Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 10:48, 16 May 2009 [1].

---

William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is FA-worthy, of course. This line has always confused me a bit. Anyway, there you go. Ironholds (talk) 14:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Support: some tweaks suggested: This is a most impressive article, and the following very minor comments are offered in support of its elevation. I shall have to have several goes at this, as there is a lot to get through. Here are my first gleanings:

• "William Murray was born on 2 March 1705, at Scone Palace in Perthshire, Scotland, to David Murray, the 5th Viscount of Stormont and his wife" – we learn later that he had an elder brother, but it would be helpful to have it stated here whether he was second, third etc son.
• "James knew the Dean Francis Atterbury" – comma after Dean, perhaps?
• "having scored higher in the examination than any other King's Scholar" – in that year or ever?
• "difficult for a young barrister build a reputation" – to build, presumably
• "and traveled to London to train as a barrister" – is this article to be in US spelling?
• "the first Scot to practice at the English Bar" – also US spelling, so presumably yes to the above – need to ensure it is consistently US, then. Shall keep an eye out for that as I go through.
• "to have eaten five "dinners" a term at Lincoln's Inn" – why the quotes?
• "However the House of Lords" – comma needed after "however"
• "The Attorney General Dudley Ryder" – comma
• "and promised to freely allow him" – cumbersome phrasing – perhaps drop the adverb?
• "there is no evidence of him performing anything" – gerund required here – "his" rather than "him"
• "Every day that court was in session" – ambiguous – suggest "the" instead of the "that"
• "all barristers were invited to submit motions in order of seniority" – the seniority refers to the barristers rather than the motions, but this is ambiguous.
• "At the time it was also traditional for all judgements to be reserved" – as a layman I say this diffidently, but I understand that the technical spelling for the pronouncements of the court is "judgments", not "judgements", though the latter can be used in the wider, non-legal context. But quite prepared to be told I'm wrong. Worth checking, though, I suggest.
• "massive inconsistencies between English law and the law of other nations made business very difficult" – could lose "massive" and "very".
• "Carter v Boehm" – the latter is later referred to as Boem. Need to make them consistent.
• " against the fort being taken by a foreign enemy" – another gerund needed – "the fort's"
• "testified that Mr Carter" – he is plain Carter above and below. Drop the Mr?

More to come. Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Tim; thanks for your comments here, and again for those at the Denning peer review. Sorry about the mixed spelling; must have been a typo I missed. You are of course quite right about judgment/judgement; I knew it, but it is something that keeps tripping me up. Ironholds (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Note that the FA criteria state an article should be "well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". This article is based almost entirely on a single book - Heward's biography. Lord Mansfield is towering figure in eighteenth-century legal history and information about him is available in a wide-variety of books and journal articles. We cannot just present Heward's view here. Here are some the sources listed for the "Lord Mansfield" entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography:

G. Adams, ‘Dido Elizabeth Belle, a black girl at Kenwood’, Camden History Review, 12 (1984), 10–14 · J. H. Baker, An introduction to English legal history, 3rd edn (1990) · J. H. Baker, The legal profession and the common law: historical essays (1986) · D. B. Davis, The problem of slavery in the age of revolution, 1770–1823 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1975) · D. Duman, The judicial bench in England, 1727–1875 (1982) · E. Fiddes, ‘Lord Mansfield and the Somerset case’, Law Quarterly Review, 50 (1934), 499–511 · R. Gore-Browne, Chancellor Thurlow: the life and times of an eighteenth century lawyer (1953) · H. G. Graham, The social life of Scotland in the eighteenth century, 4th edn (1950) · P. Hamburger, ‘The development of the law of seditious libel and the control of the press’, Stanford Law Review, 37 (1985), 661–765 · A. Hamilton, The infamous ‘Essay on woman’, or, John Wilkes seated between vice and virtue (1972) · E. Heward, Lord Mansfield (1979) · J. Oldham, The Mansfield manuscripts and the growth of English law in the eighteenth century, 2 vols. (1992) · J. Oldham, ‘The work of Ryder and Murray as law officers of the crown’, Legal record and historical reality, ed. T. G. Watkin (1989), chap. 9, 157–73 · F. O. Shyllon, Black slaves in Britain (1974) · R. Stevens, Law and politics: the House of Lords as a judicial body, 1800–1976 (1978) · W. Wiecek, ‘Somerset: Lord Mansfield and the legitimacy of slavery in the Anglo-American world’, University of Chicago Law Review, 42 (1974), 86–146 · J. J. Sack, From Jacobite to Conservative: reaction and orthodoxy in Britain, c.1760–1832 (1993)

