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.     

Parliament and the Reformation of Edward VI

This article explores the ways in which parliament was used to shape the accelerating protestant reformation undertaken by successive governments under Edward VI. It underlines the significance for constitutional history of Thomas Cromwell's extraordinary promotion of England's parliament to enact the break with Rome and evangelical religious change, and the corresponding use of parliament after Cromwell's fall by conservatives to combat evangelical gains, which at first constituted an obstacle to Protector Somerset's plans. There was a steady deliberate erosion of conservative episcopal votes in the Lords through political man?uvres from 1547; nevertheless, up to late 1549, the weight of conservative opposition in the Lords (without much obvious corresponding traditionalist support in the Commons) dictated crabwise progress in legislation. The convocations of Canterbury and York played a more marginal role in religious change. Somerset's unsuccessful attempt at populist innovation in parliament was, arguably, an important element fuelling the coup against him in autumn 1549. Thereafter, events moved much more rapidly, aided by further compulsory retirements of bishops. Attention is drawn to the frustration felt by some enthusiastic evangelicals at the pace of change dictated by parliament, leading the prominent refugee, Jan ?aski, sarcastically to characterise the Edwardian Reformation in retrospect as ‘parliamentary theology’. From late 1552, divisions between clergy and nobility in the evangelical leadership over plundering of church wealth led to confusion, ill will and the disruption of further progress, even before it was obvious that King Edward was rapidly dying.     

Heir Not Apparent: Douglas Hailsham,the Role of the House of Lords,and the Succession to the Conservative Leadership 1928–31*

The moment that Lord Curzon was passed over and Stanley Baldwin succeeded Andrew Bonar Law as prime minister in 1923 is generally regarded as a turning point in British political history. From this time it appeared that members of the house of lords were barred from leading political parties and becoming prime minister. In an age of mass democracy it was deemed unacceptable for the premier to reside in an unelected and largely emasculated chamber. This understanding is seemingly confirmed by the career of the Conservative politician, Douglas Hogg, 1st Viscount Hailsham. Notwithstanding a late entry into political life, he was regarded as a potential successor to Baldwin. His acceptance of a peerage to become lord chancellor in 1928 has been seen as the moment when Hailsham's claims to lead the Conservative party ended. But although Hailsham never became Conservative leader, his experience undermines the suggestion that peers were unable to lead political parties in inter‐war Britain. Despite his position in the Lords, his chances of succeeding Baldwin never vanished. The crisis in Baldwin's leadership after the loss of the 1929 general election and the lack of a suitable successor in the Commons created the circumstances in which leadership from the Lords by a man of Hailsham's ability could be contemplated. Hailsham's continuing prominence within the Conservative ranks and specifically his contributions to the party during the years 1929–31, together with the thoughts of high‐ranking Conservative contemporaries, make it clear that he very nearly emerged as Baldwin's successor at this time.     

The Archbishop of Canterbury,the Episcopal Bench,and the Passage of the 1911 Parliament Act

The passage of the 1911 Parliament Bill ended the power of the British house of lords to veto any legislation passed by the house of commons. Henceforth, it could only delay the passage of a measure. The bill was carried by a mere 17 votes and friction between Unionists who took up die‐hard opposition, advised abstention, or actively sought to aid passage was bitter. The role which the archbishop of Canterbury played in canvassing the episcopal bench and helping to ensure final passage of the bill has not attracted much attention. Prior to the debate, the archbishop advised abstention but did not dissuade others from encouraging bishops to support the bill to help ensure passage. Before the vote, therefore, ‘die‐hards’ opposing any concession to the government, ‘hedgers’ advising Unionist abstention in the vote, and ‘rats’, Unionists willing to vote for the bill to ensure passage despite personal reservations, attempted to sound out and pressure the bishops in their direction. At the debate, the archbishop changed his mind and decided he must support the bill in order to avoid a greater crisis, and 12 other bishops joined him in the government lobby, helping to create the final majority of 17 by which the measure passed. Consideration of the role of the bishops adds to the understanding of the mechanics by which the bill passed, amidst considerable intrigue, pressure and acrimony, as well as further illuminating the extent and intensity of the divisions within the Unionist party at this critical moment.     

