Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2014
“The country towns are grown poor,” declared Hugh Boscawen, member for Tregony, to his colleagues in the House of Commons in November 1670, “the inlands grow generally poor. The trading people abroad deal only with London.” Sir Robert Howard agreed: “It was ever said by the wisest men he could meet with that the greatness of London … would be the ruin of the country.” But in 1670 the complaint was hardly new. For well over a century English men and monarchs alike had watched with an anxiety increasingly acute as London, already a giant among English towns, continued to add to her size and population. Many in the country had feared, as did Boscawen and Howard, the effects of such growth upon the rest of England, while those close by tended to be aware of the special economic, political, and social problems which the unhealthy and crowded conditions in the overgrown old city presented.
On March 12, 1564, Queen Elizabeth had issued a proclamation stating “Rules to prevent crowding, in plague ridden Westminster, close by London.” And on July 7, 1580, she proclaimed from Nonsuch Palace that
The city of London, aunciently termed [The Queen's] Chambre, is becoming too crowded with families in one house or small tenements, to the danger of Plague. Until order is taken by Parliament, no new building is to be erected within 3 miles of the gates of London. Not more than one family to inhabit any house…. Undersitters, Indwellers or Inmates [lodgers] must find new homes in other boroughs before All Saints next.
1. Grey, Anchitell, Debates of the House of Commons, From the Year 1667 to the Year 1694. Collected by the Hon. Anchitell Grey, Esq. (London, 1763), I, 301–02Google Scholar.
2. Ibid., I, 301. Howard represented Stockbridge, in Hampshire. A noted royalist, he was named secretary to the commissioners of the Treasury, and in 1677, auditor of the Exchequer. See D.N.B., X, 59-61.
3. Steele, Robert, A Bibliography of Royal Proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart Sovereigns and of Others Published under Authority 1483-1714 with an Historical Essay on Their Origin and Use (Oxford, 1910), I, 63, No. 591Google Scholar.
4. Ibid., I, 80, No. 749.
5. Statutes of the Realm (London, 1810–1828), IVGoogle Scholar, Pt. 1, 758-62: 27 Eliz., c. 30. See also ibid., IV, Pt. 2, 834-39: 31 Eliz., c. 16; IV, Pt. 2, 1010-14: 43 Eliz., c. 19.
6. Ibid., IV, Pt. 2, 804: 31 Eliz., c. 7.
7. Ibid., IV, Pt. 2, 805. That this statute was meant to deal with rural problems is clear. But later, in the 1670s, there were some who cited it and thought it applicable to the areas around London.
8. Ibid., IV, Pt. 2, 852: 35 Eliz., c. 6.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., IV, Pt. 2, 852-53. It is interesting that the statute also specified that “none shall inclose Commons … within three miles of the Gates of the City of London,” perhaps an early effort to preserve public “green spaces” in urban development.
11. Steele, , Royal Proclamations, I, 106, No. 927Google Scholar.
12. Ibid., I, 111, No. 969.
13. Willson, David Harris (ed.), The Parliamentary Diary of Robert Bowyer 1606-1607 (Minneapolis, 1931), p. 87Google Scholar.
14. Ibid. Bowyer reports that the bill received a second reading on March 12, 1606, and a third on the 20th, but was then defeated on a division. The “Amendments and alteracions” to the projected bill were “manie.”
15. Steele, , Royal Proclamations, I, 122–23Google Scholar, No. 1049; I, 125, No. 1063. These proclamations stirred controversy. They, and others, were brought into question in the famous case of the proclamations, of which Edward Coke said in 1610, “The king cannnot change any part of the common law, nor create any offence by his Proclamation, which was not an offense before, without Parliament.” The Twelfth Part of the Reports of Sir Edward Coke, Kt. of Divers Resolutions and Judgments given upon solemn arguments, and with great Deliberation and Conference with the Learned Judge in Cases of Law (London, 1656), p. 75Google Scholar. In response King James withdrew his earlier proclamations and issued another, similar in intent, but less controversial. Steele, , Royal Proclamations, I, 131Google Scholar, No. 1114, 22 July 1611, and No. 1115, 3 Aug. 1611.
