Search

The nature of these newspaper reports – that is, the character of their principal content – has never been studied, despite its obvious importance and, as we shall see, its marked differences from our Hansard. This article relates their nature to a vital feature of parliamentary leadership, the ability to lead the argument in debate. The practical reasoning in parliamentary deliberation and justification, especially what speakers contributed towards the outcome or 'the sense of the debate', predominated in these reports. This implied a need for reporters to concentrate on the 'substance' of speeches and their bearing on the motion. One result was that speeches which were judged to define or develop arguments pro and con were treated at length, the defining speeches most extensively and others in proportion to what they added. Conversely, speeches which reiterated known positions or which were irrelevant to the arguments in hand were omitted or downplayed, even if they were important in some other way, while whole debates which added little to ongoing discussion could be treated quite briefly. But if being a front bencher did not guarantee coverage, being a back bencher was no bar: the criterion was the importance of a speaker's contribution, while the manner of coverage accented what was contributed. The reporters' concerns emphasized debates that promised significant change in matters of national importance, but gave relatively little attention to recurrent or localised business as such. Their writing – they were known as debate writers or news‐writers – was interpretation answering to evaluative and selective criteria rather than a record in a simple sense. Their work is not to be understood in the same terms as a modern Hansard, and in particular not as a defective Hansard, but rather is such that it requires further work on a wide range of new research questions if it is to be understood to best effect, a requirement which suggests a need to study it critically before using it as source material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hints about the rise, fall, and reformulations of ministries were common currency in 18th‐century British political rhetoric. However, in 1778, chief among such rumours were three purported negotiations between the earls of Bute and Chatham, aimed at bringing one or both of them into administration. So damaging were these rumours to the political legacies of both individuals and their families, however, that they resorted to a 'press war' in order to absolve their respective kinsmen of any involvement. Drawing on previously neglected sources, this work examines these negotiations of 1778 and the subsequent press war in order to highlight the longevity, potency, and significance of the myth of Lord Bute's secret influence 15 years after his resignation from high office. In doing so, this work seeks to correct the common narrative that Lord Bute ceased to be a potent political symbol for constitutional issues following the publication of Edmund Burke's Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents in 1770. Far from being merely an anomalous and spontaneous revival of ill‐sentiments towards Lord Bute, this episode should be seen as a flashpoint in a process of vilification and traducement of the Scottish earl that had never, in fact, ceased and was symptomatic of the continuation of symbolic, or hieroglyphic, depictions of arguments concerning the significant constitutional issues which had been raised by Bute's political presence since the accession of George III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As one of the most memorable campaigners for the New Interest whigs in the Oxfordshire election of 1754, Lady Susan Keck inevitably became the subject of press ridicule and criticism. Undaunted and irrepressible, she not only continued to campaign, but also turned the criticism back on the Old Interest, effectively neutralising it. This detailed examination of Lady Susan's electioneering illustrates the possibilities for electoral involvement at mid-century that were available to a woman of rank and spirit who was determined to make a difference. Propelled into action by sheer frustration with the poor planning and lacklustre campaigning that had marked the New Interest campaign in the 1751 election, Lady Susan put her, not inconsiderable, energy into securing a victory for the New Interest. Driven by ideology rather than by family interests, she used her age, rank, sex and connections, to political advantage. Confident and characterful, she was ideally suited to the rumbustious, personal politics of the age. Most importantly, her canvassing achieved results and the eventual New Interest victory owed, at least in part, to her efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]