Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T05:33:22.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Liberalism and the Progressive Alliance in the Constituencies, 1900–1914: Three Case Studies

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

The reasons for the decline of the Liberal party in Britain, and its replacement by the Labour party as the representative of the left, continue to be the subject of debate among historians of twentieth-century British politics. An important point at issue has been whether or not the Liberal decline had irreversibly set in prior to World War I; or if the war itself with the strains it placed on liberal ideology and the relationship among the party's most prominent leaders, and with the stimulus it provided for a more militant working class, was the catalyst for decline. There can be no question that the Liberal party was critically dependent upon the support of working-class voters for its viability as an alternative party of government.1 Thus, a major issue of contention among historians of Liberal politics has been the party's success or failure before August 1914 in retaining the allegiance of this crucial electoral base.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 617 - 640
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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 Pellting, Henry, Social geography of British elections, 1885–1910 (London, 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Clarke, P. F., Lancashire and the new liberalism (Cambridge, 1971).CrossRefGoogle ScholarEmy, H. V., Liberals, radicals and social politics, 1892–1914 (Cambridge, 1973).CrossRefGoogle ScholarClarke, Peter, Liberals and social democrats (Cambridge, 1978).CrossRefGoogle ScholarFreeden, Michael, The new liberalism: an ideology of social reform (Oxford, 1978).Google Scholar

3 For a discussion of how new the liberalism of this period was, see George Bernstein, L., ‘Liberalism and the Liberal party in Britain, 1899–1908’ (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1978), especially chaps, vi and viii.Google Scholar

4 Hawkins, C. B., Norwich: a social study (London, 1910),Google Scholar chaps, iii and iv, pp. 20, 80, 137–40, 278. Fox, Alan, A history of the National Union of Boot and Shot Operatives, 1874–1957 (Oxford, 1958), pp. 227, 244, 279, 283–4.Google Scholar

5 Eastern Daily Press, 25 October, 1901, p. 3.

6 Ibid. 2 October, 1903, p. 5.

7 Ibid. 9 October, 1903, p. 3.

8 Ibid. 4, 5 February, 1903, p. 5; 27 September, 1902, p. 7.

9 Ibid. 18 September, 1902, p. 7. See also the meeting of the Lakenham Ward Liberal Association, ibid., 27 September, 1902, p. 3.

10 Ibid. 22 April 1903, p. 6. No mention was made at this time of Tillett's condition that the second seat be left open. It was, however, often publicized during and after the by-election. See the Eastern Weekly Press, 9 January, 1904, p. 4.

11 Sec, for example, the statement by George White, the Eastern Weekly Press, 23 January, 1904., p. 6. For the coverage of the by-election, see the Eastern Daily Press, 31 December, 1903, and the first three weeks of January 1904.

12 Eastern Daily Press, 14 March, 1904, pp. 4, 10. Eastern Weekly Press, 12 March, 1904, pp. 4–5; 16 April, 1904, pp. 4–5; 25 June, 1904, p. 4.

13 Easter Daily Press, 7 October, 1904, p. 6.

14 Ibid. 10 February, 1905, pp. 3–4; 18 February, 1905, pp. 4–6.

15 Norwich was divided into sixteen wards, and each ward had three town councillors. Each town councillor had to defend his seat once every three years. Thus, every year one seat in each ward fell vacant and could be contested in the November municipal elections. Henderson, who was elected in 1902, had to defend his seat in Fye Bridge in 1905. The structure in Norwich was that of most English cities and towns. All also usually had sixteen aldermen elected by the council, eight every three years. In many cities (including Norwich), the parties made agreements on the allocation of aldermanic seats.

16 Eastern Daily Press, 30 April, 1903, p. 6.

17 Ibid. 21 September, 1906, p. 3. Emphasis is Henderson's.

18 Ibid. 28 September, 1906, p. 8; 24 October, 1906, p. 9; 15 October, 1907, p. 6; 24 October, 1, 30 November, 1907, p. 5; 31 October, 1908, pp. 5, 9; 5 November, 1908, p. 5.

19 See, for example, his speech, ibid., 27 September, 1911, p. 5.

20 See for example, ibid. 6, 27 October, 1909, p. 5; 25 October, 1911, p. 7; 17 October 1912, 23, 31 October, 3 November, 1913, p. 5.