I hope this information is helpful. Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Righto, well I've certainly got access to one of those at the university library. Journal articles are a bit more tricky, but I'll use westlaw and the sort to get some. Ironholds (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've put a lot more sources in; my thanks to Tim for helping find some of them. Ironholds (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I don't think you understand the huge amount of work that this article still needs to become an FA. Integrating new research takes weeks, if not months. Let's look at the Somerset decision section, for example. This is Mansfield's most famous decision, but you have only presented Heward's view of it. I know that there are differing interpretations of this case and its effect on the abolition cause and the law because I read about them for my PhD qualifying exams. The articles about this case that I listed above and the major books written about slavery and abolition are not represented in the article, thus the article does not present a "representative survey of relevant literature on the topic" - it is not even a basic survey at this point. The information you have added is simply tacked on to different sections of the article. You need to take time to read much more material and determine, for example, what the mainstream view of scholars is on the Somerset case. After you have read all of this material, you need to recraft sections of the article to reflect the research you have done. This will require a lot of work, as entire sections may have to be rewritten. One cannot undertake massive research and revision such as this at FAC. If you need help obtaining journal articles, I can help with that - I have access to a lot of subscription databases like JSTOR. Awadewit (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  That would certainly be appreciated. Extended discussion on Somersett's Case is probably something for that article, but if you have some stuff specific to Mansfield's role in it then I'd be grateful indeed. I know exactly how much effort needs to be put into an FA, having written one myself in the past. Ironholds (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I think you have missed my point about Somersett's Case - I'm not asking for a larger discussion. I'm pointing out that this article has one particular view (Heward's), when there are other important scholarly views available. Thus, to be NPOV and comprehensive, the section needs to be rewritten to reflect these other views. To be clear, I'm just offering to get you sources (you seemed to indicate you might have trouble accessing some sources), but I'm not going to do the research for you (I already pointed you to some essential articles and books above). Let me know what you need and I can email it to you. (By the way, I see that your previous FA suffers from the same problem as this one: over-reliance on one source.) Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  The previous FA uses as many varied sources as I can; Hyde's biography is virtually the only thing that looks at him. Anyway, yeah; I wasn't asking you to do the research for me, but any sources you can find and email me would be excellent. Ironholds (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've revisited this article. However, I see that only a cursory effort has been made to address my concern - for example, material has bascially only been added to the Somersett's Case section from one article. As I have explained before, what needs to happen is that the entire section is rewritten after intensive research is done to determine just what the majority view is. I have listed above the books used the DNB to create their entry on Mansfield, which includes some of the most important works on abolition and slavery, the history of jurisprudence, etc. I still think that the research underpinning this article is superficial, as we can see when we compare it to the DNB. Most of the best biographical FAs we have on Wikipedia go significantly beyond the DNB research, by the way.Awadewit (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  Very well. I've put the most effort into the Somerset's Case section because that's the one you particularly highlighted. I've exhausted most of the sources at my disposal, and since the way I do my "research" doesn't seem to be good enough I am, with respect, going to ignore your oppose from this point onwards. Nothing I can do is likely to be good enough, and evidently you're the only person here who holds that there are significant problems with the article. Thank you for your comments, but if there's nothing I can effectively do to change your mind ("do research. No, that research isn't good enough, look at Somerset's Case. No, that research STILL isn't good enough - you've only focused on Somerset's case") then I'm going to concentrate on doable concerns from now on. I don't necessarily have the leading texts on jurisprudence and abolition, I'm not a professional writer for the DNB, and I have no way of correcting either of those points without massive expenditure (in both money and time) in the middle of exam season. Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• I gave the Somersett case as an example (as I stated from the beginning). You are welcome to ignore my oppose, but it is entirely valid (it addresses 1c). You can overcome it by doing thorough research, which does indeed take "massive" amounts of time for an article as significant as this one. That you don't personally own the books necessary is irrelevant - you can go to the library and read them. Awadewit (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments. While I am inclined to support, I have a few comments:
  1. The first paragraph in 'Member of Parliament' section says that he was appointed a Member of Parliament for Boroughbridge, but says nothing about his appointment as Solicitor General (while implying that he was appointed to latter position). As I understand the membership in Parliament was a prerequisite for the appointment as Solicitor General, however, it still should be written explicitly that he became Solicitor General after he was made a member of Parliament.
  2. Murray failed to make this clear in his judgment, meaning that it read that Consideration was not required for any contract. Can you clarify this sentence, because I do not understand what it means.
  3. Almon's case was heard at Westminster Hall by Murray and a special jury on 2 June 1770, and he was found guilty. Does this mean that the composition of jury (special!) was different from two other trials?
  4. Woodfall was tried on 13 June 1770, by Murray, who held that the language used was libellous. What do you mean by "tried" here? Woodfall was tried by a jury who acquitted him. Was it kind of a two stage trial?
  5. As a result of these two trials, it became clear that no jury would convict a printer, leaving Junius free to continue sending his letters. But one printer—John Almon was still convicted.
  6. 'Abolition of slavery' is a bad title for this subsection. Murray did not abolish slavery after all; Somersett's case article is more nuanced actually. I think the lead should also be clarified in this respect.
  7. I suggest merging 'Resignation' subsection into 'Retirement' section, they are closely related to each other.
  8. Murray had been made Earl of Mansfield in the County of Nottingham on 31 October 1776 and this allowed him to sit in the House of Lords regardless of his position in the government. As I understand form this sentence, the peerage, he was granted when appointed Lord Chief Justice, did not allow him to sit in the House of Lords?
  9. I find it strange that the last section does not mention Somersett's case, which probably was the greatest accomplishment of him.
• Ruslik (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for your points. I'm afraid I don't understand how you want me to clarify the lead, or how you interpreted "Murray had been made...". It might just be me being thick; could you clarify? I'll put some more stuff on Somersett's case into the last section in a tick.Ironholds (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  I meant that the sentence in the lead: where he held that slavery was unlawful in England. should be modified to make it clear that, in fact, his judgment in Somersett's case was quite limited.

