Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:44:26.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yorkshire Liberalism during the First World War

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

George L. Bernstein
George L. Bernstein
Affiliation:
Tulane University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

For some time now, the narrative of the Liberal party's demise during the First World War has been fairly firmly defined. The war imposed strains on liberal ideology by forcing Liberals to compromise long-cherished policies such as free trade, a free market and a volunteer army. Concurrently, a growing division among Liberals emerged over how to conduct the war. H. H. Asquith and his supporters were increasingly reluctant to accept further compromises of voluntarism and the market mechanism for allocating resources; David Lloyd George and his supporters demanded massive government intervention in every aspect of the economy to mobilize the nation for total war. The replacement of Asquith by Lloyd George as prime minister in December 1916 marked the triumph of the latter approach. Traditional liberalism as a practical ideology of government was now discredited. The Liberal party was left with no unity or purpose. The leaders disliked and distrusted each other; there was no agreement on policy or the future direction of the party. Thus, it was in no position by the end of the war to compete with the resurgent Conservative and Labour parties for the allegiance of the British voter.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 107 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 I would like to acknowledge my debt to the American Philosophical Society, whose grant from the Penrose Fund helped finance the research for this article.

2 Wilson, Trevor, The downfall of the Liberal party 1914–1935 (Ithaca, NY, 1966)Google Scholar, chs. 1–5, offers the authoritative version of this interpretation. It is evident, however, in most works on the subject. See, for example, Bentley, Michael, The Liberal mind 1914–1929 (Cambridge, 1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar;David, Edward, ‘The Liberal party divided 1916–1918’, Historical Journal, XIII, 3 (1970), 509–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar;Adams, R. J. Q., ‘Asquith's choice: the May Coalition and the coming of conscription, 1915–1916’, Journal of British Studies, XXV, 3 (1986), 243–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 SeePelling, Henry, Social geography of British elections, 1885–1910 (London, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chs. 11, 13.

4 The evidence on Yorkshire liberalism is derived from eight Yorkshire Liberal newspapers. Apart from Middlesborough and York, they represent the principal Yorkshire parliamentary boroughs under the third Reform Act. Six of these papers are from woollen district cities – Bradford (2), Leeds, Dewsbury, Halifax, and Huddersfield – and among them they cover the political activities of the entire district. This region was the centre of greatest Liberal strength in the county. The other two represent opinion in Sheffield and Hull, the two largest Yorkshire parliamentary boroughs outside the woollen district. Most of the information on Liberal views comes from the editorial columns of these newspapers. Since Liberal political activity stopped for the duration of the war, there were few meetings and speeches. Furthermore, the Bradford Daily Telegraph ceased to publish leaders soon after the formation of the coalition in 1915; the Yorkshire Evening News (Leeds) stopped publishing them from September 1914 to March 1917; and the Eastern Morning News (Hull) tended to limit its comments to the progress of the war itself – though it commented often enough on political issues to make clear its political leanings. Thus, from the spring of 1915 to the spring of 1917, only five or six (depending on what the Eastern Morning News did) of the eight would editorialize on an issue raised by the war; from September 1914 to the spring of 1915, and from March 1917 to November 1918, six or seven out of the eight did so.

5 Bradford DAily Telegraph, 4 Augest 1914, p. 3. See also Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 3 Augest 1914, p. 2; and Yorkshire Observer, 17 August 1914, p. 4.

6 Several papers remained unhappy with Grey's diplomacy during the years preceding the war. Yorkshire Observer, 5, 6 August 1914, p. 4. Sheffield Independent, 5, 7 August 1914, p. 4. Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 5 August 1914, p. 2.

7 Letter from Griffith-Jones, Yorkshire Observer, 21 August 1914, p. 9. Speech byDawson, , Halifax Evening Courier, 1 11 1915, p. 2Google Scholar.

8 Eastern Morning News, 20 April 1915, p. 2. Bradford Daily Telegraph, 22 September 1914, p. 2. See also, Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 18 May 1915, p. 2; Dewsbuty Reporter, 14 August 1915, p. 5; Yorkshire Observer, 25 February 1916, p. 6.

