Politician or Poet? The 6th Lord Byron in the House of Lords, 1809–13

Lord George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron of Rochdale, is known internationally as, perhaps, the most famous Romantic poet of his generation. His work continues to be read across the globe. As a peer (succeeding to the title following the death of his great uncle, the 5th Baron Byron, in 1798) he was entitled to a seat in the Lords, and this article covers the period during which he was active in the House. He took his seat in 1809, but most of his work in the Lords took place between early 1812 and the summer of 1813. Thereafter, his financial troubles, his stellar literary career, and his personal problems, led him to spend little or no time in the House, and he lived abroad between 1816 and his death in 1824. In 1812, before he had become known for his poetry, except among a small London elite, he began actively to cultivate a political career, and he made his maiden speech on the Framework Knitters Bill in 1812. Byron was a prolific letter writer, and from his published correspondence as well as other sources of contemporary information, it is possible to document his growing career in the upper House, and to see how a young peer might make his way into politics in the absence of a particular sponsor.     

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 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.     

Polemic,Parliament and History: Michael Foot versus David Owen

Michael Foot had good reasons for resenting Dr David Owen, who played a prominent role in the formation of the breakaway Social Democratic Party (SDP) while Foot was Labour's leader. In Loyalists and Loners (1986), a book of political pen‐portraits, Foot duly delivered a blistering attack on Owen, focusing on two charges – that Owen was consumed by personal ambition from an early stage of his career, and that he was an ideological turncoat who had wilfully misused the word ‘socialism’. The present article examines Foot's allegations in the light of various historical sources, including the private papers of both protagonists. It is argued that, though Foot's charges seem devastating at first sight – and have never been refuted by Owen or his admirers – they cannot be sustained after an impartial review of the evidence. This reappraisal provides new insights into Owen's remarkable and controversial career at two pivotal stages – his initial rise to ministerial office, and his decision to leave Labour.     

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.     

商初贤相伊尹新论

对于贤相伊尹的研究,由于种种原因,仍处于误区之中。其一,多数介绍资料,都一致确认伊尹是有莘氏的家奴,善于烹调,以美味喻政治,因而得到成汤的重用。又有部分学者认为,伊尹为家奴说不可取,伊尹应是大巫,是宗教领袖,所以他能协助商汤灭夏建商。此说当今颇为流行。但证据不足,且从伊尹一生的政治生活来看,亦无相关行迹,因而此说也不可信。其二,伊尹放太甲于桐宫,三年见效,太甲复位,卒成名王;与另一说伊尹篡位自立,七年后太甲潜出,诛杀伊尹说,相提并论,缺乏选择与判断。后来虽有学者加以纠正,但论证力度不足,影响甚微。本文认为,伊尹本是夏朝贤臣,有高度的政治智慧,丰富的从政经验,他的离夏从汤,是明主与贤臣的双向选择,是历史的必然机遇。又认为太甲杀伊尹说证据不足,只有伊尹教诲太甲说是正确的。     

An Irish Conservative Perspective on the Defence of the Church of Ireland, 1865–1868

This article provides an analysis of the range of arguments used by senior members of the Irish Conservative party to defend the Established Church of Ireland from 1865 to 1868. The position of the Anglican Church in Ireland came under increasing threat following the death of Lord Palmerston, the British Prime Minister and the leader of the British Liberal party, in October 1865. Throughout his career, Palmerston, who had close connections to Ireland, had been a staunch defender of the privileges of the Church of Ireland. The first section of this article looks at the historical context in which this attack on its privileged position in Ireland arose. The second part traces some of the key arguments which leading members of the Irish Conservative party used in their defence of the Established Church. The final part of the paper considers some of the divisions which existed within the Conservative party, both in Britain and in Ireland, on the question of the future status of the Church of Ireland and at the effects that these divisions had in weakening its case against it.     

Harry Holland's ‘Samoan Complex’

ABSTRACT

‘Harry’ Holland, one of the early leaders of the parliamentary Labour Party in New Zealand, was an anomalous figure in early 20th-century New Zealand politics. In addition to a principled adoption of militant socialism, he stood apart from the rest of the House of Representatives due to his pronounced interest in Samoan affairs. This interest was so acute that one of his Labour colleagues, John A. Lee, remarked that he possessed a ‘Samoan complex’. This paper addresses the lack of critical attention paid to this facet of his career. Even though Holland's attitudes towards Samoa were sometimes couched in the same vocabulary as the coloniser, he always stood on the side of the colonised. His endorsement of Indigenous self-government was ahead of its time, and his campaigning played a key role in the Samoan struggle for independence. At a broader level, Holland was possibly the most significant of a cohort of colonial critics who questioned New Zealand's right to govern Pacific Islanders and who sought to rein in New Zealand's more overbearing Pacific Island administrations.     

