bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
The Political Demography of Cambridge 1832-1868
Authors: Mitchell Jeremy C. , Cornford James 
Published: November 2007

This paper is the first fruit of a study of electoral politics in the Borough of Cambridge between the first and second Reform Bills, in which we are attempting to explore in detail some of the most important general questions about the political history of mid-Victorian Britain.The critical importance of the period between 1832 and 1868 to the transition from aristocratic rule to parliamentary democracy in Britain is not in doubt. In the terms of the most useful comparative study (Lipset and Rokkan 1967) 1832 represented an early, genuine but limited concession by the old elite to bourgeois and working class claims to political influence, a remarkably Whig view. The major works on the politics of the period (esp. Gash 1933 and Hanham 1959) have emphasised the limited nature of the concession while other have thrown doubt on the notion of concession, at all, pointing out the conservative intentions behind the First Reform Bill (Moore 1966, 1976) and the contingent pressures on the actual provisions of the Second (Cowling 1967). Control of Parliament remained largely where it had been before; the decline of aristocratic government was long drawn out; adaptation of the political system followed slowly in the wake of economic and social change. Middle class reform and militant labour were gradually accommodated in the parliamentary system, enlisted in the ranks of the aristocratic parties, which though transformed, even now, moderate, loyal, constitutionalist, bear the marks of their origin. Part of the explanation for the success of gradualism must be sought in the weakness of the labor movement and its failure at the revolutionary moment, which has been illuminated in detail by Foster's studies of industrial towns (1967, 1968, 1974).
A Contemporary Chinese View of British History
Authors: Clifford Nicholas R. 
Published: November 2007

Few of us really know much about the way in which we are perceived by the rest of the world—we as Americans, we as scholars, we (in this case) as historians of Great Britain. Indeed, to many this last question probably appears irrelevant; insofar as we function as historians, we are members of an international community of scholarship, whose compass transcends national boundaries, and conscious as we may be of our cultural and temporal biases, we seek as far as possible in our work to throw them off, and as scholars we welcome any contributions by our fellows throughout the world if what they say adds to the store of knowledge.So the studies, the monographs, the interpretive works pour out, year after year; certainly few specialists of the Stuart period could hope to master the vast mass of material which exists. Why then be concerned with what a group of professors and dockworkers in a provincial Chinese town has to say about British history? With one or two exceptions, their sources are a half-century or more old; have they read Hill, Stone, Trevor-Roper, Hexter? There is no evidence of it. Are they aware of the work which is being done in local history, in demographic history, in the studies of the composition of Parliament? Do they know anything of what court and country parties stood for? Do they appreciate at all the impact of Puritanism (which after all was perhaps not too far from Maoism in its techniques of mobilization and organization)?
George Berkeley and the Jacobite Heresy: Some Comments on Irish Augustan Politics
Authors: Conroy Graham P. 
Published: November 2007

“In 1727 Swift met Bolingbroke, Pope, and Arbuthnot for the last time; that autumn he went back to Ireland for good, and the Augustan circle was dispersed. The next summer Pope took a riding tour on an elderly pony that rolled Lord Cobham's lawns at Stowe; only on his journey did he discover that this veteran had been brave Derwentwater's charger in the '15.”So says Keith Grahame Feiling with great wistfulness of the passing of the turbulent times surrounding the abortive Second Stuart Restoration and its impact on English and Irish social and political life in the opening page of his The Second Tory Party, 1714-1832.Prior to this time the Irish philosopher and patriot George Berkeley, author of the celebrated Treatise on the Principles of Human Nature and the ingenious Querist was a member of that same circle and after the breaking of the circle charges of Jacobitism that had been levelled at the members of this brilliant and select group trotted behind his footsteps as he moved through the remaining decades of his life. The following pages are an attempt to explain Berkeley's connections with the Augustan Circle and to mitigate the criticisms brought against him by those opposed to the views of some of that group.
The Transvaal, the Orange River Colony, and the South African Loan and War Contribution Act of 1903
Authors: Kesner Richard M. 
Published: November 2007

