‘Rushworth Shall Not Take Any Notes Here’: Journals,Debates and the Public, 1640–60

This article focuses on, and rethinks, the issue of parliamentary ‘secrecy’ during the mid 17th century, by comparing the official journals of the house of commons with the kinds of information that emerged in the public domain in the 1640s and 1650s, not least in printed newsbooks. It suggests that scholars have too readily assumed that MPs sought rigorously to uphold the principle that parliamentary proceedings were not fit matters for public consumption, and the idea that their activities at Westminster should be protected from the public gaze. It argues that this has involved paying excessive attention to occasional comments and orders which suggest that MPs resented public scrutiny of their activity, as well as a failure to distinguish between different motives for achieving ‘secrecy’, between attitudes to the availability of different kinds of information, and between principles and political practice. The aim of the article, in short, is to offer a more nuanced appreciation of the ways in which MPs sought to professionalise and formalise public access, even to the extent of rethinking ideas about political accountability.     

Northern Ireland Representation at Westminster: Constitutional Conundrums and Political Manœuvres

This article focuses on the issue of Northern Ireland's representation at Westminster. It investigates the political context of the decision to increase Northern Ireland's representation in the house of commons at Westminster from 12 members to 17 in 1978–9. Exploring this episode in more detail, it is argued, provides a more informed overall understanding of the history of devolution in the UK and of the way issues concerning Northern Ireland often overlapped with questions of constitutional change in Scotland and Wales. The article also throws light on the matter of Northern Ireland MPs and their voting rights at Westminster during Northern Ireland's experience of devolution prior to 1972.     

MPs on the Subject of STEMM: What Can Oral History Tell Us?*

A growing collection of archived oral history interviews with former MPs offers historians new opportunities to study the influences that have directed MPs’ routes into elected office and their behaviour in the house of commons. This article draws on evidence in the interviews to consider the extent to which an MP's background in science, technology, engineering, maths, and medicine (so-called STEMM subjects) has contributed to his or her activity as a parliamentarian. When concerns are raised about the House's capacity to effectively debate and scrutinise legislation concerning STEMM matters, those concerns are often accompanied by calls for more MPs with a STEMM background. Listening to these oral history interviews to hear what individual MPs say about their connections with STEMM – whether before, during, or after their time in the Commons – provides an insight into the relevance of having a STEMM background as an MP and offers explanations as to why MPs with a STEMM background are in a minority in the House. As such, this examination of historical material contributes to the ongoing debate about the role of STEMM experts in parliament while demonstrating the value of consulting archived oral history interviews when researching 20th-century parliamentary history.     

St Stephen's in War and Peace: Civil Defence and the Location of Parliament, 1938–51

This essay takes a new look at the destruction and the rebuilding of the house of commons during the 1940s. It argues that behind the home front bravado of the Palace of Westminster steadfastly enduring the blitz lay secret plans for rehousing MPs away from aerial bombardment, contingency scenarios that were then updated after 1945 in the event of attack on London by atomic weapons. The essay also suggests that threats to the security of parliament, together with the necessity to rebuild the Commons, were turned by the coalition government into an opportunity to refashion parliamentary politics in such a way that the two‐party system was restored, along the traditional lines of government and opposition that had become blurred since 1931.     

The Elizabethan House of Commons and St Stephen's Chapel Westminster

This essay explores the significance of the Elizabethan house of commons meeting in a converted royal chapel within the Palace of Westminster. In 1548 the dissolved collegiate chapel of St Stephen at Westminster was given over to the exclusive use of the Commons, providing MPs with a dedicated meeting space for the first time. Although a great deal has been written about Elizabethan parliaments, little attention has been paid to the physical spaces within which MPs gathered, debated and legislated. Drawing on parliamentary diaries and exchequer records and informed by digital reconstructions of the Commons chamber modelled by the St Stephen's Chapel project at the University of York, this essay argues for the enduring influence of the architecture and decoration of the medieval chapel on the procedure, culture, ritual, and self‐awareness of the Elizabethan house of commons. Famously likened to a theatre by the MP and writer on parliamentary procedure, John Hooker, the Commons chamber is analysed as a space in which parliamentary speeches were performed and disrupted. The sound of debate is contrasted with other kinds of noise including scoffing and laughter, disruptive coughing, and prayers led by the clerk and the Speaker of the Commons. The iconography of the chamber, including the royal arms above the Speaker's chair and the mace carried by the serjeant‐at‐arms, is interpreted as enabling a culture of counsel and debate as much as an assertion of monarchical power. Evidence is also presented for the Commons chamber as a site of political memory.     