9 Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 7, 19 August, 1 October 1914, p. 2.

10 Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 6 January, 3 February, 9 April, 3 August 1915, p. 2. The Bradford Daily Telegraph, 5 April 1915, p. 4 (To Day's City Topics), and the Sheffield Independent, 7 April 1915, p. 4, also condemned those who sought to prevent the ILP from meeting. The Yorkshire Observer, 1 December 1915, p. 6, while condemning the attacks on UDC meetings, felt ‘bound to admit that the Union of Democratic Control have aroused a natural resentment by their methods. A peace propaganda in England at the present moment is inopportune and even mischievous.’ The Dewsbury Reporter was more forthright in its vindication of free speech; 18 November 1916, p. 3 (Notes and Comments).

11 Sheffield Independent, Halifax Evening Courier, 22 December 1915, p. 4. See also Yorkshire Observer, 15, 27 March 1915, p. 11; 19 April 1915, p. 9; 1 May 1915, p. 10; Bradford Daily Telegraph, 2 December 1915, p. 7; Halifax Evening Courier, 22 December 1915, p. 5;Morris, A. J. A., C. P. Trevelyan 1870–1958: portrait of a Radical (New York, 1977), pp. 128–30Google Scholar.

12 Dewsbury Reporter, 19 February 1916, p. 8 (Notes and Comments). Several local Liberals were critical when the Huddersfield Liberal Club dropped Sherwell as a vice-president; Yorkshire Observer, 28 February 1916, p. II. It was Sherwell's vote against the conscription bill of January 1916 that precipitated action against him.

13 Yorkshire Observer, 3 March 1916, p. 6. Five papers were sympathetic to the aliens; two did not comment on the issue. The Eastern Morning News was rabidly anti-alien and wanted more drastic action. Letters in the Yorkshire Observer, 9–22 June 1916, dealing with the question of internment of naturalized British citizens of German origin, divided against the naturalized aliens by roughly ten to seven.

14 Dewsbury Reporter, 5 February 1916 (leader). The attempt by the government to have offences under the Defence of the Realm Act subject to military courts was one instance when the most radical of the Yorkshire papers spoke out in defence of civil liberties. Sheffield Independent, Huddersfield Daily Examiner and Yorkshire Observer, 25 February 1915 (leaders).

15 Six papers adopted a moderate position; three of those showed sympathy with state purchase. The Dewsbtay Reporter was the only paper which criticized the government for its failure to act decisively; 8 May 1915, 8 July 1916, 31 March 1917, p. 8.

16 Three of the newspapers did not comment on the McKenna duties. The leader in the Dewsbury Reporter was friendly, but the Notes and Comments column was hostile; Dewsbury Reporter, 25 September 1915, pp. 5, 8. Liberal politicians tended to be more understanding than the press. See the Sheffield Independent and the Bradford Daily Telegraph, 22 September 1915, p. 5.

17 Labour had some advantage over the other two parties because the Trades Councils continued to meet on a monthly basis. While they were technically non-political, they often served as forums for discussing political issues raised by the war. SeeClinton, Alan. The Trade Union rank and file; Trades Councils in Britain 1900–40 (Manchester, 1977)Google Scholar, ch. 4.

18 Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 26 May 1915, p. 2. Yorkshire Observer, 22 May 1915, p. 6. The press was unanimous in absolving the Conservative party leaders from any responsibility for the intrigue. It was all the fault of the ‘gutter’ press.

19 Dewsbury Reporter, 29 May 1915, p. 8 (Notes and Comments). The press also was furious about the dropping of R. B. Haldane.

20 Sheffield Independent, 7 June 1915, p. 4. Only the Eastern Morning News gave the coalition an unreserved endorsement; 20, 26 May 1915, p. 2. For evidence of continued Liberal dislike of the coalition, seeWindsor, George, president of the Sowerby Division Liberal Association, at the annual meeting, Halifax Evening Courier, 21 02 1916, p. 3Google Scholar; and Joseph Henry (of West Leeds) to Viscount Gladstone, 18/26 November 1916, quoted inBentley, , The Liberal mind, P. 23Google Scholar.

