Wi Asquith Assassinated in 1909?

[Peelitebkearns]

Hi all,

I'm not sure about the exact plot (or it's velidity for that matter), but their was an attempt on the life of then British Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, by a minority of the Suffragette movement. Asquith was aposed to giving women the right to vote, making him a targgit.

So, what would have happened, had the attempt been successful? Who would have replaced Asquith as PM? In OTL Lloyd-George was already a high-profile member of the cabinet, but perhaps it's too early for him. Could Edward Gray get the job? Or would it be someone else?

Is there a people's budget ITTL?

How's the run-up to World War I affected by Asquith's obvious absence from the scene?

and what happens to the Suffraagette movement?

Let's discuss...

[pipisme]

This is a very interesting scenario.

Here is an article about the assassination plot: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/29/gender.women.

The new Prime Minister would be either Lloyd George or Grey, with an outside chance of Richard Haldane, the Secretary of State for War. I think LG would be too radical for the majority of the Liberal parliamentary party, so I say it would most likely be Grey. I expect Haldane would probably succeed him as Foreign Secretary.

In OTL the assassination plot was uncovered in September 1909. LG introduced his People's Budget in the House of Commons on 29 April 1909.

I don't think British foreign policy would be any different with Grey, LG or Haldane as PM.

The Pankhursts and other leaders of the Suffragette movement would condemn Asquith's assassination and radically distance themselves from the assassins. I think that the movement would have some temporary loss of support but would recover after two or three years. Both Grey and LG were in favour of women's suffrage.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Given that theres ever only been a single pm assassinated in the entire history of the country, and thaat by a madman, ithink that ssuch an event nears, but doesnt reach, asb territory.

The backlash would be huge and put womens rights back decades. Not as bad as guy fawkes, but...

[Peelitebkearns]

Fascinating article. So, I guess a good Pod would be MRS Moore not being around to see what the potential assassins were up too.

I also thought Edward Gray would have been the most likely candidate to replace Asquith in this scenario-like you say, Lloyd George had not long become chancellor and he was seen as radical.

I wonder whether Gray would go to the country in 1910, as Asquith did in OTL? If he did, would the results be simelar? On one hand, Asquith's assassination would give sympathy to his party-but on the other, might the Tories be able to convince voters that a potential Conservative Government would be better placed to keep the UK secure?

Personally, I think a successful attempt on Asquith's life would set women's suffrage back a few years, a decade at the most.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Peelitebkearns

Personally, I think a successful attempt on Asquith's life would set women's suffrage back a few years, a decade at the most.

Blasted nook nonkeyboard. What i had really meant was that it would be more put back by decades, eg to an 1870s state, say, rather than holding back progress that number of years. The worldwide progress has too much momentum for britain to fall decades behind.

[RogueBeaver]

Women's suffrage gets set back a few years. My question is how do you get to 336 votes given serious intra and interparty divisions on this question? Plus IIRC the IPP was opposed.

1910: Do the Tory peers recover their sanity?* Dunno if the Liberals get a sympathy boost 18 months later but they're still knocked below 300 seats IMO.


* If the Ditchers win that vote, then things get really interesting.

[pipisme]

Originally Posted by Peelitebkearns

Fascinating article. So, I guess a good Pod would be MRS Moore not being around to see what the potential assassins were up too.

I also thought Edward Gray would have been the most likely candidate to replace Asquith in this scenario-like you say, Lloyd George had not long become chancellor and he was seen as radical.

I wonder whether Gray would go to the country in 1910, as Asquith did in OTL? If he did, would the results be simelar? On one hand, Asquith's assassination would give sympathy to his party-but on the other, might the Tories be able to convince voters that a potential Conservative Government would be better placed to keep the UK secure?

Personally, I think a successful attempt on Asquith's life would set women's suffrage back a few years, a decade at the most.

The general election of January 1910 was called because the House of Lords had rejected the Finance Bill which put into law the People's Budget.

A dissolution was inevitable once the Lords had performed the act of rejection. There was no dispute in the Cabinet about this.

From the biography of Asquith by Roy Jenkins.

I think the election result would be similar to that in OTL, with the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists more or less equal to the Liberals, but with the Liberals, the IPP and Labour having an overall majority.

[pipisme]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

Women's suffrage gets set back a few years. My question is how do you get to 336 votes given serious intra and interparty divisions on this question? Plus IIRC the IPP was opposed.

1910: Do the Tory peers recover their sanity?* Dunno if the Liberals get a sympathy boost 18 months later but they're still knocked below 300 seats IMO.


* If the Ditchers win that vote, then things get really interesting.

I think it is very unlikely that the Tory peers recover their sanity.

In OTL a constitutional conference was convened in June 1910, with its first meeting on 17th June. Their were four Conservative/Liberal Unionist and four Liberal participants. Grey was not one of them.
On 26 October 1910 Grey wrote:

I had a long talk with Lloyd George last night about the big scheme of a coalition for constructive legislation including the settlement of Home Rule. I am favourable to it, though there are many "difficulties".

From The biography of Asquth by Roy Jenkins.

[RogueBeaver]

Can Home Rule happen in a no-WWI scenario without either exclusion or military enforcement? From what little I know about Grey he doesn't sound like one for the military option.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

Given that theres ever only been a single pm assassinated in the entire history of the country, and thaat by a madman, ithink that ssuch an event nears, but doesnt reach, asb territory.

