bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
World War I and British Left Wing Intellectuals: The Case of Leonard T. Hobhouse
Authors: Smith Harold 
Published: November 2007

World War I brought about a crisis within the British Liberal Party for it confronted Liberals with issues which they found difficult to resolve on the basis of traditional liberal principles. On numerous occasions, Liberals were placed in situations in which they were forced to choose between liberal principles and illiberal measures which were necessary for the effective prosecution of the war. The dilemma of whether or not to support British involvement in the war was a painful one which many Liberals would have preferred to avoid, and it was followed by other scarcely less painful decisions involving conscription, the extension of state controls over the economy, freedom of expression and personal liberties, the future of free trade, the right to refuse military service on the ground of conscientious objection, and the larger problem of whether to seek military victory or a negotiated peace.The effect of the war on those Radical Liberal intellectuals who comprised an important segment of the left-wing of the Liberal Party was especially profound. Although they were not a highly organized group before 1914, there did exist a number of Radical Liberals who were bound together by their common agreement on the overriding importance of a “pacifistic” foreign policy and additional measures of social reform. This loose coalition of Radical Liberals was shattered by the war, for a large proportion of the group supported the war while others did not. Moreover, the issues generated by the war tended to drive the dissenting Radicals further to the Left, while the conservative assumptions of pro-war Radical Liberals became more prominent. By the end of the war the gulf between the two factions of Radical Liberals had become a deep chasm, and in the post-war years the division became a permanent one; many of those who had been dissenters during the war joined the Labour Party, while pro-war Radical Liberals tended either to remain in the Liberal Party or adopt an independent position.
Theory and Practice in Early Metalliferous Mining in the British Isles: Some Comments on the State of Geological Knowledge in Tudor and Stuart Times
Authors: Scott James 
Published: November 2007

For at least two thousand years the metallic mineral wealth of Britain—its tin, copper, lead, iron, silver and gold—has been diligently, if intermittently, sought by merchant and manufacturer, by statesman and speculator, yet only in the last two centuries have soundly-based conceptions of the origin of metalliferous deposits been clearly postulated and widely accepted. Systematic prospecting, surveying and exploitation of the major deposits has been the work of an even shorter period of time. In the immediately preceding centuries practice and theory alike were curious concoctions of practical commonsense, specious medieval theory and spurious alchemical notions—in the words of an eminent modern authority:A spreading structure supported by fables, a structure top heavy with philosophical reasoning directed towards supporting prior authorities and contemporary religious dogma.During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries important and wide-reaching changes took place in the geographical distribution and the intensity of metalliferous mining in the British Isles. From a predominantly surface operation at the beginning of the Tudor Age, metalliferous mining had become a largely subterranean activity by the end of the Stuart era. This led, in virtually all parts of the two islands, to a modified, if not completely transformed, mining technology. During a century of transition, between approximately 1540 and 1640, much of the art of underground mining was learned by the miners of Cornwall and Devon, the High Peak, Alston Moor and other mining districts, an art which was to come to full flower in the nineteenth century and lead to the exodus of the “Cousin Jacks” to Michigan and Nevada, Broken Hill, Iron Knob and a hundred other mining districts in the Americas, Africa and Australasia, where experienced hard rock miners were in high demand.
An Interjection of the Royal Prerogative Into the Legal and Ecclesiastical Affairs of Cheshire in the Fifteen Seventies
Authors: Pulman Michael B. 
Published: November 2007

It has been remarked that the dissolution of the monasteries amounted to an infinite series of adjustments. This could hardly be more true than it is in the case of what happened to the lands of the dissolved abbey of St. Werburgh in Chester—a city about one hundred and seventy miles northwest of London, situated in a section of the country that was, at least compared with much of the south, uncouth and backward. Here the process of adjustment was so protracted, and in the end productive of so much acrimony, that the intervention of the highest authority in the land—that of the queen herself—was directly necessary for its successful completion, and, even with that intervention, a final concord was scarcely achieved before the 16th century gave way to the seventeenth. In Cheshire, the upheaval caused by the sudden disappearance of the regular Church was long in settling down. Settlement there was, eventually, but it was so slow in coming that one might consider amending the definition of the dissolution mentioned above to read: an infinite series of adjustments, almost infinitely prolonged.What happened in Cheshire can be seen from at least two viewpoints. It can be viewed as providing spectacular evidence as to who benefited the most from Henry VIII's attack upon the ecclesiastical institution; or it can be cited as a case study of just how the central government exercised its control over local affairs during the latter sixteenth century. Here I am concerned with both.
Commentary: The Papers by Professors Seaver and Slavin
Authors: MacCaffrey Wallace T. 
Published: November 2007

