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.     

Crossman and Beyond: House of Commons Select Committees in the 1960s

Assessments of the work and impact of house of commons investigatory select committees during the 1960s usually centre on the success or otherwise of the new ‘specialist’ committees established in the second half of the decade. This article uses both quantitative and qualitative evidence to give a more rounded picture, including both new and existing committees. It concludes that 1960s select committees were more popular, active and influential than has previously been appreciated. It also argues that there has been an overvaluation of the role of the Labour cabinet minister, Richard Crossman, in promoting and establishing these committees, and that support for committee work on both front benches and back benches was rather more widespread and substantial than has been assumed. In particular, the article contends that Harold Wilson's role in advancing the work of select committees has been underestimated.     

‘A Sense of Crowd and Urgency’? Atmosphere and Inconvenience in the Chamber of the Old House of Commons

The house of commons before the 1834 fire that destroyed it was small, poky, and uncomfortable. Its effects on the health, audibility, and behaviour of its members were frequently a cause of complaint, and informed the consideration by two select committees in 1831 and 1833 of what could be done to replace the chamber. This article examines the background to the appointment of the committees, and what their discussions reveal about the unsatisfactory nature of the chamber. It considers why there failed to be a consensus on altering the chamber before its destruction.     

Radicals,Tories or Monomaniacs? The Birmingham Currency Reformers in the House of Commons, 1832–67*

Benjamin Disraeli described Thomas Attwood as a ‘provincial banker labouring under a financial monomania’. The leader of the Birmingham Political Union, Attwood's Warwickshire accent and support for a paper currency were widely derided at Westminster. However, the themes of Attwood's brief parliamentary career were shared by the other men who represented Birmingham in the early‐ and mid‐Victorian period. None of these MPs were good party men, and this article illuminates the nature of party labels in the period. Furthermore, it adds a new dimension to the historical understanding of debates on monetary policy and shows how local political identities and traditions interacted with broader party identities. With the exception of Richard Spooner, who was a strong tory on religious and political matters, the currency men are best described as popular radicals, who consistently championed radical political reform and were among the few parliamentary supporters of the ‘People's Charter’. They opposed the new poor law and endorsed factory regulation, a progressive income tax, and religious liberty. Although hostile to the corn laws they believed that free trade without currency reform would depress prices, wages and employment. George Frederick Muntz's death in 1857 and his replacement by John Bright marked a watershed and the end of the influence of the ‘Birmingham school’. Bright appropriated Birmingham's radical tradition as he used the town as a base for his campaign for parliamentary reform. He emphasized Birmingham's contribution to the passing of the 1832 Reform Act but ignored the currency reformers' views on other matters, which had often been at loggerheads with the ‘Manchester school’ and economic liberalism.     

Drafting the Nineteen Propositions,January–July 1642*

This article analyses the drafting of the document eventually printed as the Nineteen Propositions. Section two addresses certain issues regarding the methods and concepts employed in the subsequent analysis, focusing on consensus‐building, constitutional leanings and the drafting of parliamentary declarations in early 1642. Section three examines the origins of the Nineteen Propositions in the draft Declaration of Ways and Means (January 1642) (hereafter cited as the Ways). Section four traces the emergence of the Declaration Concerning Grievances and Remedies (hereafter cited as the Grievances) from the Ways (January–February). Section five examines the junta's efforts to overcome the Lords' prevarication over passing the Grievances (February–May). Section six examines the emergence of the initial draft of the Nineteen Propositions from the Grievances (24–7 May). Section seven analyses the 28 May draft, while section eight explores the amendment of that draft (31 May and 1 June). Section nine examines parliament's abortive attempts to revise the Nineteen Propositions in light of His Majesty's Answer to the XIX Propositions (21 June–2 July). It is concluded that, contrary to the received view, the text of the Nineteen Propositions began to emerge in January rather than May 1642, and that the junta in the Commons rather than the Lords drove this process. The three appendices identify, respectively, the constitutional leanings of the relevant parliamentarians, the parts of the text of the Ways that were repeated in the Grievances, and dates on which the various parts of the final text of the Nineteen Propositions were written.     

Recently Discovered Lords' Lists and their Uses, 1833–42*

This note deals with previously unpublished lists which identify the party affiliations, whig, Liberal, and Conservative, of members of the house of lords from 1833 to 1842. They were prepared by the chief whips (or in one case the party leader) of their respective parties, and can thus be considered authoritative. Such information is invaluable in properly understanding the political history of the house of lords, and therefore of the nation.     

‘Whatever Passed in Parliament Ought to be Communicated to the Public’: Reporting the Proceedings of the Reformed Commons, 1833–50

This article considers the opening up of parliamentary proceedings to greater public scrutiny in the two decades after the 1832 Reform Act. It examines developments in the publication of parliamentary debates, considering why proposals for an official parliamentary record were rejected in the 1830s. It also discusses two less well‐studied but equally vital means of publicising parliamentary activity: the publication of official division lists and the sale to the public of parliamentary papers. It argues that the 1830s was a critical decade of change, influenced by shifting perceptions of the relationship between the reformed house of commons and those it sought to represent. This was driven, in particular, by liberal notions of the importance of parliamentary accountability to public opinion: MPs were increasingly aware of the need to keep constituents informed of their parliamentary activities, whether in the chamber, committee room or division lobby. This article also highlights the extent to which the Commons' approach to publicising its activities was constrained not only by the fact that it remained a breach of parliamentary privilege to publish reports of debates, but also by the physical space that the Commons occupied. The destruction of much of the old Palace of Westminster by fire in 1834 provided an important opportunity to remodel existing arrangements, notably with the addition of a second division lobby and the construction of a reporters' gallery.     

Ventilating the Commons,Heating the Lords, 1701–1834

In 1833, the Commons chamber was described as a ‘noxious vapour‐bath’, while the Lords deemed the insufferable heat and toxic smoke in its House as injurious to health. This situation was not new, as for more than a century both Houses had been battling with officialdom and technology to improve their working conditions. In their continuing quest for effective heating and ventilation they had drawn in many respected men of science and commerce as well as entrepreneurs and showmen of varying abilities, to little avail. Many machines were tried, Desaguliers's ventilating wheel alone achieving modest success. A notable institution arising from all these experiments was the ventilator in the Commons’ roof, enabling ladies, barred from the chamber, to witness debates, albeit in considerable discomfort. After the 1834 fire, parliamentarians renewed their ventilating mission in their temporary chambers, before projecting their cumulative experience and opinions onto the far larger canvas of the new Victorian Palace of Westminster.