Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:27:00.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Prosecutions…are Always Risky Business”: Labor, Liberals, and the 1912 “Don't Shoot” Prosecutions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Ian Christopher Fletcher
Get access

Extract

In the spring of 1912, the British syndicalist leader Tom Mann was prosecuted under the Incitement to Mutiny Act 1797 for his opposition to the use of troops during the great coal strike. He was convicted and sentenced to six months' imprisonment, but an outcry from socialists, trade unionists, and progressives forced the Liberal government to reduce his sentence and release him early from prison. This much is familiar to historians of early twentieth-century Britain and Ireland. It is often forgotten, however, that Mann was only one of eight syndicalists and socialists who were prosecuted for their involvement in the “don't shoot” agitation. It is likewise forgotten that Mann went on trial just days before the suffragette leaders Emmeline Pankhurst and Frederick and Emmeline Pethick Lawrence shared a similar fate, amid demands that Sir Edward Carson, the leading opponent of Irish home rule, join them in the dock. Indeed, the Nation, a progressive Liberal weekly, complained that “the country is…getting somewhat tired of political trials.” Perhaps because we assume the relative transparency of the law, historians have failed to scrutinize in detail the origins and outcome of the “don't shoot” prosecutions. George Dangerfield devoted one sentence to them, Elie Halévy a few more; although the “don't shoot” episode has been invoked to symbolize the increasingly fragile relations between Liberalism and the working classes, it continues to receive only brief mention in accounts of Edwardian labor and politics. Even Tom Mann's biographers have shed little new light on his case.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , Summer 1996 , pp. 251 - 278
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1996

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.)

Footnotes

*

An earlier version of this article was presented to the Southern Conference on British Studies, Atlanta, Georgia, in November 1992. Crown copyright material in the Public Record Office is reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. The quotation from H. H. Asquith's letter to George V is reproduced from photographic copies in the Public Record Office of original letters preserved in the Royal Archives and made available by the gracious permission of Her Majesty the Queen. The author wishes to thank Mrs. Dorothy Evelyn and the University of Liverpool Library, Mr. Geoffrey Trevelyan, the Trustees of the Trevelyan Family Papers and the Robinson Library, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland, and the House of Lords Record Office for permission to quote from private manuscripts. The author has made every effort to obtain permission for quotations from manuscript sources, but he begs the indulgence of any copyright holders whose identity or whereabouts were unknown to him. He is grateful to Laura Tabili, Jonathan Zeitlin, and two anonymous readers for their helpful criticisms and suggestions.

References

1 Nation, 25 May 1912.

2 Dangerfield, George, The Strange Death of Liberal England, 1910–1914 (New York, 1961 [1935]), p. 278Google Scholar; Halévy, Elie, A History of the English People in the Nineteenth Century, vol. 6: The Rule of Democracy 1905–1914 (2nd ed.; New York, 1961 [1932]), p. 465Google Scholar; Bernstein, George L., Liberalism and Liberal Politics in Edwardian England (London, 1986), p. 136Google Scholar; Challinor, Raymond, The Origins of British Bolshevism (London, 1977), pp. 66–67Google Scholar; Holton, Bob, British Syndicalism, 1900–1914: Myths and Realities (London, 1976), pp. 114–18Google Scholar; Kendall, Walter, The Revolutionary Movement in Britain 1900–21: The Origins of British Communism (London, 1969), p. 146Google Scholar; Meacham, Standish, “‘The Sense of an Impending Clash’: English Working-Class Unrest before the First World War,” American Historical Review 77, 5 (1972): 1353CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pugh, Martin, The Making of Modern British Politics 1867–1939 (Oxford, 1982), p. 157Google Scholar; Rubinstein, David, “Trade Unions, Politicians and Public Opinion 1906–14,” in Trade Unions in British Politics, ed. Pimlott, Ben and Cook, Chris (London, 1982), p. 70Google Scholar; Tanner, Duncan, Political Change and the Labour Party, 1900–1918 (Cambridge, 1990), p. 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Tsuzuki, Chushichi, Tom Mann, 1856–1941: The Challenges of Labour (Oxford, 1991), pp. 160–63Google Scholar; White, Joseph, Tom Mann (Manchester, 1991), pp. 179–82Google Scholar. See also Mann, Tom, Tom Mann's Memoirs (London, 1967 [1923]), pp. 230–62Google Scholar.