16. Maitland, Williamet al., The History and Survey of London from Its Foundation to the Present Time (London, 1756), I, 289Google Scholar.
17. Wilson, Life of James, as quoted in ibid., I, 294. The proclamation referred to is that of 22 July 1611, or possibly its altered edition of 3 Aug. 1611.
18. Ibid.
19. Steele, , Royal Proclamations, I, 137–38Google Scholar, No. 1167, 15 July 1615. See also I, 117, No. 1011; I, 144, No. 1218; I, 148, No. 1248; I, 152, No. 1285; I, 163, No. 1381.
20. Ibid., I, 209, No. 1741.
21. Ibid. This is one of the first instances of an effort to deal with urban, or as in this case suburban, growth by means other than simply prohibiting building.
22. Rutt, John T. (ed.), Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq. (London, 1828), I, 19–20Google Scholar. Journals of the House of Commons, VII, 464. In Feb. 1678 Colonel John Birch recalled discussing “that new buildings were Nusances” in “A Convention of 1654.” While such a debate was, of course, possible, no other source reports it. As Birch was elected to both the 1654 and 1656 Parliaments of Cromwell (though he did not sit in the Nominated Parliament of 1654), it is also possible that twenty years later he had the sessions confused and was in fact thinking of the lengthy debates of 1656 and 1657. Grey, , Debates, V, 183.Google Scholar
23. Rutt, , Diary of Burton, II, 180-82, 258–59Google Scholar. Commons Journals, VII, 490-91, 542, 546-48, 563–66Google Scholar. Firth, C. H. and Rait, R. S. (eds.), Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (London, 1911), II, 1223–24Google Scholar.
24. Steele, , Royal Proclamations, I, 400, No. 3322Google Scholar.
25. See Bell, Walter G., The Great Fire of London (London, 1920)Google Scholar; Reddaway, T. F., The Rebuilding of London after the Great Fire (London, 1940)Google Scholar; and Wheatley, Henry B. (ed.), Dairy of Samuel Pepys (London, 1903)Google Scholar.
26. Statutes of the Realm, V, 601, 603, 795Google Scholar: 18-19 Car. II, c. 7 and c. 8; 25 Car. II, c. 10.
27. Reddaway, , Rebuilding of London, p. 301Google Scholar. For an excellent and thorough description of the expansion of London in the seventeenth century, see Brett-James, Norman G., The Growth of Stuart London (London, 1935)Google Scholar.
28. Reddaway, , Rebuilding of London, pp. 304-05, and p. 306, n. 1Google Scholar.
29. Ibid., pp. 300-01.
30. Marquis of Lansdowne (ed.), The Petty Papers. Some Unpublished Writings of Sir William Petty. Edited from the Bowood Papers (London, 1927), I, 29Google Scholar. The quotation is from an essay on “The Rebuilding of London.”
31. Ibid.
32. H.M.C., Eighth Report (London, 1881), Pt. 1, p. 98Google Scholar, MSS of the Earl of Jersey, Sec. e, “Papers touching New Buildings about London.” The exact date of this petition is uncertain. According to the manuscript editor this, and another petition “for the same purpose,” were “Drawn in some year subsequent to 13 Charles II” and came into the Earl of Jersey's possession in Nov. 1675.
33. Reddaway, , Rebuilding of London, p. 305Google Scholar.
34. Ibid., pp. 306-07.
35. Steele, , Royal Proclamations, I, 429,Google Scholar Nos. 3549 and 3550. The water supply and the clearing and paving of the streets of London were, throughout the seventeenth century, regular concerns of Parliament, and therefore also of the king.
36. Brett-James, Growth of Stuart London, presents an interesting discussion of these developments and developers. See esp. chs. xii and xv.
