Mr Balfour's Poodle
Page 27
1 1879–1952. Member for Plymouth, 1910–19. Succeeded his father as 2nd Viscount Astor, 1919.
1 The Nationalist members for Louth, North, and Cork, East, the Unionist members for Hull, Central, and the Liberal members for Cheltenham and West Ham, North, all met this fate. The last of these was C. F. G. Masterman, then Under-Secretary at the Home Office and electorally most unfortunate of politicians. He found another seat at Bethnal Green, lost it when forced to seek re-election by his promotion to the Cabinet three years later, and then proceeded to lose in quick succession two further bye-elections in formerly Liberal seats. After this he ceased to try, and did not re-enter the House of Commons until 1923. In addition to these successful election petitions, there were unsuccessful ones against the Unionist members for West Bromwich, Nottingham, East, and Exeter. At the conclusion of the hearing in the last case the Liberal appellant ‘publicly denounced the judges at the railway station’.
1 It is recorded, however, that the effect of the noble Marquess’s speech on this occasion was ‘rather marred by the passing of an aeroplane’. It must either have been a very short speech or a very slow aeroplane.
1 1865–1948. Edward George Villiers Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby. Conservative member for Westinghouse, 1892–1906. Succeeded to earldom, 1908. Secretary of State for War, 1916–18 and 1922–24. H.M. Ambassador in Paris, 1918–20.
1 Probably from Lord Knollys; although, in view of the terms of Esher’s letter to the King of the same date (Journal and Letters, III, pp. 54–6), it is difficult to believe that he did not make the position quite clear at his meeting with Balfour on July 5.
1 The Dukes of Somerset, Bedford, Northumberland, and Sutherland, the Marquesses of Salisbury and Abergavenny, the Earls of Lauderdale, Amherst, Portsmouth, Halsbury, Cathcart, Kinnoull, Sondes, Lovelace, Minto, Lindsey, Scarbrough, Selborne, Bathurst, and Londesborough, and Lords Ampthill, Vaux, Ebury, Vivian, Bateman, Abinger, Wynford, Hatherton, Raglan, Lovat, and Willoughby de Broke.
1 The London home of the Duke of Westminster.
1 See pp. 230–2 infra.
2 1863–1913. Conservative member for Dover, 1889–1913. Private Secretary to A.J. Balfour, 1887–92. Chief Secretary for Ireland, 1900–5.
3 1871–1940. Conservative member for Chorley, 1895–1913. Chief Opposition Whip, 1906–13, when he succeeded his father as 27th Earl of Crawford. Lord Privy Seal, 1916–18, and holder of various other offices, 1918–22.
4 1852–1915. 6th Marquess. Unionist member for Down, 1878–84. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 1886–89. Postmaster-General, 1900–2. President of the Board of Education and Lord President of the Council (from 1903), 1902–5.
5 1837–1913. Edward Gibson. Created 1st Lord Ashbourne, 1885. Conservative member for Dublin University, 1875–85. Attorney-General for Ireland, 1877–80. Lord Chancellor for Ireland, 1885–86, 1886–92 and 1895–1905.
1 1841–1923. Created 1st Viscount Chaplin, 1916. Conservative member for Mid-Lincolnshire, 1868–1906, and for Wimbledon, 1907–16. Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 1885–86. President of the Board of Agriculture, 1889–92, and of the Local Government Board, 1895–1900.
2 1842–1929. Created 1st Lord Finlay of Nairn, 1916 (Viscount, 1919). Liberal Unionist member for Inverness Burghs, 1885–92 and 1895–1906, and for Edinburgh and St. Andrew’s Universities, 1910–16. Solicitor-General, 1895–1900. Attorney-General, 1900–5. Lord Chancellor, 1916–18.
3 1876–1935. Unionist member for Birmingham, East, 1910–18, Birmingham, Erdington, 1918–29, and Tamworth, 1929–35. Minister of Labour, 1924–29. Attended Shadow Cabinet in 1911 as chairman of the Unionist Party Organisation.
1 Those in favour of resistance became known at this time as ‘die-hards’ or ‘ditchers’, both words being derived from the phrase ‘dying in the last ditch’. Per contra, the moderates became known as ‘hedgers’, or, as the hysteria of some of their opponents increased (see, for example, pp. 266–7, infra), by more uncomplimentary names.
1 This had become the headquarters of the die-hard movement.
1 The general alignment of the Unionist press at the time was that The Times, Daily Telegraph, Scotsman, Yorkshire Post, and Birmingham Daily Post (showing surprising independence of the Chamberlain influence) favoured submission, while the Observer, Morning Post, Standard, Globe, Pall Mall Gazette, and Manchester Courier called for resistance. The subsequent casualty rate has been noticeably higher amongst die-hard papers.