The authors of the two preceding papers have both given us multum in parvo—by which I mean that each has dealt with a particular, localized problem and at the same time raised larger and very important questions. Professor Slavin has cast a new light on one of the major mysteries of early Tudor history—the fall of Thomas Cromwell. He adds substantially to G.R. Elton's careful survey of the evidence and takes us another step forward in the elucidation of this momentous episode.Professor Seaver has focussed on a problem which other historians of the Puritan movement have hinted at but not fully explored, in suggesting that the role of the laity in the Reformation has been underestimated—and in the further assumption that they cannot be conveniently ticketed with the labels in common usage to designate the various clerical factions of the religious left. Both he and Professor Slavin have redirected our attention to the fundamental ambiguities of the English Reformation. Too often writers have unconsciously assumed that it was a fairly coherent process, moving in a reasonably orderly progression through the stages of separation from Rome followed by the renunciation of the mass and, then, after 1559, by a division within the Protestant ranks between Puritans and those who are anachronistically referred to as Anglicans. The process was in fact at every stage a very untidy splintering in which, as in Professor Slavin's study, the struggle is not between two well-defined adversaries but rather a tangled melee in which friend and foe were not always clearly identifiable. What I should like to reflect on briefly here is one such ambiguity, which has not always been presented with maximum clarity. I refer to the confused and indeed contradictory character of the church established by law in 1559 and its fumbling response to the initial challenge of Protestant dissent.
The Politics of William Morris's News from Nowhere
Authors: Lloyd Trevor 
Published: November 2007

When one of the characters in William Morris's Utopian romance News from Nowhere says “We are very well off as to politics—because we have none” he was talking about the manipulation and intrigue that everyone hopes will be banished from Utopia. Morris had to carry on his own political work amidst the manoeuvring he hoped would be unnecessary in the future. News from Nowhere is about politics in the sense in which the word is used in the title of Aristotle's Politics; and it teaches the rather Aristotelian message “Men come together in communities to live, they remain in communities to live in fellowship.” But the book had its local and immediate political context: most directly, in 1890 Morris gave up the editorship of the Socialist League magazine Commonweal, which was publishing the story in installments, when twenty out of the thirty-nine installments had appeared. While his retirement was not entirely voluntary there is no reason to think that the remaining installments were altered by the new editors. When Morris published the story as a book the following year he added a certain amount of new material which indicates a somewhat different point of view.What he published in 1890 (the Commonweal version) was considerably closer to the anarchist view of revolution than what is now accepted as News from Nowhere, and what he added for the 1891 version (the book) shows a distinct shift towards an attitude more favourable to the State Socialists, or Fabians, that anything he wrote in Commonweal.
Lord Saye and Sele's Objections to the Palatinate Benevolence of 1622: Some New Evidence and its Significance
Authors: Schwarz Marc L. 
Published: November 2007

Few Englishmen proved more consistent critics in the years before the Civil War than William Fiennes, Baron, later Viscount, Saye and Sele. In religion a Puritan, in politics committed to the defence of aristocratic privilege and parliamentary rights, he was deeply involved in all of the important opposition movements of the period. A major participant in the passage of the Petition of Right, a prominent opponent of ship-money and the Bishops' Wars with Scotland, he was a leading enemy of the court and clergy in the Long Parliament. Nor was Saye's significance limited to his individual activities alone, for both the Earl of Clarendon and Anthony Wood, writing in the seventeenth century, treated him as the acknowledged leader of the party that provoked the Civil War.In assessing Lord Saye's role as on opposition leader, historians have paid little attention to Saye's first and, in many ways, most vigorous confrontation with the royal government in 1622. In that year Saye not only refused to contribute to a benevolence for the assistance of Frederick, the Elector — Palatine, but was also accused of attempting to hinder others from doing so. For these alleged actions and the grounds upon which he chose to defend himself, Saye was imprisoned in Fleet Prison for nearly eight months, from June 6, 1622 to February 4, 1622/3.There are two important documents which will enable us to penetrate the nature of Saye's actions and the government's response to them. The first, hitherto neglected, is a transcript of four appearances which the Baron made before the Council between May 23 and June 6, 1622. The second, a letter from Lord Saye to the Duke of Buckingham, written sometime around February 3, 1622/3, while Saye was still in the Fleet, contains valuable information that has not yet been brought to light concerning this affair.
The Goddess as Excellent Cow: Selling ‘The Education of a Gentleman’ as a Prescription for Success in Late Victorian England
Authors: Brown John 
Published: November 2007

