No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
After experimenting with coalitions and with a minority Labor government, the voters of Great Britain on October 29, in their third general election in two years, returned the Conservative party to power with a large majority over the combined opposition groups. Thus the traditional system of party government was restored. The desire for stability and the fear of fundamental changes in the political and economic order were probably the chief causes of the overwhelming Conservative victory.
1 For a vigorous defense of the two-party system, see editorial in Saturday Review, Nov. 15, 1924, p. 488.
2 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 16, p. 420; Nov. 6, p. 496. J. Marriott, A. R. in Fortnightly Review, Dec., 1924 Google Scholar writes: “The issue was as plain as it was vital. The electors clearly perceived—that they were asked to pronounce for or against the principle of private property and individual enterprise; for or against the establishment of a really Socialist Commonwealth.” P. 740.
3 Morgan, W. T., The British Elections of Dec., 1923, American Political Science Review, May, 1924, pp. 331–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Times, Weekly Edition, Dec. 27, 1923, p. 688. In the debate which resulted in the downfall of the Baldwin government Mr. Asquith made it clear that he did not propose to give a blank cheque to Labor. See Ibid. Jan. 24, 1924, p. 84.
5 See Masterman, C. F. G., The Dissolution, Contemporary Review, Nov., 1924 Google Scholar, for a Liberal's view of the relations between Labor and Liberals. The New Statesman, Oct. 11, p. 4, in an editorial says: “A very large majority of the House of Commons wishes him to remain in office at any rate until next summer, but he has deliberately challenged it on issues which it could not support without utterly humiliating itself. He has had a magnificent chance which he seems wantonly to have thrown away. As Foreign Secretary he has been an immense success; as Prime Minister he has been an utter failure. He has never recognized the inevitable limitations of a minority government. He has never poured oil on the troubled waters, but almost always has said the word that was best calculated to exacerbate party feeling. If he had treated his Liberal allies with even common courtesy he might have remained in power not merely until 1925 but for some years to come, possibly even for a decade.”
6 Benn, Wedgwood, Nine Months of Labor Government, Contemporary Review, Oct., 1924, pp. 417–424 Google Scholar; Spender, Harold, Is Liberalism Dead, Fortnightly Review, Dec., 1924, pp. 731–737 Google Scholar; Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 2, p. 364; Oct. 16, p. 415; Manchester Guardian Weekly, Oct. 10, p. 308; Nation and Athenaeum, Nov. 8, p. 203.
7 Spectator, Oct. 18, 1924, p. 533 said: “We all acknowledge the dignity and distinction with which he [MacDonald] has spoken on many occasions, and we all acknowledge that in foreign policy he has interpreted the wishes of the country with more address, and perhaps with more insight, than any other Foreign Secretary of recent times.” For a sympathetic review of Mr. MacDonald's work as Foreign Secretary see Spender, Hugh F., Mr.MacDonald, at the Foreign Office, Fortnightly Review, Dec., 1924, pp. 782–792 Google Scholar; also Huddleston, Sisley, New Statesman, Oct. 18, p. 39.Google Scholar
8 For a vigorous attack on Labor's recognition of the Soviet government see Dewar, George A. B., Britain's Recognition of the Soviet Government, Foreign Affairs, Dec. 15, 1924, pp. 313–319 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Lloyd, W. F., The Soviet, and Our Disgraceful Traffic With It, Nineteenth Century, Oct., 1924, pp. 487–493.Google Scholar For the Liberal attitude toward the treaty see The Case against the Russian Treaty, Supplement to The Nation and Athenaeum, Oct. 18, 1924; also The Manchester Guardian, Sept. 26, p. 261 and Oct. 3, p. 278. For the Conservative attitude see Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 2, p. 356; Oct. 9, p. 387 ; Oct. 23, p. 448. For the Labor defense of the treaty see Ponsonby, Arthur, The Case for the Russian Treaties, Contemporary Review, Dec., 1924, pp. 697–702.Google Scholar
9 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 9, p. 384.
