Search

Abstract: Lobbying is a significant component of the modern politics industry in Britain, but we know relatively little about its historical origins and evolution. This article draws on parliamentary debates and three databases which together account for 51 newspaper titles, in order to explore how lobbying was discussed in parliament and the media between 1800 and 1950, and to gauge the growing professionalisation of lobbying. Perceptions of lobbying became somewhat less negative over the period; there are relatively few reports or allegations of corruption associated with lobbying; and lobbying by the railway industry seems to have been less substantial, while public sector lobbying was more significant, than is commonly supposed. Direct advocacy with policymakers is overwhelmingly the dominant tactic used by lobbyists of the period, with few reports of coalitions or grass‐roots campaigns. Particular concerns were expressed about the influence of lobbying around private bills. While lobbying back‐bench MPs and parliamentary committees (rather than ministers and civil servants) accounted for over 80% of the activity revealed across the whole period, there are signs by the middle of the 20th century that the focus of lobbyists is beginning to turn away from Westminster and towards Whitehall. The article paints a detailed view of the scale, scope, and significance of lobbying as it was developing into a national and systematic industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parliamentary debates concerning the British chartered companies in the 18th century are an important resource which can provide a range of insights into the fate of the companies, the concerns of British economic policy, and the process of political decision making on economic issues. Of all the parliamentary debates concerning chartered companies in the 18th century, those concerning the Levant Company have received the least scholarly attention. This article examines a series of debates involving the Levant Company during the period 1720-53. These debates saw the company increasingly put on the defensive. By the middle of the century, there was, in the words of the duke of Bedford, 'a very great outcry against companies of all kinds'. However, the debates concerning the Levant Company did not turn on competing views regarding political economy. War was an influence on the timing of the debates, but it was the economic impact of the company's deteriorating competitive position on its woollen cloth suppliers from the west country which was crucial. As French competition gained momentum, cloth exports fell and the political pressure on the company intensified. In the face of this, the company was far from defenceless in parliament. It had influential supporters and did not hesitate to pander to fears about the potential domination of its trade by jewish merchants. The company was forced to lower its admission fee in 1753, but survived and continued to operate into the 19th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the atmosphere and behaviour of the house of commons during the 17th century, and endeavours to recover evidence about noise and gesture, decorum and disorder. Such evidence is rarely recorded and is difficult to interpret, but it is, nevertheless, possible to demonstrate that the House was often much less orderly and polite than contemporaries would have liked to admit, and than historians have often suggested. This evidence is largely absent from the official Commons' journals as well as from most private diaries, but it is occasionally recorded in contemporary news reports, and more obviously in the diary of Thomas Burton, and it highlights the numerous occasions on which proceedings fell into silence or descended into noisy uproar, as well as the occasions when interventions were made with gestures rather than words. At times, this aural and visual culture involved humour and harmless fun, but at others, it reveals personal tensions and political animosities that might otherwise not be apparent from recorded speeches. By drawing attention to such evidence and teasing out its meaning, this piece argues that historians have too often succumbed to the tendency to accentuate consensus and downplay conflict in 17th-century parliaments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]