Alec Douglas-Home

Douglas-Home was born in Mayfair, London, the first of seven children of Lord Dunglass (the eldest son of the 12th Earl of Home) and his wife, the Lady Lilian Lambton (daughter of the 4th Earl of Durham). The boy's first name was customarily abbreviated to "Alec".[3] Among the couple's younger children was the playwright William Douglas-Home.[4]

In 1918 the 12th Earl of Home died, Dunglass succeeded him in the earldom, and the courtesy title passed to Alec Douglas-Home, who was styled Lord Dunglass until 1951.[5] The young Lord Dunglass was educated at Ludgrove School, followed by Eton College. At Eton his contemporaries included Cyril Connolly, who later described him as:

[A] votary of the esoteric Eton religion, the kind of graceful, tolerant, sleepy boy who is showered with favours and crowned with all the laurels, who is liked by the masters and admired by the boys without any apparent exertion on his part, without experiencing the ill-effects of success himself or arousing the pangs of envy in others. In the 18th century he would have become Prime Minister before he was 30. As it was, he appeared honourably ineligible for the struggle of life.[6]

After Eton, Dunglass went to Christ Church, Oxford, where he graduated with a third-class honours BA degree in Modern History in 1925.[7]

As a member of the Eton XI, 1921

Dunglass was a talented sportsman. In addition to representing Eton at fives,[8] he was a capable cricketer at school, club and county level, and was unique among British prime ministers in having played first-class cricket.[9] Coached by George Hirst,[10] he became in Wisden's phrase "a useful member of the Eton XI"[9] that included Percy Lawrie and Gubby Allen.[11] Wisden observed, "In the rain-affected Eton–Harrow match of 1922 he scored 66, despite being hindered by a saturated outfield, and then took 4 for 37 with his medium-paced out-swingers".[9]

At first-class level he represented the Oxford University Cricket Club, Middlesex County Cricket Club and Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC). Between 1924 and 1927 he played ten first-class matches, scoring 147 runs at an average of 16.33 with a best score of 37 not out. As a bowler he took 12 wickets at an average of 30.25 with a best of 3 for 43. Three of his first-class games were internationals against Argentina on the MCC "representative" tour of South America in 1926–27.[9]

Dunglass began serving in the Territorial Army when in 1924 he was commissioned a lieutenant in the Lanarkshire Yeomanry,[12] then was promoted captain in 1928,[13] and major in 1933.[14]

The courtesy title Lord Dunglass did not carry with it membership of the House of Lords, and Dunglass was eligible to seek election to the House of Commons. Unlike many aristocratic families, the Douglas-Homes had little history of political service. Uniquely in the family the 11th earl, Dunglass's great-grandfather, had held government office, as Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office in Wellington's 1828–30 government.[15] Dunglass's father stood, reluctantly and unsuccessfully, for Parliament before succeeding to the earldom.[15]

Dunglass had shown little interest in politics while at Eton or Oxford. He had not joined the Oxford Union as budding politicians usually did.[16] However, as heir to the family estates he was doubtful about the prospect of life as a country gentleman: "I was always rather discontented with this role and felt it wasn't going to be enough."[17] His biographer David Dutton believes that Dunglass became interested in politics because of the widespread unemployment and poverty in the Scottish lowlands where his family lived.[18] Later in his career, when he had become Prime Minister, Dunglass (by then Sir Alec Douglas-Home) wrote in a memorandum: "I went into politics because I felt that it was a form of public service and that as nearly a generation of politicians had been cut down in the first war those who had anything to give in the way of leadership ought to do so."[19][n 2] His political thinking was influenced by that of Noel Skelton, a member of the Unionist party (as the Conservatives were called in Scotland between 1912 and 1965). Skelton advocated "a property-owning democracy", based on share-options for workers and industrial democracy.[20] Dunglass was not persuaded by the socialist ideal of public ownership. He shared Skelton's view that "what everybody owns nobody owns".[21]

