Since the reading of their father's will, Robert and Thomas le Parker had been arguing over a piece of land which their father left to Thomas. Robert decided to force Thomas into a settlement and on the day of the murder had taken two of his kinsmen to Thomas's house. Abducting Thomas to his own house, Robert locked the door and began to threaten Thomas with a knife. Thomas tried to escape but, finding the door locked, he seized the knife from Robert and killed his brother in self-defense. When discussing the involvement of family in criminal activities, it seems appropriate to begin with the oldest crime in our tradition — that of brother killing brother, Cain killing Abel. But despite the sensational qualities of this type of dispute, normally the families who appear in medieval criminal records were cooperating in felonious activities rather than directing their wrath toward each other. More typical is the rather pedestrian case of Simon Tut of Wappenham and his son Richard, who were convicted for stealing sheep in Bodecote in Northamptonshire. This paper will examine several quantitative indices which will shed light on both intrafamilial crime and that involving family cooperation: the frequency of familial as compared with non-familial crimes; the specific types of crimes involving family and the degree of kinship between family members appearing in criminal courts. Finally, the essay will suggest some general conclusions about tensions in rural society and within the medieval peasant family which contributed to family involvement in crime.

Most of the details about the life of Henry Fitzalan, fourteenth Earl of Arundel, come from a biography written in 1580, which was the year of his death, by a close associate, probably his private chaplain, who had clearly been an eyewitness to most of the events described. The latter wrote the essay for the benefit of the Earl's two daughters and heiresses, “for the perpetual memory of a personage very honorable, and that ye who shall remain of his blood may the rather rejoice in so noble a progenitor.” Since this was his purpose, there can be little doubt that the author has a tendency to stress the virtues and successes of his subject, and to gloss over his defects and omit his failures. What is recorded, however, carries the ring of truth, and the selectivity of the presentation throws light on the values and actions which the author considered important and praiseworthy.

The Earl of Arundel was no ordinary nobleman. He was the representative of the most senior and one of the richest and most powerful aristocratic families in the country. He was a man who inherited vast estates and equally vast authority in his native Sussex, and who lived in a style appropriate to his position. Unlike the more modern-minded nobles, he does not seem to have been much affected by the educational reforms of the Renaissance. When on embassies abroad, he certainly confined himself to speaking English, and it seems possible that he lacked the skill to do anything else.

One of the more important features of the transformation of the departmental service of the eighteenth century into the civil service of the nineteenth century was the emergence of the permanent official. There had always been a degree of permanence in the bureaucracy, particularly in the clerical positions, but in the higher ranks and especially among the undersecretaries the distinction between political and clerical officers tended to be blurred and each man had responsibilities in both spheres. By 1830 these officials no longer occupied ambivalent situations. In most departments one was a political appointee whose position was dependent on the political fortunes of the minister. The other undersecretary, however, had shed his political responsibilities and as a consequence was more or less immune to the political forces of parliamentary politics.

Yet the process whereby these events took place was to a certain extent individualized in different departments. In the case of the Foreign Office the impact of financial and political changes in the state was considerably less important than in departments such as the Treasury. Neither of the foreign undersecretaries had ever had much influence over the formation of policy, nor were they to gain responsibility in this area during the 1830s. Yet clearly by the time Lord Palmerston became foreign secretary one of these men, John Backhouse, occupied a permanent position while his colleague, Sir George Shee, held a more temporary status. The distinction between the two positions became more rigid during the period Backhouse remained in office not so much as a result of political forces in the state, though these forces contributed somewhat to the changes that occurred, but as a consequence of Backhouse's growing responsibility for supervising the establishment.

In July, 1872, one of the most curious articles in the history of British journalism appeared in the much respected Contemporary Review. The anonymous essay, entitled “The ‘Prayer for the Sick’ — Hints Towards a Serious Attempt to Estimate Its Value,” challenged the Christians of the nation to conduct an experiment to determine the physical efficacy of prayer. A letter from the physicist John Tyndall, controversial professor at the Royal Institution, introduced the proposal, the author of which was later identified as Henry Thompson, an eminent London surgeon.

Thompson admitted that few prayers were actually open to scientific or quantitative investigation. However, the prayers for the sick in the Book of Common Prayer appeared to constitute a set of petitions “from a study of which the absolute calculable value of prayer … can almost certainly be ascertained.” These fell into two categories — general prayers said every Sunday and specific prayers offered for particular individuals. Thompson desired no one to be deprived of the benefits afforded by general prayers.

In 1887, Joseph Chamberlain wrote a letter to The Baptist in which he blamed the preoccupation of Liberals and Radicals with Home Rule for delaying social reform. “Thirty-two millions of people,” he complained, “must go without much-needed legislation because three millions are disloyal.” Early in the 1890s, socialists and militant working-class spokesmen sometimes took up this cry to express their discontent with the Liberal party. And in later years, the Liberal-Radical commitment to Home Rule provided one of the main historical explanations for the founding of an independent working-class party; thus the dampening of Radicalism supposedly caused by Home Rule has been regarded as the source of the most important political transformation of recent British history. In the words of G. D. H. Cole:

D. A. Hamer, in a recent article, takes essentially the same view, with some modifications. The Liberals, he says, took up Home Rule in a deliberate attempt to paper over confusion and disagreement within the party over other policies. In the 1880s, the Liberal party tended to be dominated by “faddists,” who could not agree on the precedence to be given various reform proposals.

One of the distinctive characteristics of the Conservative Party's history has been its ability for a century or more to moult its plumage at the right political season without really altering its gestalt. This comment does not imply an act of deception by Conservative Party leaders. Rather it recognizes that Peel, Pitt, Disraeli and, in the twentieth century, Tory leaders like R. A. Butler, Harold Macmillan, Iain Macleod and before them, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill, somehow understood the need for social change and the politics of compromise; so much so that they were quite prepared, in the words of New York's Mayor Jimmy Walker, “to rise above principle” where and when it appeared to be necessary. The Conservative Party has endured as a party because of its unusual adaptability compared to conservative parties in other Western societies. Indeed, it has more than merely ‘endured’: the Conservative Party in an apparently hostile atmosphere, has been able to take and hold power for huge blocks of time in the past century.

This adaptation to reality in the interests of power was particularly apparent after the landslide Conservative defeat in July 1945. Some party leaders were determined to adapt to the new realities by attempting to recapture the support of as sizeable a segment of the British working class as the party had enjoyed at the turn of the century. Promulgation of the Industrial Charter through the efforts of a high-powered Tory Committee and the Conservative Research Department was a significant step in that direction.