Businessmen in the Parliament of 1852–7: Players or Spectators?*

This article examines the activities of the business MPs who were members of the parliament of 1852–7. Largely coming from a different social background from those who had traditionally led the United Kingdom, with different educational experiences, and inhabiting a different social milieu, they demonstrated their interest in the governance of the United Kingdom by a vigorous participation in the activities of the house of commons. Although they composed less than 21% of the membership of the Commons, they disproportionately attended the sessions of the House, spoke often on topics of interest, participated regularly on committees, were quite active in sponsorship of public bills and sponsored more than half of the local and private bills.     

The Whips of the Liberal Unionist Party in the House of Commons

This note provides the most complete list of Liberal Unionist whips in the house of commons, thus contributing to our understanding of the history of the party in parliament over the entire period of its existence from 1886 to 1912, and charts the extent of the responsibility of the party whip for the organisation of the party outside the house of commons, which peaked during the tenure of Lord Wolmer as whip from 1888 to 1892. The note concludes by observing that the division of labour regarding organisation implemented in the Conservative Party in 1911 mirrors that adopted by the Liberal Unionist Party in 1892, and that this was likely the result of Wolmer, now 2nd earl of Selborne, serving on the committee that recommended the 1911 reforms.     

Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, 4th Baronet: An Unconventional Politician?*

The political life of Sir Watkin Williams Wynn, 4th baronet has traditionally been seen in line with Sir Lewis Namier's views of 18th‐century politics and this article seeks to reinterpret his political life, taking into consideration not only his activities within parliament, but also his role within local government and his cultural activities. It will particularly consider the importance of his role within the concerts for ancient music, his lord lieutenancy of Merioneth and the central part he played in the 1778 treasury warrant crisis as well as his vigorous attempts to defend his interest during the 1774 Montgomeryshire election. This article will also argue that the cultural activities of back‐bench country gentlemen within the 18th‐century house of commons can shed new light upon their political views and activities.     

The Journals,the Clerks of the Parliaments and the Under‐Clerks 1485–1601

The journals for both the house of lords and the house of commons for the Tudor period are not, in our sense of the word, journals. Political historians coming to them with unwarranted expectations based on the modern concept of journal have been disappointed by what they have found. The men who compiled both sets of records never saw them as more than notes on the business of both Houses which they kept for their own use.     

The Candidates of the Liberal Unionist Party, 1886–1912*

Historians have hitherto based discussion of the electoral performance of the Liberal Unionist Party on incomplete data regarding the candidates of the party, as published sources, including F.W.S. Craig's British Parliamentary Election Results, 1885–1918, the standard reference work, include a number of cases where the party label of a Unionist candidate (either Liberal Unionist or Conservative) is uncertain or incorrect. Utilising a wide range of primary and secondary sources, this article resolves a number of these cases, and thus creates the most accurate list of Liberal Unionist candidates available. The creation of this list allows for accurate analysis of the party's history, and the article makes some preliminary observations based on the data presented. Among these observations are that the Liberal Unionists comprised a consistent percentage of the overall Unionist Party in the house of commons, that the number of seats contested by Liberal Unionists remained steady through the January 1910 election, and that existing interpretations of the electoral pact between the Liberal Unionists and Conservatives may be flawed.     

