically, was not present –he was still detached, in his Peelitemode, at that stage.

He was the first great orator of theLiberal Party – although Palmerstonshould by no means be entirelydismissed. The thing was thatPalmerston hardly ever spoke outsidethe House of Commons, or, say, a LordMayor’s banquet in the City of Lon-don. He did make one great speech, inthe market place at Tiverton, for whichhe was Member of Parliament (andabout five other constituencies, not allat the same time), but broadly he was aparliamentary orator, and certainly his Civis Romanus Sum speech echoes

down the ages. Apart from anythingelse, it was so long that it was alwayssaid to have begun when the light wasslowly fading, on a summer evening inJune, and when he sat down, dawn wasdistinctly visible through the windowson the other side of the chamber.

But broadly, Gladstone was the firstgreat mass orator. Gladstone made anart out of mass oratory; to some extent,Disraeli came along behind him. Andwhen I was in the latter stage of my lifeof Gladstone, one of the things thatmost intrigued me was what was thesecret of Gladstone’s mass oratory. Hisparliamentary oratory I can under-stand; he rarely gave the House ofCommons less than two and halfhours. In the country he was morerestrained; an hour and forty minuteswas about his average. But what wasthe quality that made him hold hisaudience? – say, in the Waverley Marketat Edinburgh, where , peoplewere present, and several of themfainted and had to be carried out overthe heads of the others, for an hour andforty minutes, for a detailed analysis ofDisraeli’s budgetary policy.

He didn’t make many jokes. He hadquite a good, if rather boisterous, senseof fun in private, but he was not a greatwit in public. He never remotelyplayed down to his audience. What wasthe secret that enabled him to holdthese great audiences, largely ofworking people, as they were thencalled, and make them come back for

ReportReportReportReportReportSpeeches and speech-makersFringe meeting, September 2001, with Roy Jenkins,

Max Atkinson and Paddy AshdownReport by Duncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan Brack

Paddy Ashdown and Roy Jenkins (photo:Peter Dollimore)


more on future occasions? I decided,after a good deal of reflection, that itwas essentially that although he spoke abit above their heads, he elevated theirappreciation of themselves. He madethem feel that they were more impor-tant in the world than they thoughtwhen they came in. A very goodexample of that, I think, was given inhis speech at the end of the firstMidlothian Campaign of , whenin West Lothian, he started: ‘It is thehonour of England which is at stake’ –couldn’t get away with that in WestLothian today – ‘ a great trial is nowproceeding before the nation. We havenone of the forum of a judicial trial.There are no peers in WestminsterHall. There are no judges on theWoolsack. But if we concentrate ourmind upon the truth of the case, apartfrom its mere exterior, it is a granderand more august spectacle than wasever exhibited either in WestminsterHall or in the House of Lords – anation called to undertake a great andresponsible duty, a duty on whichdepends the peace of Europe and thedestinies of England.’

That was an example of his style,which, may, as I say, enormouslyincreased the self-esteem of his audi-ence. And as people like their self-esteem being increased – we all of usdo – that, I think, if one gets to thecore of it, was the secret of his remark-able oratorical power.

Going on to former Liberal leaders,Gladstone was followed briefly byRosebery. Rosebery I regard as one ofthe most inflated reputations of who-ever got to the top of politics. He was aflorid orator, with a certain flamboy-ance; he once hit a lectern with suchforce that the typically very large rubyin his ring sprang out of it and randown the centre aisle of the hall. But Ihave not a great respect for Rosebery.

Campbell-Bannerman was a cosyleader; a very good healing leader forthe party when it needed one. Thenthere was Asquith. Asquith made hisreputation as a great logical debater. Inthe two and quarter years of Campbell-Bannerman’s premiership, wheneverthere was a difficult issue in the Houseof Commons, Campbell-Bannermanalways said: ‘send for the sledgehammer’,

and by that he meant Asquith, whowould come and destroy the argumentsof the opposition with a relentless logic.And although I would put Asquith veryhigh amongst Prime Ministers of thiscentury – certainly third, maybe for realpolitical genius Churchill and LloydGeorge exceeded him, maybe Attlee ranhim close, as someone who could holda reforming government together, but Iwould certainly put Asquith thirdamongst the Prime Ministers , as thePeel of the twentieth century, and that isno mean tribute to anybody – in thedays of his premiership, he probablydepended less upon oratory than anyother major Prime Minister except forAttlee – who certainly didn’t dependupon oratory.

Greater oratory was in a way sup-plied by his daughter Violet – VioletBonham-Carter as she became – andmy only criticism of this admirablebook of speeches is that, while itincludes one from her, it does notinclude her truly great speech at theluncheon in the National Liberal Clubafter Asquith had been humiliatinglydefeated in East Fife in – we hadto wait a long time for MenziesCampbell to avenge that defeat – andwas re-elected for Paisley in . Inthat speech in the National LiberalClub – and unfortunately her oratorywasn’t entirely immediately fulfilled –she contrasted the thin range of chairsinside the House of Commons with thegreat crowd which welcomed him backoutside. ‘Hold on’, she said, ‘hold on, weare coming’. Well, we are coming now,but it’s some time after that. Violet was aremarkable female orator.

And then we come to LloydGeorge, and his contrast both withGladstone before him, and Churchillafter him – because Churchill qualifiesas a Liberal orator, at any rate in theearly days, up to . Compared withGladstone, Lloyd George had far lessrange of knowledge, classical and other,and far less intellectual range – but hewas a far more seductive orator thaneither Gladstone before him orChurchill after him. Both of themspoke at their audiences, Churchilleven more than Gladstone, but LloydGeorge insinuated himself into themind of his audiences, and carried

them with him. The example I give ofthat is a passage, not the best known ofthe passages from his Limehouseoration in July , dealing with thefairly narrow subject, you might havethought, of the mineral rights duty inhis Budget of that year, directed tosetting up a miners’ welfare fund.

‘Have you ever been down a coalmine?’ he said. ‘I went down one theother day. We sank into a pit half a miledeep. We then walked underneath themountain, and we did about three-quarters of a mile with rock and shaleabove us. The earth seemed to bestraining – around us and above us – tocrush us in. You could see the pit-propsbent and twisted and sundered untilyou saw their fibres split in resisting thepressure. Sometimes they give way, andthen there is mutilation and death.Often a spark ignites, the whole pit isdeluged in fire, and the breath of life isscorched out of hundreds of breasts bythe consuming flame … And yetwhen the Prime Minister and I knockat the door of these great landlords, andsay to them: “Here, you know thesepoor fellows who have been diggingup royalties at the risk of their lives,some of them are old, they havesurvived the perils of their trade, theyare broken, they can earn no more.Won’t you give them somethingtowards keeping them out of theworkhouse?” they scowl at us, and wesay: “Only a ha’penny, just a copper.”They say: “You thieves!” … If this is anindication of the view taken by thesegreat landlords of their responsibility tothe people who at the risk of life createtheir wealth, then I say their day ofreckoning is at hand.’

