The Peace of Amiens

Home > Other > The Peace of Amiens > Page 5
The Peace of Amiens Page 5

by Nicholas Sumner


  ​Both Churchill and Fisher were alarmed at the situation, there was a clamour for decisive action and an air of crisis motivated the convening of an inquiry. This proceeded under the presidency of F. C. Dreyer, one of the Navy’s foremost gunnery experts, assisted by his brother Captain J. T. Dreyer of the Royal Artillery. The inquiry concentrated on shell performance, the committee members worked tirelessly and quickly submitting their conclusions in March 1915.[20]

  ​Although both Churchill and Fisher left the Admiralty over the Dardanelles debacle, their prompt action in mounting and pressing forward with a comprehensive and unflinching investigation into shell performance did the Royal Navy a great service. [21] Even after his resignation, Fisher took an active interest in the issue and the respect he commanded within the fleet ensured his attention propelled the committee’s work. The final report was damning and sent shockwaves through the upper echelons of both the Royal Navy and the British Government, at a critical juncture in the war the Grand Fleet was not equipped with any shell on which it could absolutely rely and the provision of new shell for the Navy was accorded the highest priority.

  ​Partly because of the shell crisis of the summer of 1915 deliveries of new projectiles were slow but by the Battle of Jutland some 80% of the ships of the Grand Fleet were equipped with the new ‘Greenboy’ shells.[22]

  ​A wider result of both the Army and Navy shell crises of 1915 was a re-appraisal of British manufacturing and materials testing. The crises acted as a clarion call and showed that for Britain to remain an effective industrial power then much had to change. Though the process of change was interrupted by the recession and was not to fully bear fruit until the 1930s, the crises marked the nascence of a realistic approach to industrial policy from the British government.

  From ‘Salt Water Legends’ by Rachael Belstaff, Halder and Stratton 1986

  Francis Drake took a drum with him on his voyage to circumnavigate the world which he undertook between 1577 and 1580. As he lay on his death bed off the coast of Panama in 1596 he ordered that the drum be taken to Buckland Abbey in Devon, where it remains to this day. He vowed that if England was ever in great danger then the drum was to be beaten to summon his return to defend the country.

  ​People have claimed to have heard the drum beating on several occasions: in 1815 when Napoleon was brought into Plymouth Harbour as a prisoner; in August 1914 at the outbreak of the Great War and when the German navy surrendered at Scapa Flow in 1919. On this occasion a victory drum roll was heard on HMS Royal Oak. The ship was searched three times from masthead to keel but neither a drum, nor a drummer, were found on board.

  ​The last reported occasion on which the drum was heard was during the German invasion of Britain. Several of the survivors of the crew of HMS Revenge claim to have heard the drum at different times during their passage from Rosyth to St Mary’s Bay and there was a report that some German sailors claimed to have heard it as well.

  CHAPTER 4: SUNDAY 13TH DECEMBER 1931

  The New York City streets are dark with winter rain. The shows are closing; the crowds that pour from the doorways of theatres hunch into their overcoats and hurry through the gusty wind that blows cold raindrops into faces and turns umbrellas inside out. Taxis jostle one another at traffic lights, their drivers scanning the mass of people for fares. Tyres hiss as they turn on the wet tarmac and the reflections of headlamps shine yellow from the black surface of Broadway.

  ​A match flares suddenly in the dark interior of one of the cabs; its glow catches briefly in the thousands of droplets of water that coat the outside of the windows. The man who holds it lights a cigar and shakes his hand to put the match out. He rubs at the condensation on the inside of the cold glass, shifts impatiently in his seat and leans forward,

  ​“Driver!” he growls “Do you know where you are going?” The woman who sits beside him places a gentle hand on his arm. “Winston, don’t berate the man.”

  ​“I’m not berating him Clementine, we appear to be lost.”

  ​“Winston, we are at the junction of Fifth Avenue and Broadway, one can hardly be lost if one is on Broadway.”

  ​They stop for a moment; the man’s eyes meet the drivers momentarily in the rear view mirror.

