Anglicans From The United Kingdom

"As it happens, I think Galloway has a point. ... Meanwhile the ambassador who went a bit mental, Craig Murray, decided to go on Newsnight and actually NAME one of the women accusing Assange. What a radical act. He was of course slapped down by presenter Gavin Esler."

"As it happens, I disagree with Boris. Postboxes are bright red and bank robbers traditionally wear tights over their faces. I think they look more like Darth Vader. If you are an unpleasant person who enjoys rather macabre entertainment, wander down to Mile End and watch the women in the full burka trying to cross the A11. That's always good for a laugh. Almost as good is watching them take selfies. I mean, what's the point?"

"I seriously contemplated being a teacher once upon a time, when I was lot younger. ... I never found out because the one thing stopping me from being a teacher was that I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids. It seemed to me virtually impossible not to, and I was convinced that I'd be right in there, on day one. We're talking secondary school level here, by the way — and even then I don’t think I'd have dabbled much below year ten, as it is now called. I just thought we ought to clear that up early on."

"My own choice of election date would be a day when universities are closed and Muslims are forbidden to do anything on pain of hell, or something. There must be at least one day like that in the Muslim calendar, surely? That would deliver at least 40 seats to the Tories, I reckon."

"According to her allies, Priti Patel is about to "go off like a shotgun", which should keep us all entertained a while longer, as long as the shotgun is this time pointed in the right direction, rather than at her own head. Someone tell the woman: turn the gun around; those two holes you’re staring at are where the pellets come out. Pull the trigger now and you'll be a far less Priti Patel. I suppose, pointed in the right direction, a shotgun might do a bit of good. Theresa May's government resembles a dog with a broken back, dragging its tail in the sea; you shield your eyes from watching its dying spasms, block your ears from the pitiful whining, yearning that it might soon be put out of its misery."

"We will rue the day we all decided bullying was a bad thing. The consequence is that the inept, the imbecilic and the perpetually frit will hang on to their jobs and we will become a much less efficient country. By bullying I do not mean physically beating someone up and stealing their lunch money, which is what it used to mean when it had a proper meaning. I mean telling someone they're useless and deserve to be sacked, which is what bullying means today."

"The Home Secretary, Priti Patel, who is 5ft 6in tall, has been accused of using bullying behaviour with regard to her civil servants. Nowhere near enough bullying behaviour in my book."

"But for sure, what Mr Forrest did was wrong. I suspect — and it is only a guess — that thousands of teachers up and down the land conduct sexual relationships with their older charges and that in most cases no harm comes of it."

"Exciting news from Durham University, which is helping its students to become "sex workers". This noble institution is offering two courses in the various forms of harlotry. My only concern is that at present they do not actually offer an academic qualification in these subjects — at the very least an undergraduate degree in, say, Practical Whoring. Perhaps followed by an MA in Deconstructing the Topless Hand-Shandy1897-1913. Such courses would probably result in more lucrative career opportunities than many of the more traditional subjects which students pay through the nose to study. I am attending a dinner at Durham University next month and fervently hope that some of the ambitious young ladies on these courses will be in attendance."

"Pray, because the church leaders, the bishops, the archbishops, need great wisdom as they negotiate with government, and as they try very hard to envision a future that even the politicians can't always envision, as they speak for justice and peace and so on, and pray that they find willing partners."

"Collectivism...demands expert government..."the aristocracy of talent" of which Carlyle wrote. The control of a State with powers so vast will obviously need an exceptional and exceptionally large aristocracy."

"It has indeed been a feature common to the Evangelical and Catholic sections of the English Church—and, for that matter, a feature common to both with various Nonconformist societies, which in this respect have followed the same tradition and adopted similar methods—that they have all sought to make religion a general social force."

"All in all, we may say that Nonconformity served as a gathering ground of the various influences (religious, political, and economic) which produced the Liberal or Manchester philosophy of the nineteenth century—a philosophy which not only inspired a party, but determined in no small measure the general life and aspect of Victorian England. "Way for individual enterprise"—this was its teaching; and backed by the manufacturing and commercial classes, which had always been the stronghold of Nonconformity, its teaching triumphed. The reluctant Peel, a Conservative and a Churchman, bowed to its logic; the subtle mind of Gladstone, nurtured in the same tenets as Peel, came under its influence and became its chosen apostle. The England which presented itself to the Continent—the England which the Continent still sees (though it is passing or passed)—was the England of this tradition: not the England of Church and King, the "land" and loyalty, but the England of chapel and counting-house, the factory and self-help. The philosophy of England which travelled abroad was the philosophy of John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer; and both, whatever their religious views, were deeply imbued with the Nonconformist tradition. Spencer, as he writes in his autobiography, sprang from a family "essentially dissenting"; and his Nonconformist instincts and early training left an abiding mark, which appears in his opposition to any scheme of State education, and in the title and whole argument of The Man versus the State."