Now, Churchill – a strong supporter,junior partner with Lloyd George as aconstructive radical in those days –could never have done that. Thispassage in which Lloyd George madehis East End audience feel the tensionsand terrors of life underground,though very few of them had everbeen nearer a coal mind than Padding-ton Station, could never have beendone by Churchill. He might haveextolled the place of coal, and conse-quently of miners, in Britain’s islandstory, the rise of the national wealth ofGreat Britain. He would have done it


with phrases more elevated than LloydGeorge’s, but in the abstract. He wouldnever have made his audience feel themenace of the great weight of earthabove then, and the testing almost todestruction of the pit props. Andthough of course Churchill, when histime came – that was after his Liberaltime, I am afraid – was the greatest andmost important orator in the history ofthe twentieth century, on the whole, itis remarkable the amount of timewhich he devoted, during the waryears, under tremendous pressure, tospeech preparation.

He was never, unlike Lloyd George,a spontaneous orator. He alwaysneeded to have everything verycarefully prepared. There is evidencethat in the summer of , at theworst and most pressured time, hedevoted ten hours to preparing oneHouse of Commons speech. He hadthe virtue of being an immenselydedicated and fluent dictater, but it wasten hours of fluent dictation to get itright. On another occasion, in Wash-ington, when he was about to addressCongress, his dictating secretary spokeof the fourteen and half hours of thedictation she had to take. Was thismisapplied time? I don’t really think so,because those great speeches of thesummer of marked out thehistory of that remarkable period likechoruses in a Greek play. They did helpto sustain the nation; in most othercircumstances they would have beensomewhat over the top, but not then –and also I think that the catharsis, thesatisfaction which he got from deliver-ing these great orations, and theincrease in his energy for the futurewhich came as a result of them morethan compensated for the time whichhe had devoted to their preparation.

Broadly, as I say, he was an abstract,powerful, sometimes over-the-toporator, but I came across one exampleI’d like to quote to you of his trying tolearn from Roosevelt. Roosevelt was avery interesting transitional orator – hewas sort of half-way between thegrandiloquence of Gladstone andChurchill and the chatty manner ofReagan and Clinton – but he alwaysliked homely metaphors. His mostfamous homely metaphor was when he

defended lease-lend, by saying that ‘iffire broke out in my neighbour’s house,and I had a garden hose, what would Ido? I would lend it to him. I wouldn’tsell it to him, I wouldn’t tell him to goand buy a hose of his own, I would lendit to him. And he would say, whatshould I do afterwards, well, give it meback when the fire’s put out.’

Not much chance, actually, ofgetting the lend-lease supplies back, ormuch use they would have beenafterwards, but it was a brilliant homelymetaphor, and I was struck by Church-ill, having apparently half learned fromFDR, half trying to learn, when hecame back from the first Quebecconference – there were two, in

and – on Sunday th September. He went to the House of Com-mons on the Monday, and began bysaying that when he’d arrived atGreenock from North America on theSunday morning, he’d immediatelyread the Sunday newspapers, and theywere rather critical – interestingexample of the enormous priority healways gave to newspaper reading. Hewas reminded, he said, of the tale aboutthe sailor who jumped into a dock – atPlymouth, I think it was – to rescue asmall boy from drowning. About aweek later, the sailor was accosted by awoman, who asked: ‘are you the manwho pulled my son out of the dock theother night? The sailor replied, mod-estly, ‘that is indeed true, ma’am’. ‘Ah’,said the woman, ‘you’re the man I waslooking for. Where’s his cap?’ Thatseems to me a very clear example ofChurchill trying to reduce his gran-diloquence, and learn from Roosevelt,with whom he’d just spent some time.

Oratory – I agree strongly with MaxAtkinson – is on the whole at adiscount; just as debating, as opposed tothe quick exchange at Prime Minister’squestion time, is at a discount in theHouse of Commons. One shouldn’t betoo dismayed – though I am a bitdismayed by that – because it’s an artwith certain advantages, and although itseems to be almost dieing before oureyes, it is bound to change. No-onewould expect a Gladstone speech oftwo and half hours, redolent with manyLatin quotations, to be persuasive at thefifth time – Burke wouldn’t sound all

that good in the present House ofCommons. But nonetheless I think onedoes regret the almost complete declinein politics, in the last twenty-five yearsor so, I think, of the sustained arguing ofa case, with the careful use of languageand phraseology which helps to ad-vance it. But there we are.

That’s my review of Liberal oratoryover the last years. And it gives meconfidence in the future of Liberaloratory. One never knows, there maybe a great outbreak of Conservativeoratory under Mr Iain Duncan Smith,who may be an underestimated figure,though I doubt it. I have more faith inthe ability of Charles Kennedy.

Paddy Ashdown wound up the meet-ing by stressing his own belief in thepower of language. ‘I’ve always thoughtthat words are the battleground ofpolitics. If you can find the right words,and you own them, you’ve owned thebattle. And the one thing you can’t dois let others borrow your words …However long you spend on that, inthe end it is worthwhile.’

And, using an extract from a speechby Gladstone, itself included in GreatLiberal Speeches, quoted by Paddy in hislast speech to the House of Commons,and used once again by more than onespeaker in the conference debate onAfghanistan the day before (less thantwo weeks after September th), heshowed how Gladstone’s words couldspeak to the present:

Do not forget that the sanctity of lifein the hill villages of Afghanistan,amongst the winter snows, is no lessinviolate in the eye of Almighty Godthan can be your own. Do not forgetthat he who made you brothers inthe same flesh and blood, bound youby the laws of universal love and thatlove is not limited to the shores ofthis island, but passes across thewhole surface of the earth, encom-passing the greatest along with themeanest in its unmeasured scope.

As Paddy concluded, ‘Those are wordsfrom the last century, but sentimentsthat are truly Liberal, and we heardthem expressed yesterday. We are, in areal sense, the children of our history.’


With public services firmlyat the top of the politicalagenda and the Liberal

Democrats reviewing their approachfrom first principles, this meetingprovided the opportunity for a timelydiscussion of the Liberal tradition.

The speakers took us back to thenineteenth century, to the policies ofJoseph Chamberlain in Birminghamand the all-but-forgotten Sir JeromMurch in Bath. The meeting high-lighted the crucial role of local govern-ment in Liberal thought and action onpublic services. While today’s debatefocuses on the NHS, transport andeducation, our nineteenth centurycounterparts were concerned withwater and gas services – what we nowcall utilities – and civic investments toaddress social problems.

The first speaker was Professor PeterMarsh, Honorary Professor of Historyat Birmingham University. He de-scribed how, in three terms as Mayor ofBirmingham, from to ,Joseph Chamberlain articulated thecreed of ‘gas and water socialism’pursued through strong local govern-ment and, more importantly, how hemade it happen. His municipal policieswere a prototype for what became the‘New Liberalism’ of the early twenti-eth century, founded on the belief thatgovernment should intervene in theeconomy and the community to tacklesocial problems.

Chamberlain, using his businessexperience, devised a form of publicfinance that sought to provide themaximum services at the lowest cost to

the ratepayer. First, the local gasworkswas placed under municipal control,which produced a profit for the CityCouncil. Second, this money was inturn used to ‘municipalise’ the watersupply in order to reduce the cost ofthis service and to improve waterpurity. Third, Chamberlain launched aslum clearance programme as a publichealth measure and balanced the costagainst that of the jails that would beneeded if people continued to live insqualor. Fourth, he was willing to usepublic money for productive purposes.The slum clearance scheme may havedramatically increased the city’s publicdebt, but the city gained a commercialstrip, Corporation Street, whichboosted the council’s economic base.Fifth, he devised ways to provide newsocial services at lowest cost to thetaxpayer. For example, a workmen’scompensation scheme was funded byplacing a levy on employers, on thebasis that they could pass that cost onto consumers. These moves werewidely applauded; indeed, Birming-ham was lauded as the best governedcity in the industrial world.

