In No One's Shadow: British Politics in the Age of Anne and the Writing of the History of the House of Commons

The publication in 1967 of Geoffrey Holmes's masterpiece, British Politics in the Age of Anne , effectively demolished the interpretation of the 'political structure' of early 18th-century England that had been advanced by the American historian R.R. Walcott as a conscious imitation of Sir Lewis Namier. But to understand the significance of Holmes's work solely in an anti-Namierite context is misleading. For one thing, his book only completed a process of reaction against Walcott's work that was already under way in unpublished theses and scholarly articles (some by Holmes himself). Second, Holmes's approach was not simplistically anti-Namierist, as some (though not all) of Namier's followers recognized. Indeed, he was strongly sympathetic to the biographical approach, while acknowledging its limitations. The significance of Holmes's book to the study of the house of commons 1702–14 (and of the unpublished study of 'the Great Ministry' of 1710–14 to which it had originally been intended as a long introduction), was in fact much broader than the restoration of party divisions as central to political conflict. It was the re-creation of a political world, not merely the delineations of political allegiances, that made British Politics in the Age of Anne such a landmark in writing on this period.     

Geoffrey Holmes and the Public Sphere: Augustan Historiography from Post-Namierite to the Post-Habermasian

This article attributes the relative lack of attention to the 'public sphere' in Geoffrey Holmes's work to the pervasive influence of Lewis Namier and the Namierite conception of political history. Holmes's British Politics can be understood as a product of what might be called the revisionist's dilemma. Because the main thrust of the argument of this work was to challenge the Namierite interpretation of the structure of politics in Anne's reign, Holmes could not fail but to replicate the structures of the original Namierite paradigm. Nevertheless, Holmes's demolition of the Namierite view of Augustan politics also opened up new possibilities for further research; it ultimately widened our understanding of the 'political' and it prepared the ground for the remarkable interdisciplinary dialogue between literary historians, intellectual historians, and political historians. The article concludes with a discussion of how Holmes's successors began to build on his work in ways that can help explain why the Habermasian public sphere paradigm emerged to the foreground of current scholarship in a field where it had been ignored for three decades. Historians are now beginning to build a detailed post-Habermasian understanding of the ways in which the public sphere affected the structures of politics in later Stuart Britain. Work along these lines may well finally help explain the transformation of British politics from an age of Stuart revolutions to the age of Hanoverian oligarchy.     

REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this article:
The Chief Governors: The Rise and Fall of Reform Government in Tudor Ireland, 1536–1588. By Ciaran Brady.
Natural Rights and the New Republicanism. By Michael P. Zuckert.
Lords of the Ascendancy. The Irish House of Lords and its Members 1600–1800. By Francis G. James.
Oliver Cromwell. By Peter Gaunt.
British Parliamentary Lists, 1660–1800. A Register. Edited by G. M. Ditchfield, David Hayton and Clyve Jones.
The Suffolk Poll Book 1710. (Raymonds Original Poll Books.) Exeter: S. A. and M. J. Raymond.
The Suffolk Poll Book 1790. (Raymonds Original Poll Books.) Exeter: S. A. and M. J. Raymond.
Lords of Parliament. Studies, 1714–1914. Edited by R. W. Davis.
The Sense of the People: Politics, Culture and Imperialism in England, 1715–1785. By Kathleen Wilson.
British 'Non-Elite' MPs, 1715–1820. By Ian R. Christie.
The Patriot Opposition to Walpole. Politics, Poetry, and National Myth, 1725–1742. By Christine Gerrard.
The Birth of Romantic Radicalism: War, Popular Politics and English Radical Reformism 1800–15. By Peter Spence.
Henry Brougham and his World: A Biography. By Trowbridge H. Ford.
Modern Wales. Politics, Places and People. By Kenneth O. Morgan.
The Liberal Ascendancy, 1830–1886. By T. A. Jenkins.
A Selection from the Diaries of Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby (1826–93) between September 1869 and March 1878. Edited by John Vincent.
The Age of Upheaval. Edwardian Politics 1899–1914. By David Brooks.
A Lonely Grave: The Life and Death of William Redmond. By Terence Denman.
Churchill and the Politics of War, 1940–1941. By Sheila Lawlor.
England Arise! The Labour Party and Popular Politics in the 1940s. By Steven Fielding, Peter Thompson and Nick Tiratsoo.     

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.     