  “Fifth Avenue…” he speaks slowly, as if to a fool, “…the apartment of Bernard Baruch.”

  The driver sighs, this jowly Englishman with the steady gaze and the haughty demeanour is becoming annoying.

  “Look Mister, Fifth Avenue runs half the length of Manhattan Island, are you sure you can’t remember the exact address?”

  ​The Englishman scowls as the taxi moves forward again, then suddenly he sits bolt upright and strikes the back of the driver’s seat, pointing triumphantly.

  ​“There, there it is, stop driver I recognise that doorway.” The woman is uncertain; she stares in the direction the man is pointing and frowns.

  ​“Winston are you sure, Winston, wait…” But he is already pressing money into the drivers hand and opening the door. He leaps from the vehicle looking the wrong way, the sudden shriek of tyres on the wet road makes the woman catch her breath, she hears the thud as the skidding car hits him, sees the body fold over the radiator. She screams.

  CHAPTER 5: THE RISE OF OSWALD MOSLEY

  “The man’s a Cad and a Wrong-un”. Stanley Baldwin, speaking of Oswald Mosley [23]

  From ‘A Concise History of British Politics’ by Tom Shaed, Gloucester University Press, 2007

  Oswald Mosley’s leadership of the Labour Party probably prevented not only a split in its ranks but also a heavy defeat in the general election of 27th October 1931. [24] From his re-entry to the House of Commons under the Labour whip (he had previously sat as a Conservative) on 21st December 1926, he had devoted much energy to build a personal following in the Party. He championed radical ‘New Deal’ style interventionism and Keynesian economic policies, but failed to win over the party leadership. His resignation speech, on leaving his role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 19th May 1930, was a bold claim to leadership pitched at the political centre. It was one of the most ardent and stirring speeches the House of Commons had ever witnessed. [25]

  As the recession dragged on, so the internal divisions within the Labour Party grew. At the party conference in the autumn Mosley revealed his ‘manifesto’. Although it was rejected by a narrow margin, [26] the support it garnered confirmed the growing discontent within the party and the existence of a credible alternative to the leadership within its ranks.

  Over the winter of 1930 to 1931, Mosley’s attacks on the direction of party policy became increasingly vociferous. While this irritated some and incensed the Cabinet, it confirmed the fact of his support among the rank and file and their mounting discontent with the Prime Minister and Labour leader, Ramsey Macdonald. At this time Macdonald was already a sick man and Mosley seemed to be everything that he was not; charismatic, energetic, eloquent and swift of thought and purpose.

  In April, Mosley decided to leave Labour and establish a new party, but his close political allies persuaded him that his grass–roots support would not follow him.[27] He decided to bide his time and in the event, did not have to wait long. ‘The Economy Committee on National Expenditure’, chaired by Sir George May issued the ‘May Report’ in July 1931. It immediately precipitated a political crisis from its conclusion that by 1932 the country would be running a deficit of £60 Million.[28] Its recommendation was trenchant cuts in the budget. It was the final nail in the coffin of the Labour government as the May Report split the cabinet. Macdonald resigned as Prime Minister the following day and a Conservative–Liberal emergency government under Stanley Baldwin took office on the 27th August 1931. Less than a fortnight later, Macdonald had also resigned as party leader. The competition for his replacement was between Mosley, championing a radical change of policy and Arthur Henderson, a veteran of Labour’s establishment. Mosley won.

  ​The Coalition government was financially orthodox and w
hen parliament reconvened, it announced its intention to return to the Gold Standard which the pound sterling had left during the Great War. Mosley attacked this as ‘muddled thinking’ and in the following months he used his position as Leader of the Opposition to make searing attacks on government policy. He presented the new prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, and the members of his cabinet, as out of touch and hide-bound. In other words, he did to them exactly what he had done to Ramsey Macdonald and the Labour leadership.

  Mosley’s impassioned rhetoric and lucid explanation of Labour’s new policies struck a chord in the country as a whole. His reception at the Labour party conference in early October was ecstatic and even as Labour met in Scarborough, the government was in the process of deciding to call an election. Baldwin was convinced that his handling of the budget crisis meant that the Conservatives could attain an overall majority. The Liberal Party was split into three factions at this time, Labour had just crashed out of office and he didn’t believe Mosley was a credible candidate. On 5th October, he called the election.