Ventilating the Commons,Heating the Lords, 1701–1834

In 1833, the Commons chamber was described as a ‘noxious vapour‐bath’, while the Lords deemed the insufferable heat and toxic smoke in its House as injurious to health. This situation was not new, as for more than a century both Houses had been battling with officialdom and technology to improve their working conditions. In their continuing quest for effective heating and ventilation they had drawn in many respected men of science and commerce as well as entrepreneurs and showmen of varying abilities, to little avail. Many machines were tried, Desaguliers's ventilating wheel alone achieving modest success. A notable institution arising from all these experiments was the ventilator in the Commons’ roof, enabling ladies, barred from the chamber, to witness debates, albeit in considerable discomfort. After the 1834 fire, parliamentarians renewed their ventilating mission in their temporary chambers, before projecting their cumulative experience and opinions onto the far larger canvas of the new Victorian Palace of Westminster.     

Clyve Jones and Parliamentary History

The ‘constitutional revolution’ which occurred in Ireland after 1691 meant that parliamentary management became one of the prime functions of the viceroyalty. Interest focused on the Commons, where supply legislation was drafted. But the upper House, though smaller, less busy, and on the whole more easily managed, could not be ignored, since it could still cause major problems for government. The situation for the incoming ministers in 1714 was problematic, since the Lords had been a tory stronghold, and the ‘Church party’, buttressed by the bishops, remained powerful. The situation was a mirror image of Westminster in 1710, when Robert Harley's tory ministry had to cope with a whig-dominated house of lords. This essay analyses the means by which Lord Lieutenant Sunderland (1714–15), and his successors, Lords Justices Grafton and Galway, brought the Irish upper House under control, constructing a court party with some of the elements which Clyve Jones has identified as having been crucial to Harley's strategy in 1710–14: moderate or non-party men, pensioners and placemen depending on government largess, new episcopal appointments and a block creation of peerages. In Ireland it was the new peers who played the most important part. The whigs were able to make some inroads into the episcopal bench, previously a stronghold of toryism, until the issue of relief for dissenters rekindled anxiety over the maintenance of the ecclesiastical establishment, prefiguring future problems.     

‘Hereditary Guardians of the Nation’: The House of Lords and the East India Company in the Age of the American Revolution

The reform of the East India Company following its acquisition of vast territories in Bengal in the mid 1760s raised hopes that it could provide Britain with a fund to alleviate the burdens of the national debt in the wake of the failure of American taxation. Concomitantly, it elicited genuine fears that the acquisition of such revenues and patronage by the state would radically augment the already overgrown ‘influence of the crown’. Studies of the parliamentary debates surrounding East India reform have consistently emphasized the house of commons as the principal scene of action. Inspired by the work of Clyve Jones in reasserting the centrality of the house of lords as a ‘pillar’ of the 18th-century constitution, this essay seeks to redress the balance, arguing that the Lords was a key arena through which co-ordinated parliamentary and extra-parliamentary activities and press campaigns altered the trajectory of the regulation and reform of the East India Company. Through the use of its distinct privileges, such as the right of opposition lords to protest any vote of the House and the right of peers to an audience with the monarch, as well as its determination to uphold its status as a mediator between the powers of the crown and the Commons, the upper chamber played a crucial role in shaping debates in the 1770s and 1780s over the future of the East India Company and its place in a burgeoning British Empire.     

‘A Reward for so Meritorious an Action’ ? Lord Hervey's Summons to the House of Lords and Walpole's Management of the Upper Chamber (1727–42)

In 1733 Lord Hervey was summoned to the house of lords early. The move has traditionally been seen as part of an effort by Walpole to increase his ministry's strength in the upper chamber in spite of objections voiced by allies such as the duke of Newcastle. This essay seeks to reconsider the circumstances of the move and question more broadly the management of the Lords during the ‘Robinocracy’.     

Devolution and Parliamentary Representation: The Case of the Scotland and Wales Bill, 1976–7

For as long as devolution has been debated in the UK, there has been fierce discussion as to the representation of the would‐be affected areas at Westminster. That this has been the case is a consequence of Westminster's dual remit as both a state‐wide and a sub‐state legislature. While this dual remit was relatively straightforward when applied to all nations of the UK, it does, however, raise serious questions about the equality of MPs at Westminster in the face of asymmetric devolution that would carve out parliament's remit in some, but not all, parts of the UK. These questions bedevilled Gladstone's Irish Home Rule Bills in the late 19th century and have been a recurrent feature of debate following New Labour's devolution programme in the late 1990s, culminating in the adoption of a system of ‘English Votes for English Laws’ by the house of commons in October 2015. This article looks at this issue through the lens of the ill‐fated Scotland and Wales Bill introduced by the Callaghan government in 1976. It explores the roots of the bill and how, and why, the idea of referring the question of territorial representation, post‐devolution, to a Speaker's conference, came to secure the initial support of cabinet as the best answer to this problem, and why the government swiftly changed its mind. Parliamentary statecraft considerations served to push a Speaker's conference onto the institutional agenda, before ultimately dooming it to failure.     