Let me begin, in Evangelical fashion, with the dying words of a mid-Victorian entrepreneur to his son:And I started the six-inch rollers, and it paid me sixty per cent.Sixty per centwithfailures, and more than twice we could do,And a quarter-million to credit, and I saved it all for you!I thought — it doesn't matter — you seemed to favour your ma,But you're nearer forty than thirty, and I know the kind you are.Harrer an' Trinity College! I ought to ha' sent you to sea —But I stood you an education, an' what have you done for me?The things I knew was proper you wouldn't thank me to give,And the things I knew was rotten you said was the way to live.For you muddled with books and pictures, an' china an' etchin's an' fans,And your rooms at college was beastly — more like a whore's than a man's;Till you married that thin-flanked woman, as white and as stale as a bone.An' she gave you your social nonsense; but where's that kid o'your own?I've seen your carriages blocking the half o'the Cromwell Road,But never the doctor's brougham to help the missus unload,(So there isn't even a grandchild, an' the Gloster family's done.)So went the recrimination of Kipling's Sir Anthony Gloster — self-made millionaire Master of Shipping, employer of 10,000 men, possessor of a baronetcy, and one-time luncheon guest of “his Royal ‘Ighness” — an entrepreneur whose fifty year struggles and successes pale as the man and the productivity of the past pass away leaving the son and the sterility of the future.
Oliver St. John and the Middle Group in the Long Parliament, 1643-1645: A Reappraisal
Authors: Palmer William G. 
Published: November 2007

Since the publication of J.H. Hexter's Reign of King Pym in 1941 the idea of a middle group has been a lynchpin of English Civil War historiography. Before Hexter historians believed that with the coming of the Civil War members of Parliament split into two factions, the war party and the peace party. Hexter, however, demolished this crude dualism by demonstrating the existence of a middle party in the early days of the Long Parliament, a group of hybrid of M.P.s who seemingly defied classification. Members such as John Glynn and John Clotworthy supported measures from both the war and peace parties.While the composition of the middle group, especially on the fringes, shifted periodically, it maintained a basic core of members and a discernible ideology. Its outlook was moderate and best expressed in the Grand Remonstance and the Nineteen Propositions. The members identified with this middle group steadfastly upheld the constitution and the monarchy, but believed that specific limitations on the monarch must be implemented to preserve the constitution.Perhaps inspired by the work of Hexter, other historians approached the Civil War era in similar fashion. Hexter believed that the middle group collapsed with Pym's death in 1643; yet Valerie Pearl has argued that it lingered oh through 1644 under the leadership of Oliver St. John. Following Pym's death, Pearl contended, St. John followed the moderate path prescribed by Pym in supporting measures from both the war and peace parties and by supporting the earl of Essex, the consensus choice for military commander.
Family and Royal Favor in Henry I's England
Authors: Newman Charlotte A. 
Published: November 2007

During Henry I's reign the Anglo-Norman nobility as a group was changing, reflecting twelfth-century demographic, military, and cultural changes, but also responding to specifically “English” developments in royal government. Increasingly, the king relied upon a group of men, familiares, most of whom were more dependent upon royal favor than their own patrimony for their position in society. The king's use of patronage in turn affected the composition of the nobility by creating nobles or providing the means for mobility within the class. To what extent, however, did this occur, and could anyone rely on the king and his court to be the major source of mobility and wealth? To find out it is necessary to see who within the nobility benefitted the most from different types of royal favor, and whether Henry I's familiares formed a separate group or network within the nobility, set apart not only by their curial behavior but by their feudal and family connections. It is an aspect of the family behavior which will be examined here and be fit into the larger question in subsequent work.If the familiares received favor desired by others and did not blend into the larger class through lifestyle and alliances then they were an obvious target for anti-royal sentiment. R.W. Southern, in the article which in many ways revived Anglo-Norman historical inquiry, showed how a few familiares did rise to great and obvious wealth through royal favor. Administrative developments affected not only individuals—“new men,” “old men”—but families.
Popular Politics and Provincial Radicalism: Newcastle Upon Tyne, 1769–1785
Authors: Knox Thomas R. 
Published: November 2007

In his lively reassessment of extra-parliamentary politics early in the reign of George III, John Brewer advances a conclusion of potentially great significance. Where Sir Lewis Namier and Ian Christie see in Wilkism little more than a political May dance without important effect, Brewer finds a “focussed radicalism” embodying fundamental change in the nature of traditional English politics. Where George Rudé carefully delimits the geographical, social, and political range of Wilkite influence, Brewer argues that “focussed radicalism” was a truly national phenomenon personified in Wilkes and parent to the popular sensibility that underlay later anti-aristocratic and reform politics.Brewer appears fully as unconventional in his attitude toward what constitutes proper evidence as in the conclusion he builds upon that evidence. Namier and Christie rest their cases on the seemingly solid foundation of election analysis. But Brewer rejects this evidence as inherently unsatisfactory. The “formal, institutional yardstick” of polls, we are told, cannot help measure the influence or extent of radical political opinion. Instead, he concentrates on non-electoral evidence, relying, above all, on the fragile and fleeting indications of support for Wilkes that are to be found in provincial newspapers, petitions, and public gatherings during the years 1768-1771.
The Influence of the Imperial Frontier on British Doctrines of Mechanized Warfare
Authors: Ryan W. Michael 
Published: November 2007

