Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T06:51:27.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Collapse of Resistance to Democracy: Conservatives, Adult Suffrage, and Second Chamber Reform, 1911–1928

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

David H. Close
David H. Close
Affiliation:
The Flinders University of South Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Successive governments in Britain took great steps towards a more democratic form of government between 1911 and 1928. Universal suffrage, first proposed tentatively by a government in the former year, was completed in the latter. In the same period, the house of lords - the rejuvenation of which was treated at least nominally as vital by both the Liberal government and the Conservative opposition in 1911 - was effectively relegated even by Conservatives to an unimportant role. The attitudes and policies of Conservative politicians towards these changes deserve study for diverse reasons. They were part of a national debate about the wisdom of progress towards democracy; and so they form an important chapter in the development of political attitudes. They also do much to explain both how the process of democratization occurred, and how post-war governments viewed the electorate, as Conservatives participated in or dominated governments for most of the years from 1915 to 1945. Finally, the importance of Conservative views has been overlooked by historians, because they have persistently pre-dated the trend to democracy in Britain and so underestimated the scale of controversy about it. These historiographical tendencies are illustrated by the still lingering myth that the franchise before 1914 was close to manhood suffrage, or by the hitherto general assumption that the reform bill of 1917–18 was uncontroversial.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 1977 , pp. 893 - 918
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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 For examples, see Blewett, N., ‘The franchise in the United Kingdom, 1885–1918’, Past and Present, XXXII (12 1965), 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Matthew, H. C. G., McKibbin, R. I., and Kay, J. A., ‘The franchise factor in the rise of the Labour Party’, Eng. Hist. Rev. xci (10 1976), p. 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar I am indebted to Professor Blewett for some perceptive comments on this paper.

2 Below, n. 38.

3 Estimated from figures in Blewett, N., The peers, the parties and the people: the general elections of 1910 (London, 1972), pp. 363–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Matthew, et al. , ‘The franchise factor’, pp. 733–5.Google Scholar

4 5Hansard xxxix (17 06 1912), 1351.Google Scholar

5 Ibid. 1352–3; Blewett, , The peers, the parties, and the people, pp. 359–60Google Scholar; memorandum by W. A. G.[ales], 3 Feb. 1917, pp. 1–2, Steel-Maitland papers (General Register House, Edinburgh), GD 193/202 (1).

6 Selborne to Law, 13 Mar. 1912, Bonar Law papers (House of Lords Record Office), 25/3/26; Dicey to Strachey, 8 Nov. 1911, Strachey papers (same location), 5/5/21; Spectator, 11 Nov. 1911, p. 782.

7 Ramsden, J. A., ‘The organisation of the Conservative and Unionist Party in Great Britain, 1910–1929’ (unpublished Oxford D.Phil, thesis, 1975), pp. 51–2Google Scholar; memorandum by Steel-Maitland, A., Oct. 1916, pp. 11–12Google Scholar, Steel-Maitland papers, GD 193/202 (16); Blewett, , pp. 365–9.Google Scholar I am grateful to Dr Ramsden for arranging for me to see his thesis, and for some helpful and enjoyable discussions about the subject of this paper.

8 5Hansard xxxix (17 06 1912), 1414Google Scholar; XL (8 July 1912), 1655, 1659; Gales, W. A., memorandum, p. 2.Google Scholar

9 Lowell, A. L., The government of England (2nd edn, New York, 1912), II, 110–12.Google Scholar For evidence of Liberal reservations about the wisdom of extending the franchise, see Matthew, et al. , ‘The franchise factor’, pp. 744–6.Google Scholar

10 E.g. 5Hansard XL (8 07, 1912), 1655–6, E. Pretyman.Google Scholar

11 Ibid., 1659, 1682, 1695, 1739, 2108, 2129.

12 L. H. Hayter to Sir J. Boraston, 13 Feb. 1917, Steel-Maitland papers, GD 193/202 (4).

13 Law to Lady B. Balfour (copy), n.d. [1911], Bonar Law papers, 33/3/17.

14 Bayford MS diary (Conservative Research Department), 1 (19 June 1912), 40; Steel- Maitland to Law, 27 Jan. 1913, Bonar Law papers, 28/2/86; memorandum in Steel-Maidand's handwriting (dated by contents Feb.-Mar. 1917), pp. 8–10, Steel-Maitland papers, GD 193/202 (4); report by a sub-committee to the executive committee of the National Unionist Association, 13 Mar. 1917, pp. 6–7, Ibid. (2).

