¹ I have received helpful comments and advice on this paper from people too numerous to mention. I am however especially indebted to John Beattie, David Eastwood, Paul Langford, Paul Slack and above all to John Styles, for their sustained interest and encouragement.

² I exclude all discussion of local bills from this paper not because they are irrelevant to my concerns, but simply because, in a short paper, there are limits to what one can take on. In fact, local issues were very often considered in terms of general principles, and ideas generated in the context of local discussions were often subsequently imported into national legislation (and vice versa). Furthermore, the same people were often involved in promoting and refining both sorts of measure. In a fuller discussion, the relation between local and national measures would certainly merit attention I cannot give it here.

³ , S. and Webb, B., The History of Liquor Licensing in England (London, 1903)Google Scholar, The Story of the King's Highway (London, 1913)Google Scholar, English Prisons under Local Government (London, 1922)Google Scholar, English Poor Law History. Part I. The Old Poor Law (London, 1927)Google Scholar.

⁴ Webbs, , Old Poor Law, 149Google Scholar.

⁵ See e.g. Webbs, , English Prisons, 25–30Google Scholar; Old Poor Law, 99–100, 149–50.

⁶ Webbs, , English Prisons, 29Google Scholar.

⁷ For the phrase ‘amateur legislators’, see King's Highway, 75. The issue is not very systematically explored in the Webbs' writings, but see also English Prisons, 27–9, 41, 73–5; Old Poor Law, 425–7.

⁸ Lambert, S., Bills and Acts (Cambridge, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century (145 vols., Wilmington, Dela, 1975–1976)Google Scholar. Williams, O. C., The Clerical Organization of the House of Commons 1661–1850 (Oxford, 1954)Google Scholar is a useful older study; see also Thomas, P. D. G., The House of Commons in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar, Rydz, D., The Parliamentary Agents (London, 1979)Google Scholar, and Julian, M. R., ‘English Economic Legislation 1660–1714’ (unpubl. M.Phil, thesis, L.S.E., 1979), chs. 1–2Google Scholar. Lieberman, D., The Province of Legislation Determined (Cambridge, 1989), 13–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar provides a useful over-view of a shifting historiography.

⁹ Studies particularly relevant to this paper include Thompson, E. P., Whigs and Hunters. The Origins of the Black Act (London, 1975)Google Scholar; Styles, J., ‘Embezzlement, Industry and the Law in England 1500–1800’, in Berg, M., Hudson, P. and Sonenscher, M., ed. Manufacture in Town and Country before the Factory (Cambridge, 1983)Google Scholar; Munsche, P. B., Gentlemen and Poachers. The English Game Laws 1671–1831 (Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar; J. M. Beattie, ‘London Crime and the Making of the English Criminal Law, 1689–1718’ in L. Davison et al. ed. Reform and Regulation. The Debate over Social and Economic Problems in England 1689–1750 (forthcoming); Clark, P., ‘The Mother Gin Controversy in the Early Eighteenth Century,’ supra 5th series, xxxviii (1988), 63–84Google Scholar; Beckett, J. V., ‘A Back-Bench MP in the Eighteenth Century: Sir James Lowther of Whitehaven’, Parliamentary History, i (1983), 79–97Google Scholar; Hayton, D., ‘Sir Richard Cocks: the Political Anatomy of a Country Whig’, Albion, xx (1988), 221–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘Moral Reform and Country Politics in the Late Seventeenth Century House of Commons’, Past and Present (forthcoming, 1990). Two studies which shed more general light on the behaviour of MPs as legislators are Moore, T. K. and Horwitz, H., ‘Who Runs the House? Aspects of Parliamentary Organization in the late Seventeenth Century’, Journal of Modern History, xliii (1971), 205–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Langford, P., ‘Property and “Virtual Representation” in Eighteenth-Century England’, Historical Journal, xxxi (1988), 83–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰ The high court/circuit judges figure remarkably little in the Webbs', study of The Parish and the County (London, 1906)Google Scholar. Among modern studies, Cockburn, J., A History of English Assizes 1558–1714 (Cambridge, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, is primarily concerned with the pre-Revolutionary period, as is Fletcher, A., Reform in the Provinces. The Government of Stuart England (New Haven, 1986)Google Scholar. No general study of their role in 18th cent, government exists, but see Brooks, C., ‘Interpersonal Conflict and Social Tension: Civil Litigation in England 1640–1830’, in The First Modern Society, Beier, A. L., Cannadine, D. and Rosenheim, J., ed. (Cambridge, 1989)Google Scholar; Beattie, J. M., Crime and the Courts in England 1660–1800 (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar and Landau, N., The Justices of the Peace 1676–1760 (Berkeley, 1984)Google Scholar.