Graham Davis of Bath Spa Univer-sity College outlined the very differentexperience of Sir Jerom Murch,Unitarian curate, early practitioner ofcommunity politics and Mayor of Bathtwice during the s. Dr Davisshowed that despite its public image asa genteel city, nineteenth century Bathhad its share of deep poverty, poorhousing, crime and major public healthproblems, in particular a high mortalityrate and outbreaks of cholera and

typhoid. There were some fiercepolitical battles for control of the citycouncil. From the s, the Liberalswere usually dominant on the council– but they relied on the aldermanicsystem and the votes of the industrialartisan classes to keep their power.

Enter Sir Jerom Murch, the ‘JoeChamberlain of Bath’. Dr Davisdescribed his ‘mission … the civicgospel’, which was born out ofMurch’s strong dissenting tradition,and showed how it was married to hisstrong belief that the ruling elite – ofwhich he was actually part – had amoral duty to work for the good of thepeople and across class barriers. Inpractical terms, this meant regeneratingthe power of local government – usingthe revenue from rates to borrow thefunds to pay for civic amenities.Murch’s big scheme was to establish acivic corporation to ensure that everyhouse in Bath had an adequate supplyof water. In an early experiment with‘joined-up government’, he tried tobuild support for the water scheme asfoundation for economic prosperity aswell as a solution to Bath’s health andsocial problems. Yet it was thrown outby a split party and divided council in. Murch pressed on with his civicgospel, trying to increase the wealth ofBath by promoting new hotels andother businesses, trying to put the cityon the map with amenities andbuilding new parks. But he achievedsomewhat less that Chamberlain;indeed, Dr Davis called his career ‘tosome extent a heroic failure’.

Why did ‘Uncle Joe’ succeed whereSir Jerom did not? Professor Marshexplained that Chamberlain was a greatcampaigner and a charismatic politician.Crucially, he was able to make thefinancial case for his policies, helped bythe credibility provided by his account-ing experience and status as a localmanufacturer. Dr Davis agreed thatChamberlain had a far greater under-standing of public finance than Murch.And while Murch was a gifted publicspeaker who could make the moral casefor his policies with great passion, hehad to rely on a council colleague, whowas certainly no communicator, tomake the financial case.

Second, Dr Davis argued that Murch’s

ReportReportReportReportReportPublic Services or State Services? –the Liberal LegacyEvening meeting, February 2002, with Professor

Peter Marsh and Dr Graham DavisReport by Neil StockleyNeil StockleyNeil StockleyNeil StockleyNeil Stockley


remarkable ability to build alliancesacross the community, straddling the classdivide, finally foundered when therepresentatives of the labouring classesdid not back his water scheme. Dr Davissuggested that this may have beenbecause Murch was too much part of theelite at the very time when universalmale suffrage was a major issue in Bath.He represented a paternal, authoritarianstyle of Liberalism and his own personalstyle was somewhat patronising to theworking classes. The nascent tradeunionists eventually went off to followtheir own political star.

The meeting spent some timediscussing the belief systems that drovethe policies of the two men. Dr Daviswas clear that Murch was ‘an apostle ofGladstonian Liberalism’ and that hispolitics were primarily ‘morallydriven’. He wanted to use the councilrates to invest in his city’s prosperityand thereby raise the ‘moral condition’of the people. For his part, ProfessorMarsh argued that Chamberlain had an‘environmentalist ethic’, based on anessentially optimistic belief that themoral well-being of the poor could beimproved by removing the physicalmanifestations of poverty. This wasvery different, he suggested, fromGladstone’s ‘religious ethic’. He alsoperceived a clear difference betweenChamberlain’s enthusiasm for investingpublic money in economic infrastruc-ture and social amenities and theGladstonian traditions of small govern-ment, moral improvement and self-help. Indeed, Professor Marsh believedthat while Chamberlain was a Liberalin name, at least until , he is hardto place on the liberal ideologicalspectrum. This was particularly true inhis later years, after he split the LiberalParty over home rule for Ireland,became ‘the embodiment of the newimperialism’, and then led the assaulton free trade. Instead, Professor Marshpainted Chamberlain as a committeddemocrat, who strongly supported theextension of voting rights to all menand believed in ‘a dictatorship of thedemocratic majority’. Indeed, he wassomething of an authoritarian, whobelieved in strong leadership thatexercised governmental powers to thefull and with as few constraints as

possible, and a radical in that he wasalways prepared to challenge existingpolicies and accepted beliefs.

But Chamberlain and Gladstone maynot have quite represented the ‘yin’ and‘yang’ of nineteenth century Liberalism.The chair, Dr Eugenio Biagini sawthem as compatible at a personal level,in a religious way and in terms of theirsocial/moral influences. And Gladstonewas prepared to use state interventionto advance his aims. He nationalisedrail in the s and land in Ireland in and in the s, passed theEducation Act, and increased grants inaid to local government ten-fold.While he maintained that there was adifference in emphasis over the role ofgovernment spending, Professor Marshagreed with Dr Biagini, to the extentthat up until the home rule crisis,Chamberlain and Gladstone were alliesmore often than not.

Second, on financial matters, DrBiagini argued that there was a closeinterdependence between theGladstonian emphasis on reducing theeconomic role of the state and Cham-berlain’s belief in increased localgovernment spending on services.These were two sides of the same coin,he argued, because retrenchment inLondon meant that local councilscould afford to spend more.

Third, Professor Marsh acknowl-edged that Chamberlain’s belief instrong local government did notrepresent a distinctive strain of politicalthought. Local government enjoyedwidespread, bipartisan support during

the nineteenth century, albeit withConservatives preferring countrymagistrates and Liberals town councils.

So, for today’s debate on publicservices, did Chamberlain and Murchand their colleagues leave today’sLiberal Democrats any kind of legacy?At first glance, the answer seems to beno. The municipal socialism and civicgospel were about reform of what wenow call utilities. In the last years,gas, water (and electricity) have beenmunicipalised, centralised, nationalisedand privatised. Liberal Democrats havefirmly resisted calls to take them backinto public ownership and they arelargely out of the political frame. Butcertain aspects of what Chamberlainand Murch attempted remain relevanttoday. They showed the potential forlocal government as a vehicle foradvancing the public good. LiberalDemocrats continue that commitment,even if today’s councils have less powerthan those led by Chamberlain andMurch. Yes, Chamberlain’s authoritari-anism and Murch’s paternalism may beunwelcome reminders that ‘Newer’Liberalism can be a more ‘top-down’brand of politics than some of us careto admit. But they used an arm of thestate constructively, ignoring the falseboundaries between ‘business’ and‘social’ concerns, developing innova-tive and practical ‘win-win’ solutions.Their real legacy is that when oldapproaches – be they from the marketor from government – fail people anderode their personal freedom, theLiberal instinct is to act.