4 I remain grateful to the Departmental Record Officer of the Home Office for granting me privileged access to this file, HO 144/7062/220603, in 1986 when it was still closed and unlisted.

5 McKibbin, Ross, “Why was there no Marxism in Great Britain?,” in The Ideologies of Class: Social Relations in Britain 1880–1950 (Oxford, 1990), pp. 24, 26, 41Google Scholar (first published in the English Historical Review 99, 39 [1984]: 297–331)Google ScholarPubMed. Cf. Fox, Alan, History and Heritage: The Social Origins of the British Industrial Relations System (London, 1985), pp. 124–279Google Scholar.

6 Tanner, Duncan, “Ideological Debate in Edwardian Labour Politics: Radicalism, Revisionism and Socialism,” in Currents of Radicalism: Popular Radicalism, Organised Labour and Party Politics in Britain, 1850–1914, ed. Biagini, Eugenio F. and Reid, Alastair J. (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 271–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 An admittedly problematic category in modern and postmodern politics, “the Left” remains useful, I believe, if its presumed homogenous and universal character is replaced by a pluralized and relational understanding of its languages, traditions, organizations, and constituencies.

8 Holton, Sandra Stanley, “In Sorrowful Wrath: Suffrage Militancy and the Romantic Feminism of Emmeline Pankhurst,” in British Feminism in the Twentieth Century, ed. Smith, Harold L. (Amherst, 1990), pp. 7–24Google Scholar; idem, “From Anti-Slavery to Suffrage Militancy: The Bright Circle, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the British Women's Movement,” in Suffrage and Beyond: International Feminist Perspectives, ed., Caroline Daley and Meanie Nolan (New York, 1994), pp. 213–33; Joyce, Patrick, Visions of the People: Industrial England and the Question of Class 1848–1914 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Morgan, Jane, Conflict and Order: The Police and Labour Disputes in England and Wales, 1900–1939 (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar; Weinberger, Barbara, Keeping the Peace?: Policing Strikes in Britain, 1906–1926 (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar.

10 Porter, Bernard, The Origins of the Vigilant State: The London Metropolitan Police Special Branch before the First World War (London, 1986), pp. 161–94Google Scholar. See also Gatrell, V. A. C., “Crime, Authority and the Policeman-State,” in The Cambridge Social History of Britain 1750–1950, vol. 3: Social Agencies and Institutions, ed. Thompson, F. M. L. (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 243–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Petrow, Stefan, Policing Morals: The Metropolitan Police and the Home Office 1870–1914 (Oxford, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Townshend, Charles, Making the Peace: Public Order and Public Security in Modern Britain (Oxford, 1993), pp. 37–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 This concept is borrowed from Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, but I am concerned to historicize it in the specific circumstances of the Edwardian crisis. See Mouffe, Chantal, “Radical Democracy or Liberal Democracy?,” in Radical Democracy: Identity, Citizenship, and the State, ed. Trend, David (New York, 1996), p. 24Google Scholar; Laclau, Ernesto and Mouffe, Chantal, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics (London, 1985), pp. 149–94Google Scholar.

13 For the heckling which continually reminded the Liberal leader H. H. Asquith and his audiences that he was home secretary at the time of the Featherstone incident and allegedly bore some responsibility for it, see Gardiner, A. G., Prophets, Priests, and Kings (2nd ed.; London, 1914 [1908]), pp. 53–54, 61Google Scholar.

14 Gray, John, City in Revolt: James Larkin and the Belfast Dock Strike of 1907 (Belfast, 1985)Google Scholar.

15 Addison, Paul, Churchill on the Home Front: 1900–1955 (London, 1992), pp. 139–45Google Scholar, provides the most recent discussion. For a highly nuanced analysis of the social context and meaning of the strike violence, see Smith, David, “Tonypandy 1910: Definitions of Community,” Past and Present 87 (1980): 158–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Public Record Office (PRO), HO 45/10649/210615/77, Tillett to Labour M.P.s, 17 July 1911.

17 Irish Worker, 29 July 1911.

18 Bower, Fred, Rolling Stonemason (London, 1936), pp. 179, 182–83Google Scholar.

19 Justice, 26 Aug. 1911; Labour Leader, 1 Sept. 1911.

20 The Times, 28 Aug. 1911; Justice, 2 Sept. 1911. A version of this leaflet was later published in Justice, 16 Sept. 1911.

