DOCSLIB.ORG

Why Capital Punishment Was Abolished in Britain, 1947-69

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Why Capital Punishment Was Abolished in Britain, 1947-69 ‘A barbarous penalty which the community has no right to exact’: why capital punishment was abolished in Britain, 1947-69 Thomas James Wright PhD University of York History August 2014 Abstract This thesis examines why capital punishment was abolished in Britain in spite of the consistent retentionism of the majority of the electorate. It addresses the period between 1947, when abolition was debated as part of the Criminal Justice Bill, and 1969, when capital punishment was abolished permanently for murder. In explaining why capital punishment was abolished, this thesis engages primarily with two broad historiographical narratives for the period: public opinion and liberalisation. It investigates how politicians used public opinion within their arguments and why the electorate’s retentionism did not convince a sufficient number of them to oppose abolition. It places abolition alongside the other socially liberalising legislation of this period, notably the legalisation of homosexuality and abortion and the other permissive reforms. In doing so, it assesses the relationship between abolition and this wider liberalisation. The emerging liberalising ethos after the Second World War is an important context for understanding abolition. This thesis identifies the collective identities of the abolitionists and retentionists. It examines the abolitionists’ and retentionists’ cases separately, assessing how they argued their cases, why they supported or opposed abolition and why the abolitionists succeeded and the retentionists failed. It also considers whether the abolitionists were social liberals and, conversely, whether the retentionists were social authoritarians. This thesis engages with the political discourse on civilisation, which permeated both these debates and many of the justifications for politicians’ beliefs. In addressing and considering these issues, this thesis provides an original explanation for the abolition of capital punishment in Britain. 2 Contents Abstract 2 Contents 3 List of figures 4 List of accompanying material 5 Acknowledgements 6 Author’s declaration 7 Introduction 8 Chapter One: Marginalising the mob: the influence of public opinion 38 within the capital punishment debates Chapter Two: Who were the retentionists and abolitionists? 74 Chapter Three: The abolitionist case 111 Chapter Four: The retentionist case 170 Conclusion 210 Appendix: Figures 221 List of abbreviations 227 Bibliography 228 3 List of figures 1.1 Gallup poll results for capital punishment 1938-70 46 2.1 MPs’ votes on capital punishment organised by decade born 76 3.1 Conservative MPs' votes on abolition organised by decade born 221 4.1 Labour MPs' votes on abolition organised by decade born 221 5.1 MPs' votes on abolition organised by party affiliation and stance on 222 abolition 6.1 MPs' votes on abolition organised by occupation 222 7.1 Number of MPs who voted against the second reading of the Sexual 223 Offences Bill organised by their votes on abolition 8.1 Number of MPs who voted against the second reading of the Medical 224 Termination of Pregnancy Bill organised by their votes on abolition 9.1 Number of MPs who voted for the second reading of the Sexual Offences 225 Bill organised by their votes on abolition 10.1 Number of MPs who voted for the second reading of the Medical 226 Termination of Pregnancy Bill organised by their votes on abolition 4 List of accompanying material CD-R – Database of MPs’ votes on abolition, 1947-69 5 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I am indebted to my supervisor, Mark Roodhouse, for his valuable contributions throughout this degree programme. What follows has been improved immensely by his input. I am also grateful to the members of my thesis advisory panel, Richard Bessel, David Clayton, Chris Renwick and Lawrence Black. Their guidance and interrogation has helped to direct this thesis. I am grateful to the University of York’s Department of History for their scholarship, without which I would not have been able to complete this thesis. I would like to record my gratitude to all of the staff at the various archives that I visited for this project. Many of them directed me to caches of files of which I was unaware. I am also grateful to the many café owners in York and Norwich who tolerated me overstaying my welcome whilst I was drafting this thesis. Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends and Caroline for their support during my studies. Whether it was reading a draft chapter, discussing a concept or being patient with me during this process, they all helped me to see this through. 6 Author’s declaration This thesis is entirely my own work. It has not been submitted for examination elsewhere. All references to other authors’ works are cited clearly and appropriately. 7 Introduction In May 1969 James Callaghan, the Home Secretary, and William Ross, the Secretary of State for Scotland, prepared a confidential memorandum for the cabinet about the process by which capital punishment could be abolished permanently. Under the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965, Parliament could make the temporary abolition of capital punishment permanent by resolution, thus avoiding the lengthy series of debates that had been a feature of the previous attempts to abolish capital punishment. Since the Second World War, politicians were always free to vote on abolition without pressure from the party whips. As part of this tradition, abolition had always been introduced as a Private Members’ Bill rather than by the government. In 1969, Harold Wilson’s Labour government broke with this tradition by introducing the resolution itself, although the free vote was preserved. In preparation for the debate on the resolution, Callaghan and Ross outlined why the abolitionists despised capital punishment: The essential case for abolition is in our view a moral one. Capital punishment is a barbarous penalty which the community has no right to exact, however heinous the crime. There are however other subsidiary arguments in favour of abolition. The death penalty is a denial of the principle underlying the rest of our penal thinking, that no criminal is beyond the hope of redemption. In the event of doubt arising about the verdict after the sentence has been carried out, there is no opportunity to right the wrong. We think that those who advocate capital punishment are under the onus of establishing that this barbarous penalty is a unique deterrent; but there is no conclusive evidence, either here or elsewhere, to support such a contention.1 Callaghan and Ross placed moral outrage at the heart of their and other abolitionists’ beliefs, labelling the punishment as being uncivilised and not a unique deterrent to murder. Callaghan’s and Ross’ memorandum, which was 1 The National Archives: Public Records Office (TNA:PRO), Confidential memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Permanent Abolition of Capital Punishment for Murder, CAB/129/141, C(69) 48, 6 May 1969. 8 one of the clearest statements of why the abolitionists wanted to remove the death penalty, was made as the abolition process was reaching its conclusion. The parliamentary journey to this moment has been documented within the sparse historiography of capital punishment. What remains unexplained, though, is why the death penalty was abolished. Callaghan’s and Ross’ memorandum is interesting in part because it touched on the two themes which are most pertinent for understanding the abolition process. They described capital punishment as a right that should not be permitted within the community and cited a reformed penal policy that was based upon redemption rather than retribution. This placed abolition within the liberalising ethos of the age, as the death penalty denied the criminal the possibility of redemption and reform. This was contrary to a common Christian belief. Furthermore, the description of capital punishment as community penalty alluded to the fact that the government was acting against the will of the electorate. As the memorandum went on to explain, politicians abolished capital punishment despite knowing that the electorate wanted it to be retained. Every opinion poll on capital punishment had found support for retention. During the period between 1947 and 1969, opinion polling grew in both volume and prominence. That Callaghan and Ross dismissed it so freely is indicative of politicians’ dismissive attitude towards public opinion. Liberalisation and public opinion are the two well-established historiographical themes with which this thesis engages. However, neither the association of capital punishment with liberalisation nor the opposition to the reform from public opinion have been challenged or examined within the