10 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 16, p. 414.
11 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 9, p. 384, gives an abstract of Mr. MacDonald's speech.
12 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 16, p. 414; Manchesier Guardian Weekly, Oct. 10.
13 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 16, p. 412; Manchester Guardian Weekly, Oct. 17.
14 Manchester Guardian Weekly, Oct. 24, p. 344; Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 23, pp. 440 and 442.
15 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 16, p. 412; Manchester Guardian Weekly, Oct. 17.
16 Times, Weekly Edition, Nov. 13, p. 530. See also Dalton, Hugh, The General Election, Contemporary Review, Dec., 1924, pp. 688–692.Google Scholar
17 The most bitter speeches of the campaign were made by Lord Birkenhead and Mr. Churchill, the latter having again become a Conservative. See Nation and Athenaeum, Oct. 25, p. 139, for an estimate of Lord Birkenhead's campaign methods.
18 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 16, p. 412.
19 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 23, p. 440; Oct. 30, p. 468.
20 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 23, p. 440; Oct. 30, p. 470.
21 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 23, p. 440; Oct. 30, p. 470.
Mr. Lloyd George gave considerable attention to the question of land reform for which he proposed a new scheme.
22 The Zinovieff letter, the Foreign Office note, and M. Rakovsky's reply are printed in Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 30, p. 473, and in the Manchester Guardian Weekly, Oct. 31, p. 372. The issue is analyzed in the latter, p. 366.
23 Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 30, p. 468.
24 Dalton, Hugh, The General Election, Contemporary Review, Dec., 1924.Google Scholar
25 See editorial in Times, Weekly Edition, Oct. 30, p. 476, and editorial in Manchester Guardian Weekly, Oct. 31, p. 362.
26 The inconsistencies in Mr. MacDonald's statements in regard to the letter are skillfully exposed in a leading article in New Statesman, Nov. 1, pp. 100–101. The suggestion is made that the letter was a hoax that originated in the Secret Service. For a scathing analysis of Mr. MacDonald's course in regard to the letter see Spectator, Nov. 1, pp. 630–1; 632.
27 Times, Weekly Edition, Nov. 13, p. 530. The Baldwin government shortly after taking office stated in a note to M. Rakovsky that it considered the Zinovieff letter authentic. It also informed the Soviet authorities that the Russian treaty would be dropped. Times, Weekly Edition, Nov. 27, p. 586.
28 Dalton, Hugh, The General Election, Contemporary Review, Dec., 1924.Google Scholar
29 Nov. 20, p. 556.
30 The Liberals who had suffered most from the unrepresentative electoral system were naturally the most vigorous critics of it. The Outlook, Nov. 8, p. 322, however, in commenting on the calculations of the advocates of electoral reform, which showed that under proportional representation the new House would have been much like the old one, says that the country should be grateful for the present system. See Manchester Guardian Weekly, Nov. 7, p. 386.
31 Nov. 6, pp. 498–502.
32 Times, Weekly Edition, Nov. 13, p. 530; Manchester Guardian Weekly, Nov. 7.
33 Quoted in Living Age, Nov. 22, p. 405. For views relative to the future of the Liberal party see Nation and Athenaeum, Nov. 8, p. 206, and Spectator, Nov. 22, p. 769. The Saturday Review, Nov. 1, p. 437, agreed with the Labor view in regard to Liberalism saying, “Next to the extent of the Conservative victory the most remarkable result of the election has been the Liberal catastrophe. English Liberalism is in its death agony. Nothing could have pointed more surely to its senility and decay than the barrenness of its propaganda during the campaign, both in its press and on its platforms.” Mr. Churchill credited the Liberal disaster to its mistake in putting Labor into power; Times, Weekly Edition, Nov. 6.
34 Times, Weekly Edition, Nov. 13, p. 528.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.