The burning of the city of Cork on the night of 11-12 December 1920 —a “truly staggering reprisal” — was one of many outrageous acts by British forces in Ireland in the late autumn of 1920 and indeed during the entire Anglo-Irish War. Known in Ireland at the time as “the troubles” and in Éire today as “the war of independence,” or “the war of liberation,” the Anglo-Irish War lasted two-and-one-half years from January, 1919, until the truce in July, 1921. Not only did that struggle mark the end of 750 years of Irish subjection under Britain; it served as a warning of the eventual collapse of British and Western imperialism throughout the world.

Throughout the first eight months of 1919 the British government's policy was simply military suppression of the Republican Movement. Repeatedly, it misjudged Sinn Féin and the rising Irish Republican Army (I.R.A.) as nothing but a “murder gang” terrorizing the mass of the Irish people. Not until the Fall of 1919 did Lloyd George finally conceive a policy — one combining force with appeasement. The latter was offered to Ireland in the Fourth Home Rule Bill though it was to be rejected by a majority of the Irish press and people. From the fall of 1919 until the summer of 1920, Lloyd George stepped up coercion, not only by strengthening the military, but by introducing “Black and Tans” into the Irish police force and establishing a new administration at Dublin Castle in the spring of 1920.

When, in late July, 1920, it became evident to the British cabinet that police action was losing to the I.R.A.'s guerilla tactics, they broadened the struggle even further by choosing, not appeasement along Dominion lines, but a policy of war. Though never officially declared, war was first implemented under the guise of restoring order in Ireland and later by martial law. Accompanying Lloyd George's war policy between the summers of 1920 and 1921 were systematic reprisals against Irish civilians and their property by British forces retaliating for the I.R.A.'s killing of their own men. These reprisals, which became official and regulated under martial law in 1921, were unauthorized — although not officially condemned — in 1919 and 1920. Unauthorized reprisals reached a peak in the fall of 1920 at Balbriggan, Groke Park, and in the burning of Cork.

The study of the nineteenth century British Parliament cannot be limited to the institution itself, nor to the constitutional relations of its par ts. The great electoral reforms of the century increased the importance of the electorate in political decision-making. Coupled with these changes, the vast transformations of economy and society altered the very functions of Parliament. Thus nineteenth century parliamentary history requires an understanding of the whole political system, as well as the events within the House. Many of the recent works bearing on the history of Parliament reflect these facts. While good narrative history of parliamentary events continues to be needed and produced, the most innovative recent work raises different kinds of problems entirely and is not limited to affairs at Westminster. The newer types of work can be viewed as coming in two waves: first, a detailed analysis of political structure, utilizing traditional kinds of sources; and second, a proliferation of analytical approaches, using new sources and methods. Both waves are basically analytical, but they differ in questions asked and in routes to the answers.

The analysis of political structure has been inspired by the questions, if not the methods and interpretations, of Sir Lewis Namier. The best of many examples are still Norman Gash's Politics in the Age of Peel and H. J. Hanham's Elections and Party Management. The main questions asked in such works are: What was the real, as opposed to the theoretical, framework of politics? How were politics actually conducted outside the House of Commons? How did the various reform acts affect the functioning of the electoral system? These works stress, in Gash' terminology, the “medium” in which the ordinary politician operated. In each case, they seem to emphasize continuity rather than change, and the enduring power of bribery, corruption, and influence. They have added a great deal to what the narratives tell us about Victorian politics, especially in regard to the realities of constituency operations, the origins and workings of party machinery, the problems of party finance, and the cost of elections. Structural investigations of parties, like Conor Cruise O'Brien's Parnell and His Party and E. J. Feuchtwanger's Disraeli, Democracy and the Tory Party have given a new dimension to party history. Perhaps most important, the structural studies have established the crucial significance of local factors and the comparative inconsequence of national issues in most elections.

Before gaining office, the members of the Whig-Radical government of 1830 had continually pressed for reform not only of Parliament, but also of the institutions of the kingdom. The reformers complained about numerous branches of royal administration, including the church, the legal profession, and the army. In the years between 1815 and 1830, the army was especially irksome to the parliamentary opposition. As the most expensive item in the national budget and the traditional stronghold of Tory aristocrats with the proper “connexions” it was vulnerable to the favorite opposition demand for “retrenchment and reform.”

During the reform government's tenure of office from 1830 to 1834, relations between the Commander in Chief, Lord “Daddy” Hill, and the Prime Minister, Lord Grey, were not good. Lord Hill openly opposed the Reform Bill and other reform measures, often with the support of William IV. Aggravating the mutual hostility between civilian and military authorities was the position of the Duke of Wellington. He stood as the acknowledged moral leader of the army, as well as the official leader of the Tory party.

In this tense situation, the Grey government made several attempts at military reform. These were related directly to parliamentary and public demands regarding the army and may be grouped under the headings of financial, administrative, and humanitarian reform. Financial and administrative reform were closely linked in the minds of the reformers, who saw reduced expense as a primary aim of administrative change. For many of the Whigs and Radicals administrative reform, other than reducing offices and expenses, simply meant getting military patronage away from the Tories. This was especially important since Tory control of military appointments since the 1790's had made the army into a Tory institution. Financial reform usually meant reduction of expense by nearly any means. For the public as well as the parliamentary reformers, one of the most unnecessary expenses was the “dead weight” in the Army Estimates — the pension paid to retired soldiers and the half-pay given to retired officers. Another important objective of financial reform was destruction of the army sinecure system. Finally, the most popular and almost the onlv demand for humanitarian reform was the campaign against corporal punishment.

The Age of the Tudors has been viewed both as an age of transition, and as an age of enterprise and innovation. Although such views more often than not have been limited to political and economic matters, they can be extended equally well to technology and industrial organization. The mining and smelting industries of England and Wales, which for centuries had contributed notably to the national product, during the Tudor Age underwent a number of technological and economic adjustments, some of permanent significance.

The purpose of this paper is to examine, in the light of contemporary and near-contemporary evidence, some of the more important changes that took place in the metalliferous mining and smelting industries of Tudor England The emphasis will be largely on technological changes, but as these gave rise to new and ever-increasing demands for industrial financing, it will be necessary also to examine certain of the concomitant economic changes that ocurred in these industries. Whether the economic changes were the outcome of technological changes, or vice versa, is not always clear. Certain technological changes emphasized the need for new methods of financing and organizing a particular mining or smelting industry, while, in turn, the reorganization of an industry tended to provide the conditions and the incentive for further technological modifications.

There were three mininar and smelting industries of importance at ihe beginning of the Tudor period — tin, lead and iron. By the end of the period, copper and calamine1 had acquired prominence, while renewed interest in gold and silver prospecting had resulted in the precious minerals assuming a fairly important, if erratic, role in this sector of the economy.