Keeping the British Liberal Party flag flying high

[pipisme]

While Liberal MPs strongly supported the proposed land value tax (LVT), some of them, especially on the libertarian wing of the party, wanted to see a lower rate than the proposed 15%.

In the committee stage of the 1925 Finance Bill, Richard Durning Holt ( Liberal - Cumberland North) proposed an amendment to reduce the rate to 5%. He had the declared support of 51 other Liberal MPs. It was rumoured that Alfred Mond, the Minister of Health, was sympathetic to the amendment and that he threatened to resign if the government did not accept it.

A cynical argument for keeping the rate at 15% is that in a future budget before a general election the government could make a great show of generosity and reduce the rate. But that would be too much like political opportunism. Also it would be more financially responsible to have a stable rate at a reasonable level.

However in late May 1925, Lloyd George said that after carefully listening to the opinions of MPs and financial experts, the government would accept Holt's amendment and LVT would be levied at a rate of 5%. The amendment was passed with Conservative abstentions (because they opposed LVT), but with Labour voting against. Of course, Lloyd George was accused of intending to levy LVT at a substantially lower rate than the originally proposed 15%, and knew that it was very likely that a Liberal MP would propose an amendment to substantially reduce the proposed rate.

 

[pipisme]

The Majority and Minority Reports of the Rural Land Committee of Liberal politicians and agricultural experts were published in September 1925.

The Majority Report advocated ending the private ownership of agricultural land by converting farmers into 'cultivating tenants' under the supervision of county committees. In effect the nationalization of agricultural land. It argued that owner occupation was not the answer because tenant farmers would over commit themselves in taking out mortgages to buy their farms.

The Minority Report called for extension of owner occupation of farms by enabling tenant farmers to purchase their farms with financial support provided by the British government.

The Majority was rejected by George Lambert, the Minister of Agriculture. In reply to questions, Prime Minister Asquith said that his government had absolutely no intention of implementing the recommendations of the Majority Report.

 

[stevep]

The Majority and Minority Reports of the Rural Land Committee of Liberal politicians and agricultural experts were published in September 1925.

The Majority Report advocated ending the private ownership of agricultural land by converting farmers into 'cultivating tenants' under the supervision of county committees. In effect the nationalization of agricultural land. It argued that owner occupation was not the answer because tenant farmers would over commit themselves in taking out mortgages to buy their farms.

The Minority Report called for extension of owner occupation of farms by enabling tenant farmers to purchase their farms with financial support provided by the British government.

The Majority was rejected by George Lambert, the Minister of Agriculture. In reply to questions, Prime Minister Asquith said that his government had absolutely no intention of implementing the recommendations of the Majority Report.

pipisme

To me this [the majority report] sounds far too radical for a Lib-Lab coalition at this point in time. Especially when you consider what's happening in Russia. Can't think of anything more likely to combine and energise a major alliance of various interests and groups against such an idea. Even the Labour Party, especially since its core is industrially based, probably wouldn't go for something like this I suspect. Not to mention, presuming your not talking of nationalisation without compensation, where would the money come from for it. Especially with the country reeling from both the war and the post-war depression.

As such I'm not surprised that the party leadership came out against it. I find it rather hard to believe that the committee would have it as a majority view, especially given the political dynamite even suggesting the idea would be I suspect.

Steve

 

[pipisme]

The recommendations of the Majority Report were similar those in the report of Lloyd George's rural land committee, which was published in July 1925 in OTL, as described in this paper: http://tcbh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/2/3/272.pdf . In this TL the Majority Report proposed that landlords should get compensation for their land, as did the report in OTL.

The Minority Report advocated a scheme similar to that enacted by the Irish Land Purchase Act 1903. Under that legislation, the British government paid the difference between the price offered by tenants and that demanded by landlords. It was enacted by a Conservative and Liberal Unionist government.

Most members of the cabinet, including the Foreign Secretary, Sir Francis Acland, rejected the Majority Report, as did Margaret Wintringham, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. However Lloyd George let it be known that, while he loyally supported government policy on this issue, he believed that there were positive features in the Majority Report which deserve careful consideration. Questioned on whether the Majority Report would become government policy if Lloyd George became Prime Minister, Asquith said if he becomes Prime Minister (with a heavy stress on the word if). This produced a flurry of press speculation about what Asquith meant.

Asquith said that the government was very favourably inclined to the Minority Report. In fact the Liberal manifesto for the 1923 general election had proposed that "Opportunity should be given for the cultivator to become the owner of his own land by a system of land purchase."

