The Members of the House of Lords and the Hanoverian Succession

This essay examines what happened in August and September 1714, from the death of Queen Anne on 1 August to the swearing-in of the new privy council on 1 October, specifically from the perspective of the membership of the house of lords. It confirms that most members were present in London during this period and active in parliament, the privy council, the regency, and politics generally. Very few were absent without a good reason.     

Why the History of Parliament Has Not Been Written*

There have been legions of individual studies of the history of the English/British/United Kingdom parliament, which is not surprising, since its history is widely acknowledged to be so closely bound up with the history of the nation state itself. But there have been remarkably few attempts to put the story together, to try to consider the long‐term development of parliament as an institution. What would such a story look like? This essay discusses some of the critiques of the whiggish narrative of constitutional and parliamentary development to recognise a common theme in whiggism's tendency to anthropomorphise parliament, to describe it as a single organism with agency and purpose. To forgo that temptation, however, makes it difficult to provide a satisfying narrative of parliament over time. The essay tries to imagine how one might construct a history of parliament as an institution which no longer sees it as an actor in its own story, but, instead, a complex collection of ideas, processes, customs, and conventions, which competing forces struggle to organise in order to achieve their goals, and which is also an arena and forum for that competition.     

Thurlow, Eldon and Lyndhurst and the Management of the House of Lords

From 1783 to 1846 lord chancellors played an important role in managing the business of the house of lords. Not surprisingly, as the career of Lord Thurlow will illustrate, their position was not as strong as it had been before 1783 when the office of leader of the House was created. Before then a chancellor could manage the House by himself, as Thurlow did, and Eldon from 1801 to 1803 when there was no regular leader. Yet even when there was a leader, a chancellor could be a major force. Lord Grenville, the first strong leader, yearned for one who would play the role of an active second-in-command. Eldon played it, but more at the beginning than toward the end of his career. This was because of clashes with Lord Liverpool, who had been leader of the House before he became prime minister. But long since, Eldon had become a power in his own right as the revered head of the high tories. Lord Lyndhurst played the role to perfection because of his long partnership with the duke of Wellington, who trusted and admired him.     

Conservatives,the Constitution and the Quest for a ‘Representative’ House of Lords, 1911–35*

This article presents a new interpretation of Conservative attitudes towards house of lords' reform in the early 20th century. Coinciding, as it did, with the introduction of universal adult suffrage, the campaign to reform and strengthen the second chamber has traditionally been understood as a reaction against democracy. Conversely, this article, emphasizing the politics rather than policies of reform, argues that many Conservatives sought to establish a legitimate role for a second chamber within the new democratic settlement and that the campaign for reform is, consequently, better understood as a constitutional means of ‘making safe’, rather than resisting, mass democracy. The account sheds new light on how the impulse behind reform was frequently rooted in a commitment to democracy, how reform commanded the support of a wide cross section of the Conservative parliamentary party, and why the reform campaign had folded by the early 1930s. In doing so, it reframes an important episode that helped close the long‐19th‐century tradition of constitutional reform in British politics.     

The Office of Housekeeper of the House of Lords

This note illustrates one aspect of the process whereby the palace of Westminster evolved from a royal residence into the seat of parliament, explains how the housekeeper of that palace came to be associated with the house of lords and lists the holders of the office from the 16th to the 19th century.     

Republicans,Unionists and Jacobites: The 1st Marquess of Tweeddale and the Restoration of the British Parliament

Although John Hay, 1st marquess of Tweeddale, contributed significantly to both the ruthless overthrow of Charles I, and the establishment of the first British parliament in the 1650s, most of his political career was concerned with attempting to re-establish this parliament after it was dissolved at the restoration of Charles II. His first attempt ended in defeat at the hands of the king and the duke of Lauderdale in 1670, but following the overthrow of James VII and II in 1688, Tweeddale tried to persuade the prince of Orange to unite Scotland and England. The prince, however, showed much more interest in securing the crown of Scotland than uniting the two kingdoms. Tweeddale, as lord high commissioner to the Scottish parliament in 1695, responded by passing legislation designed to provoke the English parliament into accepting union. He was also engaged in a jacobite intrigue to restore King James. Tweeddale intended that the restored monarch would be little more than a puppet, who could be used to legitimise what was effectively a republican regime in all but name. By this means the restored parliament would avoid the unpopularity which brought down the first British parliament in 1660. Tweeddale's scheme came to nought, but the technique he employed to manipulate the English parliament, and exploit the jacobite threat, contributed to the restoration of the British parliament ten years after his death.     