With Skelton's support Dunglass secured the Unionist candidacy at Coatbridge for the 1929 general election.[22] It was not a seat that the Unionists expected to win, and he lost to his Labour opponent with 9,210 votes to Labour's 16,879.[23] It was, however, valuable experience for Dunglass, who was of a gentle and uncombative disposition and not a natural orator; he began to learn how to deal with hostile audiences and get his message across.[24] When a coalition "National Government" was formed in 1931 to deal with a financial crisis, Dunglass was adopted as the pro-coalition Unionist candidate for Lanark. The electorate of the area was mixed, and the constituency was not seen as a safe seat for any party; at the 1929 election Labour had captured it from the Unionists. With the backing of the pro-coalition Liberal party, which supported him rather than fielding its own candidate, Dunglass easily beat the Labour candidate.[25]

Membership of the new House of Commons was overwhelmingly made up of pro-coalition MPs, and there was therefore a large number of eligible members for the government posts to be filled. In Dutton's phrase, "it would have been easy for Dunglass to have languished indefinitely in backbench obscurity".[25] However, Skelton, appointed as Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office, offered Dunglass the unpaid post of unofficial parliamentary aide. This was doubly advantageous to Dunglass. Any MP appointed as official Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS) to a government minister was privy to the inner workings of government but was expected to maintain a discreet silence in the House of Commons. Dunglass achieved the first without having to observe the second.[25] He made his maiden speech in February 1932 on the subject of economic policy, advocating a cautiously protectionist approach to cheap imports. He countered Labour's objection that this would raise the cost of living, arguing that a tariff "stimulates employment and gives work [and] increases the purchasing power of the people by substituting wages for unemployment benefit".[26]

During four years as Skelton's aide Dunglass was part of a team working on a wide range of issues, from medical services in rural Scotland to land settlements, fisheries, education, and industry.[27] Dunglass was appointed official PPS to Anthony Muirhead, junior minister at the Ministry of Labour, in 1935, and less than a year later became PPS to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Neville Chamberlain.[28]

In 1936 Dunglass married Elizabeth Alington; her father, Cyril Alington, had been Dunglass's headmaster at Eton, and was from 1933 Dean of Durham. The service was at Durham Cathedral, conducted by Alington together with William Temple, Archbishop of York and Hensley Henson, Bishop of Durham.[29] In addition to the large number of aristocratic guests, the household and estate staffs of the Douglas-Home properties at Douglas Castle and the Hirsel were invited.[29] There were four children of the marriage: Caroline, Meriel, Diana and David.[4] The last was Dunglass's heir, inheriting the earldom of Home in 1995.[n 3]

By the time of Dunglass's appointment Chamberlain was generally seen as the heir to the premiership.[31] In 1937 the incumbent, Stanley Baldwin, retired, and Chamberlain succeeded him. He then successfully obtained Dunglass as his PPS, a role described by the biographer D. R. Thorpe as "the right-hand man ... the eyes and ears of Neville Chamberlain",[32] and by Dutton as "liaison officer with the Parliamentary party, transmitting and receiving information and [keeping] his master informed of the mood on the government's back benches".[33] This was particularly important for Chamberlain, who was often seen as distant and aloof;[34] Douglas Hurd wrote that he "lacked the personal charm which makes competent administration palatable to wayward colleagues – a gift which his parliamentary private secretary possessed in abundance".[35] Dunglass admired Chamberlain, despite his daunting personality: "I liked him, and I think he liked me. But if one went in at the end of the day for a chat or a gossip, he would be inclined to ask 'What do you want?' He was a very difficult man to get to know."[36]

As Chamberlain's aide Dunglass witnessed at first-hand the Prime Minister's attempts to prevent a second world war through appeasement of Adolf Hitler's Germany. When Chamberlain had his final meeting with Hitler at Munich in September 1938, Dunglass accompanied him. Having gained a short-lived extension of peace by acceding to Hitler's territorial demands at the expense of Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain was welcomed back to London by cheering crowds. Ignoring Dunglass's urging he made an uncharacteristically grandiloquent speech, claiming to have brought back "Peace with Honour" and promising "peace for our time".[37] These words were to haunt him when Hitler's continued aggression made war unavoidable less than a year later. Chamberlain remained Prime Minister from the outbreak of war in September 1939 until May 1940, when, in Dunglass's words, "he could no longer command support of a majority in the Conservative party".[38] After a vote in the Commons, in which the government's majority fell from more than 200 to 81, Chamberlain made way for Winston Churchill. He accepted the non-departmental post of Lord President of the Council in the new coalition government; Dunglass remained as his PPS,[35] having earlier declined the offer of a ministerial post as Under-secretary at the Scottish Office.[39] Although Chamberlain's reputation never recovered from Munich, and his supporters such as R A Butler suffered throughout their later careers from the "appeasement" tag, Dunglass largely escaped blame.[n 4] Nevertheless, Dunglass firmly maintained all his life that the Munich agreement had been vital to the survival of Britain and the defeat of Nazi Germany by giving the UK an extra year to prepare for a war that it could not have contested in 1938.[35] Within months of his leaving the premiership Chamberlain's health began to fail; he resigned from the cabinet, and died after a short illness in November 1940.