15 5Hansard xxi (5 05 1911), 805–10Google Scholar; xxxvi (28 Mar. 1912), 723–8; XLIII (5 Nov. 1912), 1123–8; HI (5 May 1913), 2001–6. The figures are estimated from an anonymous, printed table in the W. H. Dickinson papers (Greater London Record Office).

16 5Hansard xciv (6 06 1917), 237–40.Google Scholar

17 Extreme opponents of the coalition, especially to its concession of self-government to Ireland.

18 Acland, F. D. M.P., ‘Woman suffrage’, Contemporary Review, CIII (03 1913), 331Google Scholar; for the example of Sir Aitken, W. M. M.P. see Clarke, P. F., Lancashire and the new Liberalism (London, 1971), p. 121, n. 4.Google Scholar

19 Lady B. Balfour to Law, 17 Dec. 1912, Bonar Law papers, 25/2/31; W. Long to Law, 2 May 1913, Ibid., 29/4/3.

20 National Unionist Association conference minutes (‘Micromethods’ microfilm), 1911 conference, pp. 41–2; 1894 conference, pp. 514–21.

21 As I have confirmed by analysing the speeches of eight Conservative and seven Liberal anti-suffragists in the parliamentary debates of July 1910 and May 1913.

22 Acland, F. D., ‘Woman suffrage’, 330, 334Google Scholar; Williams, E. Crawshay M.P., ‘Position of woman suffrage’, Contemporary Review, CI (09 1912), 840Google Scholar; 5Hansard LII ( 5 05 1913), 1705, 1720, 1730.Google Scholar

23 Law to Lady Betty Balfour (copy), n.d. [1911], Bonar Law papers, 33/3/17; Frodsham, G. D., ‘Woman suffrage in practice’, Nineteenth Century LXXIV (11 1913), 983Google Scholar; memo randum by G[ales], W. A., 3 Feb. 1917, p. 15Google Scholar, Steel-Maitland papers, GD 193/202 (1); 5Hansard xix (11 07 1910), 118Google Scholar; (12 July), 221; J. Lawrence to Earl Grey, 2 Apr. 1917, 4th Earl Grey papers (University of Durham).

24 N.U.A. conference minutes, 1913, pp. 51–2.

25 Memorandum entided ‘Registration’ by Steel-MaiUand, June-July 1916 (anon, and n.d., authorship and date revealed by contents), Steel-Maidand papers GD 193/202; 5Hansard XCII (28 03 1917), 516–17Google Scholar, Long, W.; Yorkshire Post, parliamentary correspondent, 23 Aug. 1916, p. 4Google Scholar; 6 Oct. 1916, p. 4; Lord Derby to Lloyd George, 19 Aug. 1916, Lloyd George papers (House of Lords Record Office), E 1/1/1.

26 The Times, 25 May 1916, p. 7; 16 Aug. 1916, p. 7; memorandum by Sir G. Cave, 13 Nov. 1917, Cabinet papers (Public Record Office), 24/31/2599.

27 House of Lords Debates, 5Hansard xxin (7 Nov. 1916), 391–2, Lord Salisbury; Selborne to Salisbury, 12 Sep. 1916 (copy), Selborne papers (Bodleian Library, Oxford), 6/187–8.Google Scholar

28 The Times, 23 May 1928, p. 8Google Scholar, Lord Birkenhead; 5Hansard ccxv (29 02 1928) 1420Google Scholar, C. Craig; Selborne to Salisbury, 25 Aug. 1916 (copy), Selborne papers, 6/174.

29 Selborne to Salisbury, 12 Sep. 1916 (copy), Ibid. 6/187–8; memorandum by C. Marston, n.d., enclosed by J. BorastontoSteel-Maidand,26Feb. 1917, Steel-Maidand papers, 193/202.

30 5Hansard LXXX (19 07 1916), 1051Google Scholar, Carson, E.; Morning Post, editorial, 18 Aug. 1916, p. 4.Google Scholar

31 5Hansard XCII (28 03 1917), 561Google Scholar; K. Cecil to Asquith, 18 May 1916, Asquith papers (Bodleian Library, Oxford), 16/162.