21 This was most evident between 1910 and 1913. See ibid, for October and early November of those years. Tillett was the one Liberal able to force the socialists on the defensive, and they spent much time at their political meetings answering his taunts.

22 Hennock, E. P., Fit and proper persons: ideal and reality in nineteenth-century urban government (London, 1973), pp. 353–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarMaurice, Warwick Beresford and Jones, G. R. J. (eds), Leeds and its region (Leeds, 1967), pp. 156–65.Google ScholarCharles, Bungay Fawcett (ed), General handbook, British Association for the Advancement of Science: Leeds meeting, 1927 (Leeds, 1927), pp. 253–73.Google Scholar

23 Hennock, Fit and proper persons, pp. 223–85.

24 Bealey, Frank and Pelling, Henry, Labour and politics, 1900–1906: a history of the Labour Representation Committee (London, New York, 1958), pp. 163–64.Google Scholar

25 Leeds and Yorkshire Mercury, 2 November, 1905, p. 6. The Mercury and Councillor Kinder did not agree with Henry that the vote implied a movement in favour of socialism; ibid. pp. 4, 6.

26 Ibid. 9 February, 1905, p. 4; 23 February, 1905, pp. 4, 6; 2 September, 1905, p. 6.

27 Ibid. 27 November, 1905, p. 5; 30 November, 1905, p. 4; 2 December, 1905, p. 4; 8, 13 December, 1905, p. 6; 15 December, 1905, p. 5; 16 December, 1905, p, 4. Lawson Walton to Herbert Gladstone, 12 December, 1904, 18 March, 5, 14, 28 November, 1905; Sir James Kitson to Gladstone, 7 December, 1905; British Museum, Viscount Gladstone papers, Add. MSS 46062, fos. 49–51, 168–70; 46063, fos, 106–7, 111–12, 132–3; 46028, fos. 130–1.

28 Leeds, Sheepscar Library, minute books of the cabinet committee of the Leeds Liberal Federation, 1 October, 1907, and of the executive committee, 8 October, 1907.

29 Leeds and yorkshire Mercury 1 November, 1907, p. 5.

30 Leeds Mercury, 24, 25, 28–30 January, 1, 5, 8, February, 1908, p. 5. The poll was 5,274 for the Liberal, William Middlebrook; 4,915 for the Conservative; and 2,451 for Fox.

31 Ibid. 24 November, 18 December, 1909, 13 September, 16 November, 1910, p. 3; 24 November, 1910, p. 6. The Liberals threatened to contest East Leeds in both elections. They withdrew their candidate for the January election, and chose not to nominate one in December.

32 Because Labour had only two aldermen, to six for the Liberals, the latter remained the second largest party on the council.

33 Leeds Mercury, 19, 24 September, 1910, p. 4; 27 September, 1910, p. 3. For the first time in many years, the Mercury gave the municipal elections good coverage, so it is possible to see how little attention was given to Labour.M

34 Ibid. 24 October, 1912, p. 7.

35 Ibid. 16 October, 1913, p. 2; 17, 30, 31 October, 1913, p. 7, As in 1910, the elections of 1913 were reasonably well-reported.

36 British Association for the Advancement of Science, A guide to Leicester and district (Leicester, 1907), pp. 19–25.Google ScholarRobert, Guy Waddington, Leicester: the making of a modern city (Leicester, n.d.), pp. 103–25.Google ScholarSimmons, Jack, Leicester, past and present, vol. 11: Modern city, 1860–1974 (London, 1974), pp. 3–5.Google ScholarRoger, Martin Pritchard, Housing and the spatial structure of the city: residential mobility and the housing market in an English city since the industrial revolution (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 68–9.Google Scholar

37 Pritchard, Housing, p. 113.

38 Ibid. pp. 79–80.

39 Fox, Boot and Shoe Operatives, pp. 207–8, 212–15, 242 3, 247.

40 Leicester Daily Post, 12, 19 October, 1 November, 1901, p. 4; 8 October, 2 November, 1901, p. 5. Leicester Daily Mercury, 17, 31 October, 2 November, 1901, p. 2. Also, in general, see reports on the Aylestone elections of 1898 1900 in the two Liberal papers.