37. Ibid., p. 375. Brett-James implies that the Earl of St. Albans was respon-sible for introducing regulating legislation in the House of Commons in Mar. 1677. However, according to available records, though such a matter was before the House of Lords at that date, not until Feb. 1678 was a bill presented to the House of Commons. Brett-James gives no references to support his assigning to St. Albans the responsibility for introducing the matter; no other source makes the suggestion. However, it can be assumed that the Earl, as well as several other developers, would quite naturally have been interested.
38. See Kennedy, William, English Taxation 1640-1799: An Essay on Policy and Opinion (London, 1913)Google Scholar; also William A. Shaw's introductions to the relevant volumes of the series Calendar of Treasury Books (London, 1904–1916), I–VIIIGoogle Scholar. The texts of the various tax statutes can be found in Statutes of the Realm, V.
39. See, for example, Grey, , Debates, I, 277, 285, 292, 310, 311, 365.Google Scholar
40. Ibid., I, 350-53, 319, 325, 423. See also Cobbett, William (ed.), Parliamentary History of England from the Norman Conquest in 1066 to the Year 1694 (London, 1806–1820), IV, 456Google Scholar; Robbins, Caroline (ed.), The Diary of John Milward, Esq. Member of Parliament for Derbyshire, September 1666 to May 1668 (Cambridge, 1938), p. 43Google Scholar; Ogg, David, England in the Reign of Charles II (Oxford, 1956), II, ch. xiiGoogle Scholar.
41. Grey, , Debates, I, 301.Google Scholar Clifford, named first Lord Clifford of Chudleigh in 1672, held several government posts. After carrying out several minor assignments, he was appointed privy counsellor and comptroller of the household in 1666. The next year found him a commissioner of the treasury, and the next, treasurer of the household. He was one of the famed cabal and in 1672 became lord treasurer. A Roman Catholic, he was forced to resign his positions and died soon after in 1673. D.N.B., IV, 534-37.
42. Grey, , Debates, I, 301.Google Scholar
43. Ibid.
44. Ibid., I, 302. Henry Coventry, brother of Sir William Coventry and brother-in-law of Anthony Ashley Cooper, first Earl of Shaftesbury, had been in exile with Charles II. After the Restoration he served the King in various diplomatic matters and in the 1670s became Secretary of State. D.N.B., IV, 1282-83.
45. Grey, , Debates, I, 302.Google Scholar The reference is to Statutes of the Realm, IV, Pt. 2, 804-05: 31 Eliz., c. 7. Waller had first sat in a Parliament of James I and was known as a “parliament man” as well as a poet. D.N.B., XX, 580-84.
46. Grey, , Debates, I, 302.Google Scholar Lee, active in the “opposition,” sat for Aylsbury.
47. Ibid., I, 301.
48. Henning, Basil D. (ed.), The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Dering 1670-1673 (New Haven, 1940), p. 10Google Scholar.
49. Ibid., p. 27. This Williams is most likely Henry Cromwell, member for Huntingdonshire.
50. Grey, , Debates, II, 336.Google Scholar
51. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 659;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, II, 336Google Scholar. In 1660 Sir William Coventry became secretary to James, Duke of York, and in 1662 a commissioner of the navy. In 1665 he was knighted and named to the Privy Council. However, in 1668, following an attack by Buckingham, he resigned from the Duke's service, was excluded from the Privy Council, and was imprisoned in the Tower. Though he was later pardoned, he remained “independent in thought.” D.N.B., IV, 1287-89.
52. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 659Google Scholar; Grey, , Debates, II, 337.Google Scholar One can speculate on what the response of the various developers would have been to this sort of regulation.
53. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 659Google Scholar; Grey, , Debates, II, 337.Google Scholar
54. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 659;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, II, 337.Google Scholar The reference may be to Queen Elizabeth's “generall and free pardon” of 1584-85 (27 Eliz., c. 30). Statutes of the Realm, IV, Pt. 1, 758-62. But it is more likely to 35 Eliz., c. 6 (1592). Ibid., IV, Pt. 2, 852-53. Clarges, member for Southwark, was “a chief agent in the Restoration for his brother-in-law Monk” but nevertheless became “a solid member of the country party.” Feiling, Keith, A History of the Tory Party, 1640-1714 (Oxford, 1959), p. 292Google Scholar. See also D.N.B., IV, 398-99.
55. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 660;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, II, 337.Google Scholar Sawyer was elected to the House of Commons from Chipping Wycombe in 1673. He was knighted in 1677 and named Speaker in 1678. In 1681 he was appointed Attorney-General. His name appears on various of the Danby “working lists,” including one of “excise pensioners” (1676-78) and one of “government supporters” (1676). Browning, Andrew, Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds, 1632-1712 (Glasgow, 1951), III, 54, 90Google Scholar. Also D.N.B., XVII, 870-73.
56. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 659;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, II, 336.Google Scholar A lawyer, judge, and Presbyterian, John Maynard sat in the convention Parliament. In 1660 he was named a Serjeant, and shortly thereafter was made a king's Serjeant and knight. D.N.B., XIII, 158-61. In this Parliament he sat for Boralston.
57. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 659–60Google Scholar; Grey, , Debates, II, 337.Google Scholar
58. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 660;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, II, 337.Google Scholar
59. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 659;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, II, 337.Google Scholar
60. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 660;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, II, 337.Google Scholar
61. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 659;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, II, 336.Google Scholar The accounts are not identical, that in Grey being fuller.
62. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 660;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, II, 337.Google Scholar
63. Commons Journals, IX, 319.Google Scholar
64. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 679;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, III, 10.Google Scholar
65. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 679;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, III, 9.Google Scholar
66. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 679;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, III, 10.Google Scholar
67. The “nuisance” question was indeed a complicated one. The king could not dispense any statute covering an offense termed in that law “a nuisance.” Whatever the theoretical reasons behind this limitation, in Charles II's reign it was used for political purposes, to preclude the King's dispensing with laws to favor those he supported and Parliament opposed. Thus, in the famed Irish Cattle Bill (Statutes of the Realm, V, 597Google Scholar: 18 and 19 Car. II, c. 2, sec. 1) and the earlier Leather Export Bill (ibid., V, 379: 14 Car. II, c. 7, sec. 10), the import of Irish cattle and the export of certain hides and leathers were designated “publick nuisances” precisely so that the King could not exercise his dispensing power, as he might reasonably be expected to do, to protect those of his supporters who found their interests endangered by the acts. However, this political use of a device essentially legal or judicial in nature did raise questions in the minds of some. In addition, the specific nuisances under discussion in the “new building” debates were so named in proclamations, not Acts of Parliament; their legal status was therefore unclear. In practice kings had long granted licenses or dispensations to violators of building proclamations. Thus the question was not easy, for it involved at once the legal and exact definition of “nuisance,” the relationship of statute, proclamation, and common law, the applicability of specific statutes to specific situations, the political use of legal conventions, and the power of kings to dispense with statute or proclamation law, freely or for a fee.
68. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 679;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, III, 10.Google Scholar This would be either Samuel or Thomas Jones, both of whom sat for Salop, town (Shrewsbury).
69. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 679;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, III, 9.Google Scholar
70. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 679;Google ScholarGrey, , Debates, III, 9.Google Scholar The account in Cobbett is incomplete. For a full discussion of poor relief and the effects of the Acts of 1662 and 1666-67, see Ogg, , England in the Reign of Charles II, I, 120–24Google Scholar. The acts, based upon the Elizabethan parish system, did not do a great deal to alleviate the problems of the poor, who too often found themselves hounded out of their home parishes and drawn to London, where the 1662 Act had established corporation workhouses.
71. Commons Journals, IX, 319.Google Scholar
72. Journals of the House of Lords, XIII, 25-26, 59.Google Scholar Drafts of the bills appear in H.M.C., Ninth Report (London, 1884), Pt. 2, pp. 26, 84–85Google Scholar, Lords MSS.
