met and half-heartedly agreed to a proposal whereby whilst all peers would remain members, there would Reports be a specific voting section and the independent peers would have a de- cisive influence. The delaying pow- ers would be reduced to six months. Reforming the Lords This had been talked out in the Evening meeting, 19 January, Commons by an unholy alliance of Michael Foot and Enoch Powell. with Vernon Bogdanor and Lord Carrington Carrington went on to look at the Lords today. The Lords currently Report by Malcolm Baines suffered from a lack of credibility which made using what powers it has impossible. Whilst it was effec- House of Lords reform proved a stimulating topic for a tive as a revising chamber, it could crowded meeting at the National Liberal Club in January. not act as a check on the Commons (and through it the executive) be- The speakers were Professor Vernon Bogdanor of Brasenose cause it had no credible basis of College, Oxford, and Lord Carrington, former Conservative membership. However, electing a Foreign Secretary and one-time leader of the Conservatives second chamber would give rise to different problems, depending on the in the House of Lords. extent of the second chamber’s pow- ers. If it had considerable powers, it Professor Bogdanor began by ment’s manifesto. In , the Lords’ would inevitably challenge the looking at the background to the delaying power was further reduced Commons on policy, leading to pa- Parliament Act, which intro- to one year. In the s, life peers ralysis of government; if too little, duced the two-year suspending were introduced and these had origi- then no quality candidates would power of the Lords (as opposed to nally worked well but more latterly apply. There was also the issue of the absolute veto they had had be- there had been a decline in quality, when it should be elected. At a dif- fore) and removed their ability to leading to long-winded and rather ferent time from the Commons delay so-called Money Bills. He ar- dull debates. Harold Wilson had at- would lead to a house potentially gued that the Act was significant in tempted to reform the Lords com- dominated by the government’s op- that it confirmed the supremacy of position. An all-party group, includ- ponents elected on mid-term pro- the Commons and of representa- ing Frank Byers for the Liberals, had test; election at the same time to a tional democracy; the alternative of referring a disputed bill to a refer- endum had been firmly ruled out by Vernon Bogdanor, Andrew Adonis (chair) and Lord Carrington the Liberal Government. Despite a (photo: Jen Tankard). Preamble to the Act, inserted by Sir Edward Grey, no moves were made to change the composition of the Lords; the result of the reforms had been to achieve a unicameral system of government with two chambers, a set-up which had probably served the UK rather well despite its intrin- sic untidiness. Lord Carrington then discussed the role of the Lords since he took his seat in . The considerable disparity in numbers and views in the post-war period between Labour and Conservative in the Lords had led to the evolution of the Salisbury Convention under which the Lords undertook not to oppose proposals included in a victorious govern- journal of liberal democrat history 19: summer 1998 15 house which rubber-stamped the Carrington returned again and again to turn their statements and previ- Commons. Carrington’s conclusion to his central argument that the cur- ously held convictions into action. was that the new second chamber rent Lords was not credible and The problem was that they did not should have the same powers except therefore had to be reformed and believe there was a strong public on constitutional issues where it that to be credible it had to be mood in favour of votes for women; could refer matters to a mandatory elected, with all the difficulties that indeed the question had not really referendum of the electorate. A entailed. The audience – including been debated in the general election nominated house would be the three Lib Dem life peers – contrib- campaign. There was also a genuine worst possible outcome, but all too uted various ideas for reform, includ- fear of giving the vote to a section of likely if the Blair government abol- ing equal succession rights for male the population which had a tendency ished the hereditary peers and then and female heirs, an independent to support temperance, which was, as did not go on to reform the com- commission to select peers and con- our speaker, Dr Alberti, put it, ‘always position of the Lords. stituencies based on criteria other a tricky issue for Liberals!’ A lively discussion followed with then geography. However all of these The Liberal leadership made it Bogdanor arguing strongly that the were found wanting and the meet- clear: politically active women were Lords should not be reformed at all ing concluded that fundamental not supposed to fight for other for the time being until it was clearer Lords reform was necessary, albeit women and their rights. They were whether Britain was moving towards without agreeing either on the tim- supposed to help men get elected by a federal system and a Commons ing or on the nature. Both speakers working for the party and be patient. elected by PR. Bogdanor had a were united in expressing grave res- Once everything else had been higher opinion of the Lords’ intrin- ervations that Labour would intro- sorted out – Ireland, the Budget, re- sic expertise than Carrington, who duce a wholly nominated second form of the House of Lords and nu- thought it was much overrated. chamber. merous other problems that got in the way – then the men might think about the ‘girls’. They might consider the question of levelling a little the The Struggle for Women’s playing field (which still sounds rather familiar). Inevitably, the arrival of war Rights changed the political agenda. The Fringe meeting, March 1998, Liberal Government accepted dur- ing the – war that working with Shirley Williams and Johanna Alberti men needed to be enfranchised. It was on the back of this reform that Report by Justine McGuinness the question of women’s suffrage was addressed (to a limited degree). As we know, there was a delay of When I walked into the room (early) in Southport, for the years before women were given History Group fringe, it was already full; by the time Shirley equal voting rights as men. The suf- fragettes had themselves acquiesced Williams arrived to speak, the room was busting at the steams to this slow pace of change and buzzing, itching to talk political history. You just knew The most intriguing revelation it was going to be Class A fringe. Alberti made was about the Liberal Party’s structures. The Women’s Lib- eral Federation was designed to be The first speaker was Dr Johanna UK qualified as voting property Gladstone’s poodle. The idea was to Alberti, a lecturer at the Open Uni- owners (but not in respect of the ‘divert the suffrage movement within versity. Focusing on the latter part same property as their husbands). In the Liberal Party into a controlled of the nineteenth century, Alberti , women tried to stand for party organ’. This helps explain to any highlighted the long fight for county councils, though a legal ques- baffled outsider how a ‘liberal’ party women to have the right to stand tion mark hung over this for nearly in the latter stages of the th century for elected positions and the strug- years, until . could be so anti-feminist. The tone gle to clarify female property own- In there was a landslide Lib- was set at the end of the last century, ers’ rights to vote. Despite being en- eral victory. As candidates, the major- by the leadership of the party in an franchised in , when the Mu- ity of the newly elected Liberal MPs unambiguous attempt to control po- nicipal Franchise Act was amended, had stated their support for women’s litically active women. it was as late as – some years suffrage, giving suffragettes cause for Baroness Williams followed Dr later – that married women in the optimism. However, the MPs failed Alberti. As is Shirley’s way, she spoke 16 journal of liberal democrat history 19: summer 1998.