Liberal Democrat History Group websiteLiberal Democrat History Group websiteLiberal Democrat History Group websiteLiberal Democrat History Group websiteLiberal Democrat History Group website

The new Liberal Democrat History Group website is now up and running, with a new,more professional look and expanded contents. When it is completed (it is currently stillunder construction), you will be able to find on the site:• Latest History Group news, including announcements of meetings, the latest Journal

and new publications• A complete listing of all Journal contents, back to issue 1, and downloadable files (pdf

format) of the oldest issues.• Details of History Group publications and where to buy them.• A complete listing of all History Group meetings and speakers.• A brief history of the party, together with a suggested reading list.• Research resources, including guides to archive sources, and a listing of research in

progress.

What else would you like to see? We welcome your views and comments; email them toMark Pack at [email protected]

See our website at: www.liberalhistory.org.ukwww.liberalhistory.org.ukwww.liberalhistory.org.ukwww.liberalhistory.org.ukwww.liberalhistory.org.uk


This is a book to be proud of.This is not just praise of theeditorial team, who wear their

scholarship with the deceptive light-ness of a Grimond speech. It is atribute to a party which, from centuryto century, through good times andbad, has kept a faith worth keeping.

In the first section of the book, theeditors have had the good fortunewhich favours not only the brave, butthose who understand the issues withwhich they deal. This book was com-plete in proof before September th.When it was written, the Anti-Terror-ism Bill was not yet even a bristle inDavid Blunkett’s beard. Yet the whole ofthe first section, dealing with thereaction against civil liberties provokedby the French Revolution, takes usstraight into the territory we have beendebating since September th.

Charles James Fox on the suspensionof habeas corpus, George Tierney on theSix Acts, down to Macaulay on theGreat Reform Bill, state the traditionsLiberal belief that we do not deal withthe threat of terror by random repres-sion, which maximises the number ofour enemies, but by more legal, andmore selective, methods which separateour natural enemies from our potentialallies. To those of us who have beenthrough recent debates, we might beinside Charles James Fox’s mind: weknow where he will go next. Yet,contrary to the belief fostered by ouropponents that we are dwarfs standingon the shoulders of giants, CharlesKennedy, Shirley Williams and theirHome Affairs team have done it betterthan Fox, who was no minnow in theLiberal aquarium.

Among the inspired selections is thespeech by Earl Grey in against theblockade of Norway. This provides theanswer to the question Nancy Seearonce shot into my ear in the middle ofa boring committee meeting: ‘Whywere we so much in favour of thenation state in the nineteenth century,and so much against it now?’ It is thesimple application of the Lockeiandoctrine of government by consent. Interms of persuasive skills, rather thansheer rhetorical brilliance, this is one ofthe best speeches in the collection. Forthe twentieth century realisation thatgovernment by consent is morecomplex than just a matter of national-ism, one may look at Sir ArchibaldSinclair’s speech in the Munich debateof . That speech is conspicuous forits combination of personal courtesyand devastating evidence. If I had beenat the government dispatch box, Iwould rather have faced twenty ofLloyd George than one of Sinclair: itwas so impossible to ascribe anythinghe said to malice.

The collection is particularly valu-able for its refutation of the mythicalFriedmanite interpretation our Labourand Conservative opponents agree intrying to fix on us. Macaulay, in one ofmany expressions of belief in statesupport for education, warns against ‘adisposition to apply to political ques-tions and moral questions principleswhich are sound only when applied tocommercial questions’. Opponents ofstate education have applied theprinciple of free competition to a caseto which the principle is not applicable.

Any critic of Liberalism should readand re-read the speech by Richard

Cobden, for it is so utterly differentfrom the image Friedmanites havefastened on him. For Cobden, freecompetition was an assault on mo-nopoly, and therefore an assault onprivilege. He casually dismissed hisopponents as ‘the Dukes and Earls’. It ishard to believe that this man, alivetoday, would be champion of theEnrons and Monsantos of this world.He would surely regard them as theenemies, not the allies, of the freemarket. For him, and for his allies, freecompetition was equal competitionwithin the law. Buying Senators, forexample, was not free competition. Ifthe WTO is to continue its resistanceto protection, we must aim at getting itto do so in a more Cobdenite spirit.The task is difficult, but surely notimpossible.

Pride of place, hardly surprisingly,goes to Gladstone, for three speechesso different in style that it is hard torealise they were delivered by the sameman. His speech on Irish Home Rule,in content one which makes a modernLiberal feel inside his mind, is a stylewhich could have been delivered byRobin Cook at his most pugnacious. Itputs the reader in stitches, yet thetreatment of Chamberlain, in particu-lar, confirms all Roy Jenkins’ doubts ofhis political judgement.

Among the surprises, Palmerston’s‘Don Pacifico’ speech, which I hadalways thought of at second hand asrather illiberal, now makes me hopethat a copy is on its way to Harare atthis moment. For criticism of Labour,

ReviewsReviewsReviewsReviewsReviewsKeeping the faithDuncan Brack and Tony Little (eds): Great Liberal

Speeches (Politico’s Publishing, 2001; pp492)Reviewed by Conrad RussellConrad RussellConrad RussellConrad RussellConrad Russell


Churchill and Asquith has pride ofplace, and Asquith’s exposition of howto run a Liberal Party in a three-partysystem is impeccable.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the mostchallenging speech is by Keynes to theLiberal Summer School in . Hisforecast of the key questions is one weare only just catching up with seventy-seven years later. His prediction thatquestions of contraception, marriage lawand the relations of the sexes willbecome politically central is only justbeginning to come true, as is his similarwarning about drugs. His question about

the growing bulk of business Parliamentcannot handle is one we are not yet ontop of. His most serious warning is thatthe economy is becoming so compli-cated that the laws of supply and demandno longer work effectively. When wehave come to terms with these funda-mental insights, casually tossed off, wemay be ready to get started.

Conrad Russell is Professor of History atKing’s College, London, Liberal Democratspokesman on work and pensions in theHouse of Lords, and Honorary President ofthe Liberal Democrat History Group.

which became the key to Gladstoniandecision making: ‘first … to amassinformation, then to weigh theprobabilities, and finally, once a deci-sion was taken, to pursue the policywith undeviating commitment’.

Gladstone prided himself in hisability to spot that the time was ripe totackle an issue but did not alwaysprepare his colleagues for the conclu-sions at which he had arrived or theforceful purpose with which he thenpursued them. Although this laidGladstone open to charges of Jesuiticalcasuistry and to inconsistency, it was thefoundation of his moral strength ofcharacter which in turn was the basis ofhis popularity with the working andnon-conformist classes, a popularityreinforced by his politicisation of theExchequer in the s, particularlywhen he accomplished the abolition ofthe paper tax – a ‘tax on knowledge’ –despite the opposition of his primeminister and the House of Lords.Gladstone’s tax policy eased the creationof a mass media of popular newspapers.