21 Justice, 9 Sept. 1911.

22 PRO, HO 144/1163/213549/1, Troup minute, 31 Aug. 1911; Churchill minute, 2 Sept. 1911; /2, Troup minute, 2 Sept. 1911.

23 The Earl of Halsbury and other lawyers, The Laws of England (London, 1909), 9: 464–65Google ScholarPubMed; Williams, David, Keeping the Peace: The Police and Public Order (London, 1967), pp. 178–97Google Scholar.

24 PRO, HO 144/1163/213549/3, Blackwell minute, 26 Oct. 1911.

25 Hardie, J. Keir, Killing No Murder!: The Government and the Railroad Strike (Manchester, 1911)Google Scholar. For Ramsay MacDonald and Bruce Glasier's disapproval of this “rather ignoble diatribe,” see University of Liverpool Library (ULL), Glasier papers, 1.2.1911, diary, 10 Oct. 1911.

26 PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/1 a, Troup minute, 17 Jan. 1912.

27 PRO, CRIM 1/130, Hansen deposition, 16 March 1912; Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 36, 5th ser., col. 94 (25 March 1912). For a discussion of the close working relationship between the Home Office, the director of public prosecutions, and the law officers, see SirTroup, Edward, The Home Office (London, 1926), pp. 76–78Google Scholar.

28 National Library of Scotland (NLS), Haldane papers, MS 6109(1), fols. 222–25, “Notes for the Secretary of State,” Macready, 26 Feb. 1912.

29 NLS, Haldane papers, MS 5987, fols. 74–75, R. Haldane to M. Haldane, 27 Feb. 1912.

30 PRO, HO 45/10674/218781/9, Troup minute, 19 Feb. 1912; Troup minute, 7 March 1912; /32, Troup to Macready, 24 Feb. 1912; Bodleian Library, Oxford University, MS Harcourt 442, fol. 190, Harcourt note, 29 Feb. 1912. For Troup's announcement at a Home Office conference of railway company representatives that the government had no plans for large-scale troop deployments, see PRO, HO 45/10674/218781, “Coal Strike, 1912: London Dock Strike, 1912: Confidential Memoranda and Correspondence,” pp. 11–12. See also Masterman, Lucy, C. F. G. Masterman (London, 1968 [1939]), p. 234Google Scholar; Morgan, , Conflict and Order, pp. 61–62Google Scholar.

31 Scottish Record Office, HH 55/266/33, McKenna memo, 1 March 1912.

32 Dawn, Feb. 1912.

33 Return showing the Working of the Regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879, 1884, and 1908…, Parliamentary Papers, 1913, vol. 52 [Commons 154], p. 473.

34 PRO, HO 45/10674/218781/22, Cardiff lord mayor to Home Office, 22 Feb. 1912; Evening Express cutting, 21 Feb. 1912; /22a, London metropolitan police (LMP) report, 22 Feb. 1912; Daily Express cutting, 22 Feb. 1912; /34, Western Mail cutting, 23 Feb. 1912. Tupper had been tried and acquitted of inciting disturbances during the Cardiff dock strike in July 1911. He remained a source of concern to the chief industrial commissioner Sir George Askwith. See PRO, HO 45/10674/218781/22a, Askwith to Troup, 12 Feb. 1912; Balfour, Campbell, “Captain Tupper and the 1911 Seamen's Strike in Cardiff,” Morgannwg: Transactions of the Glamorgan History Society 14 (1970): 76–78Google Scholar.

35 PRO, HO 45/10674/218781/22, Troup minute, 23 Feb. 1912.

36 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 34, 5th ser., col. 1545 (29 Feb. 1912).

37 PRO, ASSI 26/40, Crowsley to National Labour Press, 7, 16 Feb. 1912; Macnamara deposition, 29 Feb. 1912.

38 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 34, 5th ser., col. 1372 (28 Feb. 1912).

39 Justice, 2 March 1912.

40 ULL, Glasier papers, I.1.1912/10, Glasier to Johnson, 27 Feb. 1912; I.2.1912, diary, 27 Feb. 1912. Glasier took exception to the proposed leaflet because it was ambiguous on such points as the distinction between shooting strikers and “Arabs, Kaffirs, Boers, &c.” To MacDonald's embarrassment, the Huddersfield Worker published the draft. See Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 35, 5th ser., col. 1094 (13 March 1912); PRO, MacDonald papers, PRO 30/69/1156, fol. 163, Riley to MacDonald, 14 March 1912; Labour Leader, 22 March 1912.

