Between 1824 and 1828, the aged William Godwin, who thirty years before had written the speculative but highly successful Enquiry concerning political justice, published a four volume study of the English Republic, the History of the commonwealth of England. Godwin's publisher, Henry Colburn, paid an advance of five hundred pounds for what was originally conceived of as a work in two volumes, and he no doubt did so because he expected that the book would appeal to a public that showed a great deal of interest in the civil war period. One reason for this interest was that historical studies of the seventeenth century, and commentaries upon them in the reviews, played a significant role in contemporary political argument.

Given the vast amount of literature that has been published about bomber command's role during the Second World War, it might seem, at first sight, that there was not much to add. The magisterial volumes of the official history written by Sir Charles Webster and Dr Noble Frankland appear to have said all there is to say; and to them must now be added numerous books which they have helped to engender, such as – to mention but the most recent two – those of John Terraine and Max Hastings.

On 18 October 1826 the final English state lottery was drawn at Coopers' Hall. It was the one hundred and seventieth of the state lotteries to be held since their parliamentary inauguration in 1694. Although the economic importance of the lotteries to the eighteenth-century exchequer has been widely recognized, their demise has received scant historical attention. This is despite stark contrast between the promotion of the lottery by government or government contractors, and the strident protests against the lottery's allegedly corrupt and ruinous influence. Why exactly was the lottery abandoned as an instrument of public revenue? Was it in response to moral argument or as a matter of fiscal policy? At issue is not only the effectiveness of organized opposition in transforming participation and policy-making, but also the relationship between Treasury strategies, systems of management and the response of the market.

Between 1900 and 1918 the Labour party changed from being a new organization operating on the fringes of the Liberal party, to being the largest British opposition party. This change has attracted a great deal of historical attention. The analysis of electoral results in general, and municipal election results in particular, rightly plays a major part in the conflicting explanations of why this realignment took place. Negatively, this paper seeks to establish that many of the methods of examining electoral material common in the literature are in fact inadequate. It is also suggested, more positively, that despite problems with the way results are currently used, even a modestly elaborated treatment of municipal election results can reveal significant information about the origins and location of Labour's support. Accurate ‘quantification’ cannot of itself explain the rise of Labour, or the pattern of electoral politics more generally. It can, however, be an important component of broader attempts at establishing why political changes took place both in Edwardian Britain and in the still under-researched period between 1918 and 1931.

From the pageantry and elaborate stage-management of embassies in the early modern period to ping pong or panda diplomacy, policy-makers have used public rituals to dramatize or make statements about international relationships. For most of the nineteenth century the United States refused, in the name of republican simplicity, to sanction the wearing of court dress or the sending and receiving of ambassadors. Congress steadfastly refused to compromise with the standards of European monarchies on these symbols of American exceptionalism. Historians of diplomacy have neglected such phenomena, but concentration on them may allow a bridging of the gulf which Bernard Porter has lamented between their field and other sub-disciplines, commenting that the former remained ‘Newtonian survivals in the age of Einstein’.

In 1833 slavery was abolished in the British West Indian colonies. A labour system that had been in operation for two hundred years, ended. A campaign based on the concept of freedom came to fruition. The idea of freedom was central to enlightenment thought. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of movement, a free press, free trade and free labour were all part of enlightenment ideology. The institution of slavery, which limited all freedoms, came under pressure in an enlightened environment. Unlike the ancients who believed there could not be a civilized society without slaves, enlightenment philosophers developed the view that slavery was antithetical to civilization.

Recent archival research has elucidated the German purpose in sending Joel Brand to Istanbul in May 1944 to negotiate the exchange of Hungarian jews for ‘goods’. Himmler's aim was to enlist the zionist leadership in an effort to detach the western allies from Russia and obtain a separate peace. It is also known now that the allies were initially willing to ‘keep the door open’ by negotiation, but suddenly broke off contacts in July. And we know too how Moshe Shertok – the jewish agency's ‘foreign secretary’ – was tricked by a British promise that Brand would be allowed after meeting him in Aleppo to return to Budapest.

Eamon de Valera and Fianna Fáil lost power in 1948 after sixteen years in office and the five remaining parties in the legislature formed a coalition government. Fine Gael was back in power. The last time the party had held office was in 1932. But they were now only the larger party in an inter-party government which included the Labour party, a splinter group called National Labour (which reunited with the parent party in 1950), Clann na Talmhan, and Clann na Poblachta. This was one of the most ideologically divided governments in the history of the state. It very soon became faction-ridden. Only one thing united this variegated political grouping – the unanimous wish to keep Eamon de Valera and his party in opposition.

Reflecting on the development of industrial capitalism in Europe, Antonio Gramsci wrote:

It is worth drawing attention to the way in which industrialists…have been concerned with the sexual affairs of their employees and with their family arrangements in general. One should not be misled…by the ‘puritanical’ appearance assumed by this concern. The truth is that the new type of man demanded by the rationalization of production and work cannot be developed until the sexual instinct has been suitably regulated and until it too has been rationalized.

‘Socialist planning’ was a notable, if unlikely casualty of Labour government after the Second World War. Between 1931 and the election victory of 1945, central economic planning was, in the words of G.D.H. Cole, the ‘professed creed of the Labour Party’. Depression and war demonstrated that the anarchy of free-market capitalism had to ‘give way to ordered planning under national control’. Labour won the election of 1945 with a commitment to ‘plan from the ground up’ through the socialization of industry, the establishment of a national investment board and the use of wide-ranging economic controls. Planning was the defining characteristic of Labour's socialism in this period and it could indeed be argued that the party did not find so effective a political rhetoric until ‘Labour and the scientific revolution’ in 1963.

From the perspective of the 1990s, scarcely an eyebrow would be raised by the news that in 1946 India complained internationally about South Africa's treatment of persons of Indian origin. It would be regarded as fully in keeping with the ethos – both domestic and international – of the age. Moreover, it would be seen as entirely appropriate that the complaint should have been lodged with the United Nations. For that body has not only become South Africa's scourge but has also played the leading role in the now-orthodox campaign against racism. Furthermore, if it were pointed out that this was, in fact, the very first occasion when anti-racist sentiments were given a significant international airing, the response might well be that the UN was set up to deal with just this kind of issue.

When emissaries of the German underground opposition against Hitler's dictatorship sought contacts and co-operation with the British government in 1938, prime minister Neville Chamberlain said they reminded him of the Jacobites in King William's reign; but until May 1940, the British government was not averse to co-operating with Germans conspiring to overthrow their own government.