Talk:John Russell, 1st Earl Russell

Untitled
Under Naming conventions (names and titles) a courtesy title like Lord John Russell is used in a wiki title, because unlike a peerage (which applies in addition to a personal name) a courtesy title or honorifix is included in the personal name. Thus many holders of a courtesy title are known universally with it and frequently unrecognisable without it. This was debated some time ago and a convention agreed on this point. Russell is known by 100% of people as Lord John Russell, by 0% of people as John Russell. So I have renamed the article to follow the relevant wiki convention. ÉÍREman 22:04 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Good move, JTD. Any title for this entry that does not include the words "Lord John Russell" will never be found by anyone searching for it. Tannin 22:05 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Mmm...I think I have some issues with this article title. Technically, John Russell, 1st Earl Russell is correct. The current title is technically correct. I tend to think that we should either 1) have the main article at Lord John Russell, but have the opening line be "John Russell, 1st Earl Russell (known until 1861 as Lord John Russell); or 2) have it fully correct, and put the article at John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, knowing that Lord John Russell redirects there. I'd tend towards the second option, but seeing the opinions previously expressed, I suspect it would face strong opposition.  So how about just moving it back to Lord John Russell? john 01:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've moved it back to Lord John Russell. John Russell, 1st Earl Russell redirects there, which is hopefully satisfactory enough, although I wouldn't complain if the article were moved there. Combining his style as the son of an earl with the title he acquired when he became an earl himself was not a good idea... -- Oliver P. 02:53, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. (Quibble: son of a duke). I changed the header around to be more along the lines normally used for such articles. john 04:10, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for fixing that. And I meant son of a duke, of course... :) -- Oliver P. 23:41, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, I think that it would be appropriate in all cases to use in the article title the highest title by which an individual was ever known, except Prime Ministers later made Peers. (Clement Attlee, not Earl Attlee, etc.) -- Lord Emsworth 02:34, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm...What about a prime minister who was a peer for part of his time as PM, as Disraeli and Russell? Or one who became a higher degree of peer after being PM, as Goderich/Ripon?  Or one who was at least as famous for his time after becoming peer as for his time as PM before (this might work for Ripon, but definitely for Addington/Sidmouth?)  Or what about someone who succeeded to a peerage late in his tenure as, say, foreign secretary, and committed suicide a few months later (er...Castlereagh/Londonderry)?  I think it's hard to come up with a hard and fast rule on this, and we should just use best judgment, but who knows? john 05:15, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * I think that my statement would generally and satisfactorily apply for the recent Prime Ministers (i.e. after 1905). Perhaps I should have made the distinction. But prior to that year, most PMs seem to be associated with the Peerage title rather than with the Common title. I would here agree that judgement should be used in each case. -- Lord Emsworth 11:45, Dec 23, 2003 (UTC)

Bringing up the point of the naming of the page again, I second the idea that we should have a fully correct title: John Russell, 1st Earl Russell. -- Lord Emsworth 16:54, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, Disraeli was just moved to Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, so maybe we should move Russell. How about the full title being used for the actual page, and the more common names used as redirects? Mackensen 17:10, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The practices of three other encyclopaediae are: It would appear that, if these three are indicative of the general sentiments of encyclopaedia editors, no need to indicate the courtesy title in the article title exists. I agree that the more "common" names be used as redirects. I will commence a discussion at the WikiProject_Peerage talk page on the matter of including or not including peerage titles, and I think that there ought to be a clear naming convention on when titles may be excluded from the article title. -- Lord Emsworth 17:51, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Britannica: "Russell, John Russell, 1st Earl, Viscount Amberley Of Amberley And Of Ardsalla"
 * Microsoft Encarta: "Russell, John, 1st Earl Russell of Kingston Russell"
 * Columbia: "Russell, John Russell, 1st Earl"

laissez faire policies
how are protectionist import tariffs to be seen as laisse-faire policies? Intangible 20:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Is "statesman" encyclopaedic language?
I think people (Irish people, particularly) might reasonably disagree with the statement "Russell was a statesman". I'll change it to "politican". Thisrod 01:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What's unencyclopedic about statesman?Richard75 13:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Factory act
Oh dear, what a negative view of Lord John Russell. True, he was guilty over the potato famine, but what about his good deeds: "During this first premiership (1846-1852), he helped pass legislation limiting working hours in factories in the 1847 Factory Act and was responsible for the passing of the Public Health Act of 1848. This ministry also ended restrictions on colonial trade by repealing the Navigation Acts in 1849." http://www.dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/pms/russell.htm Ogg 10:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