41 ULL, Glasier papers, I.2.1912, diary, 2 March 1912. Doubting a sudden conversion to militancy, Glasier speculated that MacDonald was instead engaged, perhaps with David Lloyd George, in “a bit of tactics having for its end the saving of the Liberal Ministry from committing a blunder.”

42 Justice, 9 March 1912.

43 PRO, HO 144/1192/220104/3, Daily Express cutting, 14 March 1912.

44 The Times, 18 March 1912. For a recollection of plans by Glasgow socialists to help Grayson evade arrest, see McShane, Harry and Smith, Joan, Harry McShane: No Mean Fighter (London, 1978), p. 50Google Scholar.

45 Clarion, 15 March 1912.

46 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 35, 5th ser., col. 1775 (19 March 1912). Lloyd George made this statement the same day Mann was arrested. But for an indication that Lloyd George was prepared to support strong measures to end the strike if the miners rejected a compromise settlement, see Riddell, Baron, The Riddell Diaries, 1908–1923, ed. McEwen, J. M. (London, 1986), p. 37Google Scholar.

47 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 35, 5th ser., cols. 1895–96 (20 March 1912); NLS, Elibank papers, MS 8803, fol. 29, Norman to Elibank, 24 March 1912. In repeating what the solicitor general Sir John Simon had told him, the Liberal M.P. Sir Henry Norman confused the head constable of Salford with his counterpart in Manchester. See also Roberts, Robert, The Classic Slum: Salford Life in the First Quarter of the Century (Harmondsworth, 1973), pp. 93–101Google Scholar.

48 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 35, 5th ser., col. 2057 (21 March 1912).

49 Clarion, 15 March 1912; Labour Leader, 15 March 1912; Justice, 16 March 1912.

50 Justice, 23 March 1912.

51 British Library of Political and Economic Science, University of London (BLPES), Lansbury papers, 5/1/23–24, Gawthorpe to Lansbury, 20 March 1912. Gawthorpe was not the only feminist to concern herself with the “don't shoot” cases. For example, see Liddington, Jill, The Life and Times of a Respectable Radical: Selina Cooper (1864–1946) (London, 1984), pp. 217–18Google Scholar.

52 The Times, 23 March 1912.

53 PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/37, Troup to McKenna, 25 March 1912. The attorney general did not find everything to his liking either. Pressed by Lansbury, Isaacs was obliged to dissociate himself from the Recorder of London's remarks about the syndicalist menace while charging the grand jury on 19 March. See Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 35, 5th ser., cols. 1840–42 (19 March 1912); The Times, 20 March 1912; Labour Leader, 22 March 1912.

54 ULL, Glasier papers, I.2.1912, diary, 23 March 1912.

55 BLPES, ILP papers, Head Office Circulars 3, Johnson circular letter, 23 March 1912; The Times, 26 March 1912. See also Lansbury, George, My Life (London, 1928), pp. 117–18Google Scholar; Wedgwood, J. C., Memoirs of a Fighting Life (London, 1941), pp. 80–83Google Scholar.

56 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 36, 5th ser., cols. 91, 94, 105–07 (25 March 1912).

57 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 36, 5th ser., cols. 99–100 (25 March 1912).

58 The Times, 26 March 1912; Labour Leader, 29 March 1912; Justice, 30 March 1912.

59 House of Lords Record Office (HLRO), Ilbert papers, H.C. Lib. MS 75, diary, 25 March 1912.

60 University of Newcastle upon Tyne Library (UNL), Runciman papers, WR 63, C. P. Trevelyan to Runciman, 25 March 1912.

61 The Times, 27 March 1912.

62 UNL, Trevelyan papers, CPT 30, C. P. Trevelyan circular letter, 25 March 1912.

63 Manchester Guardian, 4 April 1912.

64 Justice, 30 March 1912.

65 Clarion, 29 March 1912.

66 Socialist, April 1912.

67 Clarion, 5 April 1912.

68 The Times, 9 April 1912; Daily Herald, 20 April 1912; Manchester Guardian, 6 May 1912.

69 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 37, 5th ser., col. 26 (15 April 1912).