21 Yorkshire Observer, 28 May 1915, p. 6. The following papers accused the government's critics of treason: Sheffield Independent, 17 September 1915, p. 4; Bradford Daily Telegraph, 26 October 1915, p. 4 (To Day's City Topics); Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 29 October 1915, p. 2.

22 Halifax Evening Courier, 12 September 1916, p. 2. There was a growing tendency on the part of Liberals to lionize Asquith. See, for example, Yorkshire Observer, 6 November 1915, p. 6; Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 1 November 1915, p. 2. C. P. Scott, however, was ready to get rid of Asquith by the end of 1915;Wilson, Trevor, The political diaries of C. P. Scott 1911–1928 (Ithaca, NY, 1970), p. 163Google Scholar (diary, 11–15 December 1915).

23 French, David, ‘The rise and fall of “Business as Usual’”, in Burk, Kathleen, (ed.) War and the state: the transformation of British government, 1914–1919 (London, 1982), pp. 7–27Google Scholar.Barnett, L. Margaret, British food policy during the First World War (London, 1985), pp. 20–34Google Scholar. For the view that the crisis in May 1915 represented a challenge to the laissez-faire policies of Asquith's Liberal government by those who wanted state allocation of resources, seeGollin, A. M., Proconsul in politics: a study of Lord Milner in opposition and in power (London, 1964), pp. 260–2Google Scholar.

24 Yorkshire Observer, 14 November 1914, p. 6. Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 8 December 1914, p. 2. Halifax Evening Courier, 12 January 1915, p. 2. Dewsbury Reporter, 27 February 1915, p. 8 (Notes and Comments).

25 Barnett, , British food policy, pp. 37–43Google Scholar.

26 Bradford Daily Telegraph, 30 September 1916, p. 4 (To-Day's City Topics). Sheffield Independent, 30 May, 31 July, 24 and 25 August 1916, p. 4. Halifax Evening Courier, 16 November 1916, p. 2. Yorkshire Observer, 16, 18 November 1916, pp. 6, 4. Dewsbury Reporter, 25 November 1916, p. 5.

27 Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 14 July 1915, p. 2. Sheffield Independent, 22 July 1915, p. 4. The Yorkshire Observer agreed with the Independent on coercion. By the summer of 1918, the entire press was attacking strikes by Midland engineers and a threatened strike by South Wales railwaymen, and all endorsed the threat of strong government action.

28 Dewsbury Reporter, 29 May 1915, p. 5. See also Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 17 June, 1 July 1915, p. 2; Yorkshire Observer, 30 December 1915, p. 6.

29 The Huddersfield Daily Examiner, Dewsbury Reporter and Sheffield Independent were unreconciled to the measure. The Bradford Daily Telegraph and the Halifax Evening Courier accepted it with resignation. The Yorkshire Observer hated the bill, but it accepted the need to preserve national unity. The Eastern Morning News had opposed conscription, but it supported the bill to get the slackers who were avoiding military service.

30 Halifax Evening Courier, 21 February 1916, p. 3. See also CouncillorDawson, Harry of Huddersfield, Halifax Evening Courier, 11 03 1916, p. 2Google Scholar; and Councillor Arthur Neal at the Sheffield Liberal Federation, Sheffield Independent, 30 May 1916, p. 5. See the Halifax Evening Courier, 13 January 1916, p. 2, for the Liberal M.P.s who voted against the second reading.

31 Hogg, is quoted in the Dewsbury Reporter, 27 05 1916, p. 1Google Scholar. The Halifax Evening Courier, Dewsbury Reporter, Yorkshire Observer and Sheffield Independent spoke out on behalf of the conscientious objectors.

32 See, for example, Eastern Morning News, 20 April 1916, p. 2; Yorkshire Observer, 24 April 1916, p. 6 (London Letter); Sheffield Independent, 21 April, 8 May 1916, pp. 2, 4; Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 8 May 1916, p. 2; Dewsbury Reporter, 13 May 1916, p. 5.