The Lost Leader: Sir Stafford Northcote and the Leadership of the Conservative Party, 1876–85*

Sir Stafford Northcote has gone down in history as a man who fell short of the ultimate achievement of being prime minister largely because of personal weakness, and lack of political virility and drive. The picture painted by Northcote's political enemies – most notably the Fourth Party – has been accepted uncritically. Yet, political motives lay behind the actions of these supporters, and their harsh black and white portrait is not illustrative of the complexity of the situation in which Northcote found himself. Although individual characteristics undoubtedly played a part in his final political failure, underlying dynamics and structural transformations in politics and political life were more significant. It was more than simply the misfortune in succeeding the exceptionally charismatic Disraeli as leader. Northcote was faced with unparalleled disruption in parliament from Irish Nationalist MPs; the starkly polarised debate on the eastern question left him detached as a moderate. His temperament was better suited to constructive government rather than to opposition. However, following general election defeat in 1880, Northcote was denied this opportunity. Equally, his position in the lower House denied him the capacity to define a clear political critique of the Liberal government. Northcote's leadership of the party reflected the changing nature of British politics as radicals, tories, Irish Nationalists and Unionists increasingly contested the consensual style more appropriate to the political world of Palmerston and the 14th earl of Derby.     

Before and after the Grenville Act: The House of Commons and the Morpeth Elections of 1768 and 1774

The Grenville Act of 1770 was designed to prevent justice being ‘sacrificed to numbers’ when election petitions came before the Commons. The fate of the petition following the Morpeth election of 1768 illustrates how ministerial and other powerful influences, as well as prejudice, could determine the result, the votes of freemen who had gained their rights by peremptory writs of mandamus from the court of king's bench being declared invalid because they had not been admitted to their freedom in the customary manner. At the 1774 election, the partisan returning officers rejected many votes, but a riot forced them to return the candidates having a majority with these votes. When petitions complaining of a forced return and counter petitions alleging bribery and corruption came to the Commons, a party succeeded in postponing to a distant date a hearing on the merits of the election, and in restricting the remit to the committee chosen under the Grenville Act. One of the sitting members was unseated but allowed to petition on the merits, but parliament was prorogued before his petition was heard. On renewing it in the next session, he made substantial alterations which were challenged and a committee was appointed to investigate. All who came to the committee were to have voices, and, realising that his cause was thereby rendered hopeless, the petitioner withdrew his petition. Thus a party in the House was still able to exert influence and, on this occasion, to bypass the Grenville Act, which, however, in other cases evidently proved satisfactory.     

Andrew Marvell,the Lord Maynard and the Ballastage Office

In the Restoration, Andrew Marvell was elected to the Elder Brethren of the London (Deptford) Trinity House (May 1674). Some “new” documents reveal him assisting that shipmasters’ corporation in its business. In this work, he was helping to protect a charity, shoring up a corporate bulwark against the rising tide of Court interest; he was soon to lament in An Account of the Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government (1677). At issue was the drafting of letters rejecting a claim by the Lord Maynard, a prominent courtier who, with the support of James Duke of York and of Charles II, sought the reversion of the Ballastage Office. That lucrative office was a major resource for the London Trinity House, and one which fuller profits it was reluctant to concede. Whatever Marvell's own observation of decorum, the heavy correction of his initial draughts shows his more abrupt style coming under review, with a more flourishing courtliness characterizing the final letters sent by the group.     

Secular history in twelfth-century Italy: Caffaro of Genoa

Caffaro of Genoa is distinguished among medieval writers of history in being the earliest urban chronicler and the earliest secular historian in western Europe. However, his works and career remain relatively unknown to a remarkable number of contemporary medievalists in the English-speaking world. Caffaro was the originator of the Genoese Annals and remained their sole author for more than half a century. In addition he wrote at least two other historical works of great value. Throughout his long life he played a prominent role in the affairs of his city. He served repeatedly as a consul, ambassador, and diplomat for the Genoese Republic, and he was as well a crusader and a successful military commander. In his writing and in his career Caffaro consistently displays that uniquely secular and urban temperament we too readily associate only with the historians of Antiquity and the Renaissance.     