The Politics of Chivalry: Sir Robert Walpole,the Duke of Montagu and the Order of the Bath

This article explores the complex circumstances surrounding the foundation of the order of the Bath in 1725, and seeks to correct the commonly‐held view that it was initiated by Walpole simply to augment the patronage available to his supporters in parliament. The proposal for a new order of chivalry based on the medieval ‘knighthood of the bath’ in fact emanated from the court, having been prompted by one of its central figures, the duke of Montagu. Walpole and his colleagues were by no means oblivious to the practical political value of such a move, but having only lately consolidated their position at court, their main priority was to seize a unique opportunity to flatter the new royal dynasty and garner popularity for it through the medium of the order's rediscovered history. The ministers selected the order's 36 founder‐knights with considerable input from senior courtiers, but ensured that those nominated were mostly peers and MPs who could evince ministerially useful connections between court and parliament. Though the order was later derided as a symptom of Walpoleian corruption, its foundation can be regarded as something of a turning point in Walpole's rise to power.     

The Fall of Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Suffolk and the Revival of Impeachment in the Parliament of 1621

The revival of impeachment in 1621 has tended to be viewed exclusively through the prism of parliament. However, this article, which builds on the work of Professor Allen Horstman, suggests that a key factor in impeachment's revival was the dismissal of Lord Treasurer Suffolk for corruption in 1618. Suffolk's removal caused widespread disquiet, since it was assumed that senior officials held office for life. In order to silence these criticisms it proved necessary for the king not only to put Suffolk on trial but also to justify by precedent the lord treasurer's removal. This latter task was performed by the former lord chief justice, Sir Edward Coke, himself not long disgraced, whose researches in the medieval parliamentary record revealed the following year that errant crown ministers had hitherto been held to account by means of impeachment. Coke subsequently put this discovery to good effect when parliament met in 1621. Against the backdrop of mounting criticism against his hated rival, the lord chancellor, Francis Bacon, Coke revealed the existence of impeachment to the house of commons, whose attention was then focused on finding a way to punish the monopolists, Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Michell. In so doing, Coke not only aided the lower House, which had been struggling since 1610 to find a way of punishing non‐members, but also sought to settle an old score.     

The Debate in the House of Lords on 'No Peace without Spain', 7 December 1711: A New Source

The debate in the house of lords on 'No Peace without Spain' in December 1711 was the first test of the strength of the administration of Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, in the upper House. Though there are more sources for this debate than is normal for proceedings in the Lords, few can claim to be by eyewitnesses. A newly 'discovered' anonymous letter from an eyewitness found in the papers of the lord great chamberlain's office in the Parliamentary Archives gives a detailed account of this important debate.     

‘Too Wild to Succeed’: The Occasional Conformity Bills and the Attempts by the House of Lords to Outlaw the Tack in the Reign of Anne*

By the late 17th century it had been largely established as a part of the ‘constitution’ that the house of commons played the leading role in proposing financial legislation and that the house of lords by convention could not amend such bills, but only accept or reject them. From the late 1670s, the practice developed of the Commons ‘tacking’ money or supply bills to other, controversial legislation, to try to ensure that the Lords would pass the whole bill. This underhand proceeding sometimes worked, but at other times the Lords amended the non‐monetary parts in such a way as to render the bill unacceptable to the Commons, but such actions sometimes resulted in the loss of financial legislation necessary for the king's government. From the 1690s, the whig‐dominated Lords attempted to ‘outlaw’ tory‐backed tacking by protesting at its unparliamentary nature. This culminated in a formal declaration by the House in 1702 of the unconstitutionality of tacking. The last major attempt at tacking took place over the Occasional Conformity Bills of 1702–4. The final bill of 1704 essentially failed, however, because of the party strengths in the Lords when the tories were outvoted by the whigs. The Lords, however, continued to condemn tacking until at least 1709.     

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.     

Edwardian Conservatism and the Constitution: The Thought of Lord Hugh Cecil

This article presents an analysis of the political thought of Lord Hugh Cecil. It argues that in order to understand Cecil's thought it is necessary to emphasize the role of the constitution in his thinking. There are three reasons for this. First, his opposition to Chamberlain's tariff reform campaign was rooted in a view of the detrimental effects the policy would have on politics, evidence for which Cecil saw in the tactics used by the tariff reformers. Second, because his opposition to the Parliament Bill and to the home rule proposals, which lay behind the removal of the house of lords' veto, was similarly rooted in what he saw as the unconstitutional nature of these measures. Third, because Cecil was an active proponent of constitutional reforms that were designed to ensure that the second chamber could still exercise a restraining influence on government and so stand up for the interests of what he saw as the moderate majority of the people.     