¹¹ See Landau for J.P.s involvement in national political conflict. The extent of political consciousness lower down the social scale remains the subject of dispute. Rogers, N., Whigs and Cities (Oxford, 1989)Google Scholar, affirms its wide reach, though with qualifications. Vaisey, D. ed. The Diary of Thomas Turner 1754–65 (Oxford, 1984)Google Scholar presents us with a one-time local officer the breadth of whose reading suggests wide horizons.

¹² John Styles of the University of Bristol, Julian Hoppit of the University of London and I have recently obtained a grant from the Leverhulme Trust to finance research on English legislation 1660–1800. The estimates cited here derive from preliminary surveys, which we should be able to refine when the project is complete. I am grateful to Sheila Lambert for having supplied us with copies of her own working notes, from which these estimates have been in part compiled. All totals are however my own.

¹³ Many other bills had a social policy dimension, which would entitle them to consideration in a more broadly conceived study. For the purposes of this paper, I have adopted a relatively narrow definition of my subject matter.

¹⁴ Somewhat more acts were passed in years of peace than in years of war, however: no doubt because war-related business always tended to squeeze other matters off the agenda.

¹⁵ Webbs, , Old Poor Law, 112–14, 126, 265–70, 170–1, 273Google Scholar. Macfarlane, S., ‘Studies in Poverty and Poor Relief in London at the end of the Seventeenth Century’ (unpubl. D.Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1982), 263–76Google Scholar, and Hitchcock, T., ‘The English Workhouse. A Study in Institutional Poor Relief in Selected Counties 1696–1750’ (unpubl. D.Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1985), ch. 2Google Scholar supply fuller accounts of late I7th–18th cent, efforts.

¹⁶ Thus Sir Humphrey Mackworth's 1704 and 1706 bills, and Thomas Gilbert's 1765 bill all passed the Commons, but failed in the Lords.

¹⁷ E.g. Andrews, T., An Enquiry into the Causes of the Encrease and Miseries of the Poor of England (London, 1738), 8Google Scholar; [Gray, T.], Considerations on Several Proposals lately made for the Better Maintenance of the Poor (London, 1751), 11, 22–5Google Scholar; An Impartial Examination of a Pamphlet Intitled, Considerations … (London, 1752), 19Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Beattie, Crime and the Courts, chs. 9–10. Examples cited here are all drawn from ch. 9.

¹⁹ 10 Will. 3 c. 12; 6 Ann. c. 9; 6 Geo. I c. 23. All references to acts follow Statutes of the Realm numeration. Dates cited in the text are those of the year (N.S.) in which the act passed.

²⁰ Northamptonshire Record Office, Quarter Sessions, Treasurer's Accounts 1 (1669–1746), 1700; Northumberland Record Office, QSO 3, Easter 1700. Such ‘engines’ cost £3–4.

²¹ Innes, J. M., ‘Prisons for the Poor: English Bridewells 1555–1800’, in Labour, Law and Crime, ed. Snyder, F. and Hay, D. (London, 1987), 90Google Scholar.

²² First references to arrangements made for convict transportation commonly appear in Quarter Sessions Order Books in the early 1720s. For the practice in its heyday, see Beattie, , Crime and the Courts, 506–13, 518–19, 538–48, 560–5Google Scholar; Ekirch, R., Bound for America. The Transportation of British Convicts to the Colonies 1718–75 (Oxford, 1987)Google Scholar.