"I am bothered today by the abstract intellectualism of those with whom I used to associate, and by the conventional lip service to phrases in my old party—the Liberal Party. I admire more and more the practical wisdom of the good ordinary Englishman, facing the facts and "feeling" the right way through them—as a good Englishman feels his way through a new countryside... This means that I am getting nearer and nearer to you. It is a late change—at the age of 64. But I am glad that it is coming."

"Yet, admirable though his books are, the fact remains that the man was bigger than his books. To think of Ernest Barker is to think, first and foremost, of one who, once met, can never be forgotten, a man of surprising candour, naive curiosity, and effortless vitality. He repelled a few, attracted many, aroused the interest of all. In many ways he was an extraordinarily intelligent child, and he influenced others with the unconscious fearlessness of a child. In all that he did he was always the same, a critical yet sensitive Liberal, not particularly careful of others, yet tender-hearted, easily stirred by the plight of those in adversity, happy in phrase as in disposition, often uncannily acute, and sometimes unexpectedly perverse."

"Among Sir Ernest Barker's many interests and achievements...one was prolonged for some years after his retirement from most other activities, for he continued to work for better international understanding as a member of the United Kingdom National Commission for Unesco and as the first chairman of its National Co-operating Body for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. To both he brought a wealth of wisdom and experience and the stimulus of all those qualities of vitality, candour and stern intolerance of nonsense so well brought out in your memoir, all of which made him so truly worthy and justly eminent a citizen of that Republic of Letters to which his life's work was devoted."

"Whenever I see a row of poplars", the much-loved tutor Ernest Barker used to say in the rich Cheshire accent he guarded so stubbornly against the corrosive influences of both Oxford and Cambridge: "whenever I see a row of poplars going on in a straight line, over hill over dale, never turning aside for forest or river, I say to myself 'The Romans! The Romans have been here! It may be sentimental, but I like it.'"

"It would be difficult to name another scholar whose books and articles have been and are to-day as widely read by university teachers and students of political science in the United States. American scholars have especially admired his breadth of interests, ranging from an intimate acquaintance with classical Greek, which resulted in the most useful modern translation of Aristotle's Politics, to concern with major problems of the day, reflected in his letters to the Editor of The Times."

"The idea of the State is one which is little grasped in England."

"Early publications, like his [J. H. Plumb's] study of the size of the electorate in the reign of Queen Anne, used Namierism against Namier for, based on solid archival ground, they painted a picture of a fiercely embattled and ideologically contentious polity. As more research piled up, the generalisations Namier had felt able to extrapolate about the "long" 18th century, from his study of its middle decades, now seemed valid for those decades alone."

"Namier himself treated it as virtually an axiom about all political behaviour that the actors engage in it solely out of a desire to acquire and exercise political power. It follows that their professed principles, or rather their "party names and cant", as Namier characteristically preferred to put it in The Structure of Politics, form no guide at all to the "underlying realities" of politics. They are invoked merely to ensure that the "unconscious promptings" and "inscrutable components" of personal ambition and the quest for domination which actually drive men into politics are "invested ex post facto with the appearance of logic and rationality". It follows that all such "abstract ideals" must be mere epiphenomena, which play no independent role in determining any courses of political action, and which not only can but ought to be bypassed if we are to give realistic explanations of political behaviour. As Namier himself put it in his essay on "Human Nature in Politics", "what matters most is the underlying emotions, the music, to which ideas are a mere libretto, often of very inferior quality". And, as several recent commentators on his work have stressed, it was his express hope in studying eighteenth-century politics (and a large part of the attraction which the subject held for him) to be able to show that "considerations of principle or even of policy had only limited relevance" in this period, that "what mattered in politics" at this time "was not attachment to principle but the struggle for office", and in general that "political ideas" are "rarely in themselves the determinants of human action"."

"It was Namier's greatest service to English history that he described with sympathy and vast knowledge, the system of patronage and its place in the work of government at the moment of its fullest articulation before the rise of parties and principles forever destroyed it."