Dunglass had volunteered for active military service, seeking to rejoin the Lanarkshire Yeomanry[35] shortly after Chamberlain left Downing Street. The consequent medical examination revealed that Dunglass had a hole in his spine surrounded by tuberculosis in the bone. Without surgery he would have been unable to walk within a matter of months.[42] An innovative and hazardous operation was performed in September 1940, lasting six hours, in which the diseased bone in the spine was scraped away and replaced with healthy bone from the patient's shin.[42]

For all of Dunglass's humour and patience, the following two years were a grave trial. He was encased in plaster and kept flat on his back for most of that period. Although buoyed up by the sensitive support of his wife and family, as he later confessed, "I often felt that I would be better dead."[44] Towards the end of 1942 he was released from his plaster jacket and fitted with a spinal brace, and in early 1943 he was mobile for the first time since the operation.[43] During his incapacity he read voraciously; among the works he studied were Das Kapital,[n 5] and works by Engels and Lenin, biographies of nineteenth and twentieth century politicians, and novels by authors from Dostoyevsky to Koestler.[46]

In July 1943 Dunglass attended the House of Commons for the first time since 1940, and began to make a reputation as a backbench member, particularly for his expertise in the field of foreign affairs.[47] He foresaw a post-imperial future for Britain and emphasised the need for strong European ties after the war.[48] In 1944, with the war now turning in the Allies' favour, Dunglass spoke eloquently about the importance of resisting the Soviet Union's ambition to dominate eastern Europe. His boldness in publicly urging Churchill not to give in to Joseph Stalin was widely remarked upon; many, including Churchill himself, observed that some of those once associated with appeasement were determined that it should not be repeated in the face of Russian aggression.[49] Labour left the wartime coalition in May 1945 and Churchill formed a caretaker Conservative government, pending a general election in July. Dunglass was appointed to his first ministerial post: Anthony Eden remained in charge of the Foreign Office, and Dunglass was appointed as one of his two Under-secretaries of State.[50]

At the July 1945 general election Dunglass lost his Parliamentary seat in the landslide Labour victory. It was widely assumed that as his father, the 13th earl, was in his seventies, Dunglass's political career was behind him, as he would soon inherit the earldom. There being at that time no provision for peers to disclaim their peerages, this would bring with it an obligatory seat in the House of Lords, with no option of remaining in the Commons, where most political power resided.[51] Dunglass was appointed a director of the Bank of Scotland in 1946, and although he never considered banking as a long-term occupation he gained valuable first-hand experience in commerce and finance. He remained with the bank until 1951.[52]

In 1950, Clement Attlee, the Labour prime minister, called a general election. Dunglass was invited to stand once again as Unionist candidate for Lanark. Having been disgusted at personal attacks during the 1945 campaign by Tom Steele, his Labour opponent, Dunglass did not scruple to remind the voters of Lanark that Steele had warmly thanked the Communist Party and its members for helping him take the seat from the Unionists. By 1950, with the Cold War at its height, Steele's association with the communists was a crucial electoral liability.[53] Dunglass regained the seat with one of the smallest majorities in any British constituency: 19,890 to Labour's 19,205.[54] Labour narrowly won the general election, with a majority of 5.[55]

The Hirsel, the Douglas-Home family's principal residence

In July 1951 the 13th earl died. Dunglass succeeded him, inheriting the title of Earl of Home together with the extensive family estates, including The Hirsel, the Douglas-Homes' principal residence. The new Lord Home took his seat in the Lords; a by-election was called to appoint a new MP for Lanark, but it was still pending when Attlee called another general election in October 1951.[n 6] The Unionists held Lanark, and the national result gave the Conservatives under Churchill a small but working majority of 17.[56]

