DOCSLIB.ORG

The House of Lords and the British Political Tradition, to an Extent, Reflect Different Sides of the Same Coin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The House of Lords and the British Political Tradition, to an Extent, Reflect Different Sides of the Same Coin The House of Lords and the British Political Tradition By Anthony Mc Manamon A thesis submitted to The University of Birmingham For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science and International Studies School of Government and Society The University of Birmingham October 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS I would like to thank Professor David Marsh for his invaluable supervision and support throughout the years of research on this thesis. I also wish to thank Dr Peter Kerr for joining the co-supervision of this thesis and his words of support during the challenges involved in its completion. Dedication to Hanna Mc Manamon Abstract This thesis seeks to develop a conception of the British Political Tradition as an idea of democracy and apply it to explain the constitutional development of the House of Lords. The British Parliament is one of the oldest Parliaments in the world and is characterised both by the stability of its governing institutions and its capacity to absorb change. Academic literature of the British Political Tradition offers a plethora of arguments aimed at explaining which idea(s) have underpinned governing institutions and sustained their longevity in the constitution. The objective of this thesis is to demonstrate how the stability of Britain’s governing institutions and its history of strong authoritative government emanate from a dominant though contested idea of democracy founded upon a limited liberal idea of representation and a conservative idea of responsibility. The House of Lords is examined from the 1688 Glorious Revolution through to the modern day House of Lords Reform process (2012). The aim is to demonstrate through empirical practice how the British Political Tradition has been the dominant idea shaping the development the constitution and defining the powers of the Crown and the Houses of Lords and Commons. Contents Chapter One: Introduction...........................................................................................1 Chapter Two: The British Political Tradition and the House of Lords.....…......20 Chapter Three: The House of Lords and the Constitution…......…..............….........83 Chapter Four: The House of Lords 1790 – 1832....................................................138 Chapter Five: The House of Lords 1832 – 1911 .....................................……......184 Chapter Six: The House of Lords: 1911 – 1951 ………....……….............…........234 Chapter Seven: The House of Lords: 1951 – 1997.………........…….....….….…..279 Chapter Eight: The House of Lords 1997 – 2012 ...................................................305 Conclusion:..............................................................................................................357 Bibliography.....................................................................................................385 Chapter One: Introduction National political institutions are one of the forms in which the national consciousness of the past has expressed itself, and in the study of the constitutional development of our own country we learn to understand what are the permanent instincts of our national mind. Masterman (1913:9). The House of Lords, the Crown and the House of Commons are the three national governing institutions of the British constitution and provide the institutional pillars upon which the constitution has evolved. In A History of the British Constitution, Masterman, contends that British political institutions are an organic product of the values, beliefs and traditions that have shaped the constitution. Indeed, Britain’s political institutions have an ancient lineage stretching back 700 years, with a constitution that is a product of historical evolution, rather than design, and, therefore, if we take Masterman’s hypothesis a stage further, a detailed examination of national political institutions will help reveal the dominant ideas that have shaped the British Political Tradition. This thesis focuses upon the House of Lords as a national political institution, but, obviously, it cannot be examined in isolation from the Crown or the House of Commons. Rather, the objective here is to show that the House of Lords, as the institution which, historically at least, represented the economic elite of the nation and the civic power and prestige of the landed aristocracy, was crucial in the development of ideas of strong and 1 elite-led government within Parliament and how these ideas were shared by both the Crown and the House of Commons. The aim is to explore the relationship of the House of Lords to the British Political Tradition, or, to put it in broader, and more abstract, terms, how particular ideas of democracy continued to dominate the processes in, and the discourses about the role of, Parliament, as the constitution evolved from a liberal to a liberal democratic one. The Crown and the Houses of Lords and Commons first emerge as the principle governing institutions of the British constitution in the Thirteenth