Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:30:45.434Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

World War I and British Left Wing Intellectuals: The Case of Leonard T. Hobhouse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Harold Smith
Get access

Extract

World War I brought about a crisis within the British Liberal Party for it confronted Liberals with issues which they found difficult to resolve on the basis of traditional liberal principles. On numerous occasions, Liberals were placed in situations in which they were forced to choose between liberal principles and illiberal measures which were necessary for the effective prosecution of the war. The dilemma of whether or not to support British involvement in the war was a painful one which many Liberals would have preferred to avoid, and it was followed by other scarcely less painful decisions involving conscription, the extension of state controls over the economy, freedom of expression and personal liberties, the future of free trade, the right to refuse military service on the ground of conscientious objection, and the larger problem of whether to seek military victory or a negotiated peace.

The effect of the war on those Radical Liberal intellectuals who comprised an important segment of the left-wing of the Liberal Party was especially profound. Although they were not a highly organized group before 1914, there did exist a number of Radical Liberals who were bound together by their common agreement on the overriding importance of a “pacifistic” foreign policy and additional measures of social reform. This loose coalition of Radical Liberals was shattered by the war, for a large proportion of the group supported the war while others did not. Moreover, the issues generated by the war tended to drive the dissenting Radicals further to the Left, while the conservative assumptions of pro-war Radical Liberals became more prominent. By the end of the war the gulf between the two factions of Radical Liberals had become a deep chasm, and in the post-war years the division became a permanent one; many of those who had been dissenters during the war joined the Labour Party, while pro-war Radical Liberals tended either to remain in the Liberal Party or adopt an independent position.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , Winter 1973 , pp. 261 - 273
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1973

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 should like to acknowledge the kindness of Mrs. Jennifer Balme for granting me access to the previously unused correspondence of her grandfather, Leonard T. Hobhouse, which is in her keeping. Subsequent references to letters in this collection will be identified as Hobhouse Papers.

2 Of special value for the study of war-time dissenters are Swartz, Marvin, The Union of Democratic Control in British Politics During the First World War (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar. Martin, Laurence, Peace Without Victory (New Haven, 1958)Google Scholar. Taylor, A. J. P., The Trouble Makers (London, 1957)Google Scholar, Hazlehurst, Cameron, Politicians at War: July 1914 to May 1915 (New York, 1971)Google Scholar, Crosby, Gerda, Disarmament and Peace in British Politics 1914-1919 (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1957)Google Scholar, and Hanak, H. H., “The Union of Democratic Control during the First World War,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 36(November 1963): 168–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 See Kate Courtney's diary for December 1, 1911. in the Courtney Papers, Vol. 35. at the British Library of Political and Economic Science. Hobhouse was Chairman of the Foreign Policy Committee.

4 Hobhouse's letter is mentioned in an undated letter from C. P. Scott to Hobhouse which is cited in Wilson, Trevor, ed., The Political Diaries of C. P. Scott 1911-1928 (New York, 1970), p. 99.Google Scholar

5 The letter to Lloyd George is mentioned in L. T. H. to Emily Hobhouse, August 5, 1914, Hobhouse Papers. The one to Morley is referred to by Hobson, John and Ginsberg, Morris in their biography, L. T. Hobhouse (London, 1931), p. 49.Google Scholar

6 Although Hobhouse does not identify which Rowntrees he had approached, it is likely that it was Arnold and Seebohm. See L. T. H. to Emily Hobhouse, August 2, 1914, Hobhouse Papers.

7 The letter is mentioned in L. T. H. to Emily Hobhouse, August 5, 1915, Hobhouse Papers.

8 Copies of the manifesto can be found in the Graham Wallas Papers, Box 39, at the British Library of Political and Economic Science. It appeared in the Manchester Guardian on August 3rd, 1914.

9 Hobhouse, L. T., “The Manifesto of the German Professors,” The Nation 16(October 31, 1914): 142–143.Google Scholar

10 L. T. H. to Leonard Courtney, August 4, 1914, Courtney Papers, Vol. 2, Ms. 26.

11 L. T. H. to Emily Hobhouse, August 5, 1914, Hobhouse Papers.

12 L. T. H. to Emily Hobhouse, August 8, 1914. Hobhouse Papers.

13 L. T. H. to Emily Hobhouse, August 26, 1914, Hobhouse Papers.

14 L. T. H. to Emily Hobhouse, August 8, 1914, Hobhouse Papers.

15 Hobhouse, L. T., “The Soul of Civilisation,” Contemporary Review, 108(August 1915):164.Google Scholar

16 Ibid., p. 169.

17 Hobhouse, L. T., “The Social Effects of the War,” Atlantic Monthly, 115(April 1915):550.Google Scholar

18 “The Labour Question,” Manchester Guardian, March 8, 1915 and “Two Sides of the Labour Problem,” Manchester Guardian, March 13, 1915.

