Talk:Leader of the House of Lords
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Ripon
Hmm Dbiv says that Haldane was leader in the first Labour government (1924) when most other sources say it was Parmoor. Haldane was Lord Chancellor in that government, which I think is incompatible with being Leader of the Lords (mind you being both a government minister and speaker of the house is incompatible!). Does anyone know for sure?
More widely does anyone have easy access to Hansard - they often had lists of government offices that included leaders (and deputies) in both Houses. Timrollpickering 06:35, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I've always heard Parmoor before. I don't think the Lord Chancellor can be leader of the Lords. john 07:48, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- I don't think there was any legislation preventing it. The LC is only Speaker of the House for reasons of good order and process - he doesn't have the same powers, or the same responsibilities, as the Speaker of the Commons. He does speak as a member of the Government from time to time on legal affairs, so could certainly introduce and lead government business - he just couldn't do it from the Woolsack (and, presumably, someone else would have to sit on the Woolsack for the relevant debates). Parmoor was Lord President and Haldane Lord Chancellor, but neither position is definitely and totally tied to Leadership or Speakership of the Lords.
-
- I knew there was a problem with Parmoor, because he spent most of the duration of the Labour government as Britain's representative to the League of Nations, but I've not come across any mention of who lead government business in the House in his absence before now. Given the scarcity of Labour peers, it seems very plausible that it was Haldane. I'd be interested in pointers to a source, though.--Gregg 06:29, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- But are we sure of Halifax in 1940-41? He became ambassador to the US at the end of 1940. john 07:49, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-
- To be honest I'm not sure there - but he's listed as leader of the Conservative party in the Lords for that period so is my best guess. Churchill's War Cabinet contained few peers throughout its life and had some points none at all or else an infrequent attender (Beaverbrook). I think this one can only be found through Hansard or specialised lists. Timrollpickering 20:42, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
So how certain are the current people listed for 1931-1941? I notice you said "best guesses"...I was thinking that Snowden was probably leader from 1931-1932, for instance - he was a more prominent figure than Hailsham, wasn't he? john 21:16, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Snowden may have been more prominent but he was a) a recent arrival in the Lords; b) from a very small party in the government; c) at odds with the government on one of the key issues (tariff reform); and d) personally hated by MacDonald. Hailsham was more prominent in the Lords (he had been Lord Chancellor in the previous Conservative government) and had a stronger claim - in this period it was not unusual for the leadership to be combined with a ministerial post. For much of the decade the National Government is considered to have effectively become the Conservative Party writ large and normally in the post 1922 lists the Lords leader is literally whoever held the post of leader of the Lords (or Shadow). I reckon it's the most likely at the moment short of locating a list that actually includes this stuff (and irritatingly the uni libraries are all closed for Easter). Timrollpickering 23:04, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Okay, makes sense. And the main title is just Parmoor, not Parmoor of Frieth - there've been no other Barons Parmoor, so no need to use the location. john 06:46, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Ah - I wondered why only some peers have the geographical extension listed. --Gregg 06:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It can get confusing. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage, where this has come up recently. john 07:52, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've added to the history of the role from what I know, but there are significant gaps it probably needs to be refined.
Is Carteret definite for 1742-3? I've got a reference to Spencer Compton being PM under the title First Lord Commissioner of the Treasury and Leader of the House of Lords, from 16th February 1742 to 2nd July 1743. --Gregg 08:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I've edited your additions somewhat. For instance, Granville was not really leader of the Liberals - Palmerston was (sort of) a liberal too. Aberdeen and Russell's relationship is more as you describe. Also, peers are known by their title, not by their surname, so Sunderland instead of Spencer. And I was wondering about the discussion of the role of the Leader of the House in giving advice. Are you sure that's not the Lord Chancellor?
- Yes. To quote the Parliamentary info, "The Leader of the House occupies a special position in the House of Lords: as well as leading the party in government he has a responsibility to the House as a whole. It is to him, and not the Lord Chancellor, that members have turned for advice and leadership on points of order and procedure." -- Gregg 08:57, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
As to the question...the Earl of Wilmington was officially head of the ministry, but as far as I am aware he was a complete cipher. Carteret was by far the dominant figure in the ministry from 1742 to 1744. Given that the Lords leadership position was probably not particularly clearly defined at that point, anyway, I think it's fair to say that Carteret was the leader in the Lords (in the same way that Hawkesbury/Liverpool was Leader of the Lords under Portland in 1807-1809). john 08:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Re Palmerstone and Granville vs. Aberdeen and Russell. My main point was that, with Palmerston and Granville, there was both a Prime Minister and a seperate Leader of the House in the same House at that point (suggesting that Leader of the Lords was already a commonly recognised role in its own right by that point); but I've just noticed that, as an Irish peer, Palmerston wasn't in the Lords, and I've got the wrong end of the stick. So it may be best to remove that ref altogether. -- Gregg 09:22, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, Palmerston was an MP throughout his career. An example of what you're talking about is 1807-1809, when Hawkesbury/Liverpool was leader in the Lords, even though Portland was PM. I think that pretty much every other peer PM from the 19th century led the Lords himself, though. john 15:50, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Bute
Was Bute even in the Lords during my premiership? I recalling that he wasn't, being a Scottish peer (though had been a representative peer in an earlier parliament). Timrollpickering 12:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
He held the title of Baron Mount Stuart in the Peerage of Great Britain from 1761, I believe. john k 18:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- According to his entry in the Dictionary of National Biography it was his wife who had that title, but Bute was elected a representative peer in 1761 (and had previously been one from 1737 until 1741). This was, however, a month after he was appointed Secretary of State for the Northern Department. Timrollpickering 20:48, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ripon
According to this, Crewe becomes Leader at the inception of the Asquith ministry. But Ripon remained in the ministry for several more months in 1908. I would've thought he'd stayed on until his retirement. Anyone know? john k 20:17, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- British Political Facts states Crewe was leader from the outset. Ripon may have been in poor health and the change in PM used as the opportunity for a switch - particularly if the government was in regular conflict with the Lords. Timrollpickering 20:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Earlier period
It's been a long time, and we still have embarrassing gaps in our list for the earlier period...for 1730-1742, Newcastle seems the most likely option, as being the more important of the two Secretaries of State. For 1763-1765 we have two peer secretaries of state - Halifax and Sandwich - plus Bedford as Lord President. Bedford seems the most likely here. 1770-1782 is a bit of a doozy - there's a ton of possibilities. Gower (the Lord President), seems the most likely choice. Of the various Lords Privy Seal, Halifax was senile, Suffolk inexperienced, Grafton not in cabinet, and Dartmouth's position in cabinet was, according to ODNB "largely nominal". Of the Secretaries of State, Rochford and Stormont weren't really politicians, Suffolk was a relatively minor figure, Weymouth was lazy and Hillsborough mostly a cipher. But I've seen no particular confirmation of this. For 1801-1803 I'd have to guess that it was either Portland or Portland and then Pelham, but, again, no particular confirmation.
I was also wondering about some of the ones we do have listed. I wonder particularly about Sydney from 1783-1789. Do we have any clear sources on this? john k 02:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