2 1847–1928. Member for Epping, 1892–1917. Created 1st Lord Lambourne, 1917.
1 1840–1922. Conservative candidate for Camberwell, 1885. Liberal candidate for Kidderminster, 1886. Poet, landowner, traveller, and breeder of Arab horses.
2 The Duke of Westminster, George Wyndham’s stepson.
1 In fact he was eighty-seven.
1 Halsbury must be the only Lord Chancellor to have been placed in the Fourth Class at Oxford (after quite hard work), and none of his fellow signatories, from Salisbury (who was one of the less distinguished heads of his family) to the fox-hunting Willoughby, had much mental prowess.
1 According to W. S. Blunt, however, only forty peers were present, and to some extent the dinner was therefore a discouragement to those who were organising the die-hards. (My Diaries, p. 772.)
1 In that it contained something of interest, not that it was lacking in demagogy. He spoke of a ‘revolution, nurtured in lies, promoted by fraud, and only to be achieved by violence’. ‘The Prime Minister and his colleagues,’ he added, ‘have tricked the Opposition … entrapped the Crown, and … deceived the people.’
2 Some of the responsibility for this widespread impression seems to rest with the King. When he saw Lansdowne on July 24, he said that both himself and his Ministers were anxious to avoid a large creation. He added that the Prime Minister would be satisfied with a majority of one for the bill, which was a slightly ambiguous remark in the context. (See Newton, op. cit., p. 425.) Furthermore, Austen Chamberlain’s letter to Balfour of July 26 refers to the King having informed Salisbury that his promise extended only to the smallest creation necessary to pass the Bill, and to his determination not to allow a wider use of the prerogative. Chamberlain took this as firm evidence against the risk of a large creation, and argued accordingly to Balfour (see Petrie, op. cit., vol. I, p. 284.) Later, however, His Majesty took positive steps to counteract this impression (infra, p. 259).
1 1847–1925. Alexander John Forbes-Leith. Scottish landowner, created 1st Lord Leith of Fyvie, 1905.
1 The political honours in the Coronation List, as is the custom, stretched beyond party, and Asquith proposed that Smith should be elevated to the Privy Council. Balfour protested, ostensibly on the ground that he regarded Coronation honours as a reward for past services, and wished the decoration to go to Hayes Fisher. He informed Smith of his views, in a flattering letter which was obviously intended to suggest that the latter should decline Asquith’s offer. To this invitation Smith firmly declined to respond, and in due course the honour was bestowed. The question then arose as to whether the recipient should sit on the Front Opposition Bench. Balfour refrained from offering a direct invitation. ‘By the way,’ he wrote, ‘are you proposing to sit on our bench?’ And Smith stayed where he was. Later, when Bonar Law assumed the leadership, a pressing invitation was extended and Smith quickly responded. (See Birkenhead, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 213–16.)
1 As soon as his speech was concluded he returned to Crewe House and took no part in the division at the end of the debate; but he was present again for the decisive vote two nights later.
1 ‘Why should we shrink from the creation of 400 or 500 Peers?’ the Home Secretary had asked in a much-to-be quoted sentence.
1 1854–1925. 4th Lord. Married to Mrs. Asquith’s sister.
1 …but this I do feel compelled to say, that if we are to be forced, to my keen personal regret into giving advice which would have the effect of the creation of Peers we cannot pretend that the number to be so created could neces
sarily be limited by any newspaper list, of which there have been so many seen of late; nor would it necessarily have any reference whatever to any division lists of your Lordships’ House which may be seen when the question of the Amendments once more comes before this House. All such lists will have become, if the lamentable necessity arises, altogether irrelevant, and all the various combinations of noble Lords opposite of which we read in our morning newspapers must be assumed to be at an end, because they have reference to an entirely different state of things.’ (Parliamentary Debates, Lords. Fifth Series, vol. IX, col. 842.)
1 Arthur Oliver Vivian Russell. Succeeded in 1884 to the peerage conferred upon Lord Odo Russell, H.M. Ambassador in Berlin in 1881.
1 When he rose to speak an incident uncommon in the practice of the House of Lords occurred. Lord Heneage, a Unionist ‘hedger’, rose also. Hansard records that ‘As neither noble Lord gave way to the other, there were loud cries of “St. Levan” and “Heneage”, but both still continued standing. Halsbury, careful of the interests of his followers, thereupon moved ‘That Lord St. Levan be heard’. The Lord Chancellor put the question and there being louder shouts of ‘Content’ than of ‘Not content’ it was deemed to be carried. Heneage spoke next. Peers normally arrange amongst themselves the order in which they desire to speak, so that only one rises at a time.
1 Lord Newton (op. cit., p. 429) says that Rosebery concluded this speech by saying that he would never enter the precincts of the House again. In fact the threat was made, not on this occasion, but at a much earlier stage in the proceedings on the bill; and, in any event, Rosebery was back on the day following the final division, inserting a ‘solemn protest’ in the book which is kept in the Lords (but rarely used) for this purpose.