  In addition, by merging Resignation and Retirement sections I meant that the merged section should be called 'Retirement' and placed after 'House of Lords' section.

  I had no problem understanding ""Murray had been made...". I simply want you to clarify why his peerage (which he obtained before being appointed LCJ) did not allow him to sit in Lords.

  It would be good if you added something about Somersett's case into 'Legacy' section, since this is his most important legacy. Ruslik (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Yup, I'll do all that tomorrow. I'm not quite sure how to clarify it; perhaps just make clear that it is "not done" for judges to vote in the Lords? Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  Okey-dokes, I've done everything but the "legacy" section; I'm not too happy with the structure of the rewritten lede, so if you have any suggestions I'd be more than grateful (ditto with the "murray had been made.." bit). I'll get onto the legacy section this afternoon. Ironholds (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  The section about Lords says: he was only really allowed to take up his place in the House of Lords after he had resigned as Lord Chief Justice. He resigned in 1788. However, the next sentence says: He regularly attended the Lords, and the last record of him attending was of 23 March 1784. The latter date is before his resignation. There is a contradiction here. Ruslik (talk) 19:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry; essentially the time in the Lords was when he was Speaker in 83-4. I'm getting conflicting sources at the mo on when he left, though; the Heward book said he left in 1783, the ODNB said he left in 1784, which would line up with his time in the Lords quite nicely. Suggestions? Sorry to land all this on you. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry for the delay; I've got another biography coming up from London on monday-tuesday which will hopefully clear this up. Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Right, I've got the book, I'm just writing bits in now. Ironholds (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  I've significantly expanded the article, put more research into Somersett's case and worked out the date problem (March 1784 was the state opening of the new Parliament, which he would, as LCJ, have been required to attend). Hope this is enough. Ironholds (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  I suggest moving the last paragraph in the Somersett's case to the Legacy section. Ruslik (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  Fair does, will do that now. Ironholds (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

  And done. Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I enjoyed reading the page. Although Awadewit was correct to point out the research, I tend to interpret it based on not giving too much weight to opinion or speculative based, and to try and include a wide range of ideas. The one source that is used heavily appears to be used in a neutral manner and forms a base, while there are many other works that are used that fill out details and the rest. I tend to be more of a stickler for this when the page is biased in one direction or too small. I do not feel as if this page is either of those two. Thus, I am supporting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I didn't know much about Mansfield, but like Awa, I do know a bit about Somersett's case, which I agree is not well enough covered (the background and results rather than the proceedings of the case itself). His other slavery case Regina v Inhabitants of Thames Ditton (1785) might usefully be mentioned too - it helps to show the unclear situation Somersett left. His house in town was famously attacked and I think more or less sacked by the mob in the Gordon Riots, which is not mentioned at all that I can see. Kenwood House pops up unannounced when he is retired; his ownership and remodelling of it during more than three decades before retirement should be mentioned earlier. Most of the article looks fine, but when there are lapses in areas one has some knowledge of, it reduces one's confidence about the rest. Many or most slaves in England at the time were paid in some way; payment does not demonstrate a free condition. Did he "cling to power", or to office? The latter I think.Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

  Hmm, I won't really have access to my main sources again until 2 June. Do you think it is worth withdrawing this and resubmitting then, or shall I just let it potter along until then so I can address other concerns that come up? Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.