Going back several months, on 3rd April 1925 a son was born to Margaret Eadie Benn (nee Holmes) and William Wedgwood Benn (the President of the Board of Education). He was given the names Anthony Neil. His christening was attended by members of the cabinet, and other leading political figures from all parties. In future years Anthony Wedgwood Benn would follow in his father's footsteps in carving out a career in politics.

Charles Masterman, the Secretary of state for the Colonies and Dominions, had for some months been suffering from a growing alcohol and drug addiction. In early August 1925 his condition had deteriorated to such an extent that he was dismissed from the government. He also resigned as MP for Manchester, Rusholme. His cabinet position was taken by Lord Parmoor, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who as Charles Cripps was a Conservative MP before the Great War.

The Manchester, Rusholme by-election was held on September 17, 1925. It was won by Philip Guedalla, the Liberal candidate, by a majority of 859 over the Conservative. This was a swing of about 3 percent from Liberal to Conservative. On the same day, the Conservatives held the Stockport seat in the by-election caused by the death of the Conservative MP, with the Liberal second and Labour third.

The Locarno Pact was signed on October 16, 1925 as in OTL. It was the same as in OTL. It was widely regarded as a foreign policy triumph for the government and in particular for Sir Francis Acland, the Foreign Secretary.
On October 19, Asquith announced his resignation as leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister. He said he would stay in office until the Liberal Party chose a new leader, who would automatically become Prime Minister. He said that he resigned because he was now 73 years old and the time had come for a younger man to take over at the helm of government.

Acland and Lloyd George announced that they were candidates for the Liberal Party leadership. It was widely thought that the circumstances of Asquith's resignation were timed to give maximum advantage to Acland as his successor.

 

[pipisme]

There was some talk that Sir John Simon, the Home Secretary, would stand for the party leadership, but he got little support. So he decided not to contest the election. Though a brilliant lawyer he was regarded as being too aloof and lacking in the popular touch to be leader.

The party leader was elected by Liberal MPs, though of course they tried to ascertain the opinion of party members outside the House of Commons. In terms of support Acland tended to get the support of the following MPs: Those who were on the right wing of the party - those who in contemporary terms in OTL would be libertarian - also those were Asquithians from 1918 to 1923, those elected for constituencies in the South and West of England (outside the large cities) whose main opponents were Conservatives, and those MPs who couldn't stand Lloyd George and/or those who were disappointed that Lloyd George did not offer them a job in his 1916 to 1922 coalition government.

The following MPs tended to support Lloyd George: Those who were Coalition Liberals and National Liberals from 1918 to 1923, those who were members of his Coalition government, Welsh members, those whose main opponents were Labour especially in the large cities. They regarded LG as an instrument of dynamic social reform.

Broadly speaking those with a collectivist outlook supported LG, those with an individualist viewpoint supported Acland. William Wedgwood Benn, who could well be described as a radical libertarian, or a libertarian radical, supported Acland.

 

[stevep]

The recommendations of the Majority Report were similar those in the report of Lloyd George's rural land committee, which was published in July 1925 in OTL, as described in this paper: http://tcbh.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/2/3/272.pdf . In this TL the Majority Report proposed that landlords should get compensation for their land, as did the report in OTL.

pipisme

Ah well. I sit corrected. Although it might be said that a weakening 3rd party might be more radical than the dominant one in a government. Quite possibly however I drastically under-estimated the continued domination of agriculture of the great landowners and the hostility that might have produced?

Thanks

Steve

 

[pipisme]

In the Liberal leadership contest contest the fact that Lloyd George had previously been Prime Minister was more to his disadvantage than his advantage. It is true that he was widely praised as the man who won the Great War, but his postwar government was not a great success. Also his coalition government was dominated by the Conservatives and there was the sale of honours scandal. His political enemies regarded him as being opportunistic and unprincipled.

By contrast while Acland had been a member of parliament, with interruptions, since 1906, and had held junior ministerial posts at the War Office, the Treasury and the Foreign Office between 1908 and 1915, and had been Foreign Secretary from January 1924, he had not acquired political enemies, unlike LG.

Both candidates said that if elected leader and therefore Prime Minister they would offer his opponent a senior post in his cabinet.

The ballot for the Liberal Party leadership took place in the House of Commons on November 3, 1925. As was widely expected the result was a victory for Acland. The result was:

Acland 136 votes
Lloyd George 65 votes
Not voted 6.

 

[pipisme]

In his acceptance speech on being elected party leader Acland said that he would govern in accordance with the principles and values of progressive Liberalism, in the path laid down and followed by Asquith. His government would continue to implement the proposals set out in the party manifesto in the general election of 1923.