1 Three of these, the Bishops of Hereford, Birmingham, and Chester, supported the bill upon its merits.
1 This was due to no lack of determination to record what votes were available. Sir Almeric Fitzroy informs us that ‘two noble lords’, one on either side, were very drunk and voted in that state. One was so bad that for a long time he was kept under supervision in a committee-room, and Lord Ilkeston, who graduated in medicine, was summoned to see him. On his appearance, however, the patient shouted, ‘Take the—away; he wants to get two guineas out of me!’ He was allowed to go into the division lobby. (Memoirs, II, pp. 460–1.)
1 1864–1932. Editor of the National Review.
1 The following were in the former category: 1938; no. 2 of 1939; nos. 1 and 2 of 1940; 1941; 1943; 1944; 1945; no. 1 of 1946; nos. 1 and 2 of 1948; 1950. The remainder (no. 1 of 1939; 1942; no. 2 of 1946; 1947; 1949; 1951; and 1952) were not certified. I am indebted for this information to Mr. E. A. Fellowes, Clerk-Assistant to the House of Commons.
1 1864–1922. Chief of Imperial General Staff, 1918–22. Field-Marshal, 1919. Baronet, 1919. Assassinated in London by Irish terrorists.
2 The former Secretary of State was J. E. B. Seely. He foolishly gave undertakings to the resigning officers suggesting that they would not be used to enforce the Home Rule Bill. This position could not possibly be accepted by the Government (even Grey wrote: ‘I am inwardly boiling with indignation at this stupid prejudiced attempt to dictate policy to us and break us, for that is what it is really; and if it goes on I shall be for taking the hottest election, upon who is to govern the country, that ever has been in our time.’ Trevelyan, Grey of Fallodon, p. 195.)
1 The lines upon which the ‘reformers’ were working are, however, indicated by some remarks of Haldane, recorded by Esher, in September, 1912. The Lord Chancellor, Grey, and ‘a strong section of the Cabinet’ wanted an Upper House of 160, a hundred of them to be directly elected by five large constituencies, operating under a system of proportional representation, twenty members to be selected by each of the two principal parties in the Commons, and the remaining twenty to be selected, preferably from Dominion and Colonial statesmen, by the two parties acting together. There was some doubt as to whether the powers of the new House should be those which the House of Lords had enjoyed before, or after, the Parliament Act. (Esher, op. cit., vol. III, p. III.)
11867–1937. Unionist member for Manchester, South, 1900–6, and Taunton, 1909–12. Succeeded his father as 2nd Viscount Peel, 1912. Secretary of State for India, 1922–24 and 1928–29. First Commissioner of Works, 1924–28. Lord Privy Seal, 1931. Created 1st Earl of Peel, 1929.
2 1856–1928. Unionist member for Kingston-on-Thames, 1906–18. Solicitor-General, 1915–16. Home Secretary, 1916–19. Created 1st Viscount, 1918. Lord Chancellor, 1922–24 and 1924–28. Defeated Asquith for Chancellorship of Oxford University, 1925.
3 b. 1877. 6th Earl. Succeeded his father, 1914. Chief Government Whip in the House of Lords, 1922–25. Governor-General of South Africa, 1931–37. Lord Chamberlain, 1938–52.
Author’s Foreword
The primary purpose of this book is not to draw parallels or to prove a thesis. It is merely to describe a short period of parliamentary history which is sufficiently near to be within the memory of many, although not of the author, but sufficiently far away for many of its political habits and subjects of controversy to be unfamiliar and worth recalling.
The author is particularly indebted to Mr. P. M. Williams, Fellow of Nuffield College, and Mr. Anthony Elliott, both of whom read the manuscript, and made suggestions upon it, and to Mr. Michael Alison, who gave much help in compiling the reference and biographical footnotes.
R. H. J.
London, October, 1953
This electronic edition published in 2011 by Bloomsbury Reader
Bloomsbury Reader is a division of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 50 Bedford Square, London WC1B 3DP
All rights reserved
You may not copy, distribute, transmit, reproduce or otherwise
make available this publication (or any part of it) in any form, or by any means
(including without limitation electronic, digital, optical, mechanical, photocopying,
printing, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of the
publisher. Any person who does any unauthorised act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages
The moral right of the author has been asserted
Visit www.bloomsburyreader.com to find out more about our authors and their books
You will find extracts, author interviews, author events and you can sign up for
newsletters to be the first to hear about our latest releases and special offers
First published by Heinemann 1954
Second edition published by William Collins 1968
This paperback edition first published in 1989
ISBN 9781448202874
Copyright © Roy Jenkins 1954, 1968