Wikipedia:Peer review/Assassination of Spencer Perceval/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assassination of Spencer Perceval[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review


In 1812 the British prime minister was shot as he entered the House of Commons lobby. We Brits as a rule don't shoot our leaders, but the circumstances in 1812 were precarious. The country appeared to be losing the war against Napoleon, and Perceval's policies in pursuing that war had brought the country close to ruin, with insurrection in the air. Many would have been glad to see the end of him, but the actual assassin had a quite different, essentially mundane motive. Among other things, the story provides an interesing insight into how justice was served, 200 years ago. All comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

  • Titles
    • I sometimes think one can go raving mad trying to find a satisfactory answer to the question of capitalising job titles; I have no words of wisdom on the matter, and the MoS is no more helpful than one would expect. But I'm blest if I can see why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Leader of the House of Commons, First Lord of the Treasury, Chief Secretary (for Ireland), Serjeant-at-Arms and Bishop (of Calcutta) get their capitals, but the prime minister, solicitor general, attorney general and lord chief justice don't. Personally, I'd capitalise the lot and to Hell with The Guardian and the ODNB.
    • I'm inclined to agree with you. If it's all caps or no caps, then I'm more comfortable with all caps and have adjusted accordingly. We'll see if anyone else thinks otherwise. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • Top picture – I know you'll have considered your options carefully, and perhaps authenticity is a factor here, but a Google Image search throws up old pictures of the shooting that seem to me better than the existing one, which is a bit sooty and indistinct as seen on my screen. (There is what strikes me as a better picture of Bellingham here, too, if you'll excuse my putting the Riley oar in.)
    • I have exchanged the top picture for what I believe is a clearer image. The trouble with many on the google images page is lack of sufficient descriptive detail. Some images, despite their age, seem to be still under copyright. I tend not to use images unless I have confirmation of source, date, and wherever possible, authorship. There is sufficient detail on your alternative Bellamy image, and I will probably switch to that. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "protesting the government's decision" – missing a word after "protesting" (unless you're American, which I happen to know you aren't).
    • "apparent certainty in the justice of his action" – might "certainty of" be preferable?
    • "Later historians have accepted that Bellingham's hasty trial and execution were travesties of justice" – I'm not sure that what you record in the main text quite adds up to "travesties of justice". The OED defines the noun as "a grotesque or debased imitation or likeness", which is perhaps a bit too strong in this instance. The handling of the case was highly questionable, certainly, but demonstrably and incontrovertibly so unjust as to be grotesque?
    • I'm not sure I agree. The OD of E exemplifies "travesty" in the sentence "the absurdly lenient sentence is a travesty of justice", which usage doesn't seem out of the range of the facts related to Bellingham's trial. Brougham called the trial a "disgrace", Goddard in a modern analysis concurs. Disgrace, travesty – is there that much difference? Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biographical details
  • Early life
    • "historical county of Huntingdonshire" – I wonder if we need the adjective here.
  • Seeking redress
    • You might want to link to Foreign Office, Treasury and Privy Council.
  • House of Commons, 11 May 1812
    • "In the chaos and pandemonium" – is there enough difference between chaos and pandemonium to necessitate using both words?
    • "represented in court by … Peter Alley, the latter an Irish attorney" – Is "attorney" correct? I'm probably showing my ignorance (we need Bencherlite to enlighten us) but I think attorneys, like solicitors, didn't have rights of audience in the higher courts such as the Old Bailey. The Observer (17 May 1812, p. 4) says (my italics), "The counsel for the prisoner were Messrs. Alley and Reynolds", and you mention "counsel" in the same context in the next section.
    • I'll take advice, but the fact that the government's chief legal officer is called the "attorney general" rather contradicts the argument that "attorneys" don't appear in the higher British courts. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trial
    • First para – I think perhaps it might flow better (not that it flows badly as it stands) if you moved the last sentence up, to follow the first one.
    • Tried it out; I can't in all honesty say that it seemed an improvement. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "who he said deserved the shot rather than .[92]" – word or phrase for Perceval missing after "than"
  • Execution
    • "visited by The Revd Daniel Wilson" – not sure about capitalising the definite article, or including it in the piping. I don't press the point.
  • Aftermath
    • "talk of assassination in the city was common" – should this be the other way round: "talk of assassination was common in the city"?
    • "Mary Neville is recorded as living in Islington Street in 1821" – this brought me up short: in my day that particular Liverpudlian thoroughfare was called "Islington" tout court; it still is, according to Google Maps. I've checked in the archives and it was just "Islington", not "Islington Street", in 1821, too, according to the Liverpool Mercury of 20 July 1821. How best to make it clear, without making a production number of it, that "Islington, Liverpool" is a street and not a district I have no idea, but the facts are before you.
    • I, too, remember Liverpool's Islington; I assumed from the sources that "Islington Street" was an older form. But if contemporary newspapers state otherwise, I will humbly reword. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that, I fear, is my lot. After two close readings I can find no more to quibble at than the paltry gleaning, above. I'll have another read in a day or two, but am not hopeful of spotting anything else to object to, unless it be that you have mysteriously neglected to provide a link to YouTube's The assassination of Spencer Perceval in Lego. – Tim riley talk 21:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review. Where I haven't responded it's because I've acted on your suggestions, all of which were very much to the point. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Very enjoyable read. I could find only a few things to quibble with.