New appointments to his cabinet were as follows:

Chancellor of the Exchequer: Thomas MacNamara

Foreign Secretary: David Lloyd George

Home Secretary: Norman Birkett

Lord Chancellor: Viscount Simon (formerly Sir John Simon)

President of the Board of Trade: Alfred Mond

Minister of Health: Sir John Tudor Walters

Secretary of State for Scotland: Sir Archibald Sinclair.

Among the new ministers outside the cabinet were:

Attorney General: The Honourable Edward Augustine St. Aubyn Harney

Financial Secretary to the Treasury: John Durning Holt

Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health: Ernest Simon

Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education: Lady Vera Terrington. (She was a member of the House of Commons as at that time, in this TL and OTL, women were not allowed to be members of the House of Lords).

In accordance with prevailing legislation both in this TL and in OTL, MPs appointed to the cabinet had to resign their seats and contest them again in by-elections. This meant that Birkett, Walters and Sinclair had to resign and contest their constituencies of Nottingham, East; Gloucestershire, Stroud; and Caithness and Sutherland respectively. Also because Sir John Simon was elevated to the peerage and Asquith was made a peer as Viscount Asquith and the Earl of Oxford and Asquith, this meant by-elections in their former seats of Yorkshire, Spen Valley and Paisley respectively.

These by-elections were held on December 12, 1925. Sinclair was returned unopposed in Caithness and Sutherland as he had been in the 1923 general election. Birkitt and Walters were re-elected in Nottingham, East and Stroud respectively. In Paisley, Sir Donald Maclean was elected Liberal MP, while Walter Runciman won Spen Valley for the Liberals.

MacLean was leader of the Liberal Parliamentary Party from 1918 to 1922. He lost his seat in the 1922 general election, and was unsuccessful in 1923. Runciman was a minister in the Asquith governments from 1908 to 1916. He lost his seat in the 1918 general election, and had been defeated in subsequent attempts to return to the House of Commons.

 

[pipisme]

The Barran Commission on Broadcasting under the chairmanship of Sir John Barran, the Postmaster General, was appointed in February 1925. It published its report in late November 1925.

The Barran Report advocated that the British Broadcasting Company (a consortium of six companies) should become an independent trust to be called the British Broadcasting Trust (BBT). The BBT would be independent of government and be incorporated by a Royal Charter renewable every twenty years.

The Commission considered ways in which the Trust could be financed. It rejected advertising on the wireless because listeners should not have advertisements imposed on them. Also advertisements would mean the commercialisation of broadcasting. It recommended that owners of wireless sets should pay a subscription fee of 10 shillings a year (50 pence in decimal currency in OTL). In order to secure a stable income stream the subscription fee should be guaranteed at that level for five years. It considered how the BBT could raise additional money if required. It proposed that the BBT should have the right to issue interest bearing bonds to the public. However purchasers of these bonds would have no influence over BBT policy.

The Barran Report was well received across the political spectrum, although the Labour Party objected to the BBT being able to issue bonds. The Broadcasting Act 1926 implemented its recommendations and the BBT was incorporated under royal charter. John Reith was appointed its first Director General.

In April 1925 Viscount Willingdon, who had previously been Governor of Bombay and Governor of Madras, was appointed Governor General and Viceroy of India in sucession to the Earl of Reading, Willingdon was a Liberal.

In January 1926 Prime Minister Richard Acland appointed a Royal Commission on Constitutional Reform in India under the chairmanship of Viscount Peel. Peel was a Conservative and Secretary of State for India in the Bonar Law and Baldwin governments from October 1922 to January 1924. The Peel Commission, as it was called, had eleven members including the chairman. Among its members were Mohandas Ghandi and Muhammed Ali Jinnah.

The appointment of the Peel Commission was generally welcomed by all parties, though the right-wing of the Conservative Party was suspicious and Churchill vehemently denounced the appoinment of Ghandi as a member.

 

[stevep]

In accordance with prevailing legislation both in this TL and in OTL, MPs appointed to the cabinet had to resign their seats and contest them again in by-elections.

pipisme

Interesting. Never realised that.I wonder when that habit/rule ceased to apply. Might be useful if it was still in force now.

On the latter post things are looking promising in India, although as expected Churchill and the Tory right don't like it.

Going to be strange trying to get used to the BBT rather than BBC.