historiography. These are important themes within this thesis’ examination of politicians’ arguments and beliefs on capital punishment. This thesis examines why Parliament abolished capital punishment after the Second World War despite British public opinion being overwhelmingly in favour of it, as it is today. Until now, the historiography of abolition has chronicled how the death penalty was removed. It has not explained why parliamentarians distanced themselves from the electorate when arriving at their decisions on capital punishment. In addressing this issue, this thesis examines the formative causes of politicians’ beliefs on the death penalty. Hitherto, there has been no attempt to explain why politicians believed that capital punishment was 9
Load more

Recommended publications
  • BDOHP Biographical Details and Index Lord Wright of Richmond
    BDOHP Biographical details and index Lord Wright of Richmond (28.06.31-06.03.20) - career outline with, on right, relevant page numbers in the memoir to the career stage. Served Royal Artillery, 1950–51 p 3 Joined Diplomatic Service, 1955 pp 2-3 Middle East Centre for Arabic Studies, 1956–57 pp 3-6 Third Secretary, British Embassy, Beirut, 1958–60 - Private Secretary to Ambassador and later First Secretary, pp 12-15 British Embassy, Washington, 1960–65 Private Secretary to Permanent Under-Secretary, FO, 1965–67 pp 10-11 First Secretary and Head of Chancery, Cairo, 1967–70 - Deputy Political Resident, Bahrain, 1971–72 - Head of Middle East Department, FCO, 1972–74 - Private Secretary (Overseas Affairs) to Prime Minister, 1974–77 pp 7-10, 25, 34-35 Ambassador to Luxembourg, 1977–79 pp 30-31 Ambassador to Syria, 1979–81 pp 30-33 Deputy Under-Secretary of State, FCO, 1982–84 - Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, 1984–86 pp 33-34, 36 Permanent Under-Secretary of State and Head pp 11-12, of Diplomatic Service, 1986–91. 16-18, 21, 30 Member, Security Commission, 1993–2002. - General comments on Middle East and United States, pp 6-8; political versus professional diplomatic appointments, pp 15-20; retirement age in diplomatic service, pp 21-23; recruitment, pp 23-25; Foreign Office image, pp 38-40; John Major, pp 40-42; leaking of restricted papers, pp 43-45. Lord Wright of Richmond This is Malcolm McBain interviewing Lord Wright of Richmond at his home in East Sheen on Monday, 16 October 2000. MMcB: “Lord Wright, you were born in 1931, educated at Marlborough and Merton College, Oxford, you did a couple of years’ national service in the Royal Artillery, and then joined the Diplomatic Service, presumably after going to Oxford, in 1965.
    [Show full text]
  • Speech by Hugh Gaitskell Against UK Membership of the Common Market (3 October 1962)
    Speech by Hugh Gaitskell against UK membership of the Common Market (3 October 1962) Caption: On 3 October 1962, Hugh Gaitskell, leader of the Labour Party, delivers a speech at the annual Labour Party Conference in which he lists the reasons for which opposes the United Kingdom's accession to the European Economic Community (EEC). Source: Britain and the Common Market, Texts of speeches made at the 1962 Labour Party Conference by the Rt. Hon Hugh Gaitskell M.P. and the Rt. Hon. George Brown M.P. together with the policy statement accepted by Conference. London: Labour Party, 1962. 40 p. p. 3-23. Copyright: (c) Labour Party URL: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/speech_by_hugh_gaitskell_against_uk_membership_of_the _common_market_3_october_1962-en-05f2996b-000b-4576-8b42- 8069033a16f9.html Last updated: 01/03/2017 1/15 Speech by Hugh Gaitskell (3 October 1962) I present to Conference the document Labour and the Common Market, and ask you to give it your whole- hearted support. I ask this not only because I believe that this document will commend itself to the large majority of delegates, but because its compelling logic makes it a fine statement of the Party’s point of view on this immense problem. We can all agree on the tremendous significance of this debate. We can also agree that it is already warm in this hall, and likely to become much hotter as the day goes on. Do not therefore, let us get over-heated. I plead at the start for tolerance, tolerance in particular between those who hold the more extreme views in this controversy – those who, on the one hand would like to see Britain enter Europe whatever the conditions, and those who, on the other hand, are opposed to Britain entering Europe on any conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth
    Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites © Human Rights Consortium, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NCND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN 978-1-912250-13-4 (2018 PDF edition) DOI 10.14296/518.9781912250134 Institute of Commonwealth Studies School of Advanced Study University of London Senate House Malet Street London WC1E 7HU Cover image: Activists at Pride in Entebbe, Uganda, August 2012. Photo © D. David Robinson 2013. Photo originally published in The Advocate (8 August 2012) with approval of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG). Approval renewed here from SMUG and FARUG, and PRIDE founder Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera. Published with direct informed consent of the main pictured activist. Contents Abbreviations vii Contributors xi 1 Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity in the Commonwealth: from history and law to developing activism and transnational dialogues 1 Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites 2
    [Show full text]
  • Haessly, Katie (2010) British Conservative Women Mps
    British Conservative Women MPs and ‘Women’s Issues’ 1950-1979 Katie Haessly, BA MA Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2010 1 Abstract In the period 1950-1979, there were significant changes in legislation relating to women’s issues, specifically employment, marital and guardianship and abortion rights. This thesis explores the impact of Conservative female MPs on these changes as well as the changing roles of women within the party. In addition there is a discussion of the relationships between Conservative women and their colleagues which provides insights into the changes in gender roles which were occurring at this time. Following the introduction the next four chapters focus on the women themselves and the changes in the above mentioned women’s issues during the mid-twentieth century and the impact Conservative women MPs had on them. The changing Conservative attitudes are considered in the context of the wider changes in women’s roles in society in the period. Chapter six explores the relationship between women and men of the Conservative Parliamentary Party, as well as men’s impact on the selected women’s issues. These relationships were crucial to enhancing women’s roles within the party, as it is widely recognised that women would not have been able to attain high positions or affect the issues as they did without help from male colleagues. Finally, the female Labour MPs in the alteration of women’s issues is discussed in Chapter seven. Labour women’s relationships both with their party and with Conservative women are also examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Inscribed 6 (2).Pdf
    Inscribed6 CONTENTS 1 1. AVIATION 33 2. MILITARY 59 3. NAVAL 67 4. ROYALTY, POLITICIANS, AND OTHER PUBLIC FIGURES 180 5. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 195 6. HIGH LATITUDES, INCLUDING THE POLES 206 7. MOUNTAINEERING 211 8. SPACE EXPLORATION 214 9. GENERAL TRAVEL SECTION 1. AVIATION including books from the libraries of Douglas Bader and “Laddie” Lucas. 1. [AITKEN (Group Captain Sir Max)]. LARIOS (Captain José, Duke of Lerma). Combat over Spain. Memoirs of a Nationalist Fighter Pilot 1936–1939. Portrait frontispiece, illustrations. First edition. 8vo., cloth, pictorial dust jacket. London, Neville Spearman. nd (1966). £80 A presentation copy, inscribed on the half title page ‘To Group Captain Sir Max AitkenDFC. DSO. Let us pray that the high ideals we fought for, with such fervent enthusiasm and sacrifice, may never be allowed to perish or be forgotten. With my warmest regards. Pepito Lerma. May 1968’. From the dust jacket: ‘“Combat over Spain” is one of the few first-hand accounts of the Spanish Civil War, and is the only one published in England to be written from the Nationalist point of view’. Lerma was a bomber and fighter pilot for the duration of the war, flying 278 missions. Aitken, the son of Lord Beaverbrook, joined the RAFVR in 1935, and flew Blenheims and Hurricanes, shooting down 14 enemy aircraft. Dust jacket just creased at the head and tail of the spine. A formidable Vic formation – Bader, Deere, Malan. 2. [BADER (Group Captain Douglas)]. DEERE (Group Captain Alan C.) DOWDING Air Chief Marshal, Lord), foreword. Nine Lives. Portrait frontispiece, illustrations. First edition.