Resisting the Inevitable? The Parliament Act 1911

The Parliament Act 1911, limiting the veto power of the house of lords, constitutes a major piece of constitutional legislation in the United Kingdom. The vulnerability of the house of lords to major change was long‐standing and to be found in the actions of prime ministers over more than a century. The constitutional crisis leading to the passage of the act was triggered by the rejection of the budget by the Lords in 1909. However, the outcome of the crisis was by no means certain, either in terms of the provisions of the Parliament Bill or its passage. It was neither a product of a clash between peers and people or a principled debate as to the place of the second chamber in the nation's constitutional arrangements. It was the result of the stances taken on the issue that had dominated British politics since the 1880s: Irish home rule. This determined that the house of lords would be subject to change, not in terms of composition but in respect of its powers. In terms of the contemporary relevance of the act, attempts at further changes to the second chamber constitute neither history repeating itself nor unfinished business.     

‘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.     

REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this article:
The Complete Peerage. Volume XZV; Addenda and Comgenda.
Discourse on History, Law, and Governance in the Public Career John Selden, 1610-35. By Paul Christianson
Sovereignty and the Sword. Hawington, Hobbes, and Mixed Government in the English Civil Wars. By Arihiro Fukuda
Regicide and Republicanism. Politics and Ethics in the English Revolution 1646-1659. By Sarah Barber
Failed Legislation, 1660-1800. Extracted from the Commons and Lords Journals.
Lord Burlington-The Man and his Politics. Questions ofloyalty.
Georgiana Duchess ofDevonshire. By Amanda Foreman
Aristocratic Women and Political Society in Victorian Britain. By K. D. Reynolds
William Pitt and the French Revolution, 1785–1795. By Jennifer Mori
A Victorian Law Reformer. A LofLord Selborne. By Edward Heward
Speaking for the People. Party, hnguage and Popular Politics in England, 1867-1914. By Jon Lawrence
Rebel on the Right. Henry Page Croft and the Crisis of British Consewatism 1903-1914. By Larry Witherell
Questioning the Postwar Consensus Thesis. Towards an Alternative Account. By James D. Marlow
'The Myth ofConsetisus. New Views on British History, 1945-64.     

REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this article: On the Laws and Governance of England. By Sir John Fortescue. The Reign of Elizabeth I. Court and Culture in the Last Decade. Edited by John Guy. Andrew Fletcher. Political Works. Edited by John Robertson. Politics in Eighteenth-Century Wales. By Peter D.G. Thomas. The Rockingham Connection and the Second Founding of the Whig Party, 1768–- 1773. By W.M. Elofson. The House of Lords and Ideological Politics. Lord Salisbury's Referendal Theory and the Conservative Party 1846–1922. By Corinne Comstock Weston. From Salisbury to Major. Continuity and Change in Conservative Politics. By Brendan Evans and Andrew Taylor. British Business and Protection, 1903–32. By Andrew Marrison. Sir Edward Carson. A Dream too Far. By John Hostettler. Callaghan: A Life. By Kenneth O. Morgan. A Partnership for Good? Scottish Politics and the Union since 1880. By Richard J. Finlay.     

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.     

REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this article: Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship. By John Watts John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland 1504–1553. By David Loades The Nerves of State. Taxation and the Financing of the English State, 1558–1714. By Michael J. Braddick The Papers of Sir Richard Grosvenor, 1st Bart. (1585–1645). Edted by Richard Cust. The Scottish Parliament 1639–1661. A Political and Constitutional Analysis. By John R. Young Protestantism and Patriotism. Ideologies and the Making of English Foreign Policy, 1650–1668. By Steven C. A. Pincus The House of Lords in the Reign of Charles II. By Andrew Swatland William III and the Godly Revolution. By Tony Claydon The Parliamentary Diary of sir Richard Cocks, 1698–1702. Edited by D. W. Hayton. John Wilkes. A Friend to Liberty. By Peter D. G. Thomas. The Waning of ‘Old Corruption’. The Politics of Economical Reform in Britain, 1779–1846. By Philip Harling Henry Goulbum, 1784–1856. A Political Biography. By Brian Jenkins Britain and the Defeat of Napoleon 1807–1815. By Rory Muir. The Decline of British Radicalism, 1847–1860. By Miles Taylormbridge Citizenship and Community: Liberals, Radicals and Collective Identities in the British Isles, 1865–1931. Edited by Eugenio F. Biagini Officials of Royal Commissions of Inquiry 1870–1939. Compiled by Elaine Harrison Democratic Ideas and the British Labour Movement, 1880–1914. By Loge Barrow and Ian Bullock The Conservatives and British Society, 1880–1990. Edited by Martin Francis and Ina Zweiniger-Bargelowska The Age of Salisbury, 1881–1902. Unionism and Empire. By Richard Shannon. Democratic Rhondda. Politics and Society 1885–1951. By Chris William A History of Conservative Politics, 1900–1996. By John Channley The Republican Crown. Lawyers and the Making Of the State in Twentieth-Century Britain. By Joseph M. Jacob. Out of Control. British Foreign Policy and the Union of Democratic Control 1914–1918. By Sally Harris. Clement Attlee. By Jerry H. Brookshire. The Diaries and Letters of Robert Bernays 1932–1939. An Insider's Account of the House of Commons. Edited by Nick Smart Politics and the Constitution: Essays on British Government. By Vernon Bogdanor. The Heath Government 1970–1974. A Reappraisal. Edited by Stuart Ball and Anthony Seldon     