Home was appointed to the new post of Minister of State at the Scottish Office, a middle-ranking position, senior to Under-secretary but junior to James Stuart, the Secretary of State, who was a member of the cabinet. Stuart, previously an influential chief whip, was a confidant of Churchill, and possibly the most powerful Scottish Secretary in any government.[57] Thorpe writes that Home owed his appointment to Stuart's advocacy rather than to any great enthusiasm on the Prime Minister's part (Churchill referred to him as "Home sweet Home").[58] In addition to his ministerial position Home was appointed to membership of the Privy Council,[58] an honour granted only selectively to ministers below cabinet rank.[59]

The royal cypher – a problem for Home and the Scottish Office

Throughout Churchill's second term as Prime Minister (1951–1955) Home remained at the Scottish Office, although both Eden at the Foreign Office and Lord Salisbury at the Commonwealth Relations Office invited him to join their ministerial teams.[60] Among the Scottish matters with which he dealt were hydro-electric projects, hill farming, sea transport, road transport, forestry, and the welfare of crofters in the Highlands and the Western Isles.[61] These matters went largely unreported in the British press, but the question of the royal cypher on Post Office pillar boxes became front-page news. Because Elizabeth I of England was never queen of Scotland, some nationalists maintained when Elizabeth II came to the British throne in 1952 that in Scotland she should be styled "Elizabeth I". Churchill said in the House of Commons that considering the "greatness and splendour of Scotland", and the contribution of the Scots to British and world history, "they ought to keep their silliest people in order".[62] Home nevertheless arranged that in Scotland new pillar boxes were decorated with the royal crown instead of the full cypher.[63]

When Eden succeeded Churchill as Prime Minister in 1955, he promoted Home to the cabinet as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. At the time of this appointment Home had not been to any of the countries within his ministerial remit, and he quickly arranged to visit Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, India, Pakistan and Ceylon.[64] He had to deal with the sensitive subject of immigration from and between Commonwealth countries, where a delicate balance had to be struck between resistance in some quarters in Britain and Australia to non-white immigration on the one hand, and on the other the danger of sanctions in India and Pakistan against British commercial interests if discriminatory policies were pursued.[65] In most respects, however, when Home took up the appointment it seemed to be a relatively uneventful period in the history of the Commonwealth. The upheaval of Indian independence in 1947 was well in the past, and the wave of decolonising of the 1960s was yet to come.[66] However, it fell to Home to maintain Commonwealth unity during the Suez Crisis in 1956, described by Dutton as "the most divisive in its history to date".[64] Australia, New Zealand and South Africa backed the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt to regain control of the Suez Canal. Canada, Ceylon, India and Pakistan all opposed it.[67]

There appeared to be a real danger that Ceylon, India and, particularly, Pakistan might leave the Commonwealth.[67] Home was firm in his support of the invasion, but used his contacts with Jawaharlal Nehru, V. K. Krishna Menon, Nan Pandit and others to try to prevent the Commonwealth from breaking up.[68] His relationship with Eden was supportive and relaxed; he felt able, as others did not, to warn Eden of unease about Suez both internationally and among some members of the cabinet. Eden dismissed the latter as the "weak sisters";[69] the most prominent was Rab Butler, whose perceived hesitancy over Suez on top of his support for appeasement of Hitler damaged his standing within the Conservative party.[70] When the invasion was abandoned under pressure from the US in November 1956, Home worked with the dissenting members of the Commonwealth to build the organisation into what Douglas Hurd calls "a modern multiracial Commonwealth".[35]

Eden resigned in January 1957. In 1955 he had been the obvious successor to Churchill, but this time there was no clear heir apparent. Leaders of the Conservative party were not elected by ballot of MPs or party members, but emerged after informal soundings within the party, known as "the customary processes of consultation".[71] The chief whip, Edward Heath, canvassed the views of backbench Conservative MPs, and two senior Conservative peers, the Lord President of the Council, Lord Salisbury, and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, saw members of the cabinet individually to ascertain their preferences. Only one cabinet colleague supported Butler; the rest, including Home, opted for Harold Macmillan. Churchill, whom the Queen consulted, did the same.[72] Macmillan was appointed Prime Minister on 10 January 1957.