Gladstone quickly demonstratedministerial competence under Peel buthis rise to pre-eminence in parliamentwas more a tribute to his eloquencethan to his man-management skills.Biagini argues that this same oratoricalskill saw him supremely well placed totake advantage of and to channel theenthusiasm of the enlarged electoratewhich emerged from the and reform acts and which formed

With a political career thatspanned more than sixtyyears, William Ewart

Gladstone is the dominant figure inVictorian politics, initially taking officeeven before Victoria came to thethrone and only leaving the premier-ship in . In many ways, he definedthe nature of Victorian Liberalism,based on free trade, fiscal rectitude andthe incorporation into active politicallife of ever-wider groups of thepopulation, in a career which, despiteall his intentions, became progressivelymore radical as it unfolded.

It is no surprise that he has been thesubject of a multitude of biographies.But following Colin Matthew, RichardShannon and Roy Jenkins, who haveall produced different modern biogra-phies, is there room for more? Biagini’svolume looks very much as if it isaimed at the undergraduate market.The great advantage it has over itscompetitors is its length, pagesincluding the index, but this is asuccinct rather than a skimpy tome.The other difference is Biagini’sadoption of a thematic rather thanpurely chronological approach, whichengages with Gladstone on an intellec-tual level, sparing only the minimum

Restorative ConservativismEugenio Biagini: Gladstone (Macmillan Press, 2000)Reviewed by Tony LittleTony LittleTony LittleTony LittleTony Little

necessary space for the incidental andpersonal. This is not the book in whichto explore the complexity of hisdealings with Peel or Palmerston or inwhich all the Home Rule intrigues of are disentangled.

The limitations of space also forceBiagini to focus closely on the forceswhich unified Gladstone’s approachand on his major achievements, whosescale few politicians can hope toapproach – reform of taxation, tariffs,army, church, education and theelectoral system. One cannot hope tounderstand this statesman withoutrecognising the lifelong influenceexercised over him by Burke andButler. From Burke he gained a‘method of historic assessment and hissensitivity for tradition and the possi-bility of change through organicgrowth’ – which reinforcedGladstone’s Platonic notions of theperfectibility of society, producing aform of ‘utopian conservatism’ whichthe Tories of the time were unwillingto acknowledge. It was to EdmundBurke that he turned for the intellec-tual and historic backing for his ideasfor Home Rule. From Bishop Butler

he drew the means to reconcileuncertainty with moral obligation


the readership of the new mass circula-tion papers and periodicals. Radicalssuch as Bright had demonstrated thatthe masses could be mobilised forpositive political purpose, as opposedto mob violence, but Gladstone was apioneer among the ministerial elite inharnessing this force and in utilising itto overcome opposition from theestablishment in both Houses ofParliament. Biagini concludes that histrue strength was not so much theindividual reforms he accomplishedbut that ‘he found the people who livein cottages hostile to political parties,and … succeeded in uniting themwith the rest of his countrymen’.

Biagini has created a first-classintroduction to one of the mostsuccessful and yet baffling of allpremiers, with a fine judgment on thekey controversies. The limitations of

the space within which he has beenconfined may even have been anadvantage in cutting to the essentials ofeach issue. Any diligent reader will bewell equipped to tackle one of themore complex biographies such asMatthew’s or to dip into any numberof the specialist topics derived from themulti-faceted life of the Liberal Party’sgreatest leader. Only the price, atnearly p a page, is a deterrent.

Tony Little is the Chair of the LiberalDemocrat History Group.

1 E Biagini, Gladstone (Macmillan, 2000), pp 11,13.

2 Joseph Butler (1692–1752) English moralphilosopher and divine. Gladstone published atwo-volume edition of his works in 1896.

3 Biagini, Gladstone, p. 13, citing D. W.Bebbington, William Ewart Gladstone: Faith &Politics in Victorian Britain (1993).

4 Biagini, Gladstone, p. 117, quoting NewcastleWeekly Chronicle 7 August 1880.

of Liberal thought driven from theprinciple of international interdepend-ency – where institutions such as theLeague of Nations were held up as thetools by which the greatest good for thegreatest number could be achieved.Whether this was ultimately realisable isobviously a moot point. As J. M. Keynesmade clear, the concept of interdepend-ency could only hold good if a sense ofmutual benefit, equity and ease ofredress existed. None of these factorswere found in abundance following thepeace settlement of . One of themost interesting sections of this book isits chapter on ‘Liberal Thinkers’. Indirect contrast to its electoral weaknessduring the inter-war years the broadchurch of the Liberal Party attractedsome of the biggest intellectual heavy-weights to its pews. Most notable werefigures such as J. M. Keynes, WalterLayton, William Beveridge, GilbertMurray, Lord Lothian (Philip Kerr) andRamsay Muir. These individuals madesignificant contributions to the devel-opment to Liberal policy, in particularin challenging the concept of a belief innational sovereignty as the basis of long-term security, and in developing theconcept of interdependency. Keynes,Layton, Murray and Muir were alsovery active in the influential LiberalSummer Schools, often overlooked byhistorians, but which are covered indepth in this book and provide signifi-cant insights into the development ofLiberal thinking up to .

Grayson provides a particularly clearsummary of the key role from thatthe Liberal Party under Sir Archibald’sSinclair leadership played in leading theopposition to Chamberlain’s appease-ment policy. It is often forgotten thatappeasement was a popular policy withlarge sections of the British population.Sinclair risked unpopularity andaccusations of war-mongering with hisattacks on Chamberlain’s foreign policy,but he built a national reputation forhimself and he enabled the smallparliamentary Liberal Party to punchconsiderably more than its parliamen-tary weight of seventeen MPs.

Grayson makes a critical assessmentof the overall practicality of Liberalpolicies during the interwar period. Hequestions the party’s approach to issues

This book proves the proverbthat you shouldn’t judge abook by its cover. The cover is

terrible. The book is very good, if, atonly pages, a little short for themoney.

Richard Grayson’s latest publicationmakes a significant contribution to thehistory of the British Liberal Party inthe interwar period. It furthers ourunderstanding of the role that theLiberal Parliamentary Party and itsassociated interest groups had indeveloping a coherent opposition to thepolicy of appeasement. Its period ofstudy is from – and, as such, is,ultimately, a study in failure. TheLiberals were increasingly marginalisedafter the fall of the Lloyd GeorgeCoalition in , as a result of theparty’s internal splits between Asquithand Lloyd George and then Samuel and

Internationalism andinterdependencyRichard S. Grayson: Liberals, International Relations

and Appeasement (Frank Cass 2001; pp194)Reviewed by Ian HunterIan HunterIan HunterIan HunterIan Hunter

Simon. These divisions led to theLiberal Party being reduced to a rumpof only seventeen MPs by the late s.Even when the Liberals held thebalance of power (during the twominority Labour Governments of

and –) their ability to shapepolicy was very limited. Liberalismduring this period shifted from being acoherent, credible political competitorfor government to being almost thebrand label for a fragmented pressuregroup of non-socialist radicals. It is a sadstory of lost opportunities and over-looked warnings. But the Liberal Partycan draw comfort from being broadlyright when the majority in both theConservatives and Labour Parties,certainly up until , were decidedlywrong in their opposition to rearma-ment and support for appeasement.

