Richard Oastler,Toryism, Radicalism and the Limitations of Party,c.1807–46

Richard Oastler (1789–1861), the immensely popular and fiery orator who campaigned for factory reform and for the abolition of the new poor law in the 1830s and 1840s, has been relatively neglected by political historians. Few historians, however, have questioned his toryism. As this article suggests, labelling Oastler an ‘ultra‐tory’ or a ‘church and state tory’ obscures more than it reveals. There were also radical strands in Oastler's ideology. There has been a tendency among Oastler's biographers to treat him as unique. By comparing Oastler with other tories – Sadler, Southey, and the young Disraeli – as well as radicals like Cobbett, this article locates him much more securely among his contemporaries. His range of interests were much broader (and more radical) than the historiographical concentration on factory and poor law reform suggests. While there were periods when Oastler's toryism (or radicalism) was more apparent, one of the most consistent aspects of his political career was a distaste for party politics. Far from being unique or a maverick, Oastler personified the pervasive anti‐party sentiments held by the working classes, which for all the historiographical attention paid to popular radicalism and other non‐party movements still tends to get lost in narratives of the ‘rise of party’.     

Imperial Rome and Britain's Language of Empire 1600–1837

Britain's pre-Victorian overseas expansion stimulated Roman comparisons. But imperial Rome was a warning as much as an inspiration to future empires, a harsh and uncomfortable model for Britain as a former Roman colony. Roman dignity was claimed for British monarchs and achievements by Dryden and others. But there were mixed feelings about identifying expanding Britain as a second Roman Empire. In the eighteenth century the British freedom-fighter Caractacus, defeated by the Romans, appealed far more to popular taste than Virgil's Aeneas or the Emperor Augustus. Sustained unease about imperial Rome, going right back to Tacitus, anticipated the liberal critique of imperialism of some Victorian and Edwardian commentators.     

Parliament and the Committee for Accommodation, 1644–6*

With the emerging conflict between the presbyterian and independent ministers in 1643–4, the independent MPs recognized a need for parliamentary action to secure religious liberty in post‐war establishment of a uniform state church. The lead in this was given by such prominent figures as Oliver St John and Oliver Cromwell, who set up a committee for accommodation in autumn 1644 to establish legal safeguards for godly separatists. This article seeks to demonstrate that the lay members from the Houses participated in the proceedings of the committee with as much fervour and awareness of the issue under consideration as the clerical members, employing procedure as a tool of policy making. Their often extended debates offer the historian a rare opportunity to explore in detail a committee at work during this period. The debates show that the scope of religious liberty as envisioned by the majority of MPs was decidedly limited. Furthermore, the article asserts that the committee became an arena for both genuine efforts at compromise and expressions of factional interest and that its proceedings were inextricably bound up with the wider Westminster politics and the vicissitudes of war. Thus, the committee proceedings shed light on the emergence of divisions in parliament and how these metamorphosed over the course of the revolutionary decade. Ultimately, the failure of the committee's enterprise contributed to polarisation within the godly community and to its disintegration.