In the new administration Home remained at the Commonwealth Relations Office. Much of his time was spent on matters relating to Africa, where the futures of Bechuanaland and the Central African Federation needed to be agreed. Among other matters in which he was involved were the dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, assisted emigration from Britain to Australia, and relations with Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus. The last unexpectedly led to an enhanced cabinet role for Home. Makarios, leader of the militant anti-British and pro-Greek movement, was detained in exile in the Seychelles. Macmillan, with the agreement of Home and most of the cabinet, decided that this imprisonment was doing more harm than good to Britain's position in Cyprus, and ordered Makarios's release. Lord Salisbury strongly dissented from the decision and resigned from the cabinet in March 1957. Macmillan added Salisbury's responsibilities to Home's existing duties, making him Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords. The first of these posts was largely honorific, but the leadership of the Lords put Home in charge of getting the government's business through the upper house, and brought him nearer to the centre of power.[73] In Hurd's phrase, "By the imperceptible process characteristic of British politics he found himself month by month, without any particular manoeuvre on his part, becoming an indispensable figure in the government."[35]

Iain Macleod, who had a difficult relationship with Home

Home was generally warmly regarded by colleagues and opponents alike, and there were few politicians who did not respond well to him. One was Attlee, but as their political primes did not overlap this was of minor consequence.[74] More important was Iain Macleod's prickly relationship with Home. Macleod, Secretary of State for the Colonies from 1959–61, was, like Butler, on the liberal wing of the Conservative party; he was convinced, as Home was not, that Britain's colonies in Africa should have majority rule and independence as quickly as possible. Their spheres of influence overlapped in the Central African Federation.[n 7]

Macleod wished to push ahead with majority rule and independence; Home believed in a more gradual approach to independence, accommodating both white minority and black majority opinions and interests. Macleod disagreed with those who warned that precipitate independence would lead the newly independent nations into "trouble, strife, poverty, dictatorship" and other evils.[76] His reply was, "Would you want the Romans to have stayed on in Britain?"[76] He threatened to resign unless he was allowed to release the leading Nyasaland activist Hastings Banda from prison, a move that Home and others thought unwise and liable to provoke distrust of Britain among the white minority in the federation.[77] Macleod had his way, but by that time Home was no longer at the Commonwealth Relations Office.[78]

Lord Hailsham, Macmillan's original preference as successor

In October 1963, just before the Conservative party's annual conference, Macmillan was taken ill with a prostatic obstruction. The condition was at first thought more serious than it turned out to be, and he announced that he would resign as Prime Minister as soon as a successor was appointed. Three senior politicians were considered likely successors, 'Rab' Butler (Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State), Reginald Maudling (Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Lord Hailsham (Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords). The Times summed up their support:

Mr. Butler can no doubt be sure of a majority inside the Cabinet, where the main initiative must now be taken. Mr. Maudling, when Parliament dispersed at the beginning of August, could have commanded a majority among backbenchers in the Commons. Lord Hailsham, as his reception showed today on his first appearance before the conference, continues to be the darling of the constituency associations.[95]

In the same article, Home was mentioned in passing as "a fourth hypothetical candidate" on whom the party could compromise if necessary.[95]

It was assumed in the Times article, and by other commentators, that if Hailsham (or Home) was a candidate he would have to renounce his peerage.[95] This had been made possible for the first time by recent legislation.[n 9] The last British prime minister to sit in the House of Lords was the Marquess of Salisbury, in 1902. By 1923, having to choose between Baldwin and Lord Curzon, George V decided that "the requirements of the present times" obliged him to appoint a prime minister from the Commons. His private secretary recorded that the King "believed he would not be fulfilling his trust were he now to make his selection of Prime Minister from the House of Lords".[98] Similarly, after the resignation of Neville Chamberlain in 1940 there were two likely successors, Churchill and Halifax, but the latter ruled himself out for the premiership on the grounds that his membership of the House of Lords disqualified him.[99] In 1963, therefore, it was well established that the prime minister should be a member of the House of Commons.[4] On 10 October Hailsham announced his intention to renounce his viscountcy.[100]

The "customary processes" once again took place. The usual privacy of the consultations was made impossible because they took place during the party conference, and the potential successors made their bids very publicly. Butler had the advantage of giving the party leader's keynote address to the conference in Macmillan's absence, but was widely thought to have wasted the opportunity by delivering an uninspiring speech.[101] Hailsham put off many potential backers by his extrovert, and some thought vulgar, campaigning.[102] Maudling, like Butler, made a speech that failed to impress the conference. Senior Conservative figures such as Lord Woolton and Selwyn Lloyd urged Home to make himself available for consideration.[103]