²³ Relatively little has been published on the practice of imprisonment for debt, but see generally Innes, J. M., ‘The King's Bench Prison in the Later Eighteenth Century: Law, Order and Authority in a London Debtors' Prison’, in Brewer, J. and Styles, J. ed. An Ungovernable People (London, 1981), 251–61Google Scholar and Haagen, P., ‘Eighteenth-Century Society and the Debt Law’, in Cohen, S. and Scull, A. ed. Social Control and the State (Oxford, 1983), 222–47Google Scholar. The reform measures of the 20s have nowhere been comprehensively explored, but see Brown, R. L., ‘The Minters of Wapping: The History of a Debtors' Sanctuary in Eighteenth-Century East London’, East London Papers, xiv (1972), 77–86Google Scholar; Church, L. F., Oglethorpe: A Study of Philanthropy in England and Georgia (London, 1932), ch. 3Google Scholar. The acts in question are 9 Geo. 1 c. 28; 11 Geo. 1 c. 22; 12 Geo. 1 c. 29; 2 Geo. 2 c. 22.

²⁴ Brooks, esp. 365–6.

²⁵ Burford, E., In the Clink (London, 1977), 63–5Google Scholar; Howard, J., State of the Prisons in England and Wales (Warrington, 1777)Google Scholar; Innes, , ‘King's Bench Prison’, 271 and n. 62Google Scholar.

²⁶ 11 Will. 3 c. 18.

²⁷ Webbs, , Old Poor Law, 378–87Google Scholar.

²⁸ 9 Geo. 1 c. 7. Hitchcock now provides the fullest survey of responses to the act.

²⁹ Negus, R. E., ‘The Jurisdiction of Judges of Assize to Fine a County’, Essex Review, xxxxvii (1938), 57–67Google Scholar.

³⁰ E.g. Westmorland Record Office WQ/O8, 1765 passim.

³¹ Negus, 59.

³² 12 Geo. 2 c. 29. Lambert, , Sessional Papers, xv. 171–322Google Scholar; Commons Journals, xxiii. 217–18, 289–90.

³³ For example, I agree with the Webbs (English Prisons, 29) that an act of 1744 ordering Quarter Sessions to appoint two Justices to visit and report on county houses of correction was not generally observed (although many counties did operate more informal supervisory systems).

³⁴ The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Knatchbull, ed. Newman, A. N. (London, 1963), 18Google Scholar.

³⁵ Steele, I. K., Politics of Colonial Policy (Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar, describes the establishment of the board, and provides a (selective) account of its development. For the Board and poor law policy, see Macfarlane, 263–76; Hitchcock, ch. 2. The Webbs' brief account of these matters focusses chiefly on Locke's, John proposals to the Board: Old Poor Law, 109–12Google Scholar. The Board's proposals did not win parliamentary assent, and indeed, according to one member, led to their being lampooned as a ‘Commission of Chimerical Affairs’ (Jacobsen, G., William Blathwayt (New Haven, 1932), 335)Google Scholar.

³⁶ Parliamentary History, ed. Cobbett, W. (36 vols., London, 1806–1820), xxi. 250Google Scholar.

³⁷ Ehrman, J., The Younger Pitt. The Reluctant Transition (London, 1983), 471–6Google Scholar. Ruggles, T., History of the Poor (2 vols., London, 1793), i. pp. vi–viiGoogle Scholar implies that as early as the late 1780s, public rumour had it that the minister intended to take the matter on, and that meanwhile he ‘discountenanced the indigested schemes of private individuals’.

³⁸ Eastwood, D., ‘Governing Rural England: Authority and Social Order in Oxford-shire 1780–1840’ (unpubl. D.Phil, thesis, Oxford, 1985), 85Google Scholar. For the Board of Agriculture, Webbs, , Old Poor Law, 174Google Scholar; Mitchison, R., Agricultural Sir John. The Life of Sir John Sinclair of Ulbster 1754–1835 (London, 1962), ch. 11Google Scholar. On governmental responses to poverty in the 1790s, see also Wells, R., Wretched Faces. Famine in Wartime England 1793–1801 (Gloucester, 1988), Part 3Google Scholar.

³⁹ Beattie, , Crime and the Courts, 503Google Scholar; Commons Journals, xxxix. 963.

⁴⁰ Parliamentary History, xxiii. 364–5. Nelson, R. R., The Home Office 1782–1800 (Durham N.C., 1969)Google Scholar, charts the early history of the office from an administrative point of view, but is not helpful on the Home Secretary's parliamentary role.