There has only been one successful assassination but there have been many attempted ones.

[Blackadder mk 2]

Originally Posted by Thande

There has only been one successful assassination but there have been many attempted ones.

From what I read about the successful one, I'm assuming most of the attempted were on the man himself.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Blackadder mk 2

From what I read about the successful one, I'm assuming most of the attempted were on the man himself.

Heh. He was only PM for a year...

Off the top of my head I can think of four examples:

The Cato Street Conspiracy: Lord Liverpool and the whole Cabinet, with a bomb, by radical revolutionaries, 1820

Sir Robert Peel, with a gun, by a madman, 1843

Margaret Thatcher, with a bomb, by the IRA, 1984

John Major, with a mortar, by the IRA, 1991

[RogueBeaver]

So how does Grey perform? Also, what happens with Home Rule, per my previous question?

[Blackadder mk 2]

Originally Posted by Thande

Heh. He was only PM for a year...

What exactly did he do to merit the assassination or the unpopularity he had?

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Blackadder mk 2

What exactly did he do to merit the assassination or the unpopularity he had?

Correction, three years, I was thinking of someone else.

Complicated, but as I understand it, it was a combination of already starting out with a very weak government a la Jim Callaghan, the disastrous Walcheren Expedition (the Napoleonic Wars' equivalent of the Dieppe raid), economic policies that were unpopular with both ordinary people (who rioted) and the business and manufacturing establishment, and the perception that he was trying to manipulate the constitutional arrangements to stay in power when George III fell ill again--as it was known that the Prince of Wales tended to favour the Whigs, and if he became Regent again (as he eventually did) the parties were finely divided enough in Parliament for the monarch's opinion to be relevant. Perceval tried to shove through measures that would restrict the Regent's constitutional powers for purely self-interested reasons (sort of like what the army council in Egypt has done a few days ago).

Most of this doesn't have much to do with why he was assassinated, but it does explain why, when his assassination was announced by the towncriers, people cheered in the streets. No matter how unpopular a PM gets, you can't really imagine that happening today...

[Cymraeg]

Originally Posted by Thande

Most of this doesn't have much to do with why he was assassinated, but it does explain why, when his assassination was announced by the towncriers, people cheered in the streets. No matter how unpopular a PM gets, you can't really imagine that happening today...

Noooo, I can't imagine that either. (Looks around guiltily and then hides the plans for a giant dancefloor on wheels to be built next to where a certain Iron Lady will finally rust...)

[pipisme]

Originally Posted by RogueBeaver

So how does Grey perform? Also, what happens with Home Rule, per my previous question?

I don't know how he would perform in respect of domestic policy. I think he would mostly leave it to Lloyd George as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As regards Home Rule, in OTL on 24 November 1913 John Redmond, the leader of the IPP, wrote a long letter to Asquith in which

He argued strongly and cogently against the Government putting forward any proposals for a compromise. It was much better to let them come from Bonar Law. Redmond, "writing with full knowledge of my country and its conditions," also expressed scepticism about the seriousness of the Ulster threat: "I do not think that anything like a widespread rebellious movement can ever take place; all our friends in Ulster, who would be the first victims of any rebellious movement, have never ceased to inform me that all such apprehensions are without any real foundation."

The Cabinet considered this letter on November 25th. After considerable discussion it was agreed that Redmond should be told there was no question of an immediate "offer" to Bonar Law, but that the Government must be free "when the critical stage of the Bill is ultimately reached" to do what it thought best. Grey, traditionally the coolest towards Home Rule of the senior ministers, then proposed that "if and when the conversation with Mr. Bonar Law was resumed, he should be told that our party could not be brought to agree to...the permanent or indefinite exclusion of Ulster, but that we were prepared to discuss plans for its temporary exclusion or separate administrative treatment."

Taken from the biography of Asquith by Roy Jenkins.

[Simreeve]

Allegedly IOTL the King warned Asquith that a Home Rule bill without some reasonable opt-out for the Ulster protestants would not receive the Royal Assent...

[RogueBeaver]

Would Bonar Law agree? If he agrees to temporary exclusion then it can go through. If not then you need a military solution.

[pipisme]

The following information and quotations are taken from the book The Unknown Prime Minister: The Life and Times of Andrew Bonar Law by Robert Blake, London: Eyre & Spottiswode, 1955.

On 4 October 1913 Bonar Law wrote to Lord Lansdowne:

The proposal, as I understand it, is that before entering into a conference we should agree to the present Home Rule Bill if North-East Ulster were excluded from it...I am certain that if it were known from the outset that the Unionist leaders had entered into a conference pledged beforehand to such a proposal there would be wild outburst against us in the South of Ireland which would be reflected with almost equal violence in England [...].

Bonar Law doubts about the merits of a Home Rule settlement which excluded Ulster "came from his reluctance to 'betray' the Southern Unionists than from a belief that Home Rule for the South was fundamentally wrong."

On 14 October 1913 Asquith and Bonar Law had a secret meeting in Max Aitken's country house in Surrey. Here are extracts from Bonar Law's account of the meeting dated 15 October:

On my part the conversation then took the form of my pointing out how diffcult such an arrangement [exclusion] would be for us, and I called his attention to these difficulties; the chief of them being:
(1) danger of the Unionists in the South and West thinking that we had betrayed them, which would make any action on our part impossible if they were unanimous in that view; [...]

To be continued.