Biographical
  • "helped him to acquire a lucrative practice" I would say "build" rather than acquire, lest it seem he acquired the practice for cash.
  • "and he acquired a reputation for his attacks on radicalism." maybe "and he became well known for his attacks on radicalism" or some such.
  • It might be worth a mention, if it is handy, of what support Perceval had in the House of Lords.
  • No information is provided in the sources; in any event that's more a matter for the biography article than this one. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
H of C
  • "visiting his wife's erstwhile business partner" what does erstwhile add?
Aftermath
  • "the regent". As it has been some time since you've mentioned him, I would say "Prince Regent".
  • "There is also an unresolved mystery of how Bellingham was able to spend money freely in the months preceding the assassination" perhaps "It remains unknown how Bellingham gained the funds to spend freely in the months preceding the assassination"
  • Refs 51, 63, and 118 are generating harv errors, as are the first two sources cited in the bibliography. Brougham and Bryant. There seems some discrepancy regarding the year of publication of Brougham, and #51 gains much applause for foresight.
Well done, very readable. Looking forward to the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review – except as indicated I've adopted your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Cliftonian[edit]

I had a read through this this morning following a nudge from Brian. Enjoyed it very much. I must confess I had no memory of Perceval, but I'm very happy to have had this rectified. I'll list quibbles below:

  • I understand "Prime Minister" wasn't a term used officially at the time, but in the form "prime minister of the United Kingdom" I would expect to see PM capitalised. Perhaps a wikilink to Prime Minister of the United Kingdom under PM too.
  • See discussion above with Tim, on the question of capitalisation of Prime Minister, etc. I'm a bit reluctant to extend the first line wikilink, thus creating an unbroken line of blue. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to MOS:TIME, we're supposed to use colons in times of day, not full stops.
  • "best known for the manner of his death rather than for his achievements" perhaps "better known for the manner of his death than for any of his achievements".
  • "Later historians have accepted that Bellingham's hasty trial and execution were travesties of justice." this sounds to me rather too much like Wikipedia's voice agrees with this assessment. Perhaps "Later historians have characterised Bellingham's hasty trial and execution as travesties of justice" or similar?
  • The "travesty" issue has also been discussed with Tim, and I have decided on reflection to withdraw the word. The sentence has been reworded accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on behalf a consortium" missing word
  • In the caption of the top image, we have the word "in" twice. Perhaps also clarify whether this is a contemporary depiction or some years later?