32 Lloyd George papers, loc cit.; House of Commons, Notices of motions etc. 1916, III (18 July), 2108, B. Peto's amendment to Carson's motion; Salisbury to Selborne, 23 Aug. 1916, Selborne papers, 6/169–70.

33 Samuel committee's memorandum, 30 June 1916, Bonar Law papers, 64/G/9; memo randum by W.Long, 8 Aug. 1916, Ibid., 64/G/15; Asquith to the king, 11 Aug. 1916, Asquith papers, 8/191.

34 5Hansard LXXXV (16 08 1916), 1893, 1906, 1917, 1953Google Scholar; XCII (28 March 1917), 514; cuttings from Daily Telegraph (parliamentary correspondent, 18 Aug. 1916), and Weekly Dispatch (8 Oct. 1916), Sir William Bull papers (Hammersmith Public Library, London).

35 Long to Asquith, 17 Sep. 1916, Bonar Law papers, 64/G/20.

34 5Hansard LXXXV (16 08 1916), 1949–50Google Scholar, W. Long; Long to Asquith, 23 Aug. 1916, Asquith papers, 17/54.

35 Speaker to Asquith, 1 Oct. 1916, Asquith papers, 17/93; Dickinson, W. H., ‘The Speaker's Conference on electoral reform’ [galley proof of article], p. 2Google Scholar, Dickinson papers; Lord Burnham to Lord Grey, 1 Feb. 1917, 4th Earl Grey papers; Salisbury to Lord Curzon, 21 June 1917, Curzon papers (India Office Library, London), Eur. F. 112/120; Speaker Lowther to Lord Bryce, 26 Aug. 1917, Bryce papers (Bodleian Library, Oxford), UB40.

38 The Times, 29 Mar. 1917, p. 7, editorial; George, D. Lloyd, War memoirs (London, 1936), II, 1169–70Google Scholar; National Unionist Association, The campaign guide (14th edn, London, 1922), pp. 402–3Google Scholar; Morris, H. L., Parliamentary franchise reform in England from 1885 (A.M.S. edition, New York, 1969), pp. 199–200Google Scholar; Buder, D. E., The electoral system in Britain since 1918 (London, 2nd edn, 1963), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

39 Stevenson, F., A Lloyd George diary, ed. Taylor, A. J. P. (London, 1971), p. 148Google Scholar; C. Addison, 4½ years (London, 1934), 11, 337; exchange of letters between Lord Rhondda and Lloyd George, 22–4 May 1917, Lloyd George papers, F 43/5/17–18; Nation, 3 Feb. 1917, p. 607; The Times, 8 Feb. 1917, p. 9; 7 Mar. 1917, p. 7; 21 Mar. 1917, p. 5.

40 Carson to Lloyd George, 8 Mar. 1917, Lloyd George papers, F 6/2/19; Morning Post, 23 Mar. 1917, p. 4; 28 Mar. 1917, p. 8; 5Hansard XCIII (23 05 1917), 2333Google Scholar, H. Wilson Fox; Steel-Maidand to Long, 3 Feb. 1917, Long papers (Wiltshire County Record Office, Trowbridge), A372; J. Boraston to Steel-Maidand, is Feb. 1917, Steel-Maidand papers, GD 193/202; N.U.A. executive minutes (Conservative Central Office), 8 May 1917, p. 13.

41 The position of Lord Milner, apparently the only other Conservative minister present, is unknown. Of ministers not mentioned as attending these meetings, the attitudes of Carson, Steel-Maitland and Finlay are known; all opposed legislation. Thornton MS diary, 1, 50, 63, 82, 132, 134 (3 Feb.-27 Mar. 1917), Milner papers (Bodleian Library, Oxford), 299; memorandum by Long, 13 Feb., Cabinet papers, 24/6/1; Steel-Maidand to BonarLaw [c. 26 Mar.], (copy), Steel-Maidand papers, GD 193/202; Addison, Politics from within (London, 1924), II, 175: Addision, 4th years, 11, 348; Stevenson, , Lloyd George diary, p. 148Google Scholar; Riddell, Lord, War diary (London, 1933), p. 246Google Scholar; Lloyd George to W. George (copy), 30 Mar. 1917, Lloyd George papers, 1/2/2/70.

42 5Hansard xcii (28 05), 508–9Google Scholar; XCIII (22 May), 2369, 2408, 2416; xcv (26 June), 282–303; N.U.A. conference minutes, 1917, p. 9.