Century and, during that century, the word Parliamentum was first used to describe the trinity of institutions governing the nation. The House of Lords itself has a still longer lineage stretching back to the Norman invasion of 1066, when it began as an assembly of Magnates summoned by the Crown three times a year. As such, the House of Lords has maintained an unbroken and constant presence in the governing of the nation, either as an assembly of the Crown, or as one of the two Chambers of Parliament, for nearly a thousand years. The House of Lords longevity as a governing institution makes it an important institution to study for a greater understanding of the constitution and to establish the link between ideas of the British Political Tradition and the institutions they underpin. As such, this thesis examines the House of Lords as an element of the broader institution of Parliament by examining its constitutional links with the House of Commons, chronicling the constantly evolving relationship between the two Chambers throughout the centuries up to New Labour’s reform of the House of Lords. 2 The House of Lords’ long and illustrious history as one of the Chambers of the English Parliament, and a Chamber of aristocratic peers which ranked only beneath the Crown in prestige and social esteem, means that it has attracted a great deal of interest from historians. The historical literature on the House of Lords focuses mainly upon its relationship with the Crown. As an example, Clyve and David Lewis Jones’ edited collection, Peers Powers and Politics 1603–1911 (1986), probably the most extensive study of the House of Lords is a diverse compilation of essays from various historians which analyse the House of Lords during specific eras of Crown history, such as the Stuart Monarchy 1603–1688, or offer an assessment of its role during times of crisis, such as the Napoleonic Wars. This literature tends to concentrate primarily on the Peerage itself, presenting information on individual Peer’s titles and estates, as well as providing an analysis of statistical records about the size and acreage of Peers estates, voting records or the number of peers created by the Crown. Modern day studies of the House of Lords, such as Bromhead’s The House of Lords 1911–1957 or the various editions of Shell’s The House of Lords, the most recent of which was published in 2007, are institutional in character and focus upon the functional role of the House of Lords. These studies examine the composition and powers of the Upper Chamber, assessing the wide array of rules, regulations and tacit conventions that determine the day to day functions of the Chamber and which define its relationship with the House of Commons. 3 Until 2009, the British Parliament was unique in having a central concentration of legislative and legal powers, with no distinction or separation between constitutional and legislative law. The House of Lords judicial function as the supreme court of appeal in the nation up until 2009, when the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was created, meant that most of the constitutional studies of the House of Lords were undertaken by law academics, such as Dicey (1885), Bagehot, (1867) and Jennings (1934). To summarise, studies of the House of Lords are traditionally either historical critiques by historians, such as Mc Cahill, The House of Lords in the Age of George III, 1760- 1811, (2009), constitutional studies by legal theorists i.e. Blom-Cooper, The Judicial House of Lords: 1876-2009, (2011) or institutional studies by political scientists, such as Doney and Kelso, The House of Lords Reform Since 1911: Must the Lords Go? (2011). The objective in this thesis is to offer an alternative examination of the House of Lords based on its constitutional position as a political governing institution, as opposed to the traditional critiques which are largely historical and institutionally based. Consequently, this thesis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America
    P1: IwX/KaD 0521827450agg.xml CY395B/Ward 0 521 82745 0 May 7, 2004 7:37 The Politics of Liberty in England and Revolutionary America LEE WARD Campion College University of Regina iii P1: IwX/KaD 0521827450agg.xml CY395B/Ward 0 521 82745 0 May 7, 2004 7:37 published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, uk 40 West 20th Street, New York, ny 10011-4211, usa 477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, vic 3207, Australia Ruiz de Alarcon´ 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org C Lee Ward 2004 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2004 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Sabon 10/12 pt. System LATEX 2ε [tb] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ward, Lee, 1970– The politics of liberty in England and revolutionary America / Lee Ward p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. isbn 0-521-82745-0 1. Political science – Great Britain – Philosophy – History – 17th century. 2. Political science – Great Britain – Philosophy – History – 18th century. 3. Political science – United States – Philosophy – History – 17th century. 4. Political science – United States – Philosophy – History – 18th century. 5. United States – History – Revolution, 1775–1783 – Causes.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief History of the Purcells of Ireland