December 1852
As leader of the opposition party in the Commons, was Russell not approached to form a government on the resignation of Lord Derby's government in December 1852? It would appear from the article on Lord Lansdowne, the Leader in the Lords, that he (Lansdowne) was offered the premiership. What prevented Russell from forming a government? Palmerston's refusal to serve under him? Presumably the DNB would say. Opera hat (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The old version doesn't; I've still to check the 2004 edition. Opera hat (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "At the general election held in July 1852 he came second in the poll for the City of London. With Palmerston refusing ever to serve under Lord John again, the whigs devised a plan for union under Lord Lansdowne, as prime minister. In December, when Lansdowne declined the role assigned to him, Lord John was manoeuvred by his brother into agreeing to serve under Lord Aberdeen." Opera hat (talk) 13:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

About whom?
In 1819 Lord John Russell published his book "Life of Lord Russell" about his famous ancestor. ->Which one, Bedford or...?Kdammers (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Lord John Russel, Privy Seal?
On pages 235-6 of the Bobbs-Merrill edition of Melbourne, in the chapter "After Reform", the author refers to Lord John Russell as the Privy Seal. I see no mention of this in the article, and he is not listed in the Wikipedia "Lord Privy Seal" page. Since Melbourne is one of the finest and best well-researched biographies to have been written, and which made the Modern Library's best 100 nonfiction list, then I think that this may be an oversight on the part of Wikipedia editors.bruvensky (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This seems unlikely given Russell's prominence in Melbourne's governments; Lord Privy Seal was a sinecure even then. Which years would this have been? Mackensen (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been able to view an excerpt here; Cecil also lists Durham as Paymaster of the Forces. Without wishing to unduly criticize Cecil, I think it's likely that he simply swapped the appointments. I can find no reference in the London Gazette to Russell being appointed to the Privy Seal or Durham Paymaster. Mackensen (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The treaty is Küçük Kaynarca (on which there is a Wikipedia entry). The misspelling flags a non-existent page and an invitation to compound the nonsense by creating it! 78.149.24.15 (talk)

Worshipping an Insect
When was the occasion when Disraeli mocked his tiny stature by likening the Whigs to the Ancient Egyptians "worshipping an insect"?Paulturtle (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In The Letters of Runnymede. Opera hat (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Prime Minister again"
But there's no heading for being Prime Minister the first time. I came to this article to find out when that was ... but with no success. :=) Ttocserp 11:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Constituencies
The article doesn't mention where he was MP of. Here is a list: Hairy Dude (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tavistock 4 May 1813 – 28 February 1817
 * Tavistock 1818 – 1820
 * Huntingdonshire 1820 – 1826
 * Bandon Bridge 19 December 1826 – 1830
 * Tavistock 27 November 1830 – 1831
 * Devon 1831 – 1832
 * South Devon 1832 – April 1835
 * South Devon 19 May 1835 – 1841
 * City of London 1841 – July 1861

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Russell, 1st Earl Russell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1790-1820/member/russell-lord-john-ii-1792-1878
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060108134519/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/record.jsp?type=page&ID=105&liberalbiographies=liberalbiographies to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/record.jsp?type=page&ID=105&liberalbiographies=liberalbiographies
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080825211259/http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/earl-russell to http://www.number10.gov.uk/history-and-tour/prime-ministers-in-history/earl-russell

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Final Whig Ministry?
Although it appears yhe First Russell Ministry was the last ministry ever composed entirely by the Whig Party, the First Palmerston Ministry was majority-Whig throughout its existence, so the “last ministry” claim in the lede is a little misleading. Was that a mistake on Taylor's part, or is it a mistake on our end? Esszet (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC) — Edited Esszet (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There's an argument made that the Palmerston government was something of a "personalist" ministry, drawing more on individuals and the remains of the Aberdeen coalition (including some Peelites in as far as the distinction can be made) than being a straight party government, with the leading Whig (Russell) leaving very early on. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the extremely late response, I thought I checked within a few days of posting this. In that case, the lede should be edited to say that the Whig Party would go on to be the senior partner (although I don't know if that term was in use back then) in one final government, which even then is often considered more personalist than party-driven.  I'm guessing that would require a different source? Esszet (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)