19 C. P. Scott to L. T. Hobhouse, May 7, 1915, C. P. Scott Papers.

20 Ibid.

21 L. T. H. to C. P. Scott, May 1915. Cited in Hobson, and Ginsberg, , L. T. Hobhouse, p. 51Google Scholar. This appears to be a reply to Scott's letter of May 7, 1915 mentioned earlier.

22 “Problems of Organisation,” Manchester Guardian, July 2, 1915.

23 “Industrial Compulsion,” Manchester Guardian, January 8, 1916.

24 H., , “The Omnipotent State,” Manchester Guardian, September 30, 1916.Google Scholar

25 Part of the reason for Hobhouse's original opposition to British participation in the war was his fear that it would lead to conscription. See L. T. H. to Emily Hobhouse, August 5, 1914, Hobhouse Papers. His later support for conscription is revealed in L. T. H. to C. P. Scott, May 1915. Cited in Hobson, and Ginsberg, , L. T. Hobhouse, p. 51.Google Scholar

26 “The First Consequences,” Manchester Guardian, January 7, 1916.

27 “Industrial Compulsion,” Manchester Guardian, January 8, 1916.

28 Hobhouse, L. T., Liberalism (London, 1964; orig. pub. 1911), pp. 19, 79.Google Scholar

29 According to Hobson, who was one of Hobhouse's closest friends, in L. T. Hobhouse, p. 50. Hobson does not indicate at what point in the war Hobhouse came to hold this view.

30 “Compulsion,” Manchester Guardian, June 12, 1915.

31 Ibid.

32 “Compulsory Service in Detail,” Manchester Guardian, January 15, 1916.

33 Letter to the editor by L. T. H., in the Manchester Guardian, May 18, 1916.Google Scholar

34 Hobhouse, L. T., The World in Conflict (London, 1915), p. 94Google Scholar. Another indication of Hobhouse's shift to the Right during the first years of the war was his dismissal of the proposal for a post-war federation of nations as a “utopian” idea. The sharp criticism which his statements drew from John Hobson reflects the division between Hobhouse and the Radical Left at this time. See Hobhouse, L. T., “The Future of Internationalism,” Transactions of the Political and Economic Circle of the National Liberal Club, January, 1916.Google Scholar

35 The first indication that Hobhouse had shifted his position to one in favor of a negotiated peace occurs in a letter to Scott in which Hobhouse warned that Lloyd George's recent statement that Britain would remain in the war until Germany had been dealt a “knock-out” blow had destroyed any possiblity of a compromise settlement in the near future. The tenor of his remarks indicates that Hobhouse was dismayed by Lloyd George's action, and in subsequent letters he urged Scott not to press for a change in the Government which would lead to Lloyd George becoming Prime Minister on the ground that if this occurred it would mean guerre à l'outrance. See L. T. H. to C. P. Scott, November 29, December 2, and December 3, 1916. C. P. Scott Papers. British Museum, Add. Ms. 50,909, fols. 21-26, 37-42, 44-45.

36 See, for example, “Realities,” and “Alliance Among Democracies,” Manchester Guardian, November 3 and November 24, 1917.

37 “The Unlimited Offensive,” Manchester Guardian, December 15, 1917.

38 For the favorable reaction of the U. D. C see Swartz, , The Union of Democratic Control, p. 201.Google Scholar

39 L. T. H. to Emily Hobhouse, January 6, 1918, Hobhouse Papers.

40 H., , “Optimism and Peace,” Manchester Guardian, January 12, 1918.Google Scholar

41 See Arnold Bennett's journal for January 15 and February 11, 1918, in Flower, Newman, ed., The Journals of Arnold Bennett 1911-1921 (London, 1932), pp. 216, 220.Google Scholar

42 Ibid., p. 235.

43 L. T. H. to C. P. Scott, May 12, 1919, cited in Wilson, , The Political Diaries of C. P. Scott 1911-1928, p. 374.Google Scholar