    A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PURCELLS OF IRELAND TABLE OF CONTENTS Part One: The Purcells as lieutenants and kinsmen of the Butler Family of Ormond – page 4 Part Two: The history of the senior line, the Purcells of Loughmoe, as an illustration of the evolving fortunes of the family over the centuries – page 9 1100s to 1300s – page 9 1400s and 1500s – page 25 1600s and 1700s – page 33 Part Three: An account of several junior lines of the Purcells of Loughmoe – page 43 The Purcells of Fennel and Ballyfoyle – page 44 The Purcells of Foulksrath – page 47 The Purcells of the Garrans – page 49 The Purcells of Conahy – page 50 The final collapse of the Purcells – page 54 APPENDIX I: THE TITLES OF BARON HELD BY THE PURCELLS – page 68 APPENDIX II: CHIEF SEATS OF SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE PURCELL FAMILY – page 75 APPENDIX III: COATS OF ARMS OF VARIOUS BRANCHES OF THE PURCELL FAMILY – page 78 APPENDIX IV: FOUR ANCIENT PEDIGREES OF THE BARONS OF LOUGHMOE – page 82 Revision of 18 May 2020 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PURCELLS OF IRELAND1 Brien Purcell Horan2 Copyright 2020 For centuries, the Purcells in Ireland were principally a military family, although they also played a role in the governmental and ecclesiastical life of that country. Theirs were, with some exceptions, supporting rather than leading roles. In the feudal period, they were knights, not earls. Afterwards, with occasional exceptions such as Major General Patrick Purcell, who died fighting Cromwell,3 they tended to be colonels and captains rather than generals. They served as sheriffs and seneschals rather than Irish viceroys or lords deputy.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF on Financial Privilege
    Report Financial Privilege The Undoubted and Sole Right of the Commons? Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA Richard Reid PhD FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE THE UNDOUBTED AND SOLE RIGHT OF THE COMMONS? By Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA and Richard Reid PhD Acknowlegements The authors thank The Constitution Society for commissioning and publishing this paper. First published in Great Britain in 2016 by The Constitution Society Top Floor, 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.consoc.org.uk © The Constitution Society ISBN: 978-0-9954703-0-9 © Malcolm Jack and Richard Reid 2016. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE 3 Contents Acknowlegements 2 About the Authors 4 Summary 5 PART 1 Conventions in Respect of Financial Privilege 6 PART 2 Parliament Acts 19 PART 3 Handling of Bills with Financial Provisions 30 PART 4 Secondary Legislation 41 PART 5 The Strathclyde Review 51 Appendix 1 Parliament Act 1911 62 Appendix 2 Parliament Act 1949 67 4 FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE About the Authors Sir Malcolm Jack was Clerk of the House of Commons from 2006–2011. He is editor of the current, twenty-fourth edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 2011. He lectures and writes on constitutional and historical subjects, having published widely on the history of ideas as well as on aspects of British, European and South African history.
    [Show full text]
  • War of Roses: a House Divided
    Stanford Model United Nations Conference 2014 War of Roses: A House Divided Chairs: Teo Lamiot, Gabrielle Rhoades Assistant Chair: Alyssa Liew Crisis Director: Sofia Filippa Table of Contents Letters from the Chairs………………………………………………………………… 2 Letter from the Crisis Director………………………………………………………… 4 Introduction to the Committee…………………………………………………………. 5 History and Context……………………………………………………………………. 5 Characters……………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Topics on General Conference Agenda…………………………………..……………. 9 Family Tree ………………………………………………………………..……………. 12 Special Committee Rules……………………………………………………………….. 13 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………. 14 Letters from the Chairs Dear Delegates, My name is Gabrielle Rhoades, and it is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the Stanford Model United Nations Conference (SMUNC) 2014 as members of the The Wars of the Roses: A House Divided Joint Crisis Committee! As your Wars of the Roses chairs, Teo Lamiot and I have been working hard with our crisis director, Sofia Filippa, and SMUNC Secretariat members to make this conference the best yet. If you have attended SMUNC before, I promise that this year will be even more full of surprise and intrigue than your last conference; if you are a newcomer, let me warn you of how intensely fun and challenging this conference will assuredly be. Regardless of how you arrive, you will all leave better delegates and hopefully with a reinvigorated love for Model UN. My own love for Model United Nations began when I co-chaired a committee for SMUNC (The Arab Spring), which was one of my very first experiences as a member of the Society for International Affairs at Stanford (the umbrella organization for the MUN team), and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Later that year, I joined the intercollegiate Model United Nations team.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Paper 2: Power: Monarchy and Democracy in Britain C1000-2014