  ​In the campaign, the Conservatives attacked Labour as ineffectual and ‘Bolshevic’. Mosley himself was characterised as a disingenuous poseur; but the negativity of the Tory campaign stood in stark contrast to Labour’s message of revitalisation. Mosley, an accomplished speaker, seemed to embody it. He toured the hustings tirelessly, his vigour galvanised the Labour Party and his message of renewing the country was compelling. However, many Labour supporters were aware that he was changing the party’s direction, philosophy and outlook and were uncomfortable with Mosley himself. The result of the election was a Conservative victory but without an overall majority. [29] The results were as follows:

  Conservative: 289 (+29)

  Labour: 249 (–38)

  Liberal: 33 (–26)

  Liberal National: 35 (+35)

  Independent Liberal: 4 (+4)

  Others: 5

  With the exception Sir John Simon’s Liberal Nationals and David Lloyd George’s Independent Liberals, all the parties were disappointed by the results. Stanley Baldwin found himself in a situation much the same as before the election, in that he was still compelled to maintain a coalition with the Liberals. The protectionist lobby within his own party was becoming increasingly vocal, while their coalition partners were staunch advocates of free trade. Consequently he had to accept that his government was more fragile than ever. [30] By contrast, Labour’s position was a strong one. As the Opposition they could afford to wait for Baldwin’s Government to falter, a task made simpler by Labour’s backing of Imperial preference. The divisions within the coalition were so deep that they had the potential to bring it down.

  On the 14th of December the news of Winston Churchill’s death at the age of 57 in a traffic accident in New York reached the UK. [31] In the House of Commons, mourning was led by Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Secretary of State for Scotland and a rising star of the Liberal Party. He had been a personal friend of Churchill’s and served with him on the Western Front in the Great War. Obituaries for the former Chancellor and First Lord of the Admiralty dwelt regretfully on a career that had failed to live up to its early promise, but all mentioned his bold, but controversial decision to keep the pound sterling off the Gold Standard in 1925. [32]

  From The Edinburgh Times 3rd January 1932

  Clementine Churchill looked drawn and pale today as she attended the inquiry in New York into the death of her husband, the late Winston Churchill M.P.

  ​Mrs Churchill was dressed entirely in black and showed dignity and poise while answering questions on the accident which took the life of her husband on 13th December last year. Most noticeable about the proceedings was Mrs Churchill’s refusal to attach any blame to the driver of the car, Mr. Mario Contasino, an unemployed truck driver from Yonkers.

  In contrast to Mrs Churchill’s calm demeanour, Mr. Contasino seemed at times distraught and at one point said “I never want to drive again.” Nevertheless Mrs Churchill’s insistence that her husband had left the taxi in which they had both been riding; “…in a hurry and while looking the wrong way.” has ensured that Mr Contasino will be held blameless in the matter of her husband’s decease. The inquiry recorded a verdict of ‘Death by Misadventure’.

  From ‘British Economic Growth’ by Simon Reece, Gloucester University Press, 1985

  Winston Churchill’s decision to keep the pound off the Gold Standard was an extraordinary one. In Britain’s heyday, sterling and gold were interchangeable, and the one was not thought inferior to the other. For a nation determined to recapture its past economic eminence, the re-establishment of the relationship between the pound and gold seemed a natural step. No-one was more aware of this than Churchill. In his capacity as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was subjected to the conventional wisdom by Montagu Norman (Governor of the Bank of England) Austen Chamberlain (the Foreign Secretary), Phillip Snowden (the Shadow Chancellor) and others who believed a return to gold would stimulate international and intra–Imperial trade.

  ​British financiers, in both the Treasury and in the City, were convinced that England’s future prosperity could be assured only if London were re-established as the financial centre of the globe. This, they held, would be impossible until ‘the pound can look the dollar in the face.’ Otto Niemeyer of the treasury asked doubters: ‘How are we, a great exporting and importing country, to live with an exchange fluctuating with gold, when the United States of America, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, the Dominions and Japan have a stable gold exchange?’ To bankers, re-establishing the credit of the pound was worth any risk.