Grayson maps out the development


such as the revision of the VersaillesTreaty and dependency on the Leagueof Nations for resolution of interna-tional conflicts during the s. He issceptical about the Liberal belief andadvocacy of collective security as ananswer to the aggression of Hitler’sGermany. However, as Grayson argues,there was at least as much chance ofthe Liberals’ policy of peace throughcollective security working as therewas of appeasement containing Hitler.Ultimately, on the big issues concern-ing international relations during thes the Liberal Party was more rightthan wrong, which is more than can besaid for either the Tories or the LabourParty. On the ultimately crucial issue of

Hitler, Sinclair’s opposition to appease-ment was absolutely correct, and it isan appalling shame that the electoralfacts of life prevented the Liberalpolicy of opposing German aggressionfrom being put into practice prior tothe invasion of Poland in .

Ian Hunter is completing a part-timedoctorate on the Liberal Party and theChurchill Coalition.

1 The book is 194 pages long including somevery useful appendices on the Liberal SummerSchools, Liberal conferences and extracts fromcontemporary documents on Liberal policy.

2 Richard Grayson has previously publishedAusten Chamberlain and the Commitment toEurope: British Foreign Policy, 1924–29 (FrankCass, 1997).

between the Militants, relying onstrong anti-Thatcher sentiments, andthe Liberals, who sought to highlightthe corruption of the Militant regimeand the damage that they were doingto the city’s reputation and finances.

A number of people who watchedAlan Bleasdale’s drama about thesetimes (GBH) have suggested to me thatthings could not possibly have been asbad as it portrayed. They were far worse.The thuggery, intimidation and corrup-tion were very real. It is hard to describethe damage done to the city when all, city council employees weredeclared redundant. My wife was ateacher, whose redundancy notice wasin a package for all the staff thrownthrough the school kitchen window byone of the many taxi drivers hired todeliver them. Any possible promotionwithin the city’s education system wasclearly blocked as she was a knownopponent of the regime and, in com-mon with many professional people, shewas amongst those effectively forced toleave the city.

I still feel resentment that NeilKinnock’s Labour Party only started toact against the Militants when theirantics became too embarrassing andelectorally damaging to the LabourParty elsewhere. Around the time I leftLiverpool, Peter Kilfoyle returned andwas put in charge of the Labour Party’sorganisation. His book describes thetough approach required as he at-tended up to four branch meetings perevening, trying to ensure that ruleswere upheld and not exploited by theMilitants and their allies. But it was abattle that was won at least as much bythe courage of the Liberals (and thenLiberal Democrats), who continued topresent the only electoral oppositionto the Militants, and by the courts,who eventually disqualified forty-sixmembers of the Labour group frommembership of the council when theyfailed to set a legal rate.

Peter Kilfoyle considers his battleagainst the Militants was won when hewas elected as Eric Heffer’s successor inthe Walton by-election. I thinkthat he was actually a lucky man, whoironically owed his by-election win tothe Militants. But for a totally falseimpression, in an ignorant media, that

Peter Kilfoyle’s fascinatingaccount of Liverpool Labourpolitics has particular interest

for me, as so much of his careerparallels some of my own. His story isone of internecine warfare within theLiverpool Labour Party. His account isthat of a Labour Party activist, officialand then MP whose major battles werenever as clearly focused on winningover the electorate as they were onwinning internal party battles, mostnotably with the Militant Tendency.

I grew up in the part of Liverpoolwhere Focus leaflets first began, in thefirst ward in the city to elect aLiberal councillor and in the onlycity in modern times to be governedby the Liberal Party. As a twelve-year-old activist I remember thesense of excitement on the streetsduring the city elections, whenwe won of the seats on thenew council.

Peter Kilfoyle describes the oppositeemotions about this election, althoughLeft Behind also served to remind me of

Labour and LiverpoolPeter Kilfoyle: Left Behind: Lessons from Labour’s

Heartland (Politico’s Publishing, 2000)Reviewed by Chris RennardChris RennardChris RennardChris RennardChris Rennard

the debilitating rows within my ownparty, as its probably too rapid acces-sion to power meant that the firstLiberal administration included morethan a few members with dubiousbackgrounds. Of course, the authoralso recognises the sincerity anddecency of many of the leadingLiberals of the early ’s, including thelate Cyril Carr (who recruited me tothe party) and Mike Storey, whoremains a very close friend and who isnow proving to be the most formida-ble and effective leader that the city hasever seen.

Liverpool council politics were attheir most notorious in the Militantera, when Labour unexpectedly gainedoverall control of the council in ,in what was probably a reaction againstthe Thatcher Government and theperceived closeness to it of the thenLiberal Leader, Sir Trevor Jones. For thefirst part of this period, Peter Kilfoylehad emigrated to Australia. He missedsome of the classic battles in the city’smedia and in the annual elections


the by-election was a straight Labourversus Militant fight, I am confident thatLiberal candidate Paul Clark (who hadsucceeded Trevor Jones) would have

won. As it was, Paul Clark polled % ofthe vote, the Militant candidate lost herdeposit (as did the Tory) and PeterKilfoyle held the seat with Eric Heffer’smajority cut from , to ,.

I met Peter Kilfoyle recently, foundhim to be a charming man and told himhow much I enjoyed his book. I chosenot to tell him, however, of my own rolein running Paul Clark’s campaign, andhow I felt that with a bit of luck Iwould have kept him out of Parliament– and this very good book wouldprobably never have been written.

Chris Rennard (Lord Rennard of Wavertree)was Secretary of the Liverpool WavertreeConstituency Liberal Association in ,agent to David Alton (Lord Alton ofLiverpool) when he first won his LiverpoolMossley Hill Constituency in , and hasbeen the Liberal Democrats’ Director ofCampaigns and Elections since .

this book. Melbourne, we are told,could smile at anything; it seems hisbiographer is inclined to do the same.

It is not all smiles, however, forMelbourne’s life was frequentlytouched by sadness. His marriage toCaroline Ponsonby was an unhappyone. A romantic dreamer, who saw theworld as an epic poem with herself castas the heroine, Caroline was easily boredand soon turned to men other than herhusband for romantic gratification. Hadshe merely confined herself to discreetaffairs there would not have been aproblem: the era of rigid Victorianmorals (or hypocrisy depending onyour viewpoint) had not yet dawned,and it was still possible to retain yourplace in polite society even whensomeone other than your spouse wasoccupying their place in your bedcham-ber. However, Caroline overstepped themark by the degree to which shepublicised her liaisons, not least astormy affair with the poet Byron,which culminated in her cutting herarms with broken glass in a fit of rageover being spurned by him at a ball.Such tantrums were a serious embar-rassment to the future Lord M, and tothe families on both sides. As a result,repeated efforts were made to persuadeWilliam to separate from his wife, buton more than one occasion he backeddown in the face of emotional demon-strations of regret from Caroline and, asa result, they were not to be finallyseparated until her death in .

Further sadness was to follow withthe illness and premature death of hisson and only child, and with Mel-bourne being named in a divorce caseas a result of an apparently innocentrelationship with Caroline Norton –all of which gives Cecil plenty ofmaterial with which to spin a good oldhistorical yarn.

