Talk:Thomas Thornely

Party affiliation

I would query the claim that Thomas Thornley "was a British Liberal Party politician". There are two issues here firstly The Wolverhampton constituency article identifies Thornley as a Radical for all of his term in parliament. Secondly, the Liberal Party is generally agreed to have been founded in 1859 when the Whigs formally joined with the Peelites and Radicals. Thornley It is true that "liberal" was occasionally (and inconsistently) used before that period to refer Whigs and some of their allies, although not usually Radicals. As Thornley was first elected in 1835 and left parliament at the 1859 general election it is unlikely he was ever officially a Liberal. I would suggest that this line be reworded and would also suggest that it might not be appropriate for the article to be in Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies, unless someone has clear evidence that this label was used by, or regularly applied to, Thornley. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Understand your point but the sources seem to say otherwise. You probably need to open a meta-discussion somewhere because this is likely to affect a lot of articles, perhaps at the politics project. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. I think a broader discussion is a very good idea as there are number of articles where there is great inconstancy on 19th century party affiliation, particularly for Liberals/Whigs/Radicals/Peelites. It is not helped by the fact that into the early twentieth century some reports used Radical Party as a synonym for Liberal (just as many newspapers used Socialist as a label for Labour candidates before World War Two). Where do you think the best page to start such a discussion would be? Dunarc (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I will dig around tomorrow. The categories would need renaming also but there are a range of complications, such as those MPs who were Radicals/Peelites/whatever who continued as MPs after 1859. It could end up being a monster task, however necessary. Ping me if I don't add further comment here in the next day or two. - Sitush (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I have added new sources since my opening response here. As things now stand:

• Category:Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom for English constituencies by party includes a category for Whig MPs, which goes some way to resolving one of the issues, although Whig is perhaps too broad a term if stretched to include Peelites etc. I think there is a tendency generally to use Whig as meaning not Tory. Certainly, I can recall seeing stuff about alliances between, say, Whigs and Radicals.
• p 50 of the Bebbington source says he often voted against the "Liberal" govt "in favour of retrenchment and reform" but nonethelss describes him at "MP (L)". Supporter of Anti-Corn Law League.
• the Escott source in the context of Thornely relates to 1830-32 and projects him as in opposition to the Tory Viscount Sandon, saying that he spoke at reform meetings etc. Of course, the electioneering at that time was as centred on the issue of what became the Reform Act as the next election in the UK is likely to be centred on Brexit, ie: almost to the detriment of everything else.
• the Craig source shows him as "L" both in Liverpool and Wolverhampton.
• p 174-175 of Swift notes that Thornely had supported "repeal of the Corn Laws, adoption of Free Trade, Postal reform, admission of Jews to parliament, recognition of the principl.es of civil and religious liberty, and law reform". Thornley himself noted those in his resignation statement made to the "Liberal committee" in 1859 (of course, the year when the Libs are commonly thought to have emerged as a party by name) p 53 of same source says both Thornely and Villiers were "committed Reformers and Free Traders" - I am using the same capitalisation used, as for all sources that I quote here.
• The Menzies source refers to him as "the reformer ..." at least twice, and once as "the radical ..."

So, this is where we're at presently. - Sitush (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Now for additional sources:

• This contemporary source (published 1837, p 223) describes him as a Whig.
• this recent one has him sitting on a committee as a "free-trader", supporting Hume.

I haven't trawled the British Newspaper Archive because I do not have full access to it at present. - Sitush (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now made these edits to eliminate the "Liberal" anachronism. Probably not ideal but I am struggling to find an appropriate WikiProject where these issues could be raised. Of course, we still have the inconsistency with "Radical" being used as a descriptor at Wolverhampton constituency article and we probably need to check all of the other articles which link to this one. And then there is the wider issue of lord knows how many other claims to various MP's Liberalism that are misplaced. This could be a big job. - Sitush (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush great work. One thing I wondered about is for the category Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies if it would be worth putting a form of wording that "this category is for MPs elected as a Liberal from the party's formal foundation in 1859." I think any one who was pre and post 1859 could be in more than one category (ie the Liberal for post 59 and if applicable Whig for pre 1859 service) as there are examples of this already. I think party labels and movement between parties was so fluid it is never going to be perfect as you have things like Gladstone considering himself a Conservative into the 1850s when he had long severed his connection with what today would be considered to be the official Conservative Party and Disraeli first standing for parliament as Radical. Dunarc (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Dunarc, go for it. Probably won't be seen by many people, especially those who use WP:HotCat, but in the long term it should help matters. Heh, the first "proper" history book I ever read was a biography of Peel by Norman Gash - I was aged 10 at the time, which shows a certain precocity but might also explain why, fifty years on, I'm a bit rusty regarding some of the details! - Sitush (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Will do! Gash's book is still a classic. Dunarc (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)