Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T00:42:59.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Strange Death of Liberal England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Michael Brock
Get access

Extract

George Dangerfield's book, The Strange Death of Liberal England, would have been an influential, indeed a seminal, piece of historical writing whenever it had appeared: published in 1935 it constituted an immense liberation. In 1935 the writing of modern British political history was dominated for academic people by Lewis Namier, whose two great works—The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III and England in the Age of the American Revolution—had been published in 1928 and 1930. Namier's immense gifts were balanced by a startling defect. He was psychologically incapable of writing historical narrative, that is of dealing on any considerable scale with the development of events. Here, at the very start of the Namierite era, was a young scholar named Dangerfield writing history in the classic manner, writing, that is, as Thucydides and Tacitus had done, with a wide narrative sweep about the fateful and tragic events of yesterday. The result was the book which was so eloquently analysed this afternoon. It has been issued, if I heard this rightly, some nineteen times; and three editions, two American and one British, are in print today, after fifty years.

At the end of his life Disraeli, by then Lord Beaconsfield, congratulated Matthew Arnold on having “coined unforgettable phrases.” Mr. Dangerfield may surely be offered the same congratulations. In the week in which I was composing this paper the Spectator of London carried an article under the headline: “The Strange Death of Liberal America”; and I note that a work will be published in London this September entitled “The Strange Rebirth of Liberal England.” Where the phrasing of the title is concerned we may be celebrating tonight, not only a jubilee, but the ghost of a centenary. When Mr. Dangerfield chose his arresting title he echoed, unwittingly as we understand, one devised fifty years earlier; for in 1885 a young British journalist in India named Rudyard Kipling had written a story entitled: “The Strange Ride of Morrowbie Jukes.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , Winter 1985 , pp. 409 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1985

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 Quartette (1885); The Phantom Rickshaw and Other Tales (1888).

2 Asquith, 2 vols. (London, 1932), 1:217n.2Google Scholar. Spender and Asquith continued, despite this note, to refer to the letters as “aides-memoire”: for instance, 2:92, 228.

3 The Strange Death of Liberal England, preface by Johnson, Paul (paperback; London, 1970), pp. 114–119Google Scholar, see also p. 322. All references to the book relate to this current edition.

4 Morison, Elting E., ed., The letters of Theodore Roosevelt, 8 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), 8:1220–1.Google Scholar

5 p. 345. See also p. 14.

6 p. 75.

7 p. 86.

8 January 1861: remark associated with Horace Greeley, New York Tribune, and General Winfield Scott.

9 Williams, P. M., Crisis and Compromise (London, 1964), p. v.Google Scholar

10 Watson, William, Ode on the Coronation of Edward VII (London, 1902).Google Scholar

11 p. 381. Kipling's “innocence” was discerned by one young critic who died on war service in 1915: Scott, Dixon, Men of Letters (London, 1916), p. 49.Google Scholar

12 For instance Booth's, Life and Labour of the People of London (London, 1891–1903)Google Scholar; Bell's, LadyAt the Works (London, 1907)Google Scholar; Masterman's, Condition of England (London, 1909).Google Scholar

13 See, for instance, The Times, 19 December 1899, p. 9d.Google Scholar

14 Inside Asquith's Cabinet (London, 1977), p. 111.Google ScholarPubMed

15 Michael, and Brock, Eleanor, eds., H. H. Asquith: Letters to Venetia Stanley (London, 1982), p. 61.Google Scholar

16 Nevins, Allan, Emergence of Lincoln, 2 vols. (New York, 1950), 2:126.Google Scholar

17 Letters to Venetia Stanley, p. 101.Google Scholar

18 ibid., p. 471.

19 To G. W. de Tunzelmann, MS Milner dep. 41, Bodleian Library, Oxford University. See also Yorkshire agent's report, 20 May 1914, MS Milner dep. 157, f. 135.

20 Bonar Law Papers 33/1/28; Colvin, Ian, Carson, 2 vols. (London, 1934), 2:412.Google Scholar

21 Macready, N., Annals of an Active Life, 2 vols. (London, 1924), 1:191.Google Scholar

22 Letters to Venetia Stanley, p. 123.

23 Grey, , Twenty-Five Years, 2 vols. (London, 1925), 1:337–8.Google Scholar

24 Gooch, G. P. and Temperley, Harold, eds., British Documents on the Origin of the War, 1898-1914, 11 vols. (London, 1926–1938), 8:380Google Scholar; Headlam, J. W., History of Twelve Days (London, 1915), p. 377Google Scholar; Tuchman, Barbara W., The Guns of August (London, 1962), pp. 34, 64, 127.Google Scholar

25 Brit. Docs. War, 8:381Google Scholar; National Review, 55:753, 62:55Google Scholar; Williamson, Samuel R. Jr., The Politics of Grand Strategy (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), p. 169Google Scholar; Nicolson, H., Lord Carnock (London, 1930), pp. 398–400.Google Scholar

26 “With much less demur” than the Prime Minister had expected: Letters to Venetia Stanley, p. 158.

27 See, for instance, Birmingham Post, 11 July 1914, p. 8d.Google Scholar

28 Letters, 25 March 1914, pp. 60-61.

29 Charleston was advised, for instance, by Roger A Pryor of Virginia to “strike a blow” (10 April 1861): Swanberg, W. A., First Blood (New York, 1960), p. 289.Google Scholar

30 p. 387.