British politics, 1917-1918

British politics, 1917-1918

This week's chapter examines Mr Lloyd George's government, the War Cabinet, electoral reform, the Irish Convention, the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia commissions, the India cotton duties, Indian constitutional reforms, the Corn Production Act, the Stockholm conference, the Lansdowne letter, war aims, unity of command, the "sniping" debates, the last Military Service Act, the Irish conscription clause, the Maurice letter and debate, the Education Act, the biggest Budget, the general election, the reconstructed government

It took a long time for British politicians to recognize that strategic unity was a fundamental condition of victory, and the controversy which raged around the question in the latter part of 1917 and the first months of 1918 gave rise to a remarkable series of discussions in the House of Commons which came to be known as "sniping" debates

Lords vote for woman suffrage january 11, 1918

Lord Curzon wound up the debate with a tremendous onslaught on the principle of woman suffrage. He described the proposed change as vast, incalculable, and catastrophic, without precedent in history and without justification in experience

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lords-vote-for-woman-suffrage-dfh8qrbpz?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter_118&utm_medium=email&utm_content=118_18.07.2018%20Politics%20(1)&CMP=TNLEmail_118918_3777337_118 From The Times, January 10, 1918

The House of Lords tonight rejected Lord Loreburn’s amendment to the Reform Bill opening the Parliamentary franchise to women by 134 votes to 71 — a majority of 63. The debate attracted the largest House since the beginning of the war. There were more women than men in the seats allotted to the public, and there has not been such a large attendance of peeresses in the side galleries since the far-off days of party conflict.
The Lord Chancellor, in resuming the debate, said what made him anxious was the possible effect of enfranchising 6,000,000 women for a General Election during the war. There would be a mass of women without political experience upon which pacifists might work.
Lord Selborne followed. The cost of carrying the amendment would involve the rejection of the Bill and, in the climax of the war, would split the nation from top to bottom. In the whole of his political experience no measure had been stamped with such unanimous national approval. He regretted the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor that women would be likely to be a prey to pacifists.

The Archbishop of Canterbury strongly supported the women’s claim. He did not base his case on rewarding women for having done well in the war. It was rather a recognition of the part that women were now taking in our national life. Lord Lytton asked bluntly whether women were to be told again that they must remain in the same category as lunatics and children.

Lord Curzon wound up the debate with a tremendous onslaught on the principle of woman suffrage. He described the proposed change as vast, incalculable, and catastrophic, without precedent in history and without justification in experience. He even ventured on a prediction that before many years were past the influence of women voters would not be Conservative but Socialistic, to the disturbance of home life. He could not conceal that to cut the clause out of the Bill would be a challenge to the House of Commons, and that the House of Lords was not likely to prevail. In these circumstances he proposed to abstain. The division was then taken, and the announcement of the figures was received with a round of cheering — an unusual manifestation in the House of Lords. 

Home rule and conscription june 21, 1918

Lord Londonderry opened by drawing attention to the inconsistencies of the Government, which cajoled Ireland at one moment and dragooned her the next

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/home-rule-and-conscription-2z8qc3px5?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter_118&utm_medium=email&utm_content=118_18.07.2018%20Politics%20(1)&CMP=TNLEmail_118918_3777337_118 In the House of Lords tonight Lord Curzon indicated an important development in the Irish policy of the Government. He declared that in present circumstances it was out of the question to proceed with a Home Rule Bill which there was not a ghost of a chance of anyone accepting. If they could not have Home Rule, he added, they could not have conscription. The debate attracted a large attendance of peers, and several peeresses occupied seats in the side galleries. Mr Shortt, the Chief Secretary, and Sir Horace Plunkett, the Chairman of the Convention, listened from the steps of the Throne. Lord Londonderry opened by drawing attention to the inconsistencies of the Government, which cajoled Ireland at one moment and dragooned her the next. Lord Wimborne, Lord French’s predecessor as Lord Lieutenant, severely criticised ministers and suggested that conscription was now a physical impossibility. Lord Midleton urged the Government not to make the position more difficult by attempting to drive a Home Rule Bill through during the war.

Lord Curzon, replying, narrated the circumstances which had led the Government earlier in the year to adopt the separate policies of conscription and Home Rule for Ireland, and went on to the discovery in May of a formidable conspiracy of the leaders of the Sinn Fein movement with the enemy of this country. He explained how those revelations had occasioned in the Cabinet surprise and consternation. This new situation was accentuated by the fact that the attitude of every section of opinion about Home Rule had changed. His conclusion was that to proceed with the preparation of a Home Rule Bill and its introduction into Parliament would be a folly and almost amount to a crime. It was necessary in respect both to conscription and Home Rule not to abandon their policy or to change their front, but to recognize the facts and adjust their policy to them. Turning to Lord French’s appeal for voluntary recruits, Lord Curzon said that he would be surprised if the clergy did not come out on the side of this country in its present crisis. He intimated that the Government would put down boycotting, and would prohibit meetings likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

Man-power bill: debate on Ireland

April 11, 1918

Mr Asquith argued that compulsion could not be introduced in Ireland with any approach to general consent, and that it would be an act of terrible shortsightedness to precede the grant of self government by imposing a measure obnoxious to the people

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/man-power-bill-debate-on-ireland-r57ppz6tk?utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=newsletter_118&utm_medium=email&utm_content=118_18.07.2018%20Politics%20(1)&CMP=TNLEmail_118918_3777337_118 The Military Service Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons, by 323 votes to 100. Sixty-eight of the minority were Irish Nationalists, and the remainder were chiefly of the “pacifist” groups. Sir George Cave, the Minister in charge of the Bill, contended that the raising of the military age to 50 would bring in a substantial number of men of real military value. He explained that the Government wished this to be the last Man-Power Bill of the war. There was excited interruption from the Nationalists when he came to his vindication of the Irish clause. If, he declared, only five divisions could be expected the clause would be worth passing into law. It had been said that an Army would be needed to enforce it, but the Government did not think so. Sir Donald Maclean, speaking from his experience as chairman of the House of Commons Appeal Tribunal, doubted whether more than three per cent of the men between 42 and 50 years of age would be of anything approaching military value. His advice was that the age should not be raised beyond 47 or 48 years at the outside. On the question of the inclusion of Ireland, Mr Asquith told the House that the plan had been twice considered and rejected by the Government of which he was the head, and that the arguments in favour of that conclusion had been strengthened by subsequent events. He argued that compulsion could not be introduced in Ireland with any approach to general consent, and that it would be an act of terrible shortsightedness to precede the grant of self government by imposing a measure obnoxious to a very large number of the people. After the cheers which greeted Mr Asquith’s words Mr Bonar Law rose. The Government had no intention of giving way on any of the cardinal principles of the Bill, he said. He admitted the small value of certain men of the higher age, but reminded the House that men up to 50 years were employed in the French and German Armies. The Government believed that what they were doing might make the difference between victory and defeat. He was no less explicit on the subject of Ireland. There wore loud cheers when he explained that the proposal had been put in because the Government intended to carry it.