Hi - Looking at your page, a few questions. First, should the Cabal be listed? The most important thing about that period is that there really wasn't a single chief minister. Arlington was probably the closest, as he was basically running foreign affairs, but none of them was dominant in domestic affairs. Second, I think that a lot of the men you list were not really the chief minister - specifically Godolphin 1684-1685, Belasyse, Montagu 1694-1699, Pembroke 1699-1702, Halifax 1714-1715, Carlisle, and Walpole 1715-1717. I don't think you'll find any reliable source that considers any of those men to have been the chief minister at those times. I think the indisputable cases of single chief ministers before 1730 (I don't think Walpole really qualifies even in the 1720s, given that Townshend was essentially his equal, and had full control of foreign policy) are Clarendon 1660-1667, Danby 1674-1679, Godolphin 1702-1710, and Harley 1710-1714. The rest are all arguable. I think that some consideration should be given to the people I listed in my original post. In the period after 1714, I think the situation is actually pretty clear, but doesn't fit a table all that well. From George I's arrival until 1716, Townshend was effectively the chief minister, even though he was being undermined for most of 1716 by Stanhope. Then, after a period of some confusion and uncertainty when there wasn't really a single leader, between early 1717 to early 1721, Stanhope and Sunderland were effectively joint leaders. Your 1718 switching point seems wrong to me. Yes, they exchanged offices that year, but the idea that Sunderland was serving under Stanhope from 1717 to 1718, and then Stanhope was serving under Sunderland from 1718 to 1721 can't really be defended.
On the whole, I think it would be good to both extend this list to earlier periods - people like Strafford, Buckingham, the Cecils, Northumberland, and Wolsey seem at least as deserving of listing as the later ones, and certainly more worthy of listing than someone like Belasyse or Carlisle, who weren't chief ministers any more than the Earl of Iddesleigh and William Henry Smith were prime ministers. I think there should also be much less of an effort to fill every gap. This was an unofficial post, and there were gaps. There's a useful list in a 1923 book by Viscount Mersey, who was an early 20th century politician and judge. He gives us, in the period in question, only Clarendon, Danby/Carmarthen twice (in 1673-1678 and again 1692-1695), Godolphin from 1702-1710, and Harley. For anyone beyond that, we should find sources. john k ( talk) 00:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Personally, I like the entry for the Cabal, as it clarifies your point that no single individual was in charge. I agree that some of my entries, such as Belasyse, are dodgy: I followed the pre-existing templated list of ministries at the bottom of my page, which includes all of the ministries which I have listed. The situation is clear, but difficult to tabulate, from 1714 onwards. The problem with listing Townshend as chief minister is that he seems to have been an eminence grise, acknowledged as leader without formally holding office as leader, like Lord Carteret in Wilmington's ministry. I have listed Halifax, Carlisle and Walpole in this period in the Wilmington role (or, for a clearer example, in the Portland role in the Fox-North administration). I agree that Stanhope and Sunderland led jointly 1717–1721; I hope that the names of their ministries, and my explanation of this period in the introduction, makes this clear.
- One of my arguments is that the post of "Prime Minister" gradually evolved from the Lord High Treasurer / First Lord of the Treasury post. Most of the people listed (though not all) were Lord High Treasurer or First Lord; with some exceptions, it seems to have been accepted that the Lord High Treasurer or First Lord had a significant claim to be in charge since Danby in 1674. Temple in 1679 is an odd entry, and doesn't really fit the run, but I found this early attempt at political reform extremely interesting, so I included it.
- Finally, I lack the expertise to extend my own list further back than 1660, though I agree that this is desirable. BartBassist ( talk) 07:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at your list, the only individuals I have missed (apart from Townshend, discussed above) are
Sunderland 1684 and
Shrewsbury 1695. I couldn't really find any rationale behind either of them.
BartBassist (
talk)
08:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm...do you have any sources that back up the idea that Carlisle, say, was viewed as the nominal head of the administration? I've just never seen anything that says anything like that, although I admit I'm not expert in the period. As far as Sunderland and Shrewsbury go, I believe I was basing that on their Oxford Dictionary of National Biography articles, but I no longer have access to the ODNB, so I can't say for sure. My sense, though, is that when Rochester was "kicked upstairs" in 1684, it was Sunderland, rather than Godolphin, who took effective charge of the ministry, and also that Sunderland was the effective chief minister for most of the reign of James II - certainly so after Rochester's resignation. Although he was arguably an eminence grise type, I'm not sure it's reasonable to distinguish a "formal" ministry head from an informal one at that point. The whole position was informal. As for Shrewsbury, that's a bit more questionable, but my sense was that Shrewsbury was more of a figurehead for the ministry than Montagu, in that he was the one who dealt with the king personally, and essentially served as the intermediary between the king and the Junto proper. That may not be quite right, but I think it's at least as right as the idea that Montagu was head of the ministry. But I guess finding sources is what we should really be doing at this point. john k ( talk) 20:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Let me add that I don't really think that First Lords of the Treasury (as opposed to Lord High Treasurers) were considered presumptive chief ministers until Walpole. Godolphin and Harley certainly were considered to be chief minister during their times as Lord Treasurer. But Poulett, who served as First Lord of the Treasury from 1710 to 1711, certainly was not. Neither was Godolphin during any of his stints as head of a treasury commission. john k ( talk) 20:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
__The above copied here from another talk page. BartBassist ( talk) 22:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC) __
Hi - Looking at your page, a few questions. First, should the Cabal be listed? The most important thing about that period is that there really wasn't a single chief minister. Arlington was probably the closest, as he was basically running foreign affairs, but none of them was dominant in domestic affairs. Second, I think that a lot of the men you list were not really the chief minister - specifically Godolphin 1684-1685, Belasyse, Montagu 1694-1699, Pembroke 1699-1702, Halifax 1714-1715, Carlisle, and Walpole 1715-1717. I don't think you'll find any reliable source that considers any of those men to have been the chief minister at those times. I think the indisputable cases of single chief ministers before 1730 (I don't think Walpole really qualifies even in the 1720s, given that Townshend was essentially his equal, and had full control of foreign policy) are Clarendon 1660-1667, Danby 1674-1679, Godolphin 1702-1710, and Harley 1710-1714. The rest are all arguable. I think that some consideration should be given to the people I listed in my original post. In the period after 1714, I think the situation is actually pretty clear, but doesn't fit a table all that well. From George I's arrival until 1716, Townshend was effectively the chief minister, even though he was being undermined for most of 1716 by Stanhope. Then, after a period of some confusion and uncertainty when there wasn't really a single leader, between early 1717 to early 1721, Stanhope and Sunderland were effectively joint leaders. Your 1718 switching point seems wrong to me. Yes, they exchanged offices that year, but the idea that Sunderland was serving under Stanhope from 1717 to 1718, and then Stanhope was serving under Sunderland from 1718 to 1721 can't really be defended.