‘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.     

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.     

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.     

REVIEWS

Book reviewed in this article:
Scenes from Provincial Life: Knightly Families iri Sussex 1280–1400 . By Nigcl Saul.
Parliament and the Crown in the Reign of Mary Tudor . By Jennifer Loach.
Mary Stewart, Queen in Three Kingdoms . Edited by Michael Lynch
The Forced Loan and English Politics 1626–1628 . By Richard Cust.
Reluctant Revolutionaries: Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688 . By W. A. Speck.
A Kingdom without a King: The Journal of the Provisional Government in the Revolution of 1688 . Edited by Robert Beddard.
A Parliamentary History of the Glorious Revolution . Edited by David Lcwis Jones.
War and Economy in the Age of William III and Marlborough . By D. W. Jones.
Robert Harley: Speaker, Secretary of state and Premier Minister . By Brian W. Hill.
London Newspapers in the Age of Walpole. A Study of the Origins of the Modern English Press . By Michael Harris.
Lord Bute: Essays in Reinterpretation . Edited by Karl W. Schweizer.
Subject Catalogue of the House of Commons Parliamentary Papers 1801–1900 Edited by Petcr Cockton.
Patronage and Principle: A Political History of Modern Scotland . By Michael Fry.
Party and Politics, 1830–1852 . By Robert Stewart.
Later Victorian Britain 1867–1900 . Edited by T. R. Gourvish and Alan O'Day.
Florence Arnold-Forster's Irish Journal . Edited by T. W. Moody and R. A. J. Hawkins
The Climax of Liberal Politics: British Liberalism in Theory and Practice 1868–1918 . By Michael Bentley.
The Secret Lives of Trebitsch Lincoln . By Bernard Wasserstein.
The House of Lords . By Donald Shell.     

‘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’.     

New countryside,old peasants? Politics,tradition and modernity in rural France

Since the publication of the volume Rural Studies in Britain and France (1990) by P. Lowe and M. Bodiguel, ‘la ruralitéfrançaise’ has become the object of intense scrutiny and has emerged as a political field where questions of national and collective identity, traditions, history, landscapes, the past and future of French society have all been debated. In the introduction to that volume, the editors declared: ‘The countryside and rural society, their past, present and future, are major preoccupations in Britain and in France. The urbanisation of the two nations has in no way diminished this interest; if anything, it has sharpened it. With the bulk of economic and social activity concentrated in towns and cities, the countryside has come to embody largely a cultural interest in both countries’, something that has been borne out by recent events. This special issue devoted to ‘Politics, tradition and modernity in rural France’ is the first issue of Modern & Contemporary France to be dedicated to a discussion of topics surrounding la question agricole. The recent publication of a short dossier on French agriculture in the journal French Politics, Society and Culture pointed the way to a number of the debates examined in the following articles about the past and the future of rural France, especially in the context of a more globalised and Europeanised economy.     

The Great Landowners in the House of Commons, 1833–85

This prosopographical article demonstrates that the traditional British landed interest suffered very little by the terms of the 1832 Reform Act. They maintained their customary dominance of the house of commons, although voting records show that they had lost some of their ability to push legislation through the House that spoke to their more parochial interests. By contrast, the 1867 Reform Act caused serious erosion of their legislative power in the Commons. The 1874 election, especially in Ireland, saw great landowners losing their county seats to tenant farmers. Democracy was coming to Britain; just not as soon as some would have it.