The dramatic episodes of Mel-bourne’s marriage are not the onlyaspects of this book that keep it frombeing a dry-as-dust political biography.Wit is also present. In a phrase charac-teristic of this biographer’s engagingstyle, Cecil points out that: ‘Like theother young men of his circle, hethought chastity a dangerous state: andhe seems early to have taken practicalsteps to avoid incurring the risks

‘When in doubt what should bedone, do nothing’David Cecil: The Young Melbourne & Lord M

(Phoenix Press, 2001)Reviewed by David NolanDavid NolanDavid NolanDavid NolanDavid Nolan

William Lamb, the nd

Viscount Melbourne(–) was Home

Secretary at the time of the GreatReform Act in and went on tolead the Whig government that heldoffice from to . In the first ofthese roles he was tasked with sup-pressing the violent disturbances thataccompanied the passage of the reformlegislation through Parliament; in thelatter, more famously, he guided theyoung Queen Victoria through herearly years as head of state.

David Cecil’s The Young Melbourneappeared in ; Lord M, his study ofLamb’s ministerial career, followedfifteen years later. The two are nowreissued in a single volume, althoughthey amount to more than a single

‘life’, not least because the first part isas much about his wife CarolinePonsonby as it as about the futurePrime Minister. Both sections, eventhat dealing with the late blossomingof Melbourne’s career, are morepersonal than political biography. Yetthis is almost inevitable given thatMelbourne always gave a higherpriority to personal rather thanpolitical considerations.

Reading Cecil’s book, it is almostpossible to forget that England in theyears following Waterloo was acountry beset by fear of revolution,nonetheless going through a period ofsignificant change and reform. Riotand disorder are mentioned, but theysomehow lose their sting amid themood of calm that prevails through


attendant on it.’ This remark is typicalof a book that is as easy going as thecharacter it depicts.

At the same time as telling his tale,Cecil does find time to exploreMelbourne’s deeply cautious politicaloutlook. He took a sceptical view ofgrand reform schemes put forward byvarious interests, once remarking,‘When in doubt what should be done,do nothing.’ He may have mistrustedreform, but he was ready to accept itwhen he judged it necessary in orderto achieve his most abiding aim, thepreservation of order and tranquillity.On occasion his concern for order ledto mistakes, such as his heavy-handedtreatment of the Tolpuddle Martyrs –one of the few features of his career tocome in for criticism by Cecil – but italso led him to change his mind infavour of an extension of the franchise,and it motivated his constant efforts tochart a middle course between theradical and conservative pressures onhis government from . LikeGladstone later, though less frequentlyand far more reluctantly, his conserva-tive ends sometimes led him to employreforming means.

Unlike Gladstone he got on ex-tremely well with Queen Victoria.Ascending the throne at just eighteen,she looked to her Prime Minister as herprincipal source of advice and guidanceon the execution of her duties. Nor wasit all strictly business; they became veryclose friends who met several times aday as much as a means of mutualsupport than because of any need toattend to matters of state. Indeed,Victoria became so reliant upon him,and as a result so prejudiced against hispolitical opponents, that Melbournehad to work hard to educate her out ofher antipathy to Peel and the Tories. Inthe end though, it was Melbournerather than the Queen who had theharder time adapting to the drasticchange in their acquaintance thatinevitably followed the collapse of hisgovernment in .

With narrative history now verymuch back in fashion it is hardlysurprising that David Cecil’snovelesque and sympathetic study ofMelbourne should now be repub-lished. Whilst it may be rather too

hagiographical by modern standards, itis nonetheless welcome as one of thesurprisingly few biographies of theman currently in print.

David Nolan is Secretary of Crosby &Bootle Liberal Democrats, and an amateurhistorian with an interest in th centuryBritish political history.

The main problem with thisbook is its title. It is not, as thereader might have suspected, a

systematic survey of Lloyd George’sattitude towards the problems of thepeace settlement between the signing ofthe Treaty of Versailles and the fall ofFrance two decades later. It consists infact of a collection of six essays, four ofwhich deal with various aspects of the settlement itself. Furthermore,earlier drafts of all but one of the essayshave already been published, and theauthor himself wrote a monograph onLloyd George, the peace settlement andthe seeds of the next war almost twentyyears ago. Is there, then, much to be saidto justify the present volume?

The answer is an emphatic ‘yes’. It isprecisely because Antony Lentin hasdevoted the majority of his academiccareer to trying to get to grips withthis most slippery of biographicalsubjects that his latest book may beread with such profit. What we have isa perceptive and insightful study of thecomplex Welshman, which at timesborders on the psychoanalytical butwhich rarely fails to convince, such isthe author’s rapport with the subject ofhis enquiries. The analysis of therelationship between Lloyd Georgeand Lord Cunliffe over the negotiationof the reparations settlement is particu-larly persuasive, and represents asignificant modification of acceptedhistorical wisdom. Lentin probablytakes us nearer to a genuine under-standing of what Lloyd George wasseeking to achieve during the peace

The most complex characterAntony Lentin: Lloyd George and the Lost Peace:

From Versailles to Hitler, 1914–1940 (Palgrave,2001)

Reviewed by David DuttonDavid DuttonDavid DuttonDavid DuttonDavid Dutton

negotiations than has been reached byany other author. The British PrimeMinister rejoiced in what he had donein the Versailles settlement, but wasfully aware of the work which re-mained to be tackled. He wouldprobably have endorsed GeneralSmuts’ conclusion that ‘the real workof peace will only begin after thistreaty has been signed’.

A continuous narrative, coveringthe whole period from to ,might have made it easier to makesense of the two final and still some-what bizarre episodes examined in thelast two chapters of this book – LloydGeorge’s visit to Hitler in , and hisresponse to the fall of Poland in ,and the possibility of a compromise


peace when the war turned againstBritain in the spring of . It must,of course, be admitted that such anarrative would be difficult to con-struct, for in the years after the end ofhis premiership in Lloyd George’sattention was understandably directedaway from international affairs andtowards the domestic problems of theBritish economy and the Liberal Party.That said, Lentin shows that LloydGeorge was in no sense Hitler’s dupe.All the same, it is difficult to avoid theconclusion that he misjudged his man.There were aspects of Hitler to whichLloyd George was instinctively drawn,not least because Hitler was enactingin Germany some of the social andeconomic policies which the Welsh-man had unsuccessfully urged uponthe National Government in Britain.

John Davies is the eldest son of Ivor Davies,born in and educated at the universitiesof Oxford and Sheffield, recently retired fromthe Publishers Association where he was Di-rector of the Educational Publishers Council,the Council of Academic and ProfessionalPublishers, the Serial Publishers Executive,the Copyright Licensing Agency and thePublishers Licensing Society

1 Edinburgh University Personality Series No. 11– Ivor R.M. Davies in The Student, 1 February1938, p 161.

2 Reported in The Bulletin (Aberdeen) July 1937.3 Election addresses: Oxford 1938, Central Aber-

deenshire 1945, West Aberdeenshire 1950,Oxford 1955, 1959, 1964.

4 Profile of the Rev. Roderick G Davies in TheChristian World, 16 May 1940, p. 3.

5 e.g. lead feature in Glasgow Weekly Herald, 5December 1936: ‘The Milk Muddle’ by IvorR.M. Davies, p. 8.

6 Ian Bradley – ‘Oxford 1938 – the first ‘War’vote’ – The Times, 27 October 1978, p. 16.

7 Ivor R M Davies, Trial By Ballot (London, 1950),pp. 143–44.

8 Quoted by Tom Harrisson, co-founder of MassObservation, in Picture Post, 5 November 1938.

9 ‘Recount Drama ends Darwen Contest’ inNorthern Daily Telegraph, 1943.

