Sir L ewis N amier, Sir J ohn N eale and the Shaping of the History of Parliament

When the project for a collaborative, publicly‐funded History of Parliament was relaunched in 1951, with the support of a substantial grant‐in‐aid from the treasury, academic direction was entrusted to an ‘editorial board’ of professional historians, the most influential of whom were Sir J ohn N eale and Sir L ewis N amier. Both were committed to the technique of collective biography, but had radically‐different views of the structure and scope of the History . For N eale, the research would provide quantitative answers to specific historical questions, arising from his essentially whiggish view of constitutional development. N amier held to a ‘sociological’ method, studying the lives of MPs as a means of recreating the world of the governing classes. In practice, N amier set no limits to his inquiry: historical questions would be determined by the evidence. Faced with these conflicting approaches the ‘editorial board’ failed to define the purpose of the History . In practice, because N amier's section made more progress, his view of the History triumphed over N eale's. But as deadlines drew near the treasury began to exert pressure. Conservative ministers (especially H arold M acmillan) and civil servants, were sharply critical of the apparently open‐ended nature of the History , and the trustees, who bore ultimate responsibility for the project, were anxious to bring volumes to publication. In consequence, N amier's original ambition was curtailed and, after his death in 1960, his own section was completed by his assistant, J ohn Brooke, in a more restricted format.