Search

The article presents a manuscript entitled "An Impartial Account of What Pass'd Most Remarkable in the Last Session of Parliament, Relating to the Case of Dr Henry Sacheverell: Done on Such Another Paper and Letter, and May Therefore be Bound Up With the Tryal of the Said Doctor," which claimed to be published by bookseller Jacob Tonson but was the work of newspaper editor Abel Roper and trade publisher John Morphew. It covers the 1710 impeachment trial of English clergyman Henry Sacheverell.

This article's point of entry is Plate 3 of William Hogarth's print sequence The Harlot's Progress (1732), specifically Hogarth's deliberate, hostile choice of an unframed, titled, small portrait engraving of the Reverend Dr Henry Sacheverell as a 'pin-up' within the harlot's bedroom furniture. The article reappraises and recontextualises Hogarth's choice of Sacheverell, which makes sense in the context of Hogarth's life and work, but which, with Hogarthian irony, is further informed by the subsequent discovery (1747) of Sacheverell's internment alongside a notorious prostitute, given the association of Sacheverell's celebrity and notoriety with his alleged support from London's 'kind shees' and streetwalkers at the time of his trial. This, together with a strong, nascent material consumerist culture, sees Sacheverell anticipating the 'politics out of doors' associated with John Wilkes by 50 years and is a specifically gendered version that has gone largely unexplored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The discovery in the manuscript papers of Charles, Lord Bruce, of three lists enumerating the voters in important divisions in the house of lords in the early 18th century - on the ' Church in Danger' (1705), the Septennial Bill and the Bill to Resume the Forfeited Estates of ' Traitors' after the Jacobite Rebellion (1716) - help to illuminate the state of party allegiances and affiliations in these periods, for which no other division lists are extant. This note provides the voting results from these division lists in tabular form, accompanied by indications of the current state of our knowledge of party affiliations for each of the individuals listed. However, the origin and accuracy of each of these lists are not clear-cut and this note also details the discrepancies and anomalies in each list. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an account of debates in the British Parliament's House of Lords on March 16, 1710 from the papers of English politician Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, on the trial of English clergyman Henry Sacheverell. It was also published in the article "Debates in the House of Lords on 'The Church in Danger', 1705, and on Dr Sacheverell’s Impeachment, 1710," by Clyve Jones. The views of politicians and of Sacheverell on the Glorious Revolution of 1688 are noted.

The article discusses and presents papers in the manuscript collection of British statesman Sir Robert Walpole held by Cambridge University Library in England relating to the 1710 impeachment trial of English High Church clergyman and politician Henry Sacheverell. It comments on a speech Walpole gave which addressed resistance to British King James II and the toleration of protestant dissenters. The examination of Sacheverell’s printer Henry Clements at the trial is also considered.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reviews the literature on the Sacheverell affair as it stood when it was delivered as a paper to the symposium held in March 2010 to commemorate the 300th anniversary of his impeachment. The basic narrative and prevalent interpretation of its significance were established by the late Geoffrey Holmes in his monograph The Trial of Doctor Sacheverell published in 1973. Holmes placed it in the context of a crisis in Church and state brought about by the Glorious Revolution and its aftermath. This led to the formation of the party conflict between high church tories and low church whigs. When the whigs, led by the junto, came to power between 1708 and 1710, their ascendancy provoked a reaction from tories claiming that the established Church was in danger. It was in this context that Sacheverell preached his provocative sermon on 5 November 1709, which brought on his impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanours. Holmes's detailed account of the trial, together with his separate analysis of the 'Sacheverell riots', have been generally accepted as definitive. Consequently, scholarly attention has tended to shift to the cultural aspects of the affair such as poems on affairs of state and political prints. These investigations have led, in turn, to attempts to establish an appropriate methodology for analysing their significance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the political journals of William Hay, British Member of Parliament for the Seaford constituency (1695-1755), and Edward Harley, 3rd Earl of Oxford (1699-1755), member of both the House of Commons and House of Lords. The authors discuss how the two journals represent both a Whig and Tory response to early Georgian politics and place the journals within the context of extant historical sources detailing parliamentary politics during the reigns of Kings George I and George II, including the parliamentary reporting appearing in the British periodicals "The Gentleman's Magazine," "The London Magazine," and "The Historical Record." Descriptions of the papers and journals of Hays and Harley are presented.

The debate in the house of lords on ‘No Peace without Spain’ in December 1711 was the first test of the strength of the administration of Robert Harley, earl of Oxford, in the upper House. Though there are more sources for this debate than is normal for proceedings in the Lords, few can claim to be by eyewitnesses. A newly ‘discovered’ anonymous letter from an eyewitness found in the papers of the lord great chamberlain's office in the Parliamentary Archives gives a detailed account of this important debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]