10 ‘Central Aberdeenshire – Result of Poll’ inHuntly Express 27 July 1945 p. 3.

11 See article by Robert Ingham, ‘Donald Johnson– the last Liberal Imperialist’, Journal of LiberalDemocrat History 25, Winter 1999–2000, p. 31.

12 Reviewed in Times Literary Supplement 23 June1950 p. 383, Truth 18 August 1950 p. 167, The

But to suggest that, had Lloyd Georgerather than Neville Chamberlain beenin power in the late s, some sort ofAnglo-German understanding wouldhave been arrived at, presupposes thatBritain could, in anything other thanthe very short term, have lived inharmony with a Nazi Germanyrampant and unrestrained in continen-tal Europe.

There is plenty here to stimulate thereader, though at the end of the day hemay still decide that Lloyd George willforever escape the conclusive grasp ofhistorical comprehension. As his long-term secretary, A. J. Sylvester, once putit, ‘his character is the most complex Ihave ever known’.

David Dutton is Reader in History at theUniversity of Liverpool.

‘Let us open to them thedoor of the House ofCommons’

continued from page 21

be displayed. Till we have done this, letus not presume to say that there is nogenius among the countrymen ofIsaiah, no heroism among the de-scendants of the Maccabees.

Sir, in supporting the motion of myhonourable friend, I am, I firmly be-lieve, supporting the honour and theinterests of the Christian religion. Ishould think that I insulted that reli-gion if I said that it cannot stand un-aided by intolerant laws. Without suchlaws it was established, and withoutsuch laws it may be maintained. It tri-umphed over the superstitions of themost refined and of the most savagenations, over the graceful mythologyof Greece and the bloody idolatry ofthe northern forests. It prevailed overthe power and policy of the RomanEmpire. It tamed the barbarians bywhom that empire was overthrown.But all these victories were gained notby the help of intolerance, but in spiteof the opposition of intolerance. Thewhole history of Christianity provesthat she has little indeed to fear frompersecution as a foe, but much to fearfrom persecution as an ally. May shelong continue to bless our countrywith her benignant influence, strongin her sublime philosophy, strong inher spotless morality, strong in thoseinternal and external evidences towhich the most powerful and compre-hensive of human intellects haveyielded assent, the last solace of thosewho have outlived every earthly hope,the last restraint of those who areraised above every earthly fear! But letnot us, mistaking her character and herinterests, fight the battle of truth withthe weapons of error, and endeavourto support by oppression that religionwhich first taught the human race thegreat lesson of universal charity.

Economist 19 August 1950, The Press and Jour-nal 13 May 1950, and elsewhere.

13 Ivor Davies: obituary in The Bookseller by JohnDavies, 5 December 1986, p. 2240.

14 ‘Mr Davies adopted for Oxford’, Oxford Mail, 7June 1952.

15 ‘City Tory majority slashed’, Oxford Times, 16October 1964 p. 28.

16 ‘Mr Ivor Davies to stand for Oxford City Coun-cil’, Oxford Mail 28 February 1953.

17 Oxford City Council Liberal election address,Wolvercote Ward 1970.

18 Our Olive (Oxford 1989) p. 95.19 Bernard Levin, writing as Taper in The Spectator,

September 1961.20 ‘Ivor Davies – the Man for Oxford’, Liberal

News General Election Campaign edition 1964,p. 1.

21 ‘A royal reward’, Oxford Mail, 1 November1984 p. 7.

22 ‘Man of influence for four decades’, OxfordMail, 3 December 1986 p. 2. There was noobituary in Liberal News.

Bibliographical Note: At their deaths inthe late s, Ivor and Jean Davies left be-hind them a significant collection of presscuttings, election literature and other docu-ments related to their political activities.These have been drawn upon for this articleand, where attributed and relevant, some ofthem are cited in the footnotes. The content ofthe article, however, also owes much to eye-witness observation and conversations withinthe family and with friends of the subjectover many years.

Keeper of the Liberal Flameconctinued from page 25

A Liberal Democrat History Group Evening Meeting

Old Liberals, New Liberals and Social Democrats:The Liberal Democrats’ Political HeritageAt this year’s autumn conference, the Liberal Democrats will debate the party’s core values and principles indetail for only the second time since the party was formed in 1988. Some will see the party as a largely acontinuation of the Liberal tradition; others will argue that the influence of Social Democratic thinking is toooften overlooked. In reality, is the party the political heirs of the socially reforming New Liberals of the earlytwentieth century? This meeting will try to shed light on the party’s philosophical antecedents.

Speakers: Baroness Shirley WilliamsBaroness Shirley WilliamsBaroness Shirley WilliamsBaroness Shirley WilliamsBaroness Shirley Williams (Liberal Democrat leader in the House of Lords and co-founder of theSDP), EarlEarlEarlEarlEarl (Conrad) RussellConrad) RussellConrad) RussellConrad) RussellConrad) Russell (Professor of History, King’s College London and author of An IntelligentPerson’s Guide to Liberalism) and Professor Michael FreedenProfessor Michael FreedenProfessor Michael FreedenProfessor Michael FreedenProfessor Michael Freeden (Mansfield College, Oxford and author of TheNew Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform).

6.30 pm, Monday 1 JulyLady Violet Room, National Liberal Club, London SW1

Now available from the Liberal Democrat History Group:

Great LiberalSpeechesBringing together in one volume more than forty-five of thegreatest Liberal speeches by the greatest Liberal speech-makers, from Charles James Fox to Charles Kennedy.

Great Liberal Speeches includes:• Jo Grimond, ‘The sound of gunfire’• Roy Jenkins’ Dimbleby Lecture• David Lloyd George, ‘We can conquer unemployment’• David Steel, ‘Go back to your constituencies’• W. E. Gladstone, ‘Ireland stands at your bar’• Paddy Ashdown, Chard speech on realignment• Henry Campbell-Bannerman, ‘Methods of barbarism’

and speeches by Macaulay, Palmerston, J. S. Mill, Bright,Keynes, Beveridge, Asquith, Conrad Russell, and manymore. Each speech is given a concise introduction setting itin context and explaining its impact. The book opens withgeneral introductions on the evolution of Liberal thinking andthemes (by Tony Little Tony Little Tony Little Tony Little Tony Little and Duncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan BrackDuncan Brack) and on the art ofpolitical rhetoric (by Max Atkinson, Max Atkinson, Max Atkinson, Max Atkinson, Max Atkinson, author of Our Masters’Voices).

Great Liberal Speeches will be a unique source of referencefor anyone interested in the contribution of Liberals andLiberalism to British politics, and in the importance andimpact of political speech-making.

Great Liberal Speeches is available from:

Politico’s Political Bookstore,Politico’s Political Bookstore,Politico’s Political Bookstore,Politico’s Political Bookstore,Politico’s Political Bookstore,8 Artillery Row, Westminster, London SW1P 1RZTel: 020 7828 0010 Fax: 020 7828 8111

the suffragette revolt - liberal history...the suffragette revolt dr j. graham jones lloyd george...

Documents