Having ruled himself out of the race when the news of Macmillan's illness broke, Home angered at least two of his cabinet colleagues by changing his mind.[4] Macmillan quickly came to the view that Home would be the best choice as his successor, and gave him valuable behind-the-scenes backing. He let it be known that if he recovered he would be willing to serve as a member of a Home cabinet.[104] He had earlier favoured Hailsham, but changed his mind when he learned from David Ormsby-Gore, 5th Baron Harlech, the British ambassador to the United States, that the Kennedy administration was uneasy at the prospect of Hailsham as Prime Minister,[105] and from his chief whip that Hailsham, seen as a right-winger, would alienate moderate voters.[106]

Butler, by contrast, was seen as on the liberal wing of the Conservatives, and his election as leader might split the party.[106] The Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, conducted a poll of cabinet members, and reported to Macmillan that taking account of first and second preferences there were ten votes for Home, four for Maudling, three for Butler and two for Hailsham.[107][n 10]

The appointment of a prime minister remained part of the royal prerogative, on which the monarch had no constitutional duty to consult an outgoing prime minister. Nevertheless, Macmillan advised the Queen that he considered Home the right choice.[109] Little of this was known beyond the senior ranks of the party and the royal secretariat. On 18 October The Times ran the headline, "The Queen May Send for Mr. Butler Today".[110] The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times also predicted that Butler was about to be appointed.[111] The Queen sent for Home the same day. Aware of the divisions within the governing party, she did not appoint him Prime Minister, but invited him to see whether he was able to form a government.[112]

Home's cabinet colleagues Enoch Powell and Iain Macleod, who disapproved of his candidacy, made a last-minute effort to prevent him from taking office by trying to persuade Butler and the other candidates not to take posts in a Home cabinet.[113] Butler, however, believed it to be his duty to serve in the cabinet;[35] he refused to have any part in the conspiracy, and accepted the post of Foreign Secretary.[114] The other candidates followed Butler's lead and only Powell and Macleod held out and refused office under Home.[114] Macleod commented, "One does not expect to have many people with one in the last ditch."[77] On 19 October Home was able to return to Buckingham Palace to kiss hands as Prime Minister.[115] The press was not only wrong-footed by the appointment, but generally highly critical. The pro-Labour Daily Mirror said on its front page:

A nice chap and a polite peer. But Caligula's appointment of his horse as a consul was an act of prudent statesmanship compared with this gesture of sickbed levity by Mr. Macmillan. ... Alec (not Smart Alec – just Alec) is playing chess with a Cabinet containing at least four members of greater stature, brain-power, personality and potential than himself. Butler has been betrayed, Maudling insulted, Macleod ignored, Heath treated with contempt, and Hailsham giggled out of court by the jester in hospital.[116]

The Times, generally pro-Conservative, had backed Butler,[117] and called it "prodigal" of the party to pass over his many talents. The paper praised Home as "an outstandingly successful Foreign Secretary", but doubted his grasp of domestic affairs, his modernising instincts and his suitability "to carry the Conservative Party through a fierce and probably dirty campaign" at the general election due within a year.[118] The Guardian, liberal in its political outlook, remarked that Home "does not look like the man to impart force and purpose to his Cabinet and the country" and suggested that he seemed too frail politically to be even a stop-gap.[119] The Observer, another liberal-minded paper, said, "The overwhelming – and damaging – impression left by the events of the last two weeks is that the Tories have been forced to settle for a second-best. ... The calmness and steadiness which made him a good Foreign Secretary, particularly at times of crisis like Berlin and Cuba, may also be a liability."[120]

In January 1964 Macleod, now editor of The Spectator, used the pretext of a review of a book by Randolph Churchill to publicise his own different and very detailed version of the leadership election. He described the "soundings" of five Tory leaders, four of whom including Home and Macmillan had attended Eton, as a conspiracy by an Etonian "magic circle".[121] The article received wide publicity; Anthony Howard later declared himself "deeply affronted ... and never more affronted than when Alec Douglas-Home became leader of the Conservative Party".[122]