‘Whatever Passed in Parliament Ought to be Communicated to the Public’: Reporting the Proceedings of the Reformed Commons, 1833–50

This article considers the opening up of parliamentary proceedings to greater public scrutiny in the two decades after the 1832 Reform Act. It examines developments in the publication of parliamentary debates, considering why proposals for an official parliamentary record were rejected in the 1830s. It also discusses two less well‐studied but equally vital means of publicising parliamentary activity: the publication of official division lists and the sale to the public of parliamentary papers. It argues that the 1830s was a critical decade of change, influenced by shifting perceptions of the relationship between the reformed house of commons and those it sought to represent. This was driven, in particular, by liberal notions of the importance of parliamentary accountability to public opinion: MPs were increasingly aware of the need to keep constituents informed of their parliamentary activities, whether in the chamber, committee room or division lobby. This article also highlights the extent to which the Commons' approach to publicising its activities was constrained not only by the fact that it remained a breach of parliamentary privilege to publish reports of debates, but also by the physical space that the Commons occupied. The destruction of much of the old Palace of Westminster by fire in 1834 provided an important opportunity to remodel existing arrangements, notably with the addition of a second division lobby and the construction of a reporters' gallery.     

Parliament as Viewed Through a Woman's Eyes: Gender and Space in the 19th‐Century Commons

The 19th‐century house of commons is traditionally viewed as a masculine space overlooking the presence of female tourists, waitresses, housekeepers, servants, spectators, and residents. This essay demonstrates that, even when formally excluded from the Commons, women were determined to colonize spaces to witness debates. In the pre‐1834 Commons they created their own observation gallery in an attic high above the chamber, peeping through a light fitting to listen to parliamentary sessions. After 1834, they were accommodated in their own galleries in the temporary and new house of commons, growing increasingly assertive and protective of their rights to attend debates and participate in parliamentary political culture. Far from being exclusively male, parliament was increasingly viewed through women's eyes.     

Parliament,the Church of England and the Last Gasp of Political Protestantism, 1963–4

Political protestantism has been an enduring theme in parliamentary and ecclesiastical politics and has had considerable influence on modern Church and state relations. Since the mid 19th century, evangelicals have sought to apply external and internal pressure on parliament to maintain the ‘protestant identity’ of the national Church, and as late as 1928, the house of commons rejected anglican proposals for the revision of the prayer book. This article examines the attempts by evangelicals to prevent the passage through parliament of controversial measures relating to canon law revision in 1963–4. It assesses the interaction between Church and legislature, the influence of both evangelical lobbyists and MPs, and the terms in which issues relating to religion and national identity were debated in parliament. It shows that while evangelicals were able to stir up a surprising level of controversy over canon law revision – enough for the Conservative Party chief whip, Selwyn Lloyd, to attempt to persuade Archbishop Ramsey to delay introducing the vesture of ministers measure to parliament until after the 1964 general election – the influence of political protestantism, and thus a significant long‐term theme in British politics, had finally run its course.     

The Role of the Speaker in the 20th Century

Baroness Boothroyd was Speaker of the house of commons from April 1992 until October 2000. She describes her approach to the job of Speaker: how she routinely briefed herself for the business of the House, and how she approached some of the more difficult decisions required of the Speaker, including the selection of amendments, the use of the casting vote and allowing members to make personal statements. She comments on some issues concerning the management of the House's business during her time in the chair: the practice of government ministers to anticipate official statements in the media before they are made in the House; the length of ministerial answers at question time and the decision on the access of Sinn Fein members to the facilities and services of the House. She refers to the functions of the Speaker outside the chamber: chairing the house of commons commission; receiving Speakers and other public figures from other countries and representing the house of commons abroad.     