  Yet Churchill was instinctively against going back onto the Gold Standard despite the clamour and in reality their arguments were weak and focused on tradition rather than practicalities. Any precious metal or even a flourishing economy can serve as well as gold; Niemeyer, Norman and Snowden were living in the past, when the pound was regarded with awe in the world’s money markets. They assumed that the restoration of sterling’s equivalence with the dollar would re-establish Britain’s pre-war prosperity. None of them were aware that Britain’s financial position after the Great War and shrunken export trade could no longer provide the surplus needed to re-establish London’s financial ascendancy over the rest of the world. Churchill’s instinct was supported by the arguments of Keynes who reasoned that by returning to gold at the old rate, Britain would accept a painful recession of prices and wages with accompanying stagnation and unemployment which would be a rich source of social stress.

  The meeting that chiefly influenced the final decision took place on 17th March 1925 over dinner at Number 11 Downing Street. The case for returning to the Gold Standard was made by Otto Neimeyer of the Bank of England and the case against by John Maynard Keynes. Churchill was not as sure of his ground on most financial issues as he was on those of history or strategy and he could be bullied or at least cajoled on the subject. Keynes however could dominate any argument concerning finance or economics and was on top of his form. He was able to make a compelling case and sterling never again returned to gold. [33]

  Churchill was jeered in the House of commons when he made the announcement but launched into a typically fiery oration where he overcame the booing with speech harking back to the hard years after Waterloo. At that time governments had done what had to be done, while building the Empire. Churchill finished by proclaiming that a flourishing economy was a better buttress for British prestige than sacrificing sound fiscal policy by cleaving to a symbolic gesture in defiance of common sense and British interests.

  But what would have been the consequences of a return to gold? The pre-war exchange rate was 123.27 grains of fine gold and $4.87 to the pound Sterling. In 1920, the pound had fallen to as low as $3.40 in gold-based dollars. Though it had since risen and had continued to rise, the pre-war gold content and dollar exchange rates were far too high and in consequence British prices would be far too high. At the pre-war parity – if it had been again adopted in
1925 anyone who had gold or dollars would have been able to do better by exchanging them for the money of one of Britain’s competitors and buying their goods. Exports were essential to Britain and at the pre-war exchange rate British coal, textiles and other manufactured goods would only become competitive if their prices were to fall by 10 per cent. This in turn would mean a cut in wages to keep British goods competitive and unemployment would remain high.

  As it was, the unemployment rate among insured workers rose from 11% in 1925 to 12% in 1926 and reached as high as 17.5% in 1932. [34] Churchill, in his capacity as Chancellor calculated that each unemployed person in Britain cost the exchequer roughly £150 per annum, £50 in doles and £100 in lost revenue.

  We may also speculate that had the powerful British economy been encumbered by the pressure to keep the value of the pound at its pre-war parity, the effect might have been to deepen and lengthen the recession that overtook the world in 1930 and was preceded by the Wall Street crash. [35]

  CHAPTER 6: MONDAY 3RD JUNE 1940

  When the reserve tank runs dry as well, the engine coughs twice and the needle on the rev counter flickers before it falls below zero. He feels the drop in speed and the abrupt change of pitch as the nose of the aircraft sags towards the sea. The cockpit is suddenly silent and one blade of the stopped propeller sticks directly upwards above the cowling, dividing his view in half. He is about four nautical miles from his ship, the aircraft carrier HMS Courageous and has perhaps three thousand feet between the belly of the aeroplane and the white tipped waves beneath.

  ​He pushes the stick forward to pick up momentum. The aircraft, empty of fuel and ammunition, feels light and playful, as if it were skittering and slipping through the air. He must judge his speed and altitude with care, he has just enough of both, but only just. Each time he puts the aircraft into a shallow dive to keep its air speed up he loses precious height, but if he flies straight and level his speed bleeds away until it teeters at the threshold of a stall. He thumbs the microphone button.

 

‹ Prev