"It has been the greatest of Sir Lewis Namier's achievements to exhibit the personal and local nature of political issues and political power at this time—to show how few members of parliament were, in the first instance, there for the purpose of taking a stand on political questions. They were there in their own right for their own purposes, or as the relations or nominees of other people who held political power in their own right and for their own purposes. The political questions of the day were important to many of them—and to more and more of them as the reign went on; yet they did not, for the most part, enter parliament beforehand, nor did their electors send them there beforehand, in order to determine these questions. This interpretation of British politics in terms of local or personal connexions and family prestige, first rendered popular by Sir Lewis Namier, has lately been confirmed by Professor Neale's discovery of very similar conditions in the reign of Elizabeth; indeed, the same method can be applied to any society which is, in form or in substance, an oligarchy."

"The dominant figure in contemporary English historiography is (I need hardly say it) the Polish Jew Lewis Bernstein Namier. He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, but, as a militant Zionist, he remained outside British intellectual society until the publication of his book The Structure of English Politics at the Accession of George III (1929) gave him almost at once a unique position of authority, and transformed him, to his own surprise perhaps, into the model for the younger generation of English historians. In substance Namier applied to English history continental sociological methods of examining the ruling class, and he added to this a special knowledge of the situation in modern and contemporary Central Europe – which he was to show even more clearly in subsequent essays and research. Yet in his extraordinary ability as a minute and rigorous researcher and in the simplicity of his guiding principles he satisfied his English readers steeped in a historiographic tradition that had been formed under the influence of the first German historicism. Namier has instigated the most complex collective undertaking of contemporary English historians, the history of the English Parliament: and his example has influenced historians as different as J. A. Neale [sic]...and A. J. P. Taylor... It is impossible to separate from Namier's work R. Syme's studies in Roman history (The Roman Revolution, 1939)... Namier has been criticised by H. Butterfield in an attempt to re-establish a religious perspective which is Methodist in origin (Christianity and History, 1949 etc.); but if the credit for the reawakening of interest in the history of historiography is due to Butterfield, his specific criticism of Namier's books has not found favour."

"Namier was blessed, or cursed, by an enormous weight of temperament."

"He will remain a cult hero of conservative historians, and that means the bulk of the historical profession. His animus towards altruism, his cynicism towards human motivation, his reverence for inherited status, his belief in the authority of possessions, his near-idolatory for the English landed classes and for parliamentary monarchy will ensure a respectful and laudatory public within the establishment."

"Among British historians there is agreement that the great man of the twentieth century is L. B. Namier (1886–1960), who probably ranks as second only to Maitland among the greatest of British straight-line professionals."

"And of course Lewis, as I soon came to call him, was an intolerable bore unless you were fascinated by the subjects he talked about. To enjoy Lewis's company you had to believe that the eighteenth-century Duke of Newcastle, Zionism, the European revolutions of 1848, the national tangles of the Habsburg Monarchy and later the loathsome character of the Nazis were the most important topics of the world. I was ready enough to believe this. Others were not... Lewis, too, became easily bored himself. I have never known anyone who worked so intensely on a subject and then wearied of it. He never had the patience to write a real book and all his books are really collections of essays, lightly strung together."

"At Manchester I loved Lewis without reserve. There was in Lewis, as in Max Beaverbrook, a strange mixture of greatness and helplessness. Both of them were much greater men than I was, but at the same time I wanted to protect them and to give them affection. Lewis was unquestionably a great historian, the only one I have known intimately. Talking to him was an inspiration, always bringing out the best in me and giving me confidence. He seemed to possess a powerful aggressive personality and this is how most people saw him. Underneath he was insecure without any firm anchorage in life."

"To some extent the interpretation of the story of parliamentary reform in this period has been modified since Veitch's day in consequence of the displacements in eighteenth-century historical studies arising out of the work of Sir Lewis Namier. Namier's studies have deepened our understanding of the way in which the old representative system, despite its illogical absurdities, had an effective functional role in a society in which politics was the virtually unchallenged preserve of a landed oligarchy. The continuance of such a system depended upon the maintenance of a stable and homogeneous society, homogeneous in the sense that people were for the most part conscious of the direct or not very direct connection of their fortunes with the "landed interest" and were, despite diversities of rank and fortune, on the whole satisfied with their niches in society."

"With the publication of Namier's two major works on British eighteenth-century history, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, and England in the Age of the American Revolution, the then accepted picture of the political world in the first half of George III's reign lay scattered in ruins. Schoolmasters, it has been said, hastily roped off the later eighteenth century and guided their charges through more simply charted periods. Nor was it they only who fled from chaos. Namier himself had provided only a few foundations and guidelines for the new historical reconstruction made necessary by the levelling of the old. At that time his intention of carrying his work further was immediately precluded by the non-availability of vital manuscript collections containing the papers of George Grenville, the Marquis of Rockingham and Edmund Burke."