    [Show full text]
  • Nunsthorpe Garden City History Group Memories
    Nunsthorpe Garden City History Group Memories Compiled by Roy and Sheila Ellis between 2007 and 2017 Acknowledgement We would like to thank all the contributors to this document for their time and patience and most of all their memories. Many thanks to the Second Avenue Resource Centre staff and special mention to Margaret Horsburgh for her help throughout the time we have been meeting at the centre and her special talent for proof reading. Full marks to Jayne Smith for her skills as a tutor to two very inexperienced computer students, we appreciate the help given us, some of which was in her own time. To David Cowell for the photographs of 1936 school days which he made available to us. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Table of Contents MURIEL PARKER (NEE GREEN) ................................................................................ 1 GLADYS WARMAN (NEE KULLICH) ........................................................................ 3 The Lamp Lighter ................................................................................................................ 5 Tiger Kullich ....................................................................................................................... 9 RON ELLIS ..................................................................................................................... 13 JACK HOPPER ............................................................................................................... 17 BETTY MARRIOTT (NEE ROSS) ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Discussing What Prime Ministers Are For
    Discussing what Prime Ministers are for PETER HENNESSY New Labour has a lot to answer for on this front. They On 13 October 2014, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield FBA, had seen what the press was doing to John Major from Attlee Professor of Contemporary British History at Queen Black Wednesday onwards – relentless attacks on him, Mary, University of London, delivered the first British which bothered him deeply.1 And they were determined Academy Lecture in Politics and Government, on ‘What that this wouldn’t happen to them. So they went into are Prime Ministers for?’ A video recording of the lecture the business of creating permanent rebuttal capabilities. and an article published in the Journal of the British Academy If somebody said something offensive about the can be found via www.britishacademy.ac.uk/events/2014/ Government on the Today programme, they would make every effort to put it right by the World at One. They went The following article contains edited extracts from the into this kind of mania of permanent rebuttal, which question and answer session that followed the lecture. means that you don’t have time to reflect before reacting to events. It’s arguable now that, if the Government doesn’t Do we expect Prime Ministers to do too much? react to events immediately, other people’s versions of breaking stories (circulating through social media etc.) I think it was 1977 when the Procedure Committee in will make the pace, and it won’t be able to get back on the House of Commons wanted the Prime Minister to be top of an issue.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • How Will the Coalition End? Cameron and Clegg May Look to the Precedent Set by the 1945 Caretaker Government
    How will the coalition end? Cameron and Clegg may look to the precedent set by the 1945 caretaker government blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-will-it-end-the-precedent-for-a-caretaker-government-at-the-end-of-the- coalition/ 5/8/2013 Alun Wyburn-Powell provides a historical account of the 1945 caretaker government and argues that it provides a useful model for thinking about when the current coalition might end. Whilst obviously very different situations, there is good logic in parting some months prior to the start of the 2015 campaign for both the LibDems and Tories. It would allow a bit more freedom for the parties to maneuver and might neutralize Labour’s attempt to attack the coalition. Nick Clegg and David Cameron’s press conference in the Rose Garden at 10 Downing Street was the image which characterised the start of the current coalition in May 2010. At that time many people believed that the government was unlikely to last the full parliamentary term. Now, past the halfway mark, most think that it probably will. History is on the side of the coalition surviving to the end. The Lloyd George coalition lasted for six years, in war and peace, from 1916 to 1922. The National Government lasted nine years from 1931 to 1940 and the most recent example, Churchill’s all-party Second World War coalition, lasted five years from 1940 to 1945. Assuming that it does last, how could the current coalition be brought to a neat conclusion, so that the parties do not end up fighting each other in an election campaign, while still in government together? The example of the Caretaker Government at the end of the last coalition in 1945 offers a precedent.
