The Constitutional Conference of 1948, as has been noted, was concerned with the composition as well as the powers of the House of Lords. In the former aspect of its work it followed a trail which had been well-worn in the years since 1911. But all those who had trodden it had failed to reach their destination and been forced to retrace their footsteps. The Asquith Government attempted to honour the terms of the preamble to its Parliament Act by setting up a Cabinet committee to consider reform. But no agreement was reached and no scheme emanated from the Government.1 The next excursion was made by the Lloyd George Coalition, which appointed the all-party Bryce Conference in 1917. The result of their deliberations on this point was a unanimous suggestion that a majority of the places in a reformed House of Lords should be filled on a non-hereditary basis, but no further agreement. The most popular view in the conference, however, was that the occupants of these non-hereditary seats should be elected by the House of Commons or by a joint committee of both Houses.
In 1922 Lord Peel1 brought forward a series of official proposals on behalf of the Coalition Government. These provided for a section of the Upper House to be elected by the hereditary peers, another section to be elected from outside, and a third to be nominated by the Crown. But the reception was cool or hostile and the plan was not proceeded with. This became a common pattern. It applied to the proposals of Lord Chancellor Cave2 in 1927, based upon the work of a Cabinet Committee, and to the unofficial plan of Lord Clarendon3 in the following year. Both of these plans provided for an Upper House of about 350 members, 150 of whom were to be elected by the hereditary peers and 150 nominated by the Crown. Lord Clarendon made it clear that the latter 150 should be nominated in proportion to the strength of the parties in the House of Commons and should serve, unless re-nominated, for one Parliament only.
Lord Salisbury made the next attempt in 1933. He accepted the main outline of the two preceding plans, but left vague the method of choosing the second group of 150. There was a suggestion of indirect election through county councils. An essential part of these proposals was the return to the new Upper House of most of the powers which the House of Lords had lost under the first Parliament Act, and the exclusion for the future of any sudden change in the balance of the new House by the use of the prerogative or other means. As a result, Salisbury’s scheme aroused bitter Opposition hostility and did not even secure official Conservative support.
A feature of these inter-war reform plans was that, although in this they conflicted with one of the recommendations of the Bryce Conference, they would have left unimpaired the permanent Conservative majority in the Upper House. As such, the proposals naturally failed to interest the other parties. Their primary objection to the House of Lords was that it was partisan, with the fact that it was hereditary and archaic an added but essentially secondary irritant. Reconstruction which did not touch the fundamental point therefore appeared as little more than window-dressing by the Conservative Party.
During the Constitutional Conference of 1948 an attempt was made, in principle, to meet this difficulty. All the party representatives agreed that ‘the revised constitution of the House of Lords should be such as to secure as far as practicable that a permanent majority is not assured for any one political party’.d As agreement upon powers was not reached, the need to give concrete shape to this principle did not arise; and had it done so it may be surmised that the task would have proved more difficult than the easy statement of approach may have suggested.
As a result of the failure of this conference the preamble of the first Parliament Act has entered upon its fifth decade of non-fulfilment. Nor is it easy to see the conditions for an agreed reform arising in the future. In a broad sense the positions of 1910 are still occupied by the contending parties in the state. The right, attracted by instinct and tradition to the existing hereditary House, contemplates a change only because its attachment to a powerful Second Chamber is still stronger. The left, distrustful of the existing archaicism but interested above all in the supremacy of the Commons, sees the relationship between the two Houses, rather than the composition of the second, as the dominant issue, and is unwilling to accept a reform which might increase the prestige of an Upper House still essentially conservative. This is a deadlock which the nation has survived for some years, and the continuance of which it may face with a degree of equanimity.
Appendix A
A comparison between the geographical distribution of Liberal seats in 1906 and Labour seats in 1945
A direct comparison of constituency with constituency is impossible. Population shifts have changed the character of many divisions and, through the redistribution which they have made necessary, have obliterated many more. The best that can be attempted are ‘big city’ and regional comparisons. The basis on which they have been made is that, in 1906, ‘Liberal’ seats are taken to be those in which Liberal, Labour or (in what is now the United Kingdom) Irish Nationalist candidates were elected, on the assumption that, without left-wing opposition, an orthodox Liberal could always have won a division for which a Labour or Nationalist representative was chosen; in 1945, on a similar assumption, ‘Labour’ seats are taken to be those to which Labour, ILP or Communist but not Liberal candidates were elected. These assumptions give for 1906, 438 out of 592, or 74%, of the seats in what is now the United Kingdom to the Liberal Party, and, for 1945, 402 out of a total of 640 seats, or 63%, to the Labour Party. In estimating the relative importance to the two parties of different areas this disparity between their absolute strengths over the country as a whole must be taken into account.