More later, depending on time. Hope this helps —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Perhaps worth saying that the Perceval portrait here is from 1812, the year of the assassination.
  • "Trinity College, Cambridge where he was a noted scholar and prizewinner" perhaps comma after Cambridge
  • Lay readers are unlikely to know what the Midland Circuit is (I didn't).
  • I have found a fairly useful link.
  • "After Pitt's resignation in 1801, Perceval served as solicitor general and then as attorney general, in the Addington Ministry of 1801–04," I would either lose the comma after "attorney general" or add another one after "solicitor general".
  • "enjoyed the strong support of King George III but, in October 1810, the king lapsed into insanity" I'd put the commas thus: "enjoyed the strong support of King George III, but in October 1810 the king lapsed into insanity". slightly better flow I think.
  • "Perceval insisted that it stayed there" not "insisted that it stay there"?
  • Not sure – each is probably as correct as the other. Change it, if you're confident. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ultimately this decision was vindicated; for the time being" perhaps "This decision was ultimately vindicated, but for the time being"

John Bellingham

  • "engaged in the Russian trade" perhaps "engaged in trade with Russia"? They weren't buying and selling Russians, after all.
  • It's idiomatic – people talked e.g. of the "African trade", the "Indian trade" etc, but I take your point. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps wikilink St Petersburg at first mention, and clarify that this was the Russian capital at the time.
  • "the British ambassador, in St Petersburg" not sure you need the comma here
  • "he could not interfere, since the dispute involved a civil debt" think you can lose this comma
  • "This action outraged the Russian authorities" I think you could just go with "This outraged the Russian authorities"
  • "Thus, without having offended any law, either civil or criminal, and without having injured any individual ... was your Petitioner bandied from one prison to another" perhaps clarify this is another Bellingham quote

Assassination

  • Here we put a comma in "Monday, 11 May" but in the lead we don't. Also further down "Friday 15 May 1812", "Monday 18 May"
  • Otherwise looks excellent

Proceedings

  • Perhaps wikilink Porter (beer)
  • "He was asked by the court clerk if he had anything to say, but remained silent" Perhaps "Asked by the court clerk if he had anything to say, he remained silent"

Aftermath

  • "The Orders in Council were repealed on 23 June, too late, however, to avoid the declaration of war on Britain by the United States" the comma after 23 June might be substituted for an emdash, and "however" removed. "23 June—too late to avoid the declaration of war on Britain by the United States"
  • I'm not a particular friend of the mdash, but agree the "however" needs to go. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


And that's me lot. Really excellent stuff, a great read. Thank you very much Brian for this latest piece of education. I have enjoyed it very much and look forward to the FAC. I hope the above helps along the way. Cheers and have a great week. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm most grateful for these comments which, in most cases, I have adopted. Otherwise I've explained. Thank you very much for taking the time. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to the above honoured colleagues for these comments. I won't be able to address them for a few days, as I shall be out of action (nothing serious) for a few days, but I look forward to dealing with them (and any others that come along) then. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts from Southdevonian[edit]

Impressive article.

  • Wondered if there is an alternative to the word "unbalanced".
  • There probably is, but I'm not clear what the objection is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is always difficult to find the right words when writing about historic insanity, whether to use the words that were used at the time or to choose modern terms. Did they use the term "unbalanced" in those days? As a modern term it is rather vague and seems to imply a longer time-scale than observing someone for a few days.