Few crises in the British Empire demonstrated its vulnerability as did the Boer War. In addition to showing itself woefully ill prepared for military conflict, the British government strained its financial resources to the utmost during the South African struggles. Its war debt amounted to nearly one hundred and sixty million pounds and this figure did not include the effects of the dislocation of trade and long-term debt charges, and telegraph cable subsidies. From the Treasury's point of view, the War exerted extreme pressure on the fragile financial framework of taxation. Treasury officials therefore called for retrenchment and economy. But the South African conflict also demonstrated significant weaknesses in Britain's military preparedness. Many in the Cabinet, and in the country as well, called for army and admiralty reorganization and further naval construction. This in turn meant increased government expenditure which gave rise to acrimonious Cabinet debates and ultimately the Chancellor of the Exchequer Michael Hicks Beach's resignation.The struggle between those concerned with the financial stability of the British government and those preoccupied with its political and strategic position in an increasingly hostile world provided the backdrop for the evolution of the South African Loan and War Contribution Act of 1903 (3 Ed. VII, c. 27). The Peace of Vereeniging, May 31, 1902, had solemnized Britain's annexation of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony in the Previous year. With the war over and the Boer Republics now crown colonies, post-war rehabilitation was the order of the day. The South African Loan Act sought to facilitate the renewal of commercial, mining and agrarian enterprises in the new British possessions. Though divided on other party policies, the Salisbury and Balfour governments of 1902-3 agreed on the importance of reconstruction, but for different reasons.
The Artist as a Force for Change in W. B. Yeats
Authors: Lenoski Daniel S. 
Published: November 2007

W. B. Yeats has often been accused of espousing the ideal of l'art pour l'art. For example in 1898 in an essay entitled “What Should be the Subjects of a National Drama” John Eglinton expressed fears that Yeats' interest in developing ideals of literary experience in Ireland would be corrupted by his association with the aesthetic movement. A.E., though he had defended Yeats earlier, soon found himself in agreement with Eglinton. Yeats, of course, publicly renounced any intimate intercourse with the principle of art for art's sake. On the other hand, he agreed with aesthetes such as Hallam, Wilde, and Pater when they cautioned the artist against contamination by the mores and concerns of society. He also knew that the artist's ideal of beauty affected his life in a very profound way and was therefore capable of having a similar effect upon the lives of other human be-beings. I should like, in this paper, to look at Yeats' ideas about the relationship between the artist and other human beings.To Yeats the artist and his art bore a crucial relationship to society. Certainly, Yeats did feel that society was a corrupting influence. It was certainly necessary for the artist to be in society but not of it, and to fly by the nets of family, race, and religion. Nevertheless, Yeats felt that such a separation was not ideal, neither was it the fault of the true artist. Ideally, the artist and his society should share a unity of culture and a unity of being. Even during the early years of his career, he thought that art should arise spontaneously out of society as the expression of soul, just has it had in the Renaissance, in the fifth century B.C., in the Byzantine civilization, and around the turf fires in the west of Ireland.
The Mid-Victorians and the Two-Party System
Authors: McGowen Randall E. , Arnstein Walter L. 
Published: November 2007

Twentieth-century historians of the development of British political institutions have been persuaded by the late Sir Lewis Namier that the eighteenth century cannot fruitfully be analyzed in terms of party politics. “In 1761,” Sir Lewis observed, “not one parliamentary election was determined by party, and in 1951 not one constituency returned a non-party member.” J. H. Plumb has admittedly discerned a temporary “rage of party” during the reign of Queen Anne, and Donald Ginter has noted significant anticipations of modern party rivalry during the 1780s and 1790s while the late Richard Pares found “a tendency to a two party system” present during the immediate post-Napoleonic War years. Yet the modern political party system is generally seen as a direct if unwitting consequence of the Reform Act of 1832. In J.B. Conacher's words:
First of all a political party should exist with the purpose of becoming the basis of government; secondly it should be composed of members sharing common principles and traditions; thirdly it should possess some definite form of organization inside and outside Parliament. For lack of one or more of these essential requirements the modern political party could not come into existence until after the Reform act of 1832.
Models of Government and Anglo-Irish Relations
Authors: Ward Alan J. 
Published: November 2007

In 1922 the Irish Free State began life with a constitution which embodied two contradictory principles. The first recognized that all powers of government derive from the people and provided for a system of government in which the Irish Cabinet was clearly responsible to the popularly elected Irish lower house, Dail Eireann. The second recognized a monarch, King George V, as head of the Irish executive, with substantial prerogative powers derived not from the Irish people but from British common law. The constitution was a compromise between Britain and Irish republicans to end the Irish War of Independence. Though not every compromise in politics makes complete sense, for Britain this one represented more than a short-range expedient. Its contradictions represented the dying gasp in a long, often anguished, and ultimately futile attempt by Britain to devise a formula which would simultaneously permit the Irish a measure of self-government and protect vital British interests in Ireland.This essay will review the attempts to construct a satisfactory Anglo-Irish relationship in the years between 1782 and 1949. It will concentrate on four models of government proposed for Ireland: (a) the independent Irish Parliament of the period from 1782 to 1800, (b) O'Connell's proposals to repeal the union with Britain in the 1830s and 1840s, (c) the devolution proposed in the home rule bills of 1886, 1893, 1912, and the Government of Ireland Act of 1920, and (d) the independence provided in the Irish Free State constitution of 1922 and its successor, the Irish constitution of 1937. It will also place these models in the context of the constitutional evolution of the British Empire. In the Canadian, New Zealand, Australian, and South African colonies, colonial self-government and British imperial interests were reconciled, beginning in Nova Scotia in 1848, by using a kind of constitutional double-think involving the Crown and the colonial Governor. But the problem of the troubled Anglo-Irish relationship could not be resolved so easily.
The Reception of Peter Kropotkin in Britain, 1886–1917
Authors: Shpayer-Makov Haia 
Published: November 2007

