Showing 77245 results

Archival description
4308 results with digital objects Show results with digital objects
HOUG/D/C/3/8/11 · Item · 19 Apr. 1842
Part of Papers of Richard Monckton Milnes, Lord Houghton

Colonial Society, 16 St James [sic] Square. - Recommends Crown pension for the widow of Thomas Pringle, author of the accompanying poems [no longer present]; she receives £20 from the Queen's Bounty but her special claims are set out in newspaper article [no longer present]; Milnes must consider related issues as a member of the West African Committee; own suggestions [missing] might benefit her. Colonel Fox knew Pringle in South Africa and has been kind to his widow.

Add. MS c/58/11 · Item · 10 Feb. 1891
Part of Additional Manuscripts c

bei Peters, Jaeger Strasse 67, Berlin - [Georg] Berkholz has been dead for two years and his work is in the hands of Heinrich Diederichs; [Wilhelm] Mannhardt's MS is probably there as well; will send a copy of [Eadwine's Canterbury] Psalter.

Add. MS c/98/11 · Part · 29 July 1886
Part of Additional Manuscripts c

Promises to do his best to give Dr Frefort 'the latest academic ideas' if Patterson sends him to Sidgwick with an introduction. Warns that, being in the vacation, he will have to take his chance of finding people there. States that he does not know any else here whom Patterson knows, except Sedley Taylor. Suggests that, through Bryce, he might find out who there is at Oxford to help him. (2 docs)

PETH/3/11 · Item · 23 June 1955
Part of Pethick-Lawrence Papers

11 Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, W.C.2.—11 Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, W.C.2.—Sets out his view of the present state of the Labour Party (see 3/6), and extracts part of a recent article in which he urged the party to deal with particular issues rather than debate the merits of its left and right wings.

—————

Transcript

11, Old Square, Lincoln’s Inn, London, W.C.2. 23rd. June 1955.

Dear Nash,

Thank you very much for your cordial air letter of the 13th inst.,† I am not quite clear what it is precisely that you want me to tell you about the Labour Party, but I will give you my candid and confidential opinion. I think the Labour Party failed at the General Election to rouse enough enthusiasm for its policy to bring doubtful voters to the poll to support its candidates, also the admitted differences between leading figures sowed a certain amount of confusion.

I have just written an article for the July issue of the Contemporary Review in the course of which I say

“. . . . Some people may take the view that it should go more “left” and others that it should go more “right”. I agree with neither. In my view both wings of a progressive party are needed if it is to go forward successfully. What I regard as essential is that it should drop its shibboleths and face up realistically to the problems of modern life. It must be prepared to deal positively with such things as the rent muddle and house dilapidation, the wage structure and the question of differentials, the free-enterprise sector of the national economy and the profit motive, education and the so-called public schools, restrictive practices in industry both by masters and men. If it is prepared to tackle all these and similar problems boldly and effectively it will earn the respect of the thinking minds in all classes of society. . . . .”

With regard to the personal differences in the Party I gather that Attlee is now acceptable to all concerned and that the divergence is between Bevan, on the one hand, and Morrison and Gaitskell on the other. This divergence is partly political and partly a struggle for pre-eminence after Attlee goes.
I doubt whether this fully answers your question in the way you want, but if you desire more detailed information and will explain to me exactly what you want, I will endeavour to supply it.

With all good wishes,
I remain,
[blank]

—————

† Sic.