|
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.