45 5Hansard XCIII (22 05), 2182–3Google Scholar, H. Samuel (Unionist); Salisbury to Selborne, 4 Sep. [1916, misdated 1913], Selborne papers, 6/179.

44 Carson to Selborne, 24 Mar. 1917, Bonar Law papers, 81/4/25; Salisbury, Banbury and Craig to the Speaker, 13 Dec. 1916 (copy), Lloyd George papers, F/46/1; sub-committee report to the executive of the N.U.A., 13 Mar. 1917, p. 3, Steel-Maitland papers, GD 193/202 (2); memorandum in Steel-Maidand's handwriting (dated by contents Feb.-Mar. 1917), pp. 4–6, 10, Ibid. (4).

45 Bayford diary, 1, 88–9, 92, 97, 99 (10 June, 15 June, 20 July, 5 Nov., 22 Nov. 1917); report of N.U.A. executive to Council, 10 July 1917, pp. 2–5, in N.U.A. executive minutes (inserted after p. 29); A. Salvidge to Lord Derby, 2 June 1917, Derby papers (Liverpool Public Library); Long to W. T. Jerred, 12 June 1917 (copy), Long papers, 37a; boundary commissioners’ reports, Parliamentary papers, 1917–18 (Cd. 8756, 8759), XIII 12, XIV. 47; Ramsden, ‘Conservative organisation’, p. 116.Google Scholar

46 Addison, II, 430, 454.

47 Originating in Kinnear, M., The British voter (London, 1968), p. 72Google Scholar, and accepted by Cook, C., The age of alignment (London, 1975), p. 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Professor N. Blewett has told me that, after making the same calculations as Kinnear, he found that they would not support the latter's conclusion that the Conservatives gained from the redistribution of 1917. Except by agriculturalists, there was apparently no complaint in 1917 or later about partisan bias in the redistribution.

48 Demonstrated by analyses, made for me by Mr R. Thornton, of the general election results of 1922 and 1923.

49 Pugh, M. D., ‘Politicians and the women's vote, 1914–1918’, History, LIX (10 1974), 366–74.Google Scholar But I disagree with Dr Pugh in believing that there was a substantial change in politicians' opinions during the war, and that it was noticeably stimulated by public opinion. Dr Pugh assesses the extent of conversion among M.P.s as ‘marginal’ (p. 370), but only by (a) expressing the number of converts as a percentage of the total number voting on both sides before the war; and (b) taking for comparison a pre-war division (that of 1911) in which abstentions by anti-suffragists were relatively high.

50 N.U.A. executive minutes (8 May 1917), p. 13.

51 5Hansard CXII (28 03 1917), 543Google Scholar, A. Morton; Ibid. 561, Bonar Law; xcm (22 May 1917), 2215, 2217, R. Blair; xcrv (19 June 1917), 1700; H. Mackinder; Ibid. 1711, B. Falle; A. Ward to Curzon [29 May 1917], Curzon papers, Eur. F. 112/37; J. W. Gulland to Law, 27 June 1916, Bonar Law papers, 64/G/16.

52 5Hansard xciv (19 06 1917), 1645Google Scholar, Banbury; Ibid. 1666–8, Burdett-Coutts; Ibid. 1700, Mackinder; Ibid. 1725–7, Compton-Rickett; Lord Chaplin to Curzon, 4 Jan. 1918, enclosing memorandum by C. Wade, Curzon papers, Eur. F. 112/121.

53 Lord Islington to Curzon, 10 Jan. 1917, Ibid. 119; Lord Lansdowne to Curzon, 15 Jan. 1917, Ibid. 122; The Times, 11 Jan. 1918, p. 7; House of Lords debates, 5Hansard XXVII (10 01 1918), 522–3Google Scholar; debates, H. C., 5 Hansard CI (6 02 1918), 2281.Google Scholar

54 Morning Post, political correspondent, 1 Feb. 1917, p. 6; 2 Mar. 1917, p. 4; memorandum by W. A. G[ales], 3 Feb. 1917, p. 2, Steel-Maidand papers, GD 193/202 (1); Boraston to Steel-Maitland, 26 Feb. 1917, enclosing memorandum by C. Marston, Ibid. GD 193/202; Bayford diary, 1 (10 June 1917), 88; 5Hansard xciv (12 06 1917), 803Google Scholar, Sir F. Lowe; Ibid. (20 June), 1876, Lord H. Cecil; Ibid. xcix (22 Nov. 1917), 1466, W. C. Anderson.