Steve

 

[pipisme]

Steve,

Under the Succession to the Crown Act 1707, any MP who accepted an office of profit under the crown had to resign his seat as he could no longer be an MP. If that rule had been followed strictly then no member of Parliament could have been a government minister. But someone who held an office of profit under the crown could still be elected to Parliament. So this allowed MPs appointed to the government to resign their seats and contest them again in a by-election. I don't know if that law applied only to cabinet posts, or also to junior ministerial posts outside the cabinet, however far down the pecking order. I would assume that it applied only to appointments to the cabinet. The law was amended in 1919 so that it did not apply within nine months of a general election. It was abolished entirely in 1926 by Baldwin's Conservative government. See http://everything2.com/node/1947108 .

Because this TL started in 1923 the amendment in 1919 happened as in OTL. But because the Liberal and Labour parties opposed the abolition of the re-election requirement in 1926, Liberal governments in this TL do not abolish this law and the 1919 amendment remains in force unless it is abolished by a future Conservative government.

By 1925 exports of British coal were falling because Germany was allowed to export "free coal" to France and Italy as part of their war reparations under the Dawes Plan, and also because Britain was losing export markets to coal from Poland and the United States.

The coal owners also wanted to keep their share of the profits. On June 30, 1925 they proposed new wage agreements with the miners which would have the effect of reducing wages by between 13 percent and 48 per cent (1). In early July the Asquith government agreed to subsidise miners wages for a year up to July 31, 1926.

After the summer holidays Asquith appointed a Royal Commission on the future of the coal-mining industry. The chairman was William Beveridge, the director of the London School of Economics and Political Science.

(1) In OTL, the return of Britain to the Gold Standard in 1925 helped to make exports, including coal exports less competitive. In this TL Britain has not returned to the Gold Standard, but the other factors which led to the coal owners proposing a reduction of wages to the miners still applied.

 

[pipisme]

The Beveridge Commission report on the coal industry was published in April 1926. Its recommendations were divided into those for the long term and those for the immediate term.

Its long term recommendations were:

1) Nationalisation of the coal royalties. Coal mined was not owned by the mine owners but by landlords who received a royalty payment based on the amount of coal mined.

2) The reorganisation of the coal industry under private ownership, with the amalgamation of mining companies. The report rejected nationalisation.

3) Improved arrangements for research and distribution with aid from the government.

4) Better industrial relations between employers and workers in the form of joint pit committees, profit sharing, better housing for miners and their families, more pithead baths, and annual holidays with pay when prosperity returned.

In the immediate term its recommendations were:

1) The establishment of a National Wages Board with an independent chairman.

2) A minimum wage for all colliery workers.

3) Workers made redundant by pit closures to be given alternative employment.

4) The wages subsidy by the government not to be renewed when it expired on July 31, 1926.

5) No extension of the 7-hour working day.

Henry Vivian, the Minister of Labour said that the Acland government fully accepted the report. He believed that its recommendations have the potential for a modern, prosperous and harmonious coal industry. Vivian was a strong proponent of co-partnership in industry. He had written extensively on social and industrial questions (1).

The Conservative Party and the mine owners rejected the proposals for a nationalisation of the coal royalties, a National Wages Board, and a minimum wage. However they supported the ending of the wages subsidy.

The Labour Party and the Miners Federation generally accepted the report, though they advocated the nationalisation of the coal industry and the continuation of the wages subsidy. They were vehemently against any reduction of miners wages or extension of their hours.

In July 1926, the mine owners presented new terms of employment to their workers. These included regional wage agreements, a reduction in wages of between 10 percent and 20 percent depending on the region, and an increase in the working day. If the miners did not accept these terms, the mine owners would impose a lock out on their pits on August 1, 1926.

(1) Here is a biography of Henry Vivian: http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/72126 .

 

[pipisme]

July 1926. The Miners Federation of Great Britain (MFGB) announced that if the mineowners imposed a lockout, it would call a strike of all its members. Following this announcement, the Trade Union Congress (TUC) said that if the miners went on strike it would call a general strike of all workers.

The Lord Chancellor, Viscount Simon, said that a general strike would be in breach of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 and therefore illegal. Prime Minister Acland adopted a more conciliatory approach. He stressed the importance of the coal industry and the vital work done by the men who work in that industry. He said that the coal industry must be modernised but hoped that this would not be at the expense of the mine workers. However the government was not in the business of fixing wages and hours of work. The government could not continue subsidising miners wages indefinitely. He said the government would enter into negotiations with the representatives of the mine owners and with the MFGB to secure a mutually satisfactory solution to this crisis which would
avoid a miners strike and a subsequent general strike.

 

[pipisme]

July 1926.