70 NLS, Haldane papers, MS 5987, fol. 124, R. Haldane to M. Haldane, 28 March 1912; fol. 126, R. Haldane to M. Haldane, 29 March 1912; Riddell, Baron, More Pages from My Diary, 1908–1914 (London, 1934), pp. 162, 175Google Scholar; Nuffield College Library, Oxford University (NCL), MS Gainford 39, fol. 41, diary, 29 March 1912; British Library. Burns papers, Add. MS 46334, fol. 74, diary, 29 March 1912; PRO, CAB 41/33/45, Asquith to George V, 30 March 1912. See also Morgan, , Conflict and Order, pp. 63–64Google Scholar.

71 PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/46, Horridge to McKenna, 28 March 1912; McKenna minute, 29 March 1912.

72 PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/55, Wigan chief constable to Dunning, 4 April 1912; Troup minute, 6 April 1912; Mathews minute, 9 April 1912.

73 PRO, CAB 37/110/62, “Industrial Unrest,” Buxton, 13 April 1912. See also Davidson, Roger, “The Board of Trade and Industrial Relations 1896–1914,” Historical Journal 21, 3 (1978): 571–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Irish Worker, 13 April 1912; National Library of Ireland, Johnson papers, MS 17146/1, “Statement by Mr. T. Johnson to Bureau of Military History,” p. 9; PRO, CO 904/159, Dublin metropolitan police report, 15 April 1912. Sinn Feiners and Republicans were also carrying on their own “don't enlist” agitation.

75 PRO, CO 904/159, O'Connor opinion, n.d.

76 PRO, CO 904/159, Birrell minute, 23 April 1912.

77 PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/72, Birmingham chief constable to Home Office, 4 May 1912; Simpson minute, 7 May 1912.

78 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 36, 5th ser., cols. 1305–49 (10 April 1912); Manchester Guardian, 11 April 1912; The Times, 11 April 1912.

79 Daily Herald, 2 May 1912.

80 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 37, 5th ser., cols. 2047–48 (2 May 1912).

81 Manchester Guardian, 10 May 1912.

82 ULL, Glasier papers, I.2.1912, diary, 10 May 1912.

83 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 38, 5th ser., col. 801 (13 May 1912); HLRO, Ilbert papers, H.C. Lib. MS 75, diary, 13 May 1912; Labour Leader, 24 May 1912.

84 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 38, 5th ser., cols. 978–81 (14 May 1912).

85 Daily Herald, 20 May 1912; PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/98, LMP report, 20 May 1912.

86 Manchester Guardian, 10 May 1912; Nation, 11 May 1912.

87 NCL, MS Gainford 39, fols. 42–43, diary, 11 May 1912.

88 PRO, CAB 41/33/49, Asquith to George V, 11 May 1912. The Liberal whip Percy Illingworth feared that Mann's conviction could damage the candidacy of Gordon Hewart, a Liberal barrister who had been part of the prosecution team. In August, Hewart lost the Manchester Northwest by-election in a strong swing away from the previous Liberal poll. See John Rylands University Library of Manchester, Scott papers, CPS 332/112, Illingworth to Scott, 14 May 1912; CPS 332/116, Illingworth to Scott, 30 May 1912; Clarke, P. F., Lancashire and the New Liberalism (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 303–05CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

89 PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/103, Bankes to McKenna, 18 May 1912.

90 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 38, 5th ser., cols. 1566–68 (20 May 1912).

91 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 38, 5th ser., cols. 978–81, 1749–50 (21 May 1912).

92 PRO, HO 45/10684/223719, National Political Reform League deputation transcript, 21 May 1912.

93 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 38, 5th ser., cols. 2002–32 (22 May 1912).

94 See MacDonald, J. R., Syndicalism: A Critical Examination (London, 1912), p. 42Google Scholar.

95 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 38, 5th ser., cols. 2008, 2014 (22 May 1912).

96 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 38, 5th ser., cols. 2014, 2028 (22 May 1912).

97 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 39, 5th ser., cols. 872–996 (12 June 1912); Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 40, 5th ser., cols. 37–44 (24 June 1912), 215–19 (25 June 1912), 642–718 (28 June 1912).

98 Riddell, , More Pages from My Diary, p. 73Google Scholar.

99 The Times, 10 June 1912; Daily Herald, 10 June 1912.

100 The Times, 19 June 1912.

101 PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/109, [Blackwell] note, 18 June 1912; Troup minute, 18 June 1912.

102 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 39, 5th ser., cols. 1618–22 (18 June 1912). Wedgwood, who may have served as an intermediary between Crowsley and the government, mentioned his advice to the defendant that “if he pleaded guilty he would probably get off, and I had good reason for saying that, but he replied that his conscience would not allow him to plead guilty to what he did not consider a crime.”