Robert d'Arbrissel: Aristocratic patronage and the question of heresy

Robert d'Arbrissel, first of the wandering preachers of the late eleventh century in northwestern France, often skirted the edges of heresy. Scholars have wondered what separated Robert from similar figures, such as Henry of Lausanne, who were in fact condemmed as heretics. Since Robert came from a modest family in a region of Brittany dominated by the Angevin counts, his career was always oriented towards Anjou. One possibility, then, is to examine Robert's career within the context of the Angevin nobility. His first patron, Bishop Silvester of Rennes, was a member of the count of Anjou's entourage, as were many other powerful figures who later supported him. Chief of these was Rainald, Lord of Craon. Under Reinald's patronage, Robert was able to establish the church of La Roë with the personal approval of Pope Urban. When Robert left to preach to crowds of followers, powerful Angevin churchmen recalled him to his duty. Once again it was the Angevin nobility, many related to the house of Craon, who provided Robert with the means to establish a monastery at Fontevraud. This establishment, backed by the Angevin nobility, kept Robert within the good graces of the Church.     

从中河通判万承紫罢官案看道光朝江南河工——兼考万承紫的淮安清江浦生涯

周恩来外曾祖父万承紫,道光初任南河中河通判,因收藏两江总督琦善看中的元代《龙舟图》被琦善弹劾免职。从该案中可见道光时两江总督对江南河工事务的介入、江南河工的奢侈之风,以及南河官场的文化氛围。万承紫尚风雅,收藏甚富,与寓居、往来南河的文人墨士多有交游,罢官后所居"还读书室"为文人雅集之所。原籍南昌的万家因河工而移居于南河治理中心淮安清江浦,万承紫子孙辈也精于河工。万家三代的治水经历也对周恩来产生影响,任总理期间特别重视水利事业。     

Robert,earl of Gloucester,and the daughter of Zelophehad

Robert, earl of Gloucester, the leader of Mathilda's party in England during Stephen's reign, has a good press because the main source for his activities is his admirer, William of Malmesbury. This article re-assesses Robert's role and character by concentrating on chroniclers other than Malmesbury and on charter evidence. It finds, by these methods, that Earl Robert may have been in some ways an attractive man, but that he was also a practised curialist, a ruthless factionalist, a plunderer of church lands, and a man who made acquisition of his neighbours' lands one of his main objects. New evidence is presented to account for his behaviour in the crucial months at the end of 1135 and beginning of 1136 when Stephen made himself king. Robert is found to have had little choice but to cross to England because his lands in the southern Marches were under threat from a Welsh rising. His alienation from Stephen in the next few years is traced to a failure at court against his rivals, the Beaumont group. His subsequent private war against the Beaumonts in Dorset and Worcestershire is further evidence against Malmesbury 's portrayal of him as a man of pure principle. conduct of the war against Stephen after 1139 can be shown to have had serious flaws. The result was a rebellion against him by his own sons and the repudiation of his methods (if not his acquisitions) by his successor Earl William. Evidence is presented that Earl William sparked off the movement amongst the magnates to draw up private treaties to contain the Anarchy. In view of all this, it is not surprising to find indications that Earl Robert lacked any real commitment to the claims of his half-sister, the empress.     

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.     

A Biographical Note on James Maxwell,Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod

This note seeks to clarify the course of the career of James Maxwell, gentleman usher of the black rod in several earlier Stuart parliaments. Maxwell was a Scot who followed James I south in 1603, serving in his household and that of Charles I, first as a gentleman usher daily waiter, and from 1619 as a groom of the bedchamber. In 1620 he secured the office of black rod. In 1642 he failed to follow the king to Oxford but remained with the parliament at Westminster, although largely delegating his duties as black rod to his associate, Alexander Thayne. In 1647, he was allowed by parliament to attend the king at Holdenby House. He died in 1650 as earl of Dirletoun in Scotland, although the circumstances in which he acquired this title are obscure.     

'This stalwart fellow of five lands and two seas': The Life of Fukushima Yasumasa

Abstract

Although known primarily for his lone horseback ride from Berlin to Vladivostok in 1892–93, Fukushima Yasumasa's career encompassed more than just this one remarkable ride. Born in 1852, Fukushima was caught up in the 1867 civil war, before beginning a military career that took him to almost all corners of the globe. In addition to his service during the 1894–95 Sino-Japanese and 1904–05 Russo-Japanese Wars, Fukushima played an important part in the development of Anglo-Japanese and Japanese-Mongolian relations in the early twentieth century, an aspect of his career that has been largely overlooked. This article re-examines Fukushima's career.