"Lewis Namier's classic model of mid-Hanoverian Westminster retains, for all its shortcomings, a good deal of saliency. Well-developed structures of popular politics existed, but they rarely exerted pressure on the elite, for whom what mainly mattered was procuring jobs for family, friends, and self, and whose behaviour was governed by considerations of pragmatism, habit, custom, and routine rather than by concern for society or commitments to principle."

"If Namierism is dying, it is because the psychological props to the theory of mass biography have dissolved: psychoanalysis no longer seems to us a viable means of insulating historical enquiries from materialist-reductionist claims. This, indeed, was Namierism's weak point: it damaged liberalism by a strategy which, in an English setting, actually promoted Marxist historiography. Namier's positivism, his deflationary desire to strip away psychological illusions and ideological rationalisations, led in the end to a materialist reductionism even in his own ascription of motives."

"Namier's choice of a second subject was equally significant. Namier by-passed the great modern revolutions, English, French and Russian...and elected to give us a penetrating study of the European revolutions of 1848 – a revolution that failed, a set-back all over Europe for the rising hopes of liberalism, a demonstration of the hollowness of ideas in face of armed force, of democrats when confronted with soldiers. The intrusion of ideas into the serious business of politics is futile and dangerous: Namier rubbed in the moral by calling this humiliating failure "the revolution of the intellectuals". Nor is our conclusion a matter of inference alone; for, though Namier wrote nothing systematic on the philosophy of history, he expressed himself in an essay published a few years ago with his usual clarity and incisiveness. "The less, therefore," he wrote, "man clogs the free play of his mind with political doctrine and dogma, the better for his thinking.""

"Sir Lewis Namier had the advantage of access to the personal correspondence of the principal figures. He was struck by the pettiness of Newcastle's preoccupations, and impressed by the sincerity of the King as revealed in his youthful letters. Since Namier wrote it has been impossible to believe that George III consciously sought to make his kingship absolute, or indeed that his constitutional ideas were anything but platitudinously conventional, truly those of a Revolution monarch. Yet Namier did not adequately recognise the extent to which the programme of a patriot king must give rise to legitimate concern about the new policies adopted. Nor was he altogether frank about the attitudes and language which prevailed at court during Bute's supremacy."

"Namier had put a time bomb under the Englishman's conception of his history. (He described Trevelyan as "representative of all that is worthless in history".) The prince of bores, rude, arrogant, venerating Britain as the land of liberty that had been won by its aristocracy, Namier obsessed us even after his death. But there was another reason why Namier irritated us. Namier believed that politics was solely about power, and that ideas, religion, law were mere superstructure. We were suspicious of anyone who claimed to have discovered one infallible method of unravelling the past."

"Sir Lewis is the principal mentor of the modern school of historiography in this country—a school that combines meticulous attention to the details of research with an acute grasp of what is significant in the interpretation of the past. Apart from the debt owed him by the many younger historians who have received their training at his hands, Sir Lewis is largely responsible for an important change in the British historical outlook: his volumes on the structure of eighteenth-century politics have revolutionized the traditional view of the relations between Crown, Administration and Parliament under the Georges."

"Namier's most striking personal characteristics were an unremittingly active intellectual power, independence, lack of fear, and an unswerving devotion to his chosen field."

"[T]he greatest British historian to emerge on the academic scene since the First World War: Sir Lewis Namier. Namier was a true conservative – not a typical English conservative who when scratched turns out to be 75 per cent a liberal, but a conservative such as we have not seen among British historians for more than a hundred years... Like Acton's liberalism, Namier's conservatism derived both strength and profundity from being rooted in a continental background. Unlike Fisher or Toynbee, Namier had no roots in the nineteenth-century liberalism, and suffered from no nostalgic regrets for it... He worked in two chosen fields, and the choice of both was significant. In English history he went back to the last period in which the ruling class had been able to engage in the rational pursuit of position and power in an orderly and mainly static society. Somebody has accused Namier of taking mind out of history. It is not perhaps a very fortunate phrase, but one can see the point which the critic was trying to make. Politics at the accession of George III were still immune from the fanaticism of ideas, and of that passionate belief in progress, which was to break on the world with the French revolution and usher in the century of triumphant liberalism. No ideas, no revolution, no liberalism: Namier chose to give us a brilliant portrait of an age still safe – though not to remain safe for long – from all these dangers."