The period between the early 1880s and the First World War marked the heyday of the British anarchist movement. Anarchism was then a popular topic of discussion. Various newspapers and periodicals expressed interest in the whereabouts and activities of anarchist supporters. Dictionaries and encyclopedias provided detailed information about the anarchist movement. Novels and short stories focused on anarchist figures, while the subject of anarchism arose in parliamentary debates and public speeches.This extensive interest was not, however, beneficial to the movement. Discussions of anarchism usually took place in a hostile context and references to it were abusive. The movement was described as “a malignant fungoid growth … on the body politic,” and its members as “the very dregs of the population, the riff-raff of rascaldom, professional thieves [and] bullies.” Their humanist motivation was either ignored or denied. Violence appeared to be the characteristic mark of both the theory and practice of anarchism. The anarchist golden age “is to be ushered in … by bomb explosions and dynamic outrages … by inflammatory harangues and attempts at ‘expropriation,’ “ claimed the author of the entry “Anarchists and Anarchy” in the 1894 edition of Hazell's Annual. Anarchism was repeatedly defined as “another name for organised crime,” and its promoters were portrayed as “a pack of bloodthirsty and ferocious criminals who prey upon their fellows for their own gain.” Other references lumped all anarchists together as terrorists and denied that they had any program “but murder.” The style varied from rational analysis to emotional outbursts, but the message was the same: anarchism was society's worst enemy and anarchists the “most noxious beasts that have ever threatened civilised society.”
Was Laing Right?
Authors: Porter Bernard 
Published: November 2007

I found Professors Wohl's and Schmiechen's replies informative and stimulating. Unfortunately I do not think they would upset the dreadful Laing. Before I go on to explain why, however, I should correct two misunderstandings.Firstly: I offered “Laing's theorem” as a hypothesis, not necessarily as my view. Nowhere in my original article did I indicate my “acceptance” of it (Wohl). It is simply an idea to be tested, as a possible explanation for what I do regard as high Victorian Britain's artistic poverty, of which more in a moment. Secondly: I do not regard myself as a “basher” of Victorianism, of the kind that used to be common a few years ago. That is Professor Schmiechen's charge. As I understand and indeed remember it, the old bashers deplored Victorian taste. I on the contrary have a consuming passion for it. In particular, I have a high regard for Victorian architecture, which is one of the two areas I specifically exempted (though Professor Wohl has missed this) from my strictures against the quality of the high Victorians' cultural achievement. For what it is worth — and it is not worth much, being only my own personal opinion, but I feel I need to establish my credentials here — I would place All Saint's, Margaret Street, London, by Butterfield, high on my list of the most inspiring buildings anywhere in the world, and St. Mary's Church, Studley Royal, Yorkshire, by Burges, among the half-dozen most beautiful. There is dedication for you. This may lower one or two philo-Victorians' hackles. I hope so.
Exercise of the King's Will in Inheritance of Baronies: The Example of King John and William Briwerre
Authors: Turner Ralph V. 
Published: November 2007

By the late twelfth century, the principle that hereditary succession guaranteed title had triumphed in English feudal land law, and this threatened lords' rights to choose their tenants freely. Henry II's assizes were providing mesne tenants with security of tenure. They separated title to a tenement from lordly acceptance of the tenant when the the tenant was a direct descendant of the previous landholder. An undoubted male heir could take possession at once, not waiting for his lord to put him into possession, denying the lord his right to take the land into his hand and hold it until relief was paid.The new actions available to mesne tenants did not apply to direct tenants of the Crown, however. The Angevin monarchs resisted following rules that their courts were enforcing against other feudal lords in their treatment of their own tenants-in-chief. The king held to the old view that an heir does not succeed to his ancestor's property automatically, but only has a customary claim to be accepted as tenant. As Glanvill noted, the king claimed primer seizin, his right to take possession of a barony and to place the heir in possession only once the heir had done homage to him and made arrangements to pay relief.
The Tractarian Moment: The Incidental Origins of the Oxford Movement
Authors: Altholz Josef L. 
Published: November 2007