73. Lords Journals, XIII, 69Google Scholar.
74. Ibid., XIII, 76.
75. Ibid., XIII, 107, 145, 159. The interests behind the numerous provisos were those of suburban landholders who had no desire to have their investments and development plans taxed or prohibited by Parliament and therefore bent their efforts to having themselves or their holdings excluded from the bill.
76. Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 896-98, 915–17Google Scholar.
77. Ibid., IV, 943. See also ibid., IV, 940; and Grosart, A. B. (ed.), The Complete Works in Verse and Prose of Andrew Marvel! (London, 1872–1875), II, 582Google Scholar. Vol. II is Maryell's correspondence and consists primarily of his letters to Kingston-upon-Hull, which he represented in the House of Commons.
78. Grey, , Debates, V, 188–89Google Scholar.
79. Ibid., V, 182-83; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 944.Google Scholar John Birch, a Lancashire man, had been a Presbyterian colonel in the civil wars and had sat in Parliament from 1646 until Pride's Purge. He took an important part in the restoration of Charles II and became a prominent member of the Commons where he spoke often, especially on military and financial matters. D.N.B., II, 524-26.
80. Grey, , Debates, V, 180.Google Scholar
81. Ibid.; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 943.Google Scholar
82. Grey, , Debates, V, 180, 188.Google Scholar Sacheverell, a leader of opposition forces, sat for Derbyshire.
83. Ibid., V, 181. In 1660 Joseph Williamson entered the office of the secretary of state; in 1665 he became secretary to Lord Arlington, then state secretary. After carrying out various diplomatic assignments in the early 1670s, he was himself appointed Secretary of State in 1674. D.N.B., XXI, 473-79.
84. Grey, , Debates, V, 180–81Google Scholar.
85. Ibid., V, 181-82; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 943.Google Scholar
86. Grey, , Debates, V, 187.Google Scholar
87. Ibid., V, 183; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 944.Google Scholar
88. Grey, , Debates, V, 186–87Google Scholar. And, Swynfin added, “I am against this charge, till I know how much this will keep off the Tax from Land” and “what these buildings will bear.”
89. Ibid., V, 180; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 943.Google Scholar
90. Grosart, , Works of Marvell, II, 582.Google Scholar
91. So said Sir Thomas Meres, though his reference is unclear. He may be speaking of a general assessment in 1654, or possibly of the new buildings assessment of 1657. Grey, , Debates, V, 187Google Scholar. But there was some question concerning the financial prospects of such a tax. Swynfin raised the point: “When the Chimney Act was computed ['twas] uncertainly … It may come to this, that the receivers may not receive half what you rate them at, and the King may not have half, and therefore some think this may raise 400,000£ and others not 40,000£.” Ibid., V, 186. Meres represented Lincoln city.
92. Ibid., V, 186-87.
93. Ibid., V, 188. This would be Henry Coventry, a Secretary of State.
94. Ibid., V, 184.
95. Ibid., V, 186.
96. Ibid., V, 188.
97. Ibid., V, 183.
98. Ibid., V, 182; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 943–44Google Scholar.
99. Grey, , Debates, V, 183.Google Scholar
100. Ibid., V, 188.
101. Ibid., V, 180; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 943.Google Scholar In 1672 Sir Francis Winnington was appointed King's counsel and Attorney-General to the Duke of York. In 1674 he was named Solicitor-General. D.N.B., XXI, 668-69.