The Parliamentary Organisation of the Whig Junto in the Reign of Queen Anne: A Further Note

The parliamentary organisation of the whig Junto in the reign of Queen Anne was far superior to that of the tory party. At the centre were the meetings in which three or four of the five members of the Junto were present together with some of their followers. Evidence of such meetings is rare but here is presented a letter giving the details of a meeting of all five in April 1713 at the home of Lord Somers, together with their ally, the tory earl of Nottingham, probably to discuss the forthcoming peace proposals, to end the war of the Spanish Succession, and the protestant succession to the British throne.     

The Armada Tapestries in the Old Palace of Westminster

The tapestry series of the ‘Defeat of the Spanish Armada’ was a national artistic treasure which hung in the old Palace of Westminster from the mid 17th century until the fire of 1834. This article outlines the creation of the tapestries in the 1590s and covers the major treatments of them in illustrations of parliamentary interiors and in John Pine's 1739 engravings; it ends with a short account of the curious episode of the tapestry which escaped the conflagration. In the absence of any known historical record of how the tapestries were displayed, suggestions are offered about how many and in what order they hung in the two chambers occupied successively by the house of lords (before and after 1801), and about how they were physically supported on the walls of the Parliament Chamber.     

辛亥遗产与南洋华侨抗战之精神动力

1931-1945年日本侵华时期,南洋华侨精英以辛亥革命为资源、以双十国庆为契机,广泛开展救国宣传和社会动员,发表政见和救国主张,在激发侨胞爱国情怀、增强侨众凝聚力方面发挥了不可低估的作用。此过程既强化了辛亥记忆,传承了革命精神,也使辛亥遗产成为华侨参与抗战的重要精神动力。     

中国共产党三代领导集体的西部开发思想与实践

从毛泽东、邓小平到江泽民的三代中央领导集体先后进行了可称之为三次西部开发高潮的建设。第一次是 50年代大规模西部新工业基地建设 ;第二次是 1 964— 1 978年进行的三线建设 ;第三次是 1 999年至今的西部大开发战略。三次西部开发体现了三代领导集体在不同的历史阶段进行的思想探索和实践努力 ,是一个继承、发展和创新的过程。特别是 80年代以后 ,从邓小平关于一部分地区先富起来最终实现共同富裕的思想 ,到江泽民“三个代表”思想指导下的西部开发 ,是一个重要的思路飞跃 ,为西部地区最终取得适合自身特点的经济发展 ,奠定了成熟的思想基础     

东魏北齐时期邯郸县设治考——以《窦奉高墓志》为中心

前人对东魏北齐时期邯郸县设治问题的研究存在两种截然相反的观点——"撤治说"和"设治说"。河北省磁县出土的《窦奉高墓志》记载窦氏在北齐时期被授予"邯郸县伯"的爵位,为"设治说"提供了有力证据。     

“共和”与“民主”的趋同——美国革命时期对“共和政体”的重新界定

在美国革命时期,"共和"这一古老政治词汇的含义发生了重大变化。美国建国者参照各种政治理论和历史经验,结合他们所处社会的特点,不仅成功建立了一种新型政体,而且为它做了全面的辩护和诠释,从而完成了对"共和政体"的重新界定。这种新型的共和政体,不再是"人民"与贵族分享权力的混合政体,而是完全建立在"人民主权"基础上的代表制政体,它的社会基础、价值取向和适应范围都发生了深刻变化,与古典共和理念之间形成了明显的差异。与此同时,"民主"的概念也得以扩充,"人民"通过代表制行使政治权力的政府,与"人民"亲自掌握权力的政府一样,都可以叫做"民主"。这两个交错并行的观念转化过程,不仅塑造了现代意义上的"共和"与"民主"的概念,而且使得两个原本含义不同的政体名称,最终变成了同义词。     

16-18世纪英国宪制和宪制思想演进

英国16-18世纪宪制的演变比较曲折。内战前混合宪制已形成多年,其相应思想长期流行并影响后世。17世纪中期共和国的兴衰和分权制有名无实,给后人留下经验和教训。贵族寡头权力垄断和内阁制的形成发展,增强了18世纪英国混合制的特色。