⁴¹ HMC Kenyon, , 511, 541Google Scholar; see also City of London Record Office, Rep 95, 189v (Dec. 1690); Monthly Review, lxii (1780), 315Google Scholar. Bishop Porteus in his notebook for 1781 (Lambeth Palace Lib. MS. 2099, 20–2) provides a very full account of the series of consultations with magistrates, lawyers, judges and legal officeholders he undertook before introducing a new Sabbatarian bill in that year.

⁴² Parliamentary History, xxvi. 195–202; , R. I. and Wilberforce, S., Life of William Wilberforce (5 vols., London, 1838), i. 114–15Google Scholar. See also Lord Hardwicke's strong objections to the introduction of the 1758 Habeas Corpus Bill without adequate consultation with the judges (again an objection with a political edge to it); Yorke, P. C. ed. Life and Correspondence of Philip Yorke, Earl of Hardwicke (3 vols., Cambridge, 1913), iii. 12Google Scholar.

⁴³ Thus the act which ultimately passed as 6 Ann. c. 9.

⁴⁴ Lords' Journals, xvii. 506a.

⁴⁵ I have as yet found little evidence that the bishops were much involved, or were often especially consulted, in connection with legislation of this kind, though this is a topic that would bear more investigation. For some traces of their activity, see (for Archbishop Tenison) Lambeth Palace Library MS 640, 221 (a reference I owe to Steve Macfarlane), and Allen, W. O. B. and McClure, E., Two Hundred Years: the History of the S.P.C.K. (London, 1898), 25Google Scholar; (for Bishop Porteus), Hodgson, R., Life of the Right Reverend Beilby Porteus (London, 1813)Google Scholar, and Porteus' notebooks, Lambeth Palace Library MS. 2099–2100.

⁴⁶ Parliamentary History, xviii. 629. For Hillsborough's bill, see Webbs, , Old Poor Law, 269Google Scholar, for the Bill, Jew, Perry, T. W., Public Opinion, Propaganda and Politics in Eighteenth-Century England (Cambridge, Mass. 1962)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Parliamentary Register, ed. Debrett, J. (45 vols., London, 1781–1796), vii. 210Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ E.g. Commons Journals, xiii. 1; xxvi. 298; xxxix. 5.

⁴⁹ Correspondence and Minutes of the S.P.C.K. relating to Wales 1699–1740, ed. Clement, M. (Cardiff, 1932), 53–4Google Scholar. The Queen did in fact commend the measure, which however did not pass. For her speech, see Commons Journals, xvii. 278.

⁵⁰ An impressionistic judgment, which the research project described n. 12 will make it possible to test and endow with some precision.

⁵¹ Moore and Horwitz, ‘Who Runs the House?’

⁵² Sir George Yonge, for example, who was for a time the Younger Pitt's Secretary at War, also frequently displayed an interest in issues of domestic government, in ways that seem to arise from his West Country experience. Namier, L. and Brooke, J. ed. History of Parliament. The House of Commons 1754–90 (3 vols., London, 1964), iii. 673–3Google Scholar, fails to mention these interests.

⁵³ For penal reformers, Radzinowicz, L., History of English Criminal Law (5 vols., London, 1948–1986), Part 2Google Scholar. For Sir John Riggs Miller's campaign to reform weights and measures, West Yorkshire Record Office, QD1/218 (copy of circular letter); Parliamentary Register, xxvii. 395–403.

⁵⁴ Somerset Record Office, Hancock MSS DD/HC, box6E, W. Dickinson to Lord Somerville, 1 Feb. 1799. I owe this reference to John Styles. What is probably being suggested in this case is that a private member might be asked to bring in a bill with official origins. This may have been common practice, complicating still further the task of distinguishing official and unofficial effort. [Jones, E.], Observations on the Scheme before Parliament for the Maintenance of the Poor (Chester, 1776), 22nGoogle Scholar, suggests that the Judges ‘caused’ a bill to ‘be brought in’ abolishing the Elizabethan statutory requirement that every cottage built should have at least four acres of land to it (for most purposes already a dead letter, the old statute had provided the basis for a recent malicious prosecution). In fact this bill was introduced into the Commons by a private member, a Mr Cator.