55 Including, for example, A. J. Balfour, F. E. Smith, Sir G. Younger, Lord Hugh Cecil, Halford Mackinder, and, later, L. S. Amery.

56 5 Hansard xcix (22 11 1917), 1412–13Google Scholar, M. Sykes; 1427, F. E. Smith.

57 5 Hansard xciv (4 07 1917), 1184Google Scholar; In the third division, of 23 Nov. 1917, Conservatives opposed P.R. by over 4:1, and Liberals by 7:6, while Labour members divided in favour of it (The Times, 24 Nov., p. 8).

58 Morning Post, 1 Feb. 1918, p. 8; Scotsman, 10 Aug. 1917, p. 5; 5Hansard XCVII (9 08 1917), 629, E. Hemmerde.Google Scholar

59 The Speaker's conference and the government considered rural areas unsuitable for P.R., because of the problem of distance in the large constituencies which it required (Lord Burnham to Lord Grey, 1 Feb. 1917, Grey papers). The peers, apparently less disturbed by this difficulty, proposed P.R. for rural as well as urban constituencies.

60 Morris, , pp. 193–6Google Scholar; Butler, , p. 11Google Scholar; H. Matthews, circular, 24 Jan. 1918, Long papers, A368; Anti-P.R. executive committee, leaflet, Ibid.; Lord Lichfield to Long, 17 Jan. 1918, Ibid.; Bayford diary, 1 (10 Feb. 1918), 109; The Times, 23 Jan. 1918, p. 2.

61 Article by R. S. Sanders in a pamphlet entitled ‘House of Lords reform’, p. 23Google Scholar, Midleton papers (Public Record Office), 30/67/26; J. C. C. Davidson to J. F. Hope, 19 Dec. 1923 (copy), Davidson papers (House of Lords Record Office); Lord Balcarres to Lord Irwin, 27 July 1927, Halifax papers (India Office Library, London), Eur. C. 152/17/398; Lord Winterton to Irwin, 12 July 1928, Ibid. 152/18/1283; Central Office summary of Baldwin's post-election mail, 11 June 1929, Baldwin papers (Cambridge University Library), 37/2; Bayford diary, n (1, 8 Nov. 1921), 20–1; Ibid. (21 Apr. 1935), 135–6; Firth, J. B., ‘The future of the Conservative Party’, Fortnightly Review, XCVI (03 1920), 220Google Scholar; Raglan, Lord, ‘The election, 1924’, Nineteenth Century, xcvi (12 1924), 810.Google Scholar

62 Hansard, , Standing committee debates 7924 (29 05), c. 534Google Scholar, Lord E. Percy; MacDonald, R., quoted by Raffety, F. W., ’Frantic by-elections’, Contemporary Review, CXIX (05 1921), 665–6Google Scholar; Cecil, E., ‘The general election’Google Scholar, Ibid. CXXIII (Jan. 1924), 2; C. F. G. Masterman, Ibid. (Feb. 1924), 142; Dalton, H., ‘The general election’Google Scholar, Ibid. cxxvi (Dec. 1924), 690; Muir, R., ‘The balance of parties’, Nineteenth Century, CXVIII (09 1935), 260–1.Google Scholar

63 Keynes, J. M., ‘The balance of political power at the elections’, Nation, 8 11 1924, p. 207Google Scholar; Dalton, , op. cit.Google Scholar; N.U.A. conference minutes, 1927, p. 54, Baldwin; Davidson to Baldwin, 14 Feb. 1928, Baldwin papers, 52/200; Miller, W., ‘Cross-voting and the dimensionality of party conflict in Britain during the period of realignment: 1918–1931’, Political Studies, xix (1971), 458–9Google Scholar; Kinnear, M., The downfall of Lloyd George (London, 1973), p. 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Bridgeman MS diary (xerox copy, kindly lent to me by Viscount Bridgeman), Nov. 1929, p. 209; Barnes, J. and Middlemas, R. K., Baldwin (London, 1969), pp. 502–3.Google Scholar

65 Wyndham, G. (ed.), Letters of George Wyndham (London, 1915), II, 436Google Scholar; Hansard, , Standing committee debates 1924 (22 05), c. 507Google Scholar, S. Roberts; Ibid. 544, Hopkinson, A.; 5 Hansard ccxv (29 03 1928), 1411Google Scholar, E. Harmsworth.

