The Reputation and Authority of the Speaker and the Speakership of the House of Commons, 1640–60

The speakership during the civil war and interregnum has received scant attention by historians. This article considers the occupants of the Speaker's chair as a group, making some observations about their age and background, including within its scope the short-lived and irregular speakerships of men such as Sir Sampson Eure and Henry Pelham. The popularity of the Speaker within the Commons is found to have depended much on his perceived competence and goodwill, while his reputation in the country at large depended greatly on the unpredictable cut and thrust of political opinion. The speakership of William Lenthall in the Long Parliament is examined in some detail and judged to be exceptional in a number of respects, not least in his grappling with the explosion in the number and power of executive committees. Lenthall's dealings with the press suggest that he was well aware of the uses of print as well as its potential for damage to his reputation. The contemporary allegations of venality aimed at Speakers are examined with respect to individual occupants of the office and are also set in the context of fee-taking by Commons' officials. While this period seems not to have been a particularly important one in terms of lasting procedural innovation in the chamber, it was significant in heralding the possibility of a separation between the person and office of Speaker. The article provides as an Appendix an authoritative list of Speakers in this period.     

Adjustment and Integration: The Scottish Representation in the British House of Commons, 1707–14*

The small minority of Scots who entered the house of commons in 1707 were slow to make their mark. Besides lack of numbers, they suffered several significant disadvantages. The Westminster scene was strange, and the style and tone of debate more vigorous and informal. Moreover, the aristocracy had dominated the unicameral Scottish parliament, and commoners found it difficult to emancipate themselves from noble tutelage. Most importantly, Scottish politics did not yet reflect the two‐party system dominant in England. Thus in the first sessions the Scots were unable to make headway in the essential business of parliament, legislation. Scotland suffered in comparison with the English provinces, and even the Irish, who were able to muster a more effective lobby. Soon, however, a new generation of debaters appeared, able to use their wit to discomfit English antagonists, and a new class of ‘men of business’ who grasped the rules of the legislative game. The fortuitous deaths of leading magnates and the polarisation of sectarian antagonisms in Scotland permitted the coalescence of the Scottish representation into two broad factions allied with the English parties. It was with English tory support that bills were passed to benefit the sectional concerns of Scottish episcopalians, accompanied by other measures of a more general nature. The combined attempt by Scottish peers and MPs in 1713 to secure the repeal of the union does not point to a lasting breakdown in Anglo‐Scottish relations, since it was also a manifestation of political opportunism by English whigs and discontented tories, and their Scottish allies. But the dawn of a party system in Scotland was dispelled by the death of Queen Anne and the ensuing jacobite rebellion. The complicity of tories in the Fifteen resulted in the destruction of the party in Scotland, and the construction of a whig hegemony.     

Humour and Insult in the House of Commons: The Case of Palmerston and Disraeli*

Formal prohibitions on ‘personalities’ notwithstanding, a constant of parliamentary life is that members regularly insult one another. Within the conventions of 19th‐century public decorum, humour served as an effective means for some politicians to deliver personal insults to their opponents. This article examines the nature of the personal attacks made by Disraeli and Palmerston on each other between 1837 and 1865, and describes how their styles of humorous insult were different but equally effective. Analysis of their political contest sheds new light on the careers of the two men, while also providing the basis for broader considerations about the changing nature and functions of humour in political discourse from the 18th to the 20th centuries.     

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.     

The House of Commons Serjeant 1640–93

The conflict between the crown and parliament in the 17th century inevitably disrupted the orderly succession to the offices of the house of commons, as is illustrated by the case of the serjeant‐at‐arms. Existing lists of the holders of this office tend to oversimplify the situation. This note brings together the available facts with the object of identifying those who actually carried out the duties of the office between 1640 and 1693.