Interpreting the Instrument of Government: Objections to the 1654 Election in the Isle of Ely*

Following the 1654 elections, the first to be held after the imposition of the Instrument of Government, petitions of complaint were presented by voters from various constituencies to Cromwell and his council. Most of the petitions were investigated, some MPs being subsequently barred from taking their seats, but only one was excluded on the grounds of immorality: George Glapthorne, an MP for the Isle of Ely. This re‐examination of his case indicates that Glapthorne, an unpopular local figure because of his involvement in drainage and enclosure, had been the subject of a successful smear campaign. The Instrument of Government had redefined the franchise, which, it has been argued, decreased the size of the electorate. Annexed to the petition presented by voters in the Isle was a list of 124 men who had been physically prevented from entering the polling hall. This list reveals the presence of Walloon settlers in the Isle; local records indicate that such men qualified for the new franchise because they were leasing fertile, drained land in the Fens, thus increasing the electorate in that area. By considering the local context of a disputed election, this study adds to the debate concerning the interpretation of the Instrument of Government in terms of the eligibility, not only of a parliamentary candidate, but also of voters.     

Sir Henry Cavendish (1732–1804), Parliamentarian in Two Countries

Sir Henry Cavendish, who sat in the Irish parliament from 1766 to 1768 and from 1776 to 1800, and in the Westminster parliament from 1768 to 1774, was a parliamentarian par excellence. His chief claim to fame is as a parliamentary diarist, in both houses of commons, noting down in shorthand some five million words. But this article is on Cavendish as a politician. He was a prolific speaker in both parliaments. But finding himself only a second‐rate debater, he cultivated two fields of expertise: finance, and, above all, parliamentary procedure. Here his knowledge soon became unequalled, and virtually unchallenged by the last two decades of the Irish parliament, where he became notorious as a master of obstruction. His political career was erratic, often in opposition, increasingly in government, a permanent officeholder by the end.     

The House of Commons Serjeant 1640–93

The conflict between the crown and parliament in the 17th century inevitably disrupted the orderly succession to the offices of the house of commons, as is illustrated by the case of the serjeant‐at‐arms. Existing lists of the holders of this office tend to oversimplify the situation. This note brings together the available facts with the object of identifying those who actually carried out the duties of the office between 1640 and 1693.     

Urban commons are more‐than‐property

Urban commons are characterised in the literature as collectively shared property in the city shaped by a context of scarce resources, population density, and the interaction of strangers. In the broader commons literature, commons appears as a verb, a noun, and a process made by practices of commoning—albeit still with a focus on property. In this paper, I argue that an understanding of urban commons as more‐than‐property is needed to recognise how present but elusive urban commons are. I use examples from interviews and observations conducted at a Women's Library to discuss how the access, use, benefit, care, responsibility, and ownership of this urban commons bring it into being through particular practices of commoning. By questioning current ways of defining urban commons, urban scholars gain a grounded understanding of the role of property, and other practices, in maintaining an urban commons over time.     

New Labour,new electoral system,new electoral geographies?: A review of proposed constitutional changes in the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom electoral system remained virtually unchanged throughout the twentieth century but three reports (two of them commissioned by the Labour government elected in 1997) published in late 1998 propose significant changes in: the administration of elections, with specific reference to increasing turnout rates; the funding of political parties and electoral campaigns; and the electoral system itself—with a recommendation for a system that is broadly proportional but retains the link between (most) MPs and single-member constituencies. This paper reviews those reports, relates them to the geography of electoral behaviour in the UK, and explores the geographical implications of their major recommendations.     

Of Male and Female Heirs; of English and Scottish Peerages: The Fine Tuning of the Peerage Bills of 1719

There were two versions of the Peerage Bill in 1719, one which was lost in the house of lords in April when the parliament was prerogued and one in December which was defeated in the house of commons. The first was constructed in debates in the Lords, in conjunction with the judges, based on resolutions introduced into the upper House by the duke of Somerset; the second was introduced into the Lords as a fully formed bill. Both bills underwent changes during their progress through the house of lords. The result was that the second bill differed significantly from the first. Based on the first bill, the second allowed for more peerages to be created, while trying to prevent the problems associated with female succession, particularly in the Scottish peerage, and more closely defining when a peerage had become extinct. This article is based on documents generated by the passage of the two bills through parliament which have not been studied before.