Abstract This article offers an extended review of the nine‐volume history of the house of commons between 1640 and 1660. It praises the exhaustive research underlying this authoritative account of the members of the parliaments that fought and won the war against Charles I, established a republic, and operated in the different circumstances of the Cromwellian Protectorate, with a revised electorate and representatives from Scotland and Ireland, as well as England and Wales. The biographies of MPs and the surveys of constituencies and elections have much of value for scholars of cultural and social history, as well as those interested in political and administrative history. The introductory survey and the comprehensive treatment of parliamentary committees are a vital contribution to our understanding of British state formation under the pressure of civil war, while the volumes offer a convincing challenge to current historiographical assumptions, notably on the nature of divisions in the Long Parliament. While concepts of faction, ‘interest’, and ‘conservative’ could have been addressed with more nuance, the clear judgement overall is that the volumes represent a stupendous achievement. They are thoroughly researched and engagingly written, an indispensable resource for everyone interested in the dramatic upheavals of mid‐seventeenth‐century Britain.
Abstract The All‐Party Parliamentary Action Group was formed immediately after the outbreak of war in September 1939 by a cross‐party group of backbench and independent MPs. It met regularly thereafter and later played a role in the events of May 1940 that led to the resignation of Neville Chamberlain. Previous accounts have only been aware of the copies of its founding circular and minutes of its first meeting that were sent to Lloyd George and are in his archive. However, further records exist in the papers of the group's original convenor, Eleanor Rathbone MP, including lists of members, the minutes of all the meetings up to 21 November 1939, and a signed attendance sheet for 6 February 1940. This note uses these papers to examine the activities of the group in its first three months and to publish a list of the MPs who attended its meetings.
Abstract Norman Gash (1912–2009) was part of a remarkable generation of British political historians who were defined by their military service during the Second World War. However, until the last decade of his life, Gash was extremely reticent about describing his wartime experiences in public or in making any special claims to distinction in respect of them. This article reviews the surviving evidence, drawing upon a number of sources which were previously unavailable to historians. It considers Gash's service as a private in the regular army, his work in wartime intelligence, including the interrogation of prisoners, and the investigation into Adolf Hitler's death. It also discusses Gash's role in the British Academy's deliberations over Anthony Blunt, following revelations of his espionage activities in 1979. Throughout, the article connects Gash's wartime formation and experiences with his later activities as an academic and political historian.
Abstract This article focuses on a small cadre of elite gamblers who indulged in ‘deep play’ and went on to lose significant and, in two cases, enormous sums. What linked them is that they all sought to retrieve their fortunes by resorting to the legislative process, in the first instance by means of the King's Sedgemoor Enclosure Bill. In 1775, Henry Thomas Fox‐Strangways (Lord Stavordale), the Hon. Stephen Fox (later 2nd Baron Holland), and the 2nd Viscount Bolingbroke together promoted the King's Sedgemoor Enclosure Bill, but resorted to shady legislative tactics, hoping by those means to regain a financial position worthy of their ranks. The result was that their measure was thrown out by an indignant house of commons. The second case study considered in this article focuses on an unsuccessful effort to invalidate a will. In 1778, the heavily indebted 2nd Lord Foley and his younger brother Edward introduced an estate bill to overturn their late father's will and restore their fortunes. Unfortunately for them, several judges determined that their bill contradicted long‐established legal standards and practice. In both instances, the gamblers’ dissipation and questionable legislative conduct aroused a certain amount of controversy.