One of the most vexatious questions of twentieth century military history concerns the manifest ascendancy of British theoretical development of mechanized warfare during the inter-war period. Why this should be so in a society which was by no means the most motorized in the contemporary world and which was already displaying a distinct penchant for technological stagnation poses a perplexing riddle. Facile attributions of such hegemony to either the inherent genius of the two progenitors of mechanized warfare, J.F.C. Fuller and B.H. Liddell Hart, or a shallow acceptance of these theories as an obvious ramification of British experience in the First World War would seem to neglect other profound intellectual and military influences. Such a renowned historian as John Keegan has even written that it is “unrewarding” to speculate on the reasons for British preeminence in military thought during the inter-war years. The search for such explanations, however, constitutes the historian's task.Although definitive resolutions to the conundrums posed by the emergence of intellectual trends can never be achieved, this essay will contend that Britain's leadership in the development of doctrines of mechanized warfare can be partially attributed to her heritage of mobile warfare along the frontiers of empire. The neglect of this imperial dimension is one of the factors which has thus far obscured our understanding of the genesis of innovative thought among British military intellectuals during the interwar years. Furthermore, the tendency to interpret Britain's military role almost solely in reference to the looming armored clashes on the European continent during World War Two has seduced some military historians into ignoring the long-term historical antecedents of an emphasis on celerity of movement bred by the imperial tradition of dynamic attack.
Non-Alienation Clauses in Thirteenth-Century English Charters
Authors: Waugh Scott L. 
Published: November 2007

During the thirteenth century, English lords acted to halt the deterioration of their feudal powers brought about by social and legal changes at the end of the twelfth century. Their determination produced a long line of legislation on feudal incidents, mortmain, and subinfeudation that stretched from Magna Carta to the Statute of Quia Emptores in 1290. Yet, until that legislation was finally in place, landlords had to find other methods of maintaining their lordship over free tenures. Professor Donald Sutherland, for example, has shown that lords asserted “a new authority to take into their hands the holdings of their free tenants if the tenants attempted to alienate the holdings in ways that prejudiced the lord's rights.” Lords also used conditional grants to restrict alienation, and beginning in the early thirteenth century, they played an important role in the effort to reassert tenurial lordship. Conditional grants have been studied primarily in the context of the family, which used them to create marriage portions, jointures, and entails. This study of a sampling of cartularies and charters, however, analyzes the different forms of restrictions on alienation in order to demonstrate how lords used the expanding remedies of the royal courts to reinforce their private lordship.The right to consent to a tenant's alienation of his holding had been an essential prop of lordship prior to Henry II's legal reforms. Through his consent, the lord could determine the acceptability of his tenants and ensure the adequate performance of services attached to the holdings. He also protected himself against a serious loss of resources through grants in alms to the Church or through dowries to women marrying out of his lordship. Seizure of the tenement was the sanction that lords used to enforce their rights of consent. If a tenant failed to obtain that consent, he lost his land.
The Strange Death of Liberal England
Authors: Brock Michael 
Published: November 2007

George Dangerfield's book, The Strange Death of Liberal England, would have been an influential, indeed a seminal, piece of historical writing whenever it had appeared: published in 1935 it constituted an immense liberation. In 1935 the writing of modern British political history was dominated for academic people by Lewis Namier, whose two great works—The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III and England in the Age of the American Revolution—had been published in 1928 and 1930. Namier's immense gifts were balanced by a startling defect. He was psychologically incapable of writing historical narrative, that is of dealing on any considerable scale with the development of events. Here, at the very start of the Namierite era, was a young scholar named Dangerfield writing history in the classic manner, writing, that is, as Thucydides and Tacitus had done, with a wide narrative sweep about the fateful and tragic events of yesterday. The result was the book which was so eloquently analysed this afternoon. It has been issued, if I heard this rightly, some nineteen times; and three editions, two American and one British, are in print today, after fifty years.At the end of his life Disraeli, by then Lord Beaconsfield, congratulated Matthew Arnold on having “coined unforgettable phrases.” Mr. Dangerfield may surely be offered the same congratulations. In the week in which I was composing this paper the Spectator of London carried an article under the headline: “The Strange Death of Liberal America”; and I note that a work will be published in London this September entitled “The Strange Rebirth of Liberal England.” Where the phrasing of the title is concerned we may be celebrating tonight, not only a jubilee, but the ghost of a centenary. When Mr. Dangerfield chose his arresting title he echoed, unwittingly as we understand, one devised fifty years earlier; for in 1885 a young British journalist in India named Rudyard Kipling had written a story entitled: “The Strange Ride of Morrowbie Jukes.”