"Eighteenth-century revisionists were puzzled to see Sir Lewis Namier, that fine though overrated historian, promoted to the status of bugbear by their seventeenth-century colleagues. Between Namier and the revisionists there are, perhaps, similarities of temperament; of scepticism about the autonomous force of ideas; of hostility to Whig sins of teleology and anachronism. Yet Namier was not, primarily, a narrative historian. His brief narratives, when he wrote them, were clever and highly selective sketches rather than detailed examinations. His relentlessly detailed researches were mainly in the structural analysis of the Commons, and were intended to dissolve Whig generalisations about the course of events at the centre by a series of constituency studies. One could argue that Everitt and Morrill more than Russell and Fletcher are Namier's heirs in the seventeenth century, Aydelotte and Davis rather than Cooke and Vincent in the nineteenth. It might be suggested that what Namier's critics really objected to is his caustic and exceedingly effective conservatism, not his historical method. Indeed, his legacy was divided: it did not descend intact."

"But my own greatest debt to the Duke was the discovery of Namier. Now here was a level of history the existence of which I had never previously suspected. I was absolutely enthralled by his use of the minutiae of personal case histories, and it seemed to me that he was a historian who was writing about real people, about human beings and not just about Heroes, great principles, ideas, and that sort of thing. I was delighted above all in his portrayal of the great Duke of Newcastle, for me the very quintessence of the anti-hero, a personage of delightfully unglorious proportions."

"Sir Lewis Namier's essay 'Why men went into Parliament?' remains a classic of historical sociology. It is also misleading. Men went into Parliament for all kinds of reasons, but what they did when they got there almost always had a bearing on their staying there."

"[T]he German scene was transformed by the entry of Hitler: never before had a man so malignant attained such power, nor a nation shown so little revulsion from evil. Crude and hysterical, full of virulent hatreds and envy, he powerfully appealed to the Germans, and set about doing their work in Europe... Hitler had shrewd skill, but no wisdom; with him there was no appealing to reason or even to rational interests—which men like Chamberlain were slow to grasp. Nor was there in him a conscious control of his own moves; hence he appeared incalculable and chaotic."

"Churchill alone, month after month and year after year, exposed the growing dangers of the international situation, pleaded for a consistent and active European policy, and pressed for re-armament on an adequate scale."

"The declaration of war on September 3, 1939, is one of the great turning points of history, and should be remembered in awe and gratitude. At the last moment Britain, though fully conscious of the mortal danger she was facing and of her own weakness, called a halt to a process which had gone much too far, and which, had Hitler pulled off his trick once more, would have subjected all Europe, and perhaps ultimately the world, to Nazi Germany."

"States are not created or destroyed, and frontiers redrawn or obliterated, by argument and majority votes; nations are freed, united, or broken by blood and iron, and not by a generous application of liberty and tomato-sauce; violence is the instrument of national movements."

"He writes about the decade before the war:—"Foreign policy ('rearmament') and social services ('the dole') were competitive claims on a straitened national output." Surely, with 2,000,000 unemployed the output could easily have been expanded to satisfy both claims. It was not; because we believed in "thrift" and transferred this conception derived from individual economy to that of the nation, in which it is apt to turn into sheer nonsense. Further, in the "thrifty" view of national economy production for export is a virtue, but for self-consumption it is, at the best, excusable. This led us into a second absurdity. If we produced material for armaments and exported them, say, to Germany (and they were financed by city loans on which the Germans duly defaulted) "classical economists" beamed with pleasure over our "roaring exports." But had anyone suggested using these materials for the rearmament of this country he would have been decried as a "spendthrift militarist.""

"For 20 years between the two wars the Germans have contended that the cutting off of East Prussia by the Polish Corridor created an utterly untenable situation, and they certainly did their best to make it so. But Poland cannot exist without access to the sea, and the behaviour of the Germans in Czechoslovakia (and elsewhere) has proved that no State can safely harbour them as a minority. Therefore their removal from East Prussia is the only solution. Lord Quickswood dwells on the cruelty of transfers of population; nothing can surpass in cruelty what the Germans have inflicted on humanity by this second world war. A third must be prevented. Lord Quickswood admits that "the great mass of the German people have doubtless a certain moral responsibility for the crimes of their rulers," but sees in it mainly sheep-headed stupidity. Millions of German soldiers and civilians have witnessed the unspeakable massacres and atrocities ordered by their rulers; had there been a normal human reaction these orders could not have been carried out. The German nation is corporatively responsible for what has happened."

"The official "Conservative" leaders of 1938–1939 were mostly ex- or semi-Liberals of middle-class Nonconformist extraction, whose Liberalism had gone rancid – anxious business men lacking imagination and understanding even in business, and in foreign politics lay preachers full of goodwill à bon marché."

"I have always maintained that British history in the eighteenth century is primarily a history of country houses."