The drawing of satisfactory regional boundaries is not easy. A straightforward acceptance of those normally used for administrative purposes would amalgamate too many occupationally and socially disparate areas, and thus obscure important differences of political affiliation. The method employed has been to treat separately the County of London and eight other large cities; to amalgamate the East Midland towns of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby into one unit, the Lancashire parliamentary boroughs (other than Liverpool, Manchester and Salford) into another, the Yorkshire parliamentary boroughs (other than Leeds and Sheffield) into a third, and the Scottish burghs and districts (other than Edinburgh and Glasgow) into a fourth; and to divide the rest of the country into counties or small groups of similar counties. It has produced some clumsiness, but it has endeavoured to avoid the marriage of areas which are obviously incongruous.
The results of the comparison are given in the following table:
The results show that in the big towns, particularly Birmingham,4 Liverpool and Sheffield, and the purely industrial areas, such as the North-East coast region, the Potteries and the Black Country, the strength of the Labour Party in 1945 was, on the whole, appreciably greater than that of the Liberal Party in 1906. The same was true of the Home Counties of Middlesex, Kent and Essex, those in which, between the wars, there was a great development of modern factories and working-class housing estates. In other industrial areas—South Wales, the Lancashire boroughs and the Scottish burghs—the absolute strength of the Liberal Party was rather greater than that of the Labour Party, and the relative strengths of the two parties about the same. In more mixed areas, containing nevertheless a substantial mining or industrial ingredient, such as the county divisions of Nottingham, Leicester and Derby, and of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and the Lowland counties of Scotland, the same proposition is broadly true, although the Liberal preponderance was here a little greater. The largely agricultural region of East Anglia is also in this category.
In the South of England generally, excluding the large towns, both the Government of 1906 and that of 1945 were relatively weak, but the Labour Party was a great deal weaker than the Liberals had been. These tendencies are shown most strongly in the border counties of Hereford, Worcester and Shropshire, and in the residential counties of Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire. But the West Country breaks this pattern. Here the Liberals were overwhelmingly strong and the Labour Party
equally strikingly weak. This was one of four regions where the differences between the 1906 and the 1945 results were so great as to make the one almost the converse of the other. The other three were Cheshire, the Highland counties of Scotland, and the rural parts of Wales. In the case of Cheshire, where the difference was in any case less great than in the other three, the discrepancy is at least partly to be explained by the growth of ‘commuting’ areas for Liverpool and Manchester which took place between the two elections. Its results look less odd if considered in conjunction with those of Liverpool. The other three areas have many features in common. They none of them have any substantial industry, they are all made up of scattered rural communities, and they all have relatively declining populations; two of them are strongly Nonconformist, and two of them are part of the ‘Celtic fringe’. The collectivism of modern left-wing politics has not appealed to them as did the more purely political aspects of Liberalism, and the Labour Party has so far decisively failed to succeed to their strong radical tradition.
The general conclusion must be that, geographically, the Liberal Party of 1906 was a good deal more broadly based than was the Labour Party of 1945. Apart from the Universities, there was no category of seats in 1906 in which the Liberal Party could not secure substantial representation. But the same claim could not be made for the Labour Party in 1945. As an illustration of this point an analysis is given of a special category of seats—the seaside resorts—in which left-wing candidates might be expected to do badly. In 1906 there were thirteen seats which fell within this category. The Liberals won eight of them. By 1945 there were eighteen such seats. But the Labour Party won only one of them, and that—Great Yarmouth—might almost be regarded as more a fishing town than a resort. In part, this difference may be due to the greater importance which the hotel and boarding-house trade had assumed by 1945 and to the franchise changes of 1918 which gave votes to the many elderly widows and spinsters who live in these towns. Nevertheless the difference between the two results is striking.