103 PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/110, Blackwell minute, 21 June 1912; /113, Channell to McKenna, 22 June 1912; Blackwell minute, 24 June 1912; Home Office to Channell, 25 June 1912.

104 PRO, HO 144/7062/220603/107, Blackwell, McKenna, Troup minutes, 18 June 1912; Daily Herald, 26 June 1912. For Mann's prison experience, see also Ruskin College Library, Middleton papers, MID 24/11, Mann to Brockway, 2 Jan. 1929.

105 Manchester Guardian, 25 June 1912.

106 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 40, 5th ser., col. 218 (25 June 1912).

107 PRO, HO 144/1192/220104/5, Derbyshire Advertiser cutting, 28 June 1912. See also The Times, 26 June 1912.

108 PRO, HO 144/1192/220104/5, ? minute, 8 Aug. 1912; Simpson minute, 8 Aug. 1912; /6, Stephenson to Home Office, 14 Aug. 1912.

109 It may be noteworthy that the trial occurred just five days before a by-election at Ilkeston on 1 July, necessitated by the War Office parliamentary under-secretary J. E. B. Seely's appointment as the new war secretary following Haldane's elevation to the woolsack as lord chancellor. Even though spared the bad feelings which might have flowed from the imprisonment of three local men, Seely was returned with a significantly reduced majority.

110 Daily Herald, 21, 25, 27, 29 June 1912.

111 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 40, 5th ser., cols. 732–33 (1 July 1912).

112 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 40, 5th ser., cols. 1600–1601 (8 July 1912).

113 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 41, 5th ser., cols. 421–533 (17 July 1912).

114 Daily Herald, 10 Aug. 1912.

115 Cole, G. D. H., The World of Labour (London, 1913), p. 41Google Scholar.

116 Parliamentary Debates (Commons) 36, 5th ser., col. 73 (25 March 1912).

117 But for the 1913 squabble over who did more to free Mann, the BSP or the Labour party, see BLPES, ILP papers, Head Office Circulars 3, “Memorandum on the Application of the British Socialist Party for Separate Affiliation to the International Bureau,” p. 4.

118 For a parallel critique of the political distinction between “militants” and “constitutionalists,” and the reproduction of this distinction in the historiography of the women's suffrage movement, see Holton, Sandra Stanley, Feminism and Democracy: Women's Suffrage and Reform Politics in Britain, 1900–1918 (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 1–52Google Scholar; Mayhall, Laura E. Nym, “Creating the ‘Suffragette Spirit’: British Feminism and the Historical Imagination,” Women's History Review 4, 3 (1995): 319–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 Although beyond the scope of this article, it should be noted that Edwardian socialism and trade unionism were hardly free of anti-Semitism, chauvinism, and racism. With an internationalism tempered by triumphal notions of Englishness and Britishness, the Victorian popular-radical inheritance may have exacerbated these tendencies. A full accounting of the labor and socialist Left's stance towards imperialism and its handling of race before the First World War remains an urgent task for historians. But see Barrow, Logie, “White Solidarity in 1914,” in Patriotism: The Making and Unmaking of British National Identity, vol. 1: History and Politics, ed. Samuel, Raphael (London, 1989), pp. 275–87Google Scholar.

120 For the Edwardian era as an important transitional moment in which voluntarist and Jacobin, or statist, versions of working-class citizenship competed for support in the labor movement, see Hinton, James, “Voluntarism versus Jacobinism: Labor, Nation, and Citizenship in Britain, 1850–1950,” International Labor and Working-Class History 48 (1995): 71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

121 McKibbin, , “Why was there no Marxism in Great Britain?,” p. 24Google Scholar. For Edwardian Unionist efforts to mobilize popular support by construing gendered catchphrases like “an Englishman's home is his castle” in specifically anti-Liberal and anti-socialist ways, see Lawrence, Jon, “Class and Gender in the Making of Urban Toryism, 1880–1914,” English Historical Review 108 (1993): 645–48Google Scholar.

122 Hobson, J. A., Traffic in Treason: A Study of Political Parties (London, 1914), pp. 53–54Google Scholar. Hobson was one of a growing number of progressives, disillusioned with the Liberals and concerned about the future of peaceful social and political reform, who had begun to look to Labour.

123 Winter, J. M. and Joslin, D. M., eds., R. H. Tawney's Commonplace Book (Cambridge, 1972), p. 47Google Scholar.