66 H. A. Gwynne to Baldwin, 5 Apr. 1929, Baldwin papers, 36/111; The Times, 5 Mar. 1927, p. 14, Baldwin, ; Times editorial, 21 June 1929, p. 15.Google Scholar

67 Smith, F. E., Unionist policy and other essays (London, 1913), pp. 8–10Google Scholar; Chamberlain, A., Politics from the inside (London, 1936), p. 320Google Scholar; Selborne's ms. reminiscences, 1937, Selborne papers, 191/65–6.

68 Heberle, G. C., ‘The predicament of the British Unionist Party, 1906–1914’ (unpublished Ohio State University Ph.D., thesis, 1967), p. 223Google Scholar; memoranda by Lord R. Cecil of 27 Sept. 1911 and Jan. 1914 (latter n.d. by author), Cecil papers (British Museum), 51075/28, 67; Salisbury to Selborne, 4 Sep. [1916, misdated 1913], Selborne papers, 6/179.

69 5Hansard XCII (28 03 1917), 478Google Scholar; Younger to Long, 30 Mar. 1917, Long papers, 372; Lloyd George to Long, 30 Mar. 1917, Ibid.; sub-committee report to the executive of the N.U.A., 13 Mar. 1917, p. 2, Steel-Maitland papers, GD 193/202 (2); N.U.A. executive minutes, p. 9, 17 Apr. 1917.

70 Lord Balfour of Burleigh to Bryce, 29 Sep. 1917, Bryce papers (Bodleian Library); N.U.A. conference minutes, 1917, pp. 1, 20.

71 Dr Pugh (op. cit. p. 372), states that it had some such influence, without citing his evidence. The unimportance of this consideration is suggested by the fact that the leading Conservative peer outside the government, Lord Salisbury, briefly advised his fellows to disregard it (Debates, H.L., 5 Hansard XXVII (17 12 1917), 175–6).Google Scholar

72 Bayford diary, I (21 July 1918), 121; A. Chamberlain to Selborne, 13 June, 24 June 1918, Selborne papers, 85/80–1; duke of Rutland to Curzon, 1 July 1918, Curzon papers, Eur. F. 112/122.

73 Interview between coalition leaders and N.U.A. Deputation, 6 May 1921, Cab. 27/113 [no pagination]; memorandum by N.U.A. to Baldwin, 6 Oct. 1925, Cab. 24/179/105.

74 Bridgeman diary (4 July 1919), p. 36; Salisbury to Selborne, 20 June, 15 Oct. 1924, Selborne papers, 6/162, 171; A. Chamberlain to Lloyd George, 4 Jan. 1922, enclosing memorandum by N. Chamberlain, Lloyd George papers, F/7/5/1; Lord Midleton to Baldwin, 9 Dec. 1933, Baldwin papers, 49/299.

75 Chamberlain to J. F. Hope, 3 Feb. 1922 (copy), Austen Chamberlain papers (Birmingham University Library), 24/6/16; Chamberlain to Curzon, 20 May 1922, Ibid. 24/2/6; Salisbury to Irwin, 24 Apr. 1927, Halifax papers, 152/17/331.

76 Memorandum by J. C. C. Davidson, 1 July 1927, Baldwin papers, 59/138–41.

77 Those who first entered parliament before 1918 (for example) formed six of the 87 backbenchers who signed amendments expressing opposition to the government, and 19 of the 101 who signed an amendment expressing support (The Times, 29 June 1927, p. 16Google Scholar; 30 June 1927, p. 16; J July 1927, p. 16; 2 July 1927, p. 12).

78 Milner to Selborne, 6 May 1921, Selborne papers 12/315–16; memorandum by Sir W. Bull, 20 Sep. 1926, Ibid. 86/71; memorandum by Steel-Maitland, 17 Dec. 1926, Baldwin Papers, 67/103; Elliott, W., Toryism in the twentieth century (London, 1927), pp. 86–7.Google Scholar

79 Bromhead, P. A., The House of Lords and contemporary politics, 1911–1957 (London, 1958), pp. 139–40, 147–56.Google Scholar

80 Bayford diary, II (15 July 1922), 37.

81 Salisbury to Selborne, 1 Nov. 1922, Selborne papers, 6/148–9; Selborne to Baldwin, 21 Oct. 1924 (copy), Ibid. 85/186.

82 Salisbury to Cecil, 16 Apr. 1927, Cecil papers, 51086/34; 5 Hansard ccxv (29 03 1928), 1398Google Scholar, S. Samuel; Ibid. 1451, G. Kindersley.