    Paper 2: Power: Monarchy and democracy in Britain c1000-2014. 1. Describe the Anglo-Saxon system of government. [4] • Witan –The relatives of the King, the important nobles (Earls) and churchmen (Bishops) made up the Kings council which was known as the WITAN. These men led the armies and ruled the shires on behalf of the king. In return, they received wealth, status and land. • At local level the lesser nobles (THEGNS) carried out the roles of bailiffs and estate management. Each shire was divided into HUNDREDS. These districts had their own law courts and army. • The Church handled many administrative roles for the King because many churchmen could read and write. The Church taught the ordinary people about why they should support the king and influence his reputation. They also wrote down the history of the period. 2. Explain why the Church was important in Anglo-Saxon England. [8] • The church was flourishing in Aethelred’s time (c.1000). Kings and noblemen gave the church gifts of land and money. The great MINSTERS were in Rochester, York, London, Canterbury and Winchester. These Churches were built with donations by the King. • Nobles provided money for churches to be built on their land as a great show of status and power. This reminded the local population of who was in charge. It hosted community events as well as religious services, and new laws or taxes would be announced there. Building a church was the first step in building a community in the area. • As churchmen were literate some of the great works of learning, art and culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Law, Counsel, and Commonwealth: Languages of Power in the Early English Reformation
    Law, Counsel, and Commonwealth: Languages of Power in the Early English Reformation Christine M. Knaack Doctor of Philosophy University of York History April 2015 2 Abstract This thesis examines how power was re-articulated in light of the royal supremacy during the early stages of the English Reformation. It argues that key words and concepts, particularly those involving law, counsel, and commonwealth, formed the basis of political participation during this period. These concepts were invoked with the aim of influencing the king or his ministers, of drawing attention to problems the kingdom faced, or of expressing a political ideal. This thesis demonstrates that these languages of power were present in a wide variety of contexts, appearing not only in official documents such as laws and royal proclamations, but also in manuscript texts, printed books, sermons, complaints, and other texts directed at king and counsellors alike. The prose dialogue and the medium of translation were employed in order to express political concerns. This thesis shows that political languages were available to a much wider range of participants than has been previously acknowledged. Part One focuses on the period c. 1528-36, investigating the role of languages of power during the period encompassing the Reformation Parliament. The legislation passed during this Parliament re-articulated notions of the realm’s social order, creating a body politic that encompassed temporal and spiritual members of the realm alike and positioning the king as the head of that body. Writers and theorists examined legal changes by invoking the commonwealth, describing the social hierarchy as an organic body politic, and using the theme of counsel to acknowledge the king’s imperial authority.
    [Show full text]
  • British Overseas Territories Law
    British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • 6FFLK015: Advanced Constitutional Law | King's College London
    09/27/21 6FFLK015: Advanced Constitutional Law | King's College London 6FFLK015: Advanced Constitutional Law View Online 1 Bradley AW, Ewing KD, Knight C. Constitutional and administrative law. Seventeenth edition. Harlow, England: : Pearson 2018. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=5418645 2 De Smith SA, Brazier R. Constitutional and administrative law. 8th ed. London: : Penguin 1998. 3 Turpin CC, Tomkins A. British government and the constitution: text and materials. 7th ed. Cambridge: : Cambridge University Press 2011. http://kcl.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=775039 4 Le Sueur AP, Sunkin M, Murkens JE. Public law: text, cases, and materials. Third edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2016. 5 McEldowney JF. Public law. 3rd ed. London: : Sweet & Maxwell 2002. 6 Phillips OH, Jackson P, Leopold P. O. Hood Phillips & Jackson’s constitutional and 1/58 09/27/21 6FFLK015: Advanced Constitutional Law | King's College London administrative law. 8th ed. London: : Sweet & Maxwell 2001. 7 Loveland I. Constitutional law, administrative law, and human rights: a critical introduction. Eighth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2018. 8 Barnett H. Constitutional & administrative law. Twelfth edition. London: : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group 2017. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=4917664 9 Jowell JL, Oliver D. The changing constitution. Eighth edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: : Oxford University Press 2015. 10 Munro CR. Studies in constitutional law. 2nd ed. London: : Butterworths 1999. 11 Tomkins A. Public law. Oxford: : Oxford University Press 2003. 12 Marshall G. Constitutional conventions: the rules and forms of political accountability. Oxford: : Clarendon 1984. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198762027.001.0001 13 Griffith JAG, Ryle M, Wheeler-Booth MAJ, et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Union with Scotland Act 1706