On the whole, I think it would be good to both extend this list to earlier periods - people like Strafford, Buckingham, the Cecils, Northumberland, and Wolsey seem at least as deserving of listing as the later ones, and certainly more worthy of listing than someone like Belasyse or Carlisle, who weren't chief ministers any more than the Earl of Iddesleigh and William Henry Smith were prime ministers. I think there should also be much less of an effort to fill every gap. This was an unofficial post, and there were gaps. There's a useful list in a 1923 book by Viscount Mersey, who was an early 20th century politician and judge. He gives us, in the period in question, only Clarendon, Danby/Carmarthen twice (in 1673-1678 and again 1692-1695), Godolphin from 1702-1710, and Harley. For anyone beyond that, we should find sources. john k ( talk) 00:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Personally, I like the entry for the Cabal, as it clarifies your point that no single individual was in charge. I agree that some of my entries, such as Belasyse, are dodgy: I followed the pre-existing templated list of ministries at the bottom of my page, which includes all of the ministries which I have listed. The situation is clear, but difficult to tabulate, from 1714 onwards. The problem with listing Townshend as chief minister is that he seems to have been an eminence grise, acknowledged as leader without formally holding office as leader, like Lord Carteret in Wilmington's ministry. I have listed Halifax, Carlisle and Walpole in this period in the Wilmington role (or, for a clearer example, in the Portland role in the Fox-North administration). I agree that Stanhope and Sunderland led jointly 1717–1721; I hope that the names of their ministries, and my explanation of this period in the introduction, makes this clear.
- One of my arguments is that the post of "Prime Minister" gradually evolved from the Lord High Treasurer / First Lord of the Treasury post. Most of the people listed (though not all) were Lord High Treasurer or First Lord; with some exceptions, it seems to have been accepted that the Lord High Treasurer or First Lord had a significant claim to be in charge since Danby in 1674. Temple in 1679 is an odd entry, and doesn't really fit the run, but I found this early attempt at political reform extremely interesting, so I included it.
- Finally, I lack the expertise to extend my own list further back than 1660, though I agree that this is desirable. BartBassist ( talk) 07:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Looking at your list, the only individuals I have missed (apart from Townshend, discussed above) are
Sunderland 1684 and
Shrewsbury 1695. I couldn't really find any rationale behind either of them.
BartBassist (
talk)
08:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm...do you have any sources that back up the idea that Carlisle, say, was viewed as the nominal head of the administration? I've just never seen anything that says anything like that, although I admit I'm not expert in the period. As far as Sunderland and Shrewsbury go, I believe I was basing that on their Oxford Dictionary of National Biography articles, but I no longer have access to the ODNB, so I can't say for sure. My sense, though, is that when Rochester was "kicked upstairs" in 1684, it was Sunderland, rather than Godolphin, who took effective charge of the ministry, and also that Sunderland was the effective chief minister for most of the reign of James II - certainly so after Rochester's resignation. Although he was arguably an eminence grise type, I'm not sure it's reasonable to distinguish a "formal" ministry head from an informal one at that point. The whole position was informal. As for Shrewsbury, that's a bit more questionable, but my sense was that Shrewsbury was more of a figurehead for the ministry than Montagu, in that he was the one who dealt with the king personally, and essentially served as the intermediary between the king and the Junto proper. That may not be quite right, but I think it's at least as right as the idea that Montagu was head of the ministry. But I guess finding sources is what we should really be doing at this point. john k ( talk) 20:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Let me add that I don't really think that First Lords of the Treasury (as opposed to Lord High Treasurers) were considered presumptive chief ministers until Walpole. Godolphin and Harley certainly were considered to be chief minister during their times as Lord Treasurer. But Poulett, who served as First Lord of the Treasury from 1710 to 1711, certainly was not. Neither was Godolphin during any of his stints as head of a treasury commission. john k ( talk) 20:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
__The above copied here from another talk page. BartBassist ( talk) 22:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC) __