Appendix B
Seats where the party which won in the general election of 1906 was defeated in that of January 1910
GOVERNMENT TO OPPOSITION
Bath (two members)
Bedford
Berkshire, North or Abingdon
Berkshire, South or Newbury
Boston
Brighton (two members)
Buckinghamshire, South or Wycombe
Burnley
Buteshire
Camberwell, Peckham
Cambridge
Cambridgeshire, East or Newmarket
Chelsea
Cheshire, Wirral
Cheshire, Eddisbury
Cheshire, Knutsford
Chester
Christchurch
Colchester
Coventry
Cumberland, Cockermouth
Cumberland, Egremont
Denbigh District
Devonport (two members)
Dorset, North
Dorset, South
Essex, North or Saffron Walden
Essex, North-East or Harwich
Essex, East or Maldon
Essex, South-East
Exeter
Fulham
Glasgow, Central
Gloucester
Gloucestershire, East or Cirencester
Greenwich
Hackney, North
Hampshire, New Forest
Hampshire, Isle of Wight
Herefordshire, North or Leominster
Herefordshire, South or Ross
Hertfordshire, North or Hitchin
Hertfordshire, West or Watford
Huntingdonshire, South or Huntingdon
Huntingdonshire, North or Ramsey
Kensington, North
Kent, North-East or Dartford
Kent, South-West or Tonbridge
Kent, North-West or Faversham
Kidderminster
Kirkcudbrightshire
Lambeth, North
Lambeth, Brixton
Lancashire, South-West or South-port
Lincolnshire, East Lindsey or Louth
Lincolnshire, North Kesteven or Sleaford
Liverpool, Abercromby
Middlesex, Enfield
Middlesex, Harrow
Middlesex, Brentford
Norfolk, Mid-
Northamptonshire, South
Nottingham, East
Nottinghamshire, Bassetlaw
Oxfordshire, North or Banbury
Oxfordshire, Mid- or Woodstock
Oxfordshire, South or Henley
Paddington, North
Penryn and Falmouth
Perthshire, West
Portsmouth (two members)
Preston
Radnorshire
Renfrewshire, East
Rochester
St. Pancras, South
Somerset, Wells
Somerset, East
Somerset, Bridgwater
Southwark, West
Staffordshire, Leek
Staffordshire, West
Stalybridge
Suffolk, North or Lowestoft
Suffolk, North-West or Stow-market
Suffolk, South or Sudbury
Suffolk, South-East or Wood-bridge
Surrey, North-West or Chertsey
Surrey, South-West or Guildford
Surrey, South-East or Reigate
Sussex, North or East Grinstead
Sussex, South or Eastbourne
Tower Hamlets, Mile End
Tower Hamlets, Bow and Bromley
Walsall
Warwick and Leamington
Warwickshire, South-West or Stratford-on-Avon
Warwickshire, South-East or Rugby
Wednesbury
West Bromwich
Westmorland, North or Appleby
Westmorland, South or Kendal
Whitehaven
Wiltshire, North or Cricklade
Wiltshire, North-West or Chippenham
Wiltshire, East or Devizes
Wiltshire, South or Wilton
Wolverhampton, South
Worcestershire, Mid- or Droit-wich
Yorkshire, North Riding, Richmond
Yorkshire, West Riding, Ripon
Antrim, North
Tyrone, South
Sunderland (to Independent Tariff Reform)
Chatham (from Labour)
Finsbury, Central (from Labour)
Manchester, South-West (from Labour)
Nottingham, South (from Labour)
Northamptonshire, North (from Labour)
Preston (from Labour)
Sunderland (second seat) (from labour)
Wolverhampton, West (from Labour)
Woolwich (from Labour)
Tyrone, Mid- (from Nationalist)
OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT
Ayrshire, North
Blackburn
Darlington
Durham, South-East
Grimsby
Lanarkshire, Govan
Lanarkshire, North-West
Lancashire, North-East, Darvven
St. Andrews
Shoreditch
Stockton-on-Tees
Wick
Wigan (to Labour)
CHANGES WITHIN GOVERNMENT PARTIES
Liberal to Labour
Derbyshire, North-East
Derbyshire, Mid-
Manchester, East
Sheffield, Attercliffe
Staffordshire, North-West
Labour to Liberal
Derby
Middlesbrough
Northumberland, Wansbeck
Nationalist to Independent
Nationalist
Cork, Mid-
Cork, North
Cork, North-East
Cork, West
Louth
Mayo, South
Monaghan, South
Westmeath, North
NET CHANGES
Liberals minus 1
08
Labour minus 6
Nationalists minus 8
Independent Nationalists plus 8
Government minus 115
Unionists plus 114
Independent Tariff Reform plus 1
Opposition plus 115
Appendix C
Seats which changed hands between the two 1910 elections
GOVERNMENT TO OPPOSITION
Ashton-under-Lyme
Birkenhead
Cardiff District
Cheshire, Altrincham
Cornwall, Bodmin
Cumberland, Eskdale
Darlington
Derbyshire, High Peak
Devon, Tavistock
Devon, Torquay
Devon, Ashburton
Dudley
Grimsby
Islington, North
King’s Lynn (from Independent Free Trade)
Lancashire, Darwen
Lancashire, Newton (from Labour)
Leicestershire, Melton
Liverpool, Exchange
Montgomery District
Plymouth (two seats)
St. Andrews District
St. Helen’s (from Labour)
St. Pancras, West
Salford, South
Warrington
Wigan (from Labour)
OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT
Bedford
Burnley
Camberwell, Peckham
Cambridgeshire, Newmarket
Cheltenham
Coventry
Cumberland, Cockermouth
Essex, Saffron Walden
Exeter
Kent, Dartford
Kirkaidbrightshire
Lincolnshire, Louth
Manchester, South-West
Oxfordshire, Banbury
Radnorshire
Rochester
Southwark, West
Staffordshire, Leek