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Union with Scotland Act 1706. (See end of Document for details) Union with Scotland Act 1706 1706 CHAPTER 11 6 Ann X1 An Act for an Union of the Two Kingdoms of England and Scotland Most gracious Sovereign Recital of Articles of Union, dated 22d July, 5 Ann.; and of an Act of Parliament passed in Scotland, 16th January, 5 Ann. Whereas Articles of Union were agreed on the Twenty Second day of July in the Fifth year of Your Majesties reign by the Commissioners nominated on behalf of the Kingdom of England under Your Majesties Great Seal of England bearing date at Westminster the Tenth day of April then last past in pursuance of an Act of Parliament made in England in the Third year of Your Majesties reign and the Commissioners nominated on the behalf of the Kingdom of Scotland under Your Majesties Great Seal of Scotland bearing date the Twenty Seventh day of February in the Fourth year of Your Majesties Reign in pursuance of the Fourth Act of the Third Session of the present Parliament of Scotland to treat of and concerning an Union of the said Kingdoms And Whereas an Act hath passed in the Parliament of Scotland at Edinburgh the Sixteenth day of January in the Fifth year of Your Majesties reign wherein ’tis mentioned that the Estates of Parliament considering the said Articles of Union of the two Kingdoms had agreed to and approved of the said Articles of Union with some Additions and Explanations And that Your Majesty with Advice and Consent of the Estates
    [Show full text]
  • Steven CA Pincus James A. Robinson Working Pape
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES WHAT REALLY HAPPENED DURING THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION? Steven C.A. Pincus James A. Robinson Working Paper 17206 http://www.nber.org/papers/w17206 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 July 2011 This paper was written for Douglass North’s 90th Birthday celebration. We would like to thank Doug, Daron Acemoglu, Stanley Engerman, Joel Mokyr and Barry Weingast for their comments and suggestions. We are grateful to Dan Bogart, Julian Hoppit and David Stasavage for providing us with their data and to María Angélica Bautista and Leslie Thiebert for their superb research assistance. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2011 by Steven C.A. Pincus and James A. Robinson. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. What Really Happened During the Glorious Revolution? Steven C.A. Pincus and James A. Robinson NBER Working Paper No. 17206 July 2011 JEL No. D78,N13,N43 ABSTRACT The English Glorious Revolution of 1688-89 is one of the most famous instances of ‘institutional’ change in world history which has fascinated scholars because of the role it may have played in creating an environment conducive to making England the first industrial nation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Movement for the Reformation of Manners, 1688-1715
    THE MOVEMENT FOR THE REFORMATION OF MANNERS, 1688-1715 ANDREW GORDON CRAIG 1980 (reset and digitally formatted 2015) PREFACE TO THE 2015 VERSION This study was completed in the pre-digital era and since then has been relatively inaccessible to researchers. To help rectify that, the 1980 typescript submitted for the degree of PhD from Edinburgh University has been reset and formatted in Microsoft “Word” and Arial 12pt as an easily readable font and then converted to a read-only PDF file for circulation. It is now more compact than the original typescript version and fully searchable. Some minor typographical errors have been corrected but no material published post-1980 has been added except in the postscript (see below). Pagination in the present version does not correspond to the original because of computerised resetting of the text. Footnotes in this version are consecutive throughout, rather than chapter by chapter as required in the 1980 version. The original bound copy is lodged in Edinburgh University Library. A PDF scan of it is available at https://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk /bitstream/handle/1842/6840/254333.pdf A further hand-corrected copy is available together with my research archive in the Special Collections Department at St Andrews University Library. http://www.st- andrews.ac.uk/library/specialcollections/ A note for researchers interested in the movement for the reformation of manners 1688-1715 and afterwards has been added as a postscript which lists other studies which have utilised this work and its sources in various ways. I am grateful to the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scotland for its generous scholarship support while a research student at Edinburgh University undertaking this study in the 1970s and to the following for their encouragement, guidance and support during the creation and completion of this research.
    [Show full text]