Enacting a Local Reform in the Age of Reform: A Salary for the Chairman of Middlesex Sessions

This article examines the unsuccessful attempts made from 1833 to 1842 by Middlesex's justices of the peace to obtain a local statute allowing them to pay a salary to their chairman. Instead of securing such an act, they had to settle for a statute enacted by the government, a statute authorising the government to appoint their chairman for judicial proceedings. The article uses the story of Middlesex's attempt to obtain a salary for the chairman to examine: justices' attempts to reform the office of chairman of county Sessions; the limited powers of justices in their county Sessions; and the centralising aspirations of central government. The statute that the government produced in 1844 originated as a public bill. In contrast, the statute that Middlesex had attempted to obtain originated as private bills. The statute enacted by the government contained defects that probably would not have marred a statute enacted under the rules governing private bills. So, this article uses the legislative misadventures of the government's bill to compare the procedures for enactment of public and private bills. The article therefore provides a case study of mid‐19th‐century legislative procedures governing enactment of local legislation, while arguing that, as of the mid 19th century, parliament had not developed procedures appropriate to both representative government and a centralising central government using public bills for local matters.     

Constitutionalists,Despots, Whigs,and Revisionists: Tudor Parliamentary History in the 20th Century

The 20th century was the great age of Tudor parliamentary history. This essay examines the contributions and profound changes to the field made by the leading historians of the era, especially Sir John Neale and Sir Geoffrey Elton. Taking as its starting point the whiggish ideas of Stubbs's Constitutional History of England, it traces the impact of A.F. Pollard, G.M. Trevelyan, and Sir Lewis Namier on the field. At its core, though, lie the often acrimonious differences of opinion between Neale and his pupil, Elton. For Neale the Elizabethan parliaments were characterised by an increasingly puritanical Commons eager to wrest control of debates on religion and the succession away from the queen. In so doing this created a constitutional clash that would eventually lead to civil war in the mid 17th century. This ‘orthodoxy’ was savagely critiqued by a revisionist ‘school’ led by Elton that dismantled the interpretation of Neale and replaced it with an institution that was not dominated by political conflict but by largely consensual politics. It was also a position that gave equal weight to the Lords and to the importance of the business of parliament – legislation. The revisionists were masters of critique and highly effective at demolishing Neale, but did little to replace his theories or to explain religio‐political conflict – in doing so it could be argued that they killed the subject. The essay ends by suggesting some new approaches to Tudor parliaments that could help revitalise the subject.     

Magnate Counsel and Parliament,c.1340–76: The Place of the Lords in the Era of the Commons

The mid 14th century has long been identified as a crucial period in the emergence of the Commons. Its rise fundamentally reconfigured the traditional landscape of representation, in which the magnates embodied the ‘community of the realm’. It is the place of the Commons that has drawn the bulk of scholarly attention. Through a close examination of the surviving Parliament Rolls for the period 1340–76, this article argues that magnate counsel, especially on the interrelated themes of warfare, diplomacy, and supply, remained integral to meetings of parliament in the ‘era of the Commons’. Parliament formed a crucial ‘point of contact’ between the king and a broad political society that actively pushed the practice and performance of noble advice‐giving, in line with common assumptions about the ideal social composition of the king's counsellors.     

‘A Young Tory’? The Early Parliamentary Career of Charles James Fox 1768–74

This article seeks to redress the neglect, even by his biographers, of Fox's early career, when he made over 250 speeches in the house of commons in six years. The period when young Fox supported government was an inappropriate prelude to his later fame as opponent of Prime Minister Pitt and champion of ‘liberal causes’. He was anything but a ‘man of the people’ in his authoritarian attitude and detestation of popular opinion, and yet there were signs that he would not be an administration man in the mould of his father, Henry Fox.     

Following a ‘standstill’: An ethnographic approach to financialization

This article addresses Dubai's recent financial crisis, bringing an ethnographic approach to ‘financialization’. It does so by repurposing the financial concept of ‘standstill’. Focusing on the consequences of the Dubai government's infamous ‘standstill announcement’, in late 2009, it argues that unpacking the literal and figurative registers of this concept offers insights into the political economy and lived experiences of financial crises.     