⁵⁵ See also Norfolk Record Office C/S2/7, Fakenham sessions, January 1716/7, suggesting a bill to facilitate the prosecution of horsetheft. Zouch, H., Hints respecting the Public Police (London, 1786), 4Google Scholar, notes West Riding Justices' desire for legislation against nightpoaching (an issue also of concern to Norfolk justices: see Munsche, 25–6). For a case-study and discussion, Beattie, ‘London Crime’.

⁵⁶ Hayton, ‘Moral Reform’.

⁵⁷ Parliamentary Register, xxii. 277.

⁵⁸ Namier and Brooke, ii. 499–501. For other legislative initiatives of Gilbert's, see Webbs, , King's Highway, 73, 121Google Scholar; Best, G., Temporal Pillars (Cambridge, 1964), 217Google Scholar. Sometimes it was not M.P.s themselves, but their constituents who were full of zeal for the public good. See Parliamentary History, xxxvi. 1060; Parliamentary Register, xxiii. 105–6.

⁵⁹ Research on the parliament of 1727–34, undertaken for a University of Leicester Ph.D. by Andrew Hanham, now of the History of Parliament Trust, should do much to illuminate these machinations. Some aspects of the law reform movement of this period are briefly discussed in Aylmer, G., ‘From Office-Holding to Civil Service: the Genesis of Modern Bureaucracy,’ supra 5th ser., xxx (1980), 99–102Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Debates on the criminal law in the early 1770s are best traced in the Cavendish diaries. Wright, J. ed. Sir Henry Cavendish's Debates of the House of Commons (2 vols., London, 1841–1843)Google Scholar and British Library, Egerton MSS 215–63; thereafter in the Parliamentary History and Parliamentary Register, though these may be supplemented by reports from a variety of newspapers and diaries. J. Brewer, ‘The Wilkites and the Law 1763–74’, in Brewer and Styles, is of related interest. See esp. 160–1, 163.

⁶¹ For blasphemy and debauchery, Portus, G. V., Caritas Anglicana, or an enquiry into … religious etc. societies … 1678–1790 (London, 1912), 61, 66Google Scholar. S.P.C.K. and Wales, 83ff, 93 notes activity in relation to duelling and prisons. See also Hitchcock, 115–27; Clark, 74–7.

⁶² Chamberlayne, J., Magnae Britanniae Notitia (London, 22nd ed., 1708), 276Google Scholar.

⁶³ Innes, J. M., ‘Politics and Morals: the Reformation of Manners Movement in Later Eighteenth-Century England’, in Hellmuth, E., ed. The Transformation of Political Culture in Late Eighteenth-Century England and Germany (Oxford, forthcoming, 1990), esp. 96–7Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ The best account of the Thatched House society and Beauchamp's legislative efforts is Lineham, P., ‘The Campaign to Abolish Imprisonment for Debt in England 1750–1840’ (unpubl. M.A. thesis, Canterbury N.Z., 1974), 89–101, 110–11, 135–41Google Scholar. See also Owen, D., English Philanthropy 1660–1960 (Cambridge, Mass., 1964), 63–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; the several Reports of the Society, and Parliamentary History, xx. 1395–1406. For an initiative undertaken somewhat further down the social scale, see an interesting series of efforts by friendly societies to combine to obtain legislation securing their position, Manchester Journal, 23 Jan. 1779; York Courant, 21 Nov. 1786; St James Chronicle, 31 July, 9 Oct., 18 Nov. 1790 (I owe these latter references to Peter Clark).

⁶⁵ E.g. HMC Townshend, , 376Google Scholar; Parliamentary Register, xxii. 211.

⁶⁶ E.g. HMC Kenyon, , 511Google Scholar, Peter Davies to Lloyd Kenyon.

⁶⁷ Thomas Gilbert, for instance, showed himself very willing to modify his original notions substantially in the light of discussion.

⁶⁸ For the role Joseph Jekyll, Master of the Rolls, played in recasting William Hay's poor law reform bills, see [Hay, ], Remarks on the Laws Relating to the Poor with Proposals for their Better Employment (London, 1751), p. vGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁹ Northamptonshire Record Office, Hay MSS L (C) 1732–3. For the speech cited here, see L (C) 1732, entry for 13 March 1733/4.