33 McGill, Barry, ‘Asquith's predicament, 1914–1918,’ Journal of Modem History, XXXIX, 3 (1967), 290Google Scholar. According to McGill, thirty-five Liberal M.P.s voted against the first reading of the conscription bill in January. This division, with some forty M.P.s at each extreme and the rest in the middle, was comparable to that which had been evident on external policy issues in the prewar Liberal party. SeeBernstein, George L., ‘Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and the Liberal imperialists,’ Journal of British Studies, XXIII, 1 (1983), 109–10Google Scholar; andBernstein, George L., Liberalism and liberal politics in Edwardian England (London, 1986)Google Scholar, ch. 8.

34 Halifax Evening Courier, 2 December 1916, p. 2. Eastern Morning News, 4 December 1916, p. 2. Yorkshire Observer, 6 December 1916, p. 4. Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 7 December 1916, p. 2.

35 Yorkshire Observer, 25 November 1916, p. 4 (London Letter). Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 5 December 1916, p. 2. See also, Sheffield Independent, 6 December 1916, p. 4; and Dewsbury Reporter, 9 December 1916, p. 5. The Eastern Morning News, 9 December 1916, p. 2, states the same dichotomy in terms less favourable to Asquith and more favourable to Lloyd George. SeeBentley, , The Liberal mind, p. 44Google Scholar, for Liberals' acute sense that the division was a moral one.

36 Yorkshire Observer, 11 December 1916, p. 6. See also, Dewsbury Reporter, 16 December 1916, p. 5; Sheffield Independent, 8 December 1916, p. 4.

37 David, , ‘Liberal party divided,’ pp. 513–14Google Scholar. Wilson believes that Asquith also was unwilling to formalize the split in the party by having Liberals vote in opposing lobbies.Wilson, , Downfall of the Liberal party, pp. 106–9Google Scholar.

38 Wilson, , Diaries of C. P. Scott, pp. 304, 322, 327–8 (diary, 28 September, 16–19 and 28 December 1917, 7–8 January 1918)Google Scholar.

39 Ibid. pp. 298, 287 (diary, 10 August 1917; Murray to Scott, 5 May 1917). The friction between the two sets of partisans extended to the Reform and National Liberal Clubs, both of which were dominated by Asquith's followers.Bentley, , The Liberal mind, pp. 58–9Google Scholar.

40 If the Maurice debate of May 1918 is taken as a test of the attitudes of the papers consulted to Lloyd George's government, only the Eastern Morning News was favourable. The Halifax Evening Courier, Yorkshire Observer, Dewsbury Reporter, Huddersfield Daily Examiner and Sheffield Independent all criticized the government's position. Yorkshire M.P.s also tended to be Asquithian. In the Maurice debate, eighteen Yorkshire M.P.s voted in favour of the opposition motion for a select committee, four voted with the government, and twelve did not vote. Parliamentary debates, house of commons, 5, CV, 2401–2406 (9 May 1918).

41 John Turner, ‘Cabinets, committees and secretariats; the higher direction ofavar’; Rodney Lowe, ‘The ministry of labour, 1916–19: a still, small voice?’, in Burk, War and the state, chs. 3, 5.Barnett, , British food policy, pp. xiv–xviiiGoogle Scholar.

42 Halifax Evening Courier, 9 August 1917, p. 2. The Evening Courier could be severe in its criticism on particular issues, but was not looking for excuses to criticize.

43 Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 14 June 1917, p. 2. Five of the papers supported the price ceiling policy. The Halifax Evening Courier, 27 August 1917, p. 2; and the Dewsbury Reporter, 22 September 1917, p. 8 (Notes and Comments), opposed it.

44 Yorkshire Evening News, 23 October 1917, p. 2.

45 Yorkshire Observer, 4 October 1917, p. 6. Even the government's most severe critics were friendly to Geddes: Dewsbury Reporter, 13 October 1917, p. 8 (Notes and Comments); Sheffield Independent, 10 October 1917, p. 2. Only the Eastern Morning News supported the army's demands for more men.