102. Grey, , Debates, V, 185Google Scholar; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 944–45Google Scholar.
103. Grey, , Debates, V, 185–86Google Scholar.
104. Ibid., V, 184.
105. Ibid., V, 180.
106. Ibid., V, 179-80; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 943.Google Scholar
107. Grey, , Debates, V, 187;Google ScholarCobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 945.Google Scholar
108. Grey, , Debates, V, 188;Google ScholarCobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 945;Google ScholarCommons Journals, IX, 442.Google Scholar
109. Ibid., IX, 442-43.
110. Ibid., IX, 444. But the next day, the 23rd, the committee was discussing a Poll Bill. Ibid., IX, 445.
111. Grosart, , Works of Marvell, II, 590–91Google Scholar.
112. Ibid., II, 593; Commons Journals, IX, 452.Google Scholar
113. Ibid., IX, 452-53.
114. Grosart, , Works of Marvell, II, 593–94Google Scholar.
115. Ibid., II, 596; Commons Journals, IX, 455.Google Scholar That there was public interest in the bill is indicated by a pamphlet entitled “A particular of the new buildings within the bills of mortality and without the City from 1656 to 1677 inclusive.” The pamphlet states that there were only ten thousand new houses, not the twenty to thirty thousand which some had estimated, and that even if a law were devised which taxed all and which could be collected, it would not raise above £30,000 clear. Oliver's commissioners had been unable to raise above £20,000. The pamphlet also points out the hardships that would be worked upon builders who had legally exercised their trade, and owners who had invested in the improvement or subdivision of their houses or gardens. Calendar of State Papers Domestic, 1678, XX, 32–33Google Scholar. Entry is dated Mar. 11, 1678.
116. Grey, , Debates, V, 250.Google Scholar
117. C.S.P.D., 1678, XX, 55; Commons Journals, IX, 457.Google Scholar
118. Ibid., IX, 459.
119. Grosart, , Works of Marvell, II, 601.Google Scholar
120. Commons Journals, IX, 461.Google Scholar
121. Ibid.
122. Grosart, , Works of Marvell, II, 624.Google Scholar
123. Ibid., II, 628-34.
124. Grey, , Debates, VI, 109;Google ScholarCobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 1004;Google ScholarCommons Journals, IX, 503, 505.Google Scholar See also Grosart, , Works of Marvell, II, 606.Google Scholar
125. Commons Journals, IX, 505;Google ScholarCobbett, , Parliamentary History, IV, 1005.Google Scholar
126. Grosart, , Works of Marvell, II, 638.Google Scholar
127. Commons Journals, X, 112, 127, 153, 321, 324.Google Scholar It is interesting to note that on Jan. 3, 1690, when the imposition bill last appeared before the Commons, a proviso was offered: “Ordered, That Leave be given to bring in a Clause, to the Bill for taxing new buildings, to prevent any further Building upon new Foundations about London for the future.” No record of the debates exists.
128. Ibid., XVI, 123, 136, 209, 284, 288, 294, 300, 315, 324, 330, 333, 347, 357, 374. There is no account of debate on this bill.
129. And indeed, it is not always possible to tell to which camp some parliament men should be assigned. Ambitions, shifting loyalties, the emergence and subsequent fading of new blocs, changing combinations of factions, and the inevitable realignments of interests often make any such “assignment” impossible and inaccurate. Royalist Sir Robert Howard became a Whig leader. Sir Richard Temple is described by one writer as, quite reasonably, both a “country” politician and a member of the “moderate” group. Feiling, , History of the Tory Party, pp. 140, 265Google Scholar. Over a period of nearly ten years changes and shading are to be expected. Even when such affiliations were considered in their broadest terms, however, no clear “political” division on the new buildings issues appeared. Though some of the more prominent speakers are identified in the footnotes, it would be a mistake to assume a simple or direct relationship between factional affiliation and a specific attitude toward the issues or any one aspect of them. The court was, of course, always interested in taxes, but there is no evidence that the king or his ministers ever backed a tax on new buildings, or for that matter considered the proposal seriously. If the court took an active part in promoting or discouraging the regulation of new buildings, it did so indirectly and subtly. No evidence of such interest is seen in the debates. There seems to be no “official” position on any aspect of the building question, and therefore no opposition to one. Men with court appointments cannot be considered, by that fact, “court spokesmen,” nor leaders of the country party to be speaking from a factional point of view. It seems instead that personal considerations, personal interests, and the nature of the question itself were the primary motivating forces in the debates.