  • Last but one sentence. There may have been a Mary Neville living in Liverpool in 1821 but it wasn't Bellingham's widow. Mary Bellingham married a banker in 1813. Is a parish register counted as a reliable source for Wikipedia? It is definitely her, as her name is given as Mary Neville alias Bellingham and one of the witnesses is Bellingham's cousin Ann Billet. Southdevonian (talk) 14:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most interesting. It is perplexing that all three of the main published accounts of the assassination mention a Mary Neville living in "Islington Street" in 1821, and each surmises that this may have been John's widow. None of the books, even the two most recently published, mention her change of fortune in marrying a rich banker. Yet online we have this account], and this information. Neither of these online sources can be considered as RS; do you have a better published source that meets FA's required standard of reliability? For the moment I will leave the text as it is – it is not actually incorrect as it stands. I will obviously reconsider the wording in the light of further sourcing details. Thanks, anyway, for bringing this matter up. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I expect the first author grabbed the first Mary Neville who came into sight (there were probably several in Liverpool) and the other two followed her suggestion. It is a while since I read the books but I don't remember any of them giving a reason for this being Bellingham's widow. The rootsweb post has been there since 2002 so, yes, it is surprising that neither of the two later authors appear to have found it. As for a reliable source I only have C. Hobson 2007 The Raymond Barkers of Fairford Park, Fairford History Society Monograph, page 25, which says that James Raymond Barker, a banker, married Mary Neville, a widow 5 June 1813 in Thornton-in-Craven and that Mary died 16 April 1853 at Highbury Grove aged 72. But no mention of her being Bellingham's widow. Perhaps the author hadn't realized the significance of the name, or perhaps they did not want to draw attention to it. There is an awful irony to the fact that, by assassinating Spencer Perceval and getting himself executed, Bellingham cleared the way for his wife to remarry and find financial security for herself and their children, a financial security which may have been one of Bellingham's motives in his obsessive search for redress. I don't know when James Raymond Barker and Mary Bellingham met - if it was after the assassination then it doesn't have a great deal of relevance for this article, although people might be curious about what happened to Bellingham's family (I certainly was). My inclination would be to leave out the mention of Mary Neville in Islington altogether, rather than leading people down the wrong track. And I doubt that Robert Percival is really a descendant of Spencer Perceval. Southdevonian (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the monograph mention give any details beyond the bare fact of the wedding, e.g. Mary's maiden name, or that she was from Liverpool? If not, I don't think we can use this source. That being the case, I agree it would be wise to remove the references to Islington, and merely leave it that Mary's future is uncertain. As to Robert Percival, his supposed family connection is mentioned by numerous sources, and it does provide an interesting afterword to the main story. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, no mention of the name Bellingham in the monograph. That should be Roger not Robert Percival (Referendum Party candidate) by the way. By all means leave it in - as you say it is an interesting afterword and the story was run in a number of newspapers, etc. I was just pointing out that it isn't actually true - Perceval's direct male line died out with the death of the last earl of Egmont. And I don't think that any of Perceval's female descendants married a Percival. I haven't seen a direct quote from Roger Percival so it may be that he said that his family and Spencer Perceval's were in some way connected in Norman times for example and it got slightly changed by the media. Only a guess. Southdevonian (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the circumstances I don't think we can cite the monograph. I have deleted from the article the references to Islington, leaving the question of Mary's future open; should a future RS mention her marriage to Barker, we can of course add it. I've also adjusted the prose relating to Roger Percival's supposed family connection. That, I think, is reasonable. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

Biographical details

  • "helped him to acquire a lucrative practice": did he purchase the practice, which is what "acquire" leads me to in a business sense.
  • Wehwalt raised this point; I've altered the wording. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • nickname "Little P.".[2] The punctuation may (or may not) be correct, but the quote mark surrounded by full stops seems odd
  • It is probably correct, but I agree it looks odd. I've deleted he first full stop. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking redress

May 1812

  • "Monday, 11 May": not sure the comma is needed here

Preliminaries

  • "Joseph Hume, the radical doctor/MP": not sure what a radical doctor is! Perhaps "Joseph Hume, the doctor and Radical MP" would be better

Trial

  • Is it normal for "Not Guilty" to be capitalised?
  • Fairly normal, if the sources are any guide, but I'm happy to decapitalise. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "said deserved the shot rather than .[92]" Is there something missing after 'than'?

Notes and references

  • No notes, so it shouldn't be in the title, and the empty section should be removed
  • FN31: Should be 109–10
  • FN69: should be 217–20

Very interesting article, nicely put together. I hope these comments are of use to you; please drop me a note when you go to FAC. – SchroCat (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot; your concerns duly attended to (some had been raised by earlier reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review closed 17 October: Thanks for all help and comments. Brianboulton (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Assassination_of_Spencer_Perceval/archive1&oldid=1138559768"