83 Records of these activities exist in the Sir William Bull papers (House of Lords Record Office), 38/A/274–541, and the Baldwin papers, 68/257–83.

84 Cab. 23/16/25 (7); 23/164/26 (2); 24/172/146; 24/178/27; 24/186/146; Bayford diary, 11 (18 Dec. 1925, 24 Mar. 1926,10 Nov. 1926), 88-g, 96; Salisbury to Cecil, 10 July 1927, Cecil papers, 51086/46; Neville Chamberlain to Irwin, 25 Aug. 1927, Halifax papers, Eur. C 152/17/4060; Bull papers, loc. tit. 294–5; ‘Memorandum on reform of the House of Lords’ [probably by Lord Midleton, late 1925], Selborne papers, 86/19–27.

85 The Times, 22 June 1927, p. 17; 24 June 1927, p. 16; 29 June 1927, p. 16; Glasgow Herald, 22 June 1927, p. 10Google Scholar; Daily Express, 22 June 1927, p. 10Google Scholar; Observer, 26 June 1927, p. 16; memorandum by Steel-Maitland, 17 Dec. 1926, Baldwin papers, 67/103.

86 5 Hansard CCVIII (6 06 1927), 1511–16Google Scholar; Spectator, 2 July 1927, p. 7Google Scholar; G. Lane Fox to Irwin, 14 July 1927, Halifax papers, Eur. C152/17/391–2.

87 The Times, 20 July 1927, p. 17, editorial; Jones, T., A Whitehall diary (London, 1969), II, 103, 105Google Scholar; H. Spender Clay to Baldwin, 30 Jan. 1928, Baldwin papers, 59/180–3; P. J. Blair to F. C. Thomson, 30 June 1927, Ibid. 142.

88 Lord Stonehaven to Baldwin, 12 Jan. 1935, Ibid. 316–22; Bayford diary, 11 (12 May, 23 June 1932), 126; ‘List of members who agreed with the following postcard’ (n.d., probably June 1934), Steel-Maidand papers, GD 193/198; Salisbury to Steel-Maitland, 30 Dec. 1933, Ibid. 200.

89 The proportion of adult women unenfranchised was believed to be more than a third. See Butler, , pp. 15–16Google Scholar; also Hubback, E. M., ‘The case for equal franchise’, Fortnightly Review, CXXIII (04 1928), 528–30.Google Scholar

90 5Hansard cxiv (4 04 1919)Google Scholar, C. F. White; Ibid. 1607, C. E. Loseby; memorandum by Lord E. Percy, 11 Mar. 1927, Cab. 24/185/84.

91 In one or more of the second-reading divisions of 1919, 1920 and 1922.

92 5 Hansard CLXX (29 02 1924), 325–6Google Scholar, Cecil, Lord H.; Hansard, , Standing committee debates 1924 (29 05), c. 534Google Scholar, Lord E. Percy.

93 Manchester Guardian, political correspondent, 19 Feb. 1925, p. 8; 14 Apr. 1927, p. 9.Google Scholar

94 5 Hansard XLIX (17 06 1912), 1409–10Google Scholar, E. F. Morrison-Bell; Ibid. 1426–7, F. E. Smith, C. E. Yate; sub-committee report to N.U.A., executive, 13 Mar. 1917, p. 10, Steel-Maitland papers, GD 193/202 (2); Hansard, , Standing committee debates 1924, c. 510Google Scholar; N.U.A. Executive minutes (14 June 1927), p. 237; Percy to Baldwin, 2 Apr. [1927], Baldwin papers 52/147; Murthwait-How, F., ‘The politics of the undergraduate’, Nineteenth Century CIII (06 1928), 777.Google Scholar

95 Speech by Sir W. Perring M.P., 11 Nov. 1926, Baldwin papers, 52/116–17; Davidson to Baldwin, 14 Feb. 1928, Ibid. 198–201; The Times, 30 Nov. 1927, p. 9; 30 Jan. 1928, p. 12; 15 Feb. 1928, p. 14; 16 Feb. 1928, p. 14; 22 Feb. 1928, p. 14.