⁷⁰ For fuller discussion, Innes, J. M. and Styles, J., ‘The Crime Wave: Recent Writing on Crime and Criminal Justice in Eighteenth-Century England’, Journal of British Studies, xxv (1986), 420–30Google Scholar.

⁷¹ E.g. Knatchbull Diary, 88, 89. A painting by Hogarth, depicting a debtor giving evidence before the ‘Gaol Committee’, is held by the National Portrait Gallery.

⁷² Parliamentary Register, x. 65.

⁷³ Lambert, , Sessional Papers, i. 54–71Google Scholar, provides the best general account of Commons' practice in calling for accounts and papers. Her volumes i–ii list all accounts and papers requested.

⁷⁴ E.g. HMC House of Lords MSS 1695–7, 396–409; The Case of the Mortgagees of the Office and Fees of Office, of Marshal of the Marshalsea of the Court of King's Bench (nd [1753]) (BL: 357 d 10/45); Parliamentary History, xx. 1395–9. For examples relating to the poor laws, Proposals for the Better Management of the Affairs of the Poor (nd, [169?])—a four-page pamphlet, apparently written for distribution to M.P.s, of which a copy survives in the Clark Library, Los Angeles; Butcher, E. E. ed. Bristol Corporation of the Poor (Bristol, 1932). 117Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Veall, D., The Popular Movement for Law Reform 1640–60 (Oxford, 1970), 142–51Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Pamphlets by Sir Matthew Hale, Sir Josiah Child, Thomas Firmin and others, adumbrating many of the issues which would inform discussion over succeeding decades, were all published within a few years during the late 1670s and early 1680s.

⁷⁷ Radzinowicz, i. Part 3; Beattie, , Crime and the Courts, 548–59, 569–73, 585–6Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Daniel Defoe repeatedly attacked early 18th cent, poor law reform proposals in his Review (Hitchcock, 39), as well as writing an important pamphlet on the subject. The Manchester magistrate T. B. Bayley, who published a series of letters commenting on Gilbert's, poor law reform proposals in the London Chronicle 01–04 1787Google Scholar, commented in the first of these (Jan. 25–7), that he thought he could better gain the attention of the public by writing for a newspaper than by publishing a pamphlet.

⁷⁹ See, for example, for various forms of consultation undertaken by Edmund Burke, in connection with a bill he had drafted to punish the plunderers of wrecks. Copeland, T. W. ed. Correspondence of Edmund Burke (9 vols., Cambridge, 1958–1970), iii. 140–1, 145, 222, 258Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ N'hants RO, L (C) 1733, entry for 2 May 1735. In 1736, the Commons ordered that Hay's, bill be printed in sufficient numbers to supply all members: Commons Journals, xxii. 717Google Scholar. Hitchcock, 244 notes that the S.P.C.K. distributed copies of Hay's bill to their corresponding members.

⁸¹ Gilbert, T., Heads of a Bill for the Better Relief and Employment of the Poor (Manchester, 1786)Google Scholar; A Plan of Police, and Objections … Stated and Answered (1786); Considerations on the Bills for the Better Relief and Employment of the Poor &c &c Intended to be Offered to Parliament this Session (London, 1787)Google Scholar.

⁸² E.g. York Courant, 12 Dec. 1786, 23 Jan. 1787.

⁸³ Innes, , ‘Politics and Morals’, 94–5Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ E.g. White, B., An Inquiry into the Management of the Poor (1767), 64Google Scholar, suggested that instead of laws relating to ‘public manners’ being introduced ‘casually … by any public spirited member, a standing committee should be appointed for that great and important service’. (I owe this reference to Donna Andrew.)

⁸⁵ Elton, G., The Parliament of England 1559–1581 (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slack, P., Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1988), ch. 6, esp. 117Google Scholar; Russell, C., Parliaments and English Politics 1621–1629 (Oxford, 1979), 35–48, esp. 45 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁶ E.g. Henriques, U. Q. R., Before the Welfare State (London, 1979), 4ffGoogle Scholar. See also the passages cited by Lieberman, 6, 28.

⁸⁷ Macdonagh, O., Early Victorian Government 1830–1870 (London, 1977), ch. 1Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Nelson, 61–2.

⁸⁹ Brewer, J., Sinews of Power. War, Money and the English State 1688–1783 (London, 1989)Google Scholar.