    [Show full text]
  • A Breach in the Family
    The Lloyd Georges J Graham Jones examines the defections, in the 1950s, of the children of David Lloyd George: Megan to Labour, and her brother Gwilym to the Conservatives. AA breachbreach inin thethe familyfamily G. thinks that Gwilym will go to the right and she became a cogent exponent of her father’s ‘LMegan to the left, eventually. He wants his dramatic ‘New Deal’ proposals to deal with unem- money spent on the left.’ Thus did Lloyd George’s ployment and related social problems. Although op- trusted principal private secretary A. J. Sylvester posed by a strong local Labour candidate in the per- write in his diary entry for April when dis- son of Holyhead County Councillor Henry Jones in cussing his employer’s heartfelt concern over the fu- the general election of , she secured the votes of ture of his infamous Fund. It was a highly prophetic large numbers of Labour sympathisers on the island. comment. The old man evidently knew his children. In , she urged Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin to welcome the Jarrow marchers, and she battled he- Megan roically (although ultimately in vain) to gain Special Megan Lloyd George had first entered Parliament at Assisted Area Status for Anglesey. Megan’s innate only twenty-seven years of age as the Liberal MP for radicalism and natural independence of outlook Anglesey in the We Can Conquer Unemployment gen- grew during the years of the Second World War, eral election of May , the first women mem- which she saw as a vehicle of social change, espe- ber ever to be elected in Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Defence in the Immediate Aftermath of the Adoption of the UN Charter
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) Anticipatory action in self-defence: The law of self-defence - past, presence and future Tibori Szabó, K.J. Publication date 2010 Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Tibori Szabó, K. J. (2010). Anticipatory action in self-defence: The law of self-defence - past, presence and future. General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:01 Oct 2021 129 7 Self-defence in the immediate aftermath of the adoption of the UN Charter 7.1 Introduction The Charter of the United Nations set up a new world organization with several organs that were given executive, legislative, judicial and other functions. The declared objectives of the new organization were the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations and international co-operation in solving international problems, as well as the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.1 These goals were to be achieved through the work of the various organs of the UN, most importantly the Security Council, the General Assembly and the International Court of Justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Orme) Wilberforce (Albert) Raymond Blackburn (Alexander Bell
    Copyrights sought (Albert) Basil (Orme) Wilberforce (Albert) Raymond Blackburn (Alexander Bell) Filson Young (Alexander) Forbes Hendry (Alexander) Frederick Whyte (Alfred Hubert) Roy Fedden (Alfred) Alistair Cooke (Alfred) Guy Garrod (Alfred) James Hawkey (Archibald) Berkeley Milne (Archibald) David Stirling (Archibald) Havergal Downes-Shaw (Arthur) Berriedale Keith (Arthur) Beverley Baxter (Arthur) Cecil Tyrrell Beck (Arthur) Clive Morrison-Bell (Arthur) Hugh (Elsdale) Molson (Arthur) Mervyn Stockwood (Arthur) Paul Boissier, Harrow Heraldry Committee & Harrow School (Arthur) Trevor Dawson (Arwyn) Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Basil Arthur) John Peto (Basil) Kingsley Martin (Basil) Kingsley Martin (Basil) Kingsley Martin & New Statesman (Borlasse Elward) Wyndham Childs (Cecil Frederick) Nevil Macready (Cecil George) Graham Hayman (Charles Edward) Howard Vincent (Charles Henry) Collins Baker (Charles) Alexander Harris (Charles) Cyril Clarke (Charles) Edgar Wood (Charles) Edward Troup (Charles) Frederick (Howard) Gough (Charles) Michael Duff (Charles) Philip Fothergill (Charles) Philip Fothergill, Liberal National Organisation, N-E Warwickshire Liberal Association & Rt Hon Charles Albert McCurdy (Charles) Vernon (Oldfield) Bartlett (Charles) Vernon (Oldfield) Bartlett & World Review of Reviews (Claude) Nigel (Byam) Davies (Claude) Nigel (Byam) Davies (Colin) Mark Patrick (Crwfurd) Wilfrid Griffin Eady (Cyril) Berkeley Ormerod (Cyril) Desmond Keeling (Cyril) George Toogood (Cyril) Kenneth Bird (David) Euan Wallace (Davies) Evan Bedford (Denis Duncan)
    [Show full text]