96 Butler, , pp. 33–4, 146–8.Google Scholar

97 Typed leaflet [by Sir L. Worthington-Evans] in a file on the 1929 election (proof of authorship lies in a transcript of an interview for The Graphic in March 1929 in box 14, under ‘W’ of an alphabetical file), Worthington-Evans papers (Bodleian Library, Oxford).

98 As did nine other pre-war suffragists, out of 27 former members of the 191 o parliament who voted against the flappers in 1919–22.

99 Memorandum by W. S. Churchill, 8 Mar. 1927, Cab. 24/185/80. It turned out to be 16–5 per cent (Buder, pp. 144–5).

100 Cab. papers, loc. cit.; Bayford diary, 11 (24 June 1927), 77; Marquess of Reading to Irwin, 30 Mar. 1928, Halifax Papers, Eur. C 152/18/52; Davidson to Irwin, 3 Dec. 1928, Ibid. 220; The Times, 30 May 1929, p. 8.Google Scholar

101 5 Hansard CLXX (29 02 1924), 871Google Scholar; Ibid. ccxv (29 Mar. 1928), 1391, 1473; G. H. Hume to Baldwin, 3 Mar. 1927, Baldwin papers, 74/271–2; Murray, C. G., A man's life (London, 1934). p. 245.Google Scholar

102 5 Hansard CLXX, 859Google Scholar; Ibid. CLXXX, 1499–1500; Standing committee debates 1924, c. 499Google Scholar; Bayford diary, 11 (24 June 1924), 77; memorandum by Percy, 11 Mar. 1927, Cab. 24/185/84.

103 Ibid.; 36% of supporters and 22% of opponents had won their seats by majorities of under 11% of their own vote.

104 Bayford diary, Ioc. cit.

105 Memorandum by Lord R. Cecil, 11 Mar. 1937, Cab. 24/185/84.

106 Cab. 23/9/11; 23/66/6, note by Lord Cave in appendix.

107 Below, n. 109. The contemporary belief - tentatively retailed by Butler (p. 30, n. 2) - was that the cabinet had not discussed the matter at all. Certainly its behaviour was strangely casual. Although Joynson-Hicks gave a day's warning of his intentions, in the official motion which he tabled, none of his colleagues protested.

108 Memorandum by Davidson, 2 Mar. 1927, Cab. 24/185/87; Percy to Baldwin, 2 Apr. [1927], Baldwin papers, 52/145–52; table snowing replies of Central Office agents to a circular, Ibid. 138–42; Bayford diary, 11 (25 Apr. 1927), 100.

109 Memorandum by Churchill, 8 Mar. 1927, Cab. 24/185/80; memorandum by Percy and Lord R. Cecil, 11 Mar. 1927, Ibid. 84; memorandum by Joynson-Hicks, 14 Mar. 1927, Ibid. 89; Birkenhead to Irwin, 13 Apr. 1927, Halifax papers, Eur. C 152/3/35; Salisbury to Lord R. Cecil, 16 Apr. 1927, Cecil papers, 51086/34; Bayford diary, 11 (24, 27 Apr. 1927), 100.

110 Democracy on trial (London, 1931), p. 4Google Scholar; Morning Post, political correspondent, 14 Apr. 1927, p. 9.

111 G. Lane Fox to Irwin, 28 Apr. 1927, Halifax papers, Eur. C. 152/17/334; N.U.A. executive minutes (14 June 1927), p. 231; Davidson to Baldwin, 20 June 1927; Baldwin papers, 52/185; 5 Hansard cxxv (29 03 1928), 1412–13Google Scholar, Sanders, R. A.; Annual Register 1927, p. 99.Google Scholar

112 Central Office summary of Baldwin's post-election mail, Baldwin papers, 37/2.

113 5 Hansard CCXVII (7 03 1928), 68Google Scholar; Hansard, , Standing committee reports 1924, c. 507.Google Scholar

114 5 Hansard ccxv (29 03 1928), 1473.Google Scholar

115 Besides the comparative analysis shown in Table 1, one has been made of those who voted on the second reading of the flapper bill in 1924, with those who signed motions on house of lords reform in 1927. Lack of correlation with P.R. can be inferred from the types of arguments used on that issue.