41 Leicester Daily Post, 4 October, 1901, p. 5. See also the speech by Alderman Patey and the reply of the Daily Post, 27 February, 1901, pp. 4, 5.

42 See Hart's letter, Leicester Daily Mercury, 8 February, 1901, p. 3; and the leading articles throughout February, especially that of 13 February, 1901, p. 2.

43 Cole, G. D. H., British working class politics, 1832–1914 (London, 1941), pp. 103–5.Google Scholar

44 Leicester Daily Mercury, 29 January, 1902, p. 2.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid. 17, 22, 26 March, 1902, 25 May, 1903, p. 2.

47 Ibid. 30 June, 1903, p. 2; 25 July, 1903, p. 5.

48 Ibid. 27, 29, 30 June, 17 July, 8 August, 1903, p. 2; 5 September, 1903, p. 5. Leicester Daily Post, 27, 30 June, 17, 18, 25, 27 July, 1903, p. 4.

49 Leicester Daily Mercury, 17 March 1904, pp. 2, 5.

50 Ibid. 26 March, 1904, p. 2.

51 See, for example, the hostile comments in the Leicester Daily Post, 29 March, 1904, p. 4.

52 Ibid. 13 September, 1905, p. 4.

53 Ibid. 2 November, 1905, p. 4. See also the comments by Aldermen Patey and Sawday, ibid, p. 5; and the following leading articles: ibid., 2 November, 1904, 5, 6 October, 1905, p. 4; Leicester Daily Mercury, 27 September 1904, 17 August, 13 September, 13 October, 1905, p. 2.

54 G. E. Hilton, a Liberal councillor, quoted in the Leicester Daily Post, 2 November, 1905, p. 5. See also ibid., 1 September, 1904, p. 4; 30 September, 1904, pp. 4, 5; 8, 15 October, 1904, p. 4; 2 November, 1904, pp. 4, 5; and the Leicester Daily Mercury, 12 October, 1904, 6,13 October, 2 November, 1905, p. 2.

55 Leicester, Leicester Museum, minute books of the Finance and General Purposes Committee of the Leicester Liberal Association, 13 November, 11 December, 1905.

56 Ibid. 12, 26 November, 1906, 14 January, 1907; and minutes of the executive committee, 5 March, 1907.

57 Leicester Daily Mercury, 13 April, 1907, p. 5. No speaker challenged Kemp's analysis, but the Daily Mercury did in its leading article of 13 April, p. 2.

58 Leicester Daily Post, 26 October, 1907, p. 5.

59 Ibid. 19 October, 1907, p. 5.

60 Between 1899 and 1906, there was an average of five contests per election in Leicester; from 1907 to 1909, the average was nearly nine; after 1909 it was between five and six. In Leeds, there were never more than three uncontested seats between 1899 and 1913. In Leicester, from 1900 to 1906, an average of slightly more than one seat per election involved Liberal and Labour candidates opposing each other in the November municipal elections. Between 1907 and 1913, the average was a bit under three per election. In Leeds, the average between 1906 and 1913 was over nine per election.

61 Leicester Daily Post, 13 October, 1910, p. 4; 22 October, 1910, p. 5; 3 November 1910, p. 4. By the municipal elections of 1912 and 1913, the position of the Daily Post and most of the candidates was pretty consistently that described. The position of the Leicester Daily Mercury was generally the same throughout the years 1909–13. See, for example, 26, 30, October, 1909, p. 2; 25, 31 October, 1911, 31 October, 1913, p. 4.

62 Leicester Daily Post, 14 June to 2 July, 1913. McKibbin, Ross, The evolution of the Labour party, 1910–1924 (Oxford, 1974), pp. 63–71. MacDonald treated the election as a vote of confidence, staking his continued representation of Leicester on a Liberal victory and a poor showing by Hartley.Google Scholar

63 Bernstein, ‘Liberalism and the Liberal party’, chap. viii.

64 For the liberal ideology of the Edwardian rank and file, see ibid, chaps, iv-viii.

65 In Leeds, the creation of a new ward in 1912 which was solidly Conservative gave that party three seats which it did not have in 1898.