"a member for Oxford" refers to "a member for Oxford City Hall"?

Sir William Scott (1745 1836) was, at the time, a member of the British Parliament for the constituency of Oxford University. In a parliamentary context it is customary to refer to a "member for <constituency>" e.g. "The member for Manchester South".

An elected official who represents the people of a particular area, in this case, Oxford University.

Being a USian, I don't know that much about the fine points of the UK parliamentary system, but would tend to agree that it means an MP for Oxford, but Oxford University or the town of Oxford (or possibly the town and surrounding area), Joe?

Back in the day, before various reform acts, Oxford and Cambridge Universities had their own MPs. Not now though.

Interesting. Can't think of any American parallel to that.

Well, your system originated in 1776, our origins are mediaeval, there's bound to be anachronisms. We still have bishops sitting in the House of Lords.

yeah, i know, we're still the rude colonials.

I never called you rude, you had the opportunity to start from scratch, we just tweak an aging beast every now and again. Were we to rewrite our constitution now it would be a lot different, for a start it would be written.

I think he meant 'rude' in the older sense of crude, unsophisticated, rustic; the expression 'rude colonial' would have been common in British usage about the time of the War Of Independence.

The university constituencies, established in 1603, were abolished as late as 1950, a fact whch has surprised me.

The Agitators of the New Model Army wanted a written constitution (they were largely Diggers, Levelers and religiously, Independents). (By the way, they called themselves Agitators, it's not an historical label.) They called it the Agreement of the People. However, when presented by the Agitators and Levelers at the Putney Debates in October, 1647, it was unacceptable to the "Grandees"--Cromwell, Ireton and Fairfax, supported by most of the other high ranking officers of the Army. Eventually, although increasingly unpopular with the majority of the English at the time, the Grandees suckered the Army represntatives into holding three separate rendezvous, which allowed Grandees to use loyal troopers to round up the "ringleaders," many of whom were hanged. This resulted in a near mutiny of the Army in the Corn Husk Field incident. But the Grandees, the Major Generals, succeeding in imposing their will, and although other versions of the Agreement of People were proposed in coming years, it was a dead issue.

I suggest to you that Powers that were and are in England don't want to see a written constitution. Limits their options, you know.

Leaving aside the England/Britain ignorance, I would humbly opine that people (read: mouthy gobshites) whose own nation's political arrangements stink like an open sewer would do well to refrain from commenting about matters about which they clearly know little and understand even less.

Don't mistake contempt for ignorance. Ignorance is what you routintely display about the United States and Americans. Contempt is what i willfully display toward English wankers like you. I'd opine that i know far more about the history of England and it's government than you do about America and it's government.

Asswipe.

That's as maybe...



I clearly do know a bit more than you, who presume to prate about the English language, about correct use of apostrophes. I suppose I must concede that 'willfully' is a US variant of 'wilfully', and I'll give you 'routintely' as a typo. However you are still what my mate from Sutton would call a "johnny full of spunk'.


Use of willful and wilful in American books published from 1800 to 2000

It's amazing how great an opportunity was squandered during the Civil War, Cromwell's role as a 17th Century Uncle Joe Stalin put the kibosh on a lot of things.

I highly recommend Cromwell, Our Chief of Men by Antonia Fraser, 1973--with a new edition out from Phoenix, 2002. Roosevelt's biography of Cromwell is very scholarly, but it tells us more about the prejudices and idiosyncracies of Theodore Roosevelt than it does about Cromwell.

And you are what just about any American country boy would call a great braying jackass.

But we all already knew that, didn't we?

Well, I think that 'great braying jackass' is a feeble epithet compared to 'johnny full of spunk', so I reckon I'm ahead on points.

Oh, i'm sure you do "reckon" that--and i'm sure that such pettiness is exemplary of what passes for character in you.