Talk:William Craven-Ellis

Party?
Both F. W. S. Craig's listings and The Times Guide to the House of Commons for 1929 agree that in that election he was a Conservative candidate at Barnsley. However Craig lists him as a National Independent for all his Southampton elections, whilst The Times lists him as a Conservative. (Okay it uses "Unionist" but means the same thing.) Does anyone have any other sources that might clarify this? Timrollpickering 15:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Which of Craig's books are you using, and in which edition? In my copy of 1918-1950 results, he is listed as a Conservative in all his Southampton appearances, without any annotation, and likewise in Barnsley. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The copy I got the listing from is the 1st (1969) edition of the same. Timrollpickering 15:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose that we should prefer the 3rd edition, but I'd feel much happier about it if Craig explained why changes had been made from the 1st editiuon, but he offers absolutely nothing :( Maybe someone will have another source.  --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I once went through the 1974 and 1989 editions of BPER 1885-1918 to compare them line by line. I could find no changes at all in the main text; only the index of candidates was changed, in respect of similarly named candidates who were proved to be identical or vice-versa. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 14:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have the answer to this one. I made a survey of all the available sources and found these in addition: contemporary Whitaker's Almanacks list him as a Conservative, and the Pilot Guide to the General Election (1945) states that the Southampton seats were held by a Conservative and a Liberal National. However, "The British Voter" by Michael Kinnear has him as a National candidate. Dod's, and its compilation by Stenton and Lees, fudge the picture by saying he was a Conservative in Barnsley, represented Southampton, and then fought Southampton as a National Independent. The general track seems to be that contemporary sources have him as a Conservative, and later sources have him as a National.

Then I checked the Times Digital Archive, and a slightly clearer picture emerges. In 1935 he is a straightforward Conservative candidate like all the others (or as they anachronistically put it, 'Unionist'). In 1940, when Reith took the other Southampton seat, the Times described Craven-Ellis as a Conservative (February 2, 1940, page 8, column F), and it does so throughout the war and even in a Parliamentary report at the beginning of June 1945.

The difference comes at the start of the 1945 election campaign, when on June 26, 1945 (page 4, column B) it notes that "The Government candidates are Mr W. Craven-Ellis, who is standing as a National Government supporter, and Dr W.S. Russell Thomas, who is a National Liberal". (Despite this, Craven-Ellis is listed in the same day's paper as a Conservative candidate in the list of election candidates). There is of course no doubt that Craven-Ellis was an Independent in 1950 when he fought against the official nominee in Southampton Test.

What I think this means is that Craven-Ellis retained the Conservative whip until the dissolution, and was adopted by Southampton Conservatives as their candidate for the 1945 election, but decided for his own reasons that he would rather fight as a 'National' candidate. Perhaps this attitude did not encourage the Southampton Conservatives to select him again in 1950. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thanks, Fys, for such a wonderfully thorough answer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, should mention that at the weekend I had a look in Dod's. Up to and including 1942, Craven-Ellis is a Conservative; from 1943 he is National. This made little difference at the time, of course. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 00:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)