In an age as confusing and volatile as the interwar period, it was perhaps to be expected that the main theme in literature among younger writers and poets particularly would be the social, political, and economic malaise of the time. Indeed, it was the delineation and analysis of this malaise and its relationship to individual life that set the tone of the so-called thirties poetry in Britain and which provided the focal point of W. H. Auden, the most distinguished and versatile English poet of the 1930's. Auden's work in the thirties was characterized by persistent intellectual effort and endurance. For as his contemporary John Lehmann pointed out, W. H. Auden was “the spiritual physician of his generation.” And he was the spiritual physician because more than any other prestigious English litterateur of the interwar years, Auden sought to resolve what seemed to be the most critical problem of the time: how the individual might take effective political action without losing his moral integrity. Or as Auden put the problem as early as 1930:

I should like, therefore, to examine two of W. H. Auden's works which most directly confront the problem of individual commitment to collective political action: “Spain,” and Journey to a War.

The famous poem “Spain,” written in April 1937 and published in May of that year, seemed to announce that at last Auden offered unequivocal endorsement of politicial action. The poem further develops a theme set forth in his celebrated Look Stranger (1935) — the moral responsibility of carefully considered choice and action. The Spanish Civil War, to Auden, is the clear opportunity of an individual to make a decision and to act. A person could either do nothing, which in the face of the Fascist threat is virtually to commit moral suicide, or he could act in unison with other individuals against Fascism. In Auden's view, not only does the Spanish Civil War represent a crisis situation in the history of his generation, it represents also a pivotal point in the intellectual history of the Western World. Accordingly Auden places himself and his generation in a profoundly meaningful historical context. The first stanzas of the poem summarize the ingredients of the Weltanschauung which culminated in twentieth-century liberalism, with its political manifestation in Western parliamentary democracy. The poet also sketches the history of the application of science to conquer the natural world and the gradual victory of scientific method over the ages in which religious faith explained the whole of the world as but a symbol of a transcendental order.

Few Englishmen proved more consistent critics in the years before the Civil War than William Fiennes, Baron, later Viscount, Saye and Sele. In religion a Puritan, in politics committed to the defence of aristocratic privilege and parliamentary rights, he was deeply involved in all of the important opposition movements of the period. A major participant in the passage of the Petition of Right, a prominent opponent of ship-money and the Bishops' Wars with Scotland, he was a leading enemy of the court and clergy in the Long Parliament. Nor was Saye's significance limited to his individual activities alone, for both the Earl of Clarendon and Anthony Wood, writing in the seventeenth century, treated him as the acknowledged leader of the party that provoked the Civil War.

In assessing Lord Saye's role as on opposition leader, historians have paid little attention to Saye's first and, in many ways, most vigorous confrontation with the royal government in 1622. In that year Saye not only refused to contribute to a benevolence for the assistance of Frederick, the Elector — Palatine, but was also accused of attempting to hinder others from doing so. For these alleged actions and the grounds upon which he chose to defend himself, Saye was imprisoned in Fleet Prison for nearly eight months, from June 6, 1622 to February 4, 1622/3.

There are two important documents which will enable us to penetrate the nature of Saye's actions and the government's response to them. The first, hitherto neglected, is a transcript of four appearances which the Baron made before the Council between May 23 and June 6, 1622. The second, a letter from Lord Saye to the Duke of Buckingham, written sometime around February 3, 1622/3, while Saye was still in the Fleet, contains valuable information that has not yet been brought to light concerning this affair.

After Sir Walter Scott made the historical novel popular with his Waverley novels, many other writers, including the major novelists Dickens and Thackeray and the minor novelists Ainsworth, G. P. R. James, Bulwer-Lytton, and Reade, took up the form. But while the major novelists are credited with artistry in their use of history, the minor ones are generally regarded as hacks who used history indiscriminately in any way they wished in order to “make saleable novels.” The disparaging criticism of William Harrison Ainsworth's use of history exemplifies this unreflective critical tendency.

For several probable reasons, critics have not been inclined to credit Ainsworth with using history responsibly; however, none of the reasons is based on an examination of his sources: his rapid ascension and decline as an important literary figure, his popularity with the common reading public, and his failure to progress artistically after his first few good novels. His artistic growth seems to have ended in 1840, forty-one years before the publication of his last novel. These critics have seen him as a “manufacturer of fiction,” and therefore not responsible in his treatment of historical fact and his use of historical documents, even though time and place are of crucial importance to Ainsworth. One could hardly regard Ainsworth more incorrectly. A close reading of Ainsworth's historical sources demonstrates that Ainsworth's history is extremely reliable in both generalities and particulars; his alterations, usually minor, serve only to adumbrate his concept of history as cycle. Thus, even though he is a novelist and not a historian, the faithful revelation of the past is central to his work. He examines history carefully in order to present truths about life and in order to demonstrate how history reveals these truths.

The temperance efforts of Joseph Chamberlain during the 1870's have been a largely ignored facet of the great Birmingham politician's career. The latest of his biographers, Dr. Peter Fraser, did not feel that the temperance aspect of his subject deserved even the attention of a citation. Perhaps the fact that Chamberlain's program of temperance reform was so easily defeated explains this general sketchiness of historical treatment. It is the contention of this paper, however, that the defeat of Chamberlain's proposals would exercise an important — if malevolent — effect on the future of the Liberal party.

These temperance proposals of Chamberlain exhibited many of the characteristics described in the Nineteenth Century Revolution in Government literature. While mayor of Birmingham, Chamberlain created a public house inspectorship when he discovered that the average constable could not be trusted within the walls of a drink shop. As part of his vision for central Birmingham, the Corporation next purchased 120 public houses. Although civically owned, these houses were leased to private management. And finally as a fledgling M.P. in 1877, Chamberlain argued for the complete municipalization of the drink trade. He now felt that the city should become a monopolist in both ownership and management of alcohol. Socialization of the drink traffic would offer two advantages. In the first place, abolition of the profit motive would lessen drunkeness; the customer would no longer be pressured into “drinking for the good of the house.” Secondly, elimination of over-entry and excess competition through public ownership would make the municpalized trade a lucrative source of civic revenue.