The Speakership of the House of Lords, 1660–1832

The speakership of the house of lords was a lucrative and prestigious post, held by individuals who either as lord chancellor or lord keeper carried out a range of high-profile and demanding judicial duties. There seems to be a contradiction between this and the time-consuming but largely empty ceremonial duties appropriate to this role in the conduct of business in the theoretically self-regulating house of lords. This article suggests that the apparent insignificance of the Speaker's role was a façade that disguised the chancellor's ability to influence the conduct of business in the Lords as well as to exercise leadership and electoral influence over the membership of the Commons. Nevertheless, the precise level of power that he was able to exercise was mediated by the nature of the political infrastructure within which he operated, his own personal and political skills and his relationships with the crown and its other ministers.     

Freudian Slips and Coteries of Vice: The Sexual Offences Act of 1967*

The Sexual Offences Act 1967 made the first inroads to decriminalising men's homosexual sex since buggery was made a capital offence under Henry VIII. The act was drafted at the direction of the 1957 Wolfenden report, but bore the distinct hallmark of individuals of the 1967 parliament. More complex than the dictated product of Wolfenden, and more idiosyncratic than a simple reflection of the social climate of the 1960s, the private member's bill was a Labour initiative with bipartisan support, driven in the Commons by the bizarre motivations of its sponsor, Labour member for Pontypool, Leo Abse. Contrary to popular myths about the aims of decriminalisation, Abse's crusading Freudian motivation was concerned with discouraging, more than allowing, homosexual behaviour. Similarly, ‘privacy’– the gift of the house of lords to sexual regulation – was aimed largely at curtailing men's sexual practices, along with secreting them away. Thus, while the act is typically associated with a general ideal of freedom, much parliamentary motivation concerned control and the prevention of sexual activities.     

Neglect,Inattention, and Legislative Deficiencies: The Consequences of One-Party Deliberations in The U.S. House

Congressional scholars have conducted little research on the consequences of the majority party controlling bill formulation and excluding minority members from the legislative process. Critics of one-party deliberations use case-study evidence to argue that such processes lead to error-prone, often defective legislation. However, no large-N analysis has sought to operationalize and verify this effect. I develop new empirical strategies to explore claims about the relationship between deliberative procedures and policy outcomes. Examining legislation drafted in the U.S. House between 1987 and 2008, I find suggestive but consistent evidence of error-prone bills being developed under one-party processes.     

'Nothing Could Exceed the Badness of His Character Even in This Bad Age'

Initially the model for the speakership of the US house of representatives could not but be drawn from Westminster, though the occupants of the chair in the Commons around the time of independence were not impressive. Not however till Henry Clay's election in 1812 was the American Speaker transformed into a partisan, politically-active leader of the House. The contemporary Commons Speaker, Manners Sutton, though he failed to be re-elected to the chair on political grounds, was not a party leader. Between Clay and the civil war the intensity of party conflict obscured the role of the Speaker, and minorities flourished. Speaker Reed in the 1880s believed in the rights of the majority and used the authority of the chair to promote them. He ended the practice of members delaying business by refusing to answer a roll-call though present, and he developed special rules to accelerate the progress of bills. About the same time, Speaker Brand in the Commons, in the face of Irish obstructionism, also reasserted the rights of the majority by introducing the closure, to which guillotines were later added. Reed's authoritarianism broke in the hands of Speaker Cannon in 1909–10 as progressive members of his party rebelled. By then the Commons speakership had entered a period of complete political neutrality. Speakers O'Neill and Gingrich in the last quarter of the 20th century regained much of the power and authority which Cannon's speakership had lost.     

Fixing the Membership of the Lords and Commons: The Case of Sir John Cam Hobhouse and the Nottingham By-Election, 1834

When Melbourne replaced Grey in 1834 he looked to recruit men with experience to join his government. He enlisted Sir John Cam Hobhouse, but Hobhouse needed a seat in the Commons. This was achieved by a writ of acceleration, whereby Viscount Duncannon, one of the sitting MPs for Nottingham, was called into the Lords in his father's lifetime to release a seat in the Commons. Writs had normally been used to strengthen the power of the government in the Lords, and the resentment in Nottingham at this political fix was expressed in a full-scale contest with accusations that the town was being turned into a government nomination borough. Hobhouse might have hoped for a free run as he had already been appointed to the cabinet. Rather, he was forced to fight for the seat, and to go through most of the activities more frequently associated with general elections.