46 Sheffield Independent, 26 November 1917, p. 2. The Yorkshire Observer, 16 November 1917, p. 4; Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 28 November 1917, p. 2; Yorkshire Evening News, 28 November 1917, p. 2; and Dewsbury Reporter, 1 December 1917, p. 3 (Notes and Comments) all attacked the new regulations. Only the Eastern Morning News, 17 November 1917, p. 2, welcomed them.

47 On conscientious objectors, see Yorkshire Evening News, 22 November 1917, p. 2; and Yorkshire Observer, 5 December 1917, p. 4. See also Yorkshire Observer, 5 July 1917, p. 5 (on Leeds City Council); 8 March 1918, p. 6 (on Dewsbury Tow n Council); and Dewsbury Reporter, 9 March 1918, p. 8 (Notes and Comments).

48 The Dewsbury Reporter, 8 December 1917, p. 5; Sheffield Independent, 30 November 1917, p. 4; and Yorkshire Observer, 30 November 1917, p. 4, all expressed sympathy with that part of Lord Lansdowne's letter calling for a statement of war aims. None showed any interest in a negotiated peace. The Halifax Evening Courier and Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 30 November 1917, p. 2, saw the letter as well-meaning but misguided. The Eastern Morning News was hostile; 1 December 1917, p. 2.

49 Storey to theBarkston Ash Liberal Association, Yorkshire Observer, 23 04 1917, p. 10Google Scholar.

50 Sheffield Independent, 11 February 1918, p. 2. For other examples of the idealism which the League embodied, see Yorkshire Observer, 9 October 1918, p. 4; Dewsbury Reporter, 5 October 1918, p. 3. For Liberal foreign policy ideals before the war, see Bernstein, Liberalism and Liberal politics, ch. 8.

51 Eastern Morning News, 13 February 1918, p. 2. The same point is made by the Halifax Evening Courier, 6 March 1918, p. 2; and the Yorkshire Evening News, 27 September 1918, p. 2.

52 SeeBernstein, , Liberalism and Liberal politics, pp. 10, 58–9, 130–40Google Scholar and 146, for the pre-war Liberal attitudes toward housing, industrial relations and the minimum wage.

53 Yorkshire Observer, 16 September 1918, p. 8.

54 Bradford Daily Telegraph, 30 November 1918, p. 3. Sheffield Independent, 19 November 1918, p. 4.

55 Eastern Morning News, 25, 28 November 1918, p. 4; 6 December 1918, p. 6. Bradford Daily Telegraph, 13 December 1918, p. 8.

56 Yorkshire Evening News, 4, 9 December 1918, p. 2; 12, 13 December 1918, p. 4. ForWhitley, and Mallalieu, , see Halifax Evening Courier, 3 12 1918, p. 3Google Scholar; Yorkshire Observer, 4 December 1918, p. 9. Both claimed not to have the coupon, but both were listed by The Times as coalition Liberals. Sowerby Conservatives wanted to run an official candidate well before Higham repudiated the coupon, but intervention from London blocked them. See Yorkshire Observer, 25 November to 4 December 1918. F. Handel Booth, another supporter in the Maurice debate, faced official coalition opposition.

57 This analysis is based on reports of speeches by Liberal candidates in the eight newspapers looked at, plus election addresses when published and some leading articles.

58 This is one of the principal themes developed in Bernstein, Liberalism and Liberal politics, chs. 5–8.

59 Taylor, A. J. P., English history 1914–1945 (Oxford, 1965), p. 67Google Scholar.

60 A piece of evidence that Yorkshire was not exceptional is provided by the 1922 general election. The Asquith Liberals polled some 700,000 more votes than the Lloyd George Liberals, and roughly the same number of votes as the unaffiliated Liberals and the Lloyd George Liberals put together. Nor was there any regional concentration of Asquithian strength.Kinnear, Michael, The British voter: an atlas and survey since 1885 (Ithaca, NY, 1968), pp. 40–2Google Scholar.