Just what were John Henry Newman, Hurrell Froude, and John Keble up to in those hectic months of the summer and autumn of 1833 when the Oxford Movement began? It might seem unnecessary to ask such a question. The standard account portrays the three friends, agreed on common principles, working with substantial continuity (with the addition of E. B. Pusey and the loss of Froude) from 1833 at least to 1841. But the conventional literature has lost sight of the confusion and indecision of the initial moment of 1833.The basis of the standard account, and the reason why it should be distrusted, is that it is based on Newman's own account in the Apologia pro vita sua, the work of a man obsessed by his own major continuities and discontinuities, at once truthful and misleading.
Estate Management and Inflation: The Honor of Gloucester, 1183–1263
Authors: Latimer Paul 
Published: November 2007

Long ago, in an ambitious and valuable study, Sidney Painter sought to trace the progress of incomes from the estates of lay baronies between 1086 and 1350. While Painter suggested that some of the nominal growth in baronial incomes he found represented a real increase, especially before 1250, he was astute enough to realise that at least most of the nominal growth had probably arisen from price increases. Since Painter wrote, opinions about the success or otherwise of estate management in outpacing or at least matching rises in prices during the period of the “long thirteenth century” have differed considerably, from the decidedly optimistic to the somewhat pessimistic.This is certainly an important question. If the fortunes of landlords cannot tell us directly about the fortunes of peasants, they can, in conjunction with a view of the progress of the economy as a whole, throw some light on the relationship between the two groups. Dealing largely with the aggregates of the incomes of entire honours, as Painter did, is a pragmatic and useful approach. However, it does have the disadvantage of conflating two questions: the success or failure of a family or institution in preserving or increasing its estates, and their success or otherwise in preserving or increasing the real profits of individual holdings.
Public Scandal, Political Controversy, and Familial Conflict in the Stuart Courts in Exile: The Struggle to Convert the Duke of Gloucester in 1654
Authors: Greenspan Nicole 
Published: November 2007

In late 1654, the fate of the Stuart restoration to the British and Irish thrones appeared to rest upon the professed religion of the fourteen-year old Henry, Duke of Gloucester, son of Charles I and Henrietta Maria and brother of Charles II. At Henrietta Maria's instigation, and with the aid of the court of France, serious efforts were undertaken to convert the Protestant duke to the Catholic faith. This attempt, which ultimately failed, preoccupied the English exiled courts in Paris and Cologne for its duration between October and December 1654 and caused scandal and division in royalist circles. It also generated international publicity: as one observer concluded, “this is one of the greatest actions now in foot in Christendome: wherein all Protestants of all countryes will thinke themselves concerned.”To date the “Gloucester affair” has received little sustained scholarly attention or critical scrutiny, a neglect likely attributable to the tendency among historians to study successes rather than failures. Perhaps for this reason the Stuart courts and royalists in exile have not generated much systematic treatment in the last half-century. In this case, prince Henry remained Protestant, and it would be more than five years before Charles II reclaimed his thrones. The attempted conversion of the duke of Gloucester, however, affords a valuable opportunity to investigate the formation of political and religious policies, along with the conduct of diplomacy, in the exiled courts and within the royalist communities. Charles II essentially was a king in name only: he had scant economic resources, held his court at the pleasure of the rulers in whose territories he resided, and, after September 1651, no longer had his own army. The struggles to recover the crowns of England, Scotland, and Ireland for the House of Stuart during the 1650s required extensive negotiations for financial and military support from both Catholic and Protestant powers. Charles was forced to balance the demands of Catholic rulers for assurances that Catholics in the three kingdoms would be treated favorably, while simultaneously maintaining and strengthening the support of British and continental Protestants for his restoration.
Two Cultures, One University: The Institutional Origins of the “Two Cultures” Controversy
Authors: Ortolano Guy 
Published: November 2007

[T]he life of a country is determined by its educational ideals—Scrutiny, 1932[I]t is obligatory for us…to look at our education with fresh eyes.—C. P. Snow, 1959In 1959 C. P. Snow turned a phrase that continues to shape our perceptions of intellectual life in the twentieth century. Intellectuals, he observed, were divided into “two cultures,” the arts and the sciences, and between them stood “a gulf of mutual incomprehension.” That gulf constituted a crisis, because while literary intellectuals were said to control the heights of power, only the scientists possessed the knowledge and vision necessary to confront the problems of the modern world. Snow’s argument attracted widespread comment on both sides of the Atlantic, and its continuing purchase is attested to by the Cambridge University Press’s reprint of the lecture in 1993 with an introduction by Stefan Collini.