The Grumbling Times Supplement - January 2024
Party systems, Ultra-Tories, the "Cowlingite clerisy" and more.
Alongside my output on this Substack, I write (and have written) articles for a slowly growing number of publications. In this regard, silently adding new homepage links is a half-measure and possibly untenable in the long-term. Additionally, the typical nature of articles on web outlets means the academic-style research behind certain pieces cannot normally be fully accounted. Therefore, the following shall be the first in a series of monthly supplements to the usual output here in an effort to solve both of these problems. Expect links to articles published elsewhere, lists of relevant reference material and extra notes on related topics. I hope readers find them worthwhile.
An Introduction to the Whig Hegemony
No longer available. Revised version forthcoming.
Bibliography
Clark, J. C. D. “A General Theory of Party, Opposition and Government, 1688-1832.” The Historical Journal 23, no. 2 (1980): 295-325.
Notes
Although I only consulted one strictly academic source in writing this overview, it just takes a casual online search to expose the thoroughly contradictory narratives around the historic two-party system. It is strange that the differences between the Whig factions remain retrospectively exaggerated into the continuation of a disappeared party, particularly nearly two centuries after Clark posits these inaccurate party genealogies were conceived.
I see no harm in setting straight the record of British party (dis)continuity and Clark’s “General Theory” excels at providing an alternative framework. My article mostly concerned the third of the eight party systems Clark observes between 1688 and when he was published in 1980. Whether we presently live in a ninth, thanks to Thatcherism, Blairism or Brexit, is anybody’s guess. Fortunately, Clark writes and defines his concepts with enough clarity for readers to assess for themselves. Moreover, the third section of Clark’s article (pp. 312-315) deals with the impact of change in party systems on relevant political language. In this case, such an analysis is vital in determining the lack of a linearly resurrected Whig-Tory system after the Whig Supremacy.
To further underline the cultural Whiggism in existence for decades after the Whig Supremacy, the so-called Ultra-Tories of the late 1820s and early 1830s also saw themselves as upholders of the Whig tradition in their opposition to Catholic emancipation. Specifically, they sought to aggressively defend the political dominance of Protestantism in line with the Whigs of the first several decades following the Glorious Revolution. Although some of the ultras were straightforward reactionaries regarding the political questions of the time, others strongly supported reforming the franchise as a means of producing an anti-Catholic majority in Parliament. Ultimately, the Ultra-Tories were able to bring down Wellington’s government (with the Whigs and Canningites) after Catholic emancipation, but never attracted a coalition against religious reform before they drifted back into the Tories/Conservatives in the 1830s.
The Liberal History of the Conservative Party
No longer available. Revised version forthcoming.
Bibliography
Dutton, David. “John Simon and the Post-War National Liberal Party: An Historical Postscript.” The Historical Journal 32, no. 2 (1989): 357-367.
Fair, John D. “From Liberal to Conservative: The Flight of the Liberal Unionists After 1886.” Victorian Studies 29, no. 2 (1986): 291-314.
Goodlad, Graham D. “The Liberal Party and Gladstone’s Land Purchase Bill of 1886.” The Historical Journal 32, no. 3 (1989): 627-641.
Lubenow, W. C. “Irish Home Rule and the Great Separation in the Liberal Party in 1886: The Dimensions of Parliamentary Liberalism.” Victorian Studies 26, no. 2 (1983): 161-180.
Porritt, Edward. “Political Parties on the Eve of Home Rule.” The North American Review 195, no. 676 (1912): 333-342.
Taylor, Alan H. “The Effect of Electoral Pacts on the Decline of the Liberal Party.” British Journal of Political Science 3, no. 2 (1973): 243-248.
Notes
Chronologically, Porritt’s article stands out amongst the reference list. It is not a scholarly article per se, since The North American Review at that time was probably more akin to the cultured Victorian periodicals, but it nevertheless approaches the factional dynamics within the 1880s Liberal Party succinctly.
There arose an intriguing question during research of Winston Churchill’s role in these liberal dalliances. After all, he himself was a turncoat between the Liberals and Conservatives in 1904 and 1924, albeit on his own terms rather than as a member of a breakaway party.1 Dutton’s article, delving into the letters of the by then erstwhile Liberal National leader Sir John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon, argues Churchill was persistently apprehensive about fully merging the party into the Conservatives in the years after the Second World War. Perhaps this was key to why the Liberal Nationals remained independent of the Conservatives for longer than the much larger Liberal Unionists.
The two quantitative analyses of events in the list above, by Fair and Lubenow respectively, mention their opposition to the “Cowlingite clerisy” in describing their approaches. This term, coined by Joseph Lee in 1975, was a jab at the formidable high politics or Peterhouse school of history writing, with Maurice Cowling of Peterhouse College its figurehead. High politics historians, though categorised this way more often by commentators than themselves, generally focussed on the actions and motivations of a small group of influential politicians which existed at a given time. Since this ran contrary to class-based and quantitative interpretations, more fashionable in academic history from the 1960s to the 1980s, denunciations like those of Fair and Lubenow are a mildly off-putting feature of some of the literature on nineteenth-century British politics. It did not help that high politics historians tended to have a more conservative outlook, again exemplified by Cowling, whereas some influential contemporaries focussing on class were influenced by the Marxist school of history writing. Nevertheless, the two articles pointed out here eventually find themselves in agreement with their methodological rivals about Home Rule being the main cause of the Liberal Party split in 1886.
On Freedom of Navigation
Available via The Mallard website.
In the early 1920s, Churchill was a National Liberal MP under the leadership of David Lloyd George, but lost his seat in 1922 to the only successful prohibitionist candidate in British political history (namely Edwin Scrymgeour of the Scottish Prohibitionist Party). He then returned to Parliament in 1924 under the label of Constitutionalist before re-joining the Conservatives a few days later upon becoming Chancellor.