In a speech in his Caernarvon constituency, Lloyd George, the Foreign Secretary said that the government will not remain neutral in a battle between the mine owners and the miners. It will not allow the owners to force the miners into a reduction of wages and/or extension of hours.

The government proposed to the mine owners that in return for it introducing legislation abolishing the coal royalties which the mine owners paid to their landlords (who owned the land over the coal mines) that they lift their threat of a lock out and do not reduce their workers wages or extend their hours of work. The landlords would be compensated for their loss of royalties at the rate of 10 percent of the average of these payments over the previous five years. If the owners do not accept this offer, the government would ban the use of the lockout by employers in industrial disputes and appoint a Coal Commission to run the coal mining industry.

The mine owners asked for time to consider this offer. This request was granted by the government but with a deadline of July 31.

Meanwhile the by-election in Wallsend (an industrial town on Tyneside) caused by the resignation of Patrick Hastings, the Labour MP, was held on July 21. The 1923 general election was a straight fight between Labour and Conservative. The percentage vote was Labour 55.0%, Conservative 45.0%. The result of the by-election, in which a Liberal candidate stood, was an increase in the Labour majority. The percentage figures were Labour 48.2, Conservative 35.5, Liberal 17.3.

On July 29, the mine owners accepted the government's proposal. They withdrew their proposed terms of employment to their workers and their threatened lockout.

This outcome was hailed by the miners as a victory. However they and the Labour Party strongly opposed the handing over the royalties to the mine owners. They want them nationalised and to go to the government.

The Conservatives have little objection to the mine owners no longer having to pay coal royalties, but denounce the proposed compensation to the landlords as far too low and little short of robbery.

OOC. It looks like I will not have internet access again until next Saturday afternoon, so I will not be able to update this TL until then, or perhaps next Sunday.

 

[stevep]

pipisme

Well it sounds like the general strike was avoided or at least delayed but that the Liberals are finding themselves caught between the two extremes. Really need to seize the initiative else things will drift away from them I fear.

Thanks for the continued work on TTL. Hopefully other people are enjoying it although not that many comments.

Steve

 

[pipisme]

I have a little time to post on this thread.

Lord Sinha, the secretary of state for India resigned in July 1926 because of ill-health. His replacement was Ramsay Muir, who was promoted from under-secretary. This meant that Muir had to seek re-election in his Rochdale constituency.

 

[pipisme]

Ramsay Muir was re-elected for Rochdale in the by-election on September 17, 1925. It was a three-way marginal with the third-placed Conservative polling 30.7 percent of the vote. On the same day the Liberals won the Banbury by-election caused by the resignation because of ill-health of the Liberal member Charles Burgess Fry, by a majority of 952 votes of the Conservatives. Labour polled on 8.1 per cent of the vote.

 

[stevep]

Ramsay Muir was re-elected for Rochdale in the by-election on September 17, 1925. It was a three-way marginal with the third-placed Conservative polling 30.7 percent of the vote. On the same day the Liberals won the Banbury by-election caused by the resignation because of ill-health of the Liberal member Charles Burgess Fry, by a majority of 952 votes of the Conservatives. Labour polled on 8.1 per cent of the vote.

pipisme

Sounds like it was pretty tight if the Tories came 3rd with nearly 31% Still the Liberals won both seats so still have a good measure of support.

Steve

 

[pipisme]

Parliament returns after the summer recess in October 1926. The second reading of the Coal Royalties Abolition Bill took place in November. It provided for the abolition of the royalties paid by mine owners to the owners of the land under which their mines are situated, with compensation to the landlords. The Conservatives did not object to the principal of the bill, only to the amount of compensation to be paid to the landowners. Therefore they abstained on second reading. The Labour Party wanted payment of the coal royalties to be transferred from the landowners to the government without compensation to the landowners. Therefore they voted against the second reading, which in a straight vote with the Liberals was passed by 193 votes to 156 votes.

 

[pipisme]

The Committee Stage of the Coal Royalties Abolition Bill was dominated by the question of the amount of compensation to be given to the landowners from losing their coal royalties.

The Bill proposed that they receive 10 percent of the average income from the royalties over the previous five years. The Conservatives argued that the compensation should be calculated at the rate of 40 percent of estimated future income. This future income would be estimated by Regional Valuation Tribunals (RVT) to be established under the Act.

The government rejected the Conservative proposals as being far too generous to the landowners, while the RVTs would be an extra layer of bureaucracy.

Unless the government received the support of enough Labour members to win a majority they would be defeated on the compensation clause of the Bill. But the Conservative proposals would be defeated by combined Liberal and Labour votes.