Thorold Rogers

Thorold Rogers


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Thorold Rogers, the eleventh son of George Vining Rogers, a surgeon, and his wife, Mary Blyth Rogers, was born in 1823. He attended Magdalen Hall and graduated from Oxford University in 1843. He was ordained shortly after taking his degree and in 1848 he became curate of St Paul's Church, Oxford.

On 19th December, 1850, he married Anna Peskett. However, she died, childless, three years later. He married Anne Reynolds in December, 1854. Over the next few years she gave birth to five sons and one daughter.

Rogers settled in Oxford, where he became established as a successful private tutor in classics and philosophy. In 1859 he was elected first Tooke professor of economic science and statistics at King's College, and began his pioneering researches into the history of agriculture. (1)

On 23rd February, 1865, George Odger, Benjamin Lucraft, George Howell, William Allan, Johann Eccarius, William Cremer and several other members of the International Workingmen's Association established the Reform League, an organisation to campaign for one man, one vote. Karl Marx told Friedrich Engels "The International Association has managed so to constitute the majority on the committee to set up the new Reform League that the whole leadership is in our hands". (2)

The Reform League received financial and political support from middle-class radicals such as Thorold Rogers, Peter Alfred Taylor, John Bright, Charles Bradlaugh, John Stuart Mill, Henry Fawcett, Titus Salt, Thomas Perronet Thompson, Samuel Morley and Wilfrid Lawson. (3)

The 1867 Reform Act gave the vote to every male adult householder living in a borough constituency. Male lodgers paying £10 for unfurnished rooms were also granted the vote. This gave the vote to about 1,500,000 men. The Reform Act also dealt with constituencies and boroughs with less than 10,000 inhabitants lost one of their MPs. The forty-five seats left available were distributed by: (i) giving fifteen to towns which had never had an MP; (ii) giving one extra seat to some larger towns - Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds; (iii) creating a seat for the University of London; (iv) giving twenty-five seats to counties whose population had increased since 1832. (4)

A member of the Liberal Party Rogers was elected for Southwark in April 1880. In his first speech he commented on the case of Charles Bradlaugh, the MP for Northampton. Bradlaugh, an outspoken republican, had helped to establish the National Secular Society, an organisation opposed to Christian dogma and the way that atheists were treated. At this time the law required in the courts and oath from all witnesses. "Atheists were held to be incapable of taking a meaningful oath, and were therefore treated as outlaws." (5) Thorold Rogers upset some progressives by arguing that there was a well-recognised connection between religions scepticism and political Conservatism". (6)

Rogers was a strong supporter of the proposed 1884 Reform Act. The bill was passed by the Commons on 26th June, with the opposition did not divide the House. The Conservatives were hesitant about recording themselves in direct hostility to franchise enlargement. However, Gladstone knew he would have more trouble with the House of Lords. Gladstone wrote to twelve of the leading bishops and asked for their support in passing this legislation. Ten of the twelve agreed to do this. However, when the vote was taken the Lords rejected the bill by 205 votes to 146.

Queen Victoria thought that the Lords had every right to reject the bill and she told Gladstone that they represented "the true feeling of the country" better than the House of Commons. Gladstone told his private secretary, Edward Walter Hamilton, that if the Queen had her way she would abolish the Commons. Over the next two months the Queen wrote sixteen letters to Gladstone complaining about speeches made by left-wing Liberal MPs such as Thorold Rogers. (7)

The London Trades Council quickly organized a mass demonstration in Hyde Park. On 21st July, an estimated 30,000 people marched through the city to merge with at least that many already assembled in the park. Thorold Rogers, compared the House of Lords to "Sodom and Gomorrah" and Joseph Chamberlain told the crowd: "We will never, never, never be the only race in the civilized world subservient to the insolent pretensions of a hereditary caste". (8)

Queen Victoria was especially angry about the speech made by Chamberlain, who was President of the Board of Trade in Gladstone's government. She sent letters to Gladstone complaining about Chamberlain on 6th, 8th and 10th August, 1884. (9) Edward Walter Hamilton, Gladstone's private secretary replied to the Queen explaining that the Prime Minister "has neither the time nor the eyesight to make himself acquainted by careful perusal with all the speeches of his colleagues." (10)

The Spectator attacked the activities of Thorold Rogers. After admitting that "his Radicalism was not only curbed and moderated by a very large knowledge of economic facts" the journal went on to argue that: "His weakness was rather his strong party feeling than his abstract creed. He never could endure to hear people pouring forth their satisfaction with the existing condition of things, without striking a blow at such Philistinism; but he fell into similar Philistinism himself in his thick-and-thin advocacy of the democratic policy which was constantly quite as blind and undiscriminating, as that thick-and-thin advocacy of the Conservative policy which he resented with all his heart." (11)

A total of 79 Liberal MPs, including Thorold Rogers, urged Gladstone to recognize the claim of women's householders to the vote. Gladstone replied that if votes for women was included Parliament would reject the proposed bill: "The question with what subjects... we can afford to deal in and by the Franchise Bill is a question in regard to which the undivided responsibility rests with the Government, and cannot be devolved by them upon any section, however respected , of the House of Commons. They have introduced into the Bill as much as, in their opinion, it can safely carry." (12)

In August 1884, William Gladstone sent a long and threatening memorandum to the Queen: "The House of Lords has for a long period been the habitual and vigilant enemy of every Liberal Government... It cannot be supposed that to any Liberal this is a satisfactory subject of contemplation. Nevertheless some Liberals, of whom I am one, would rather choose to bear all this for the future as it has been borne in the past, than raise the question of an organic reform of the House of Lords... I wish (an hereditary House of Lords) to continue, for the avoidance of greater evils... Further; organic change of this kind in the House of Lords may strip and lay bare, and in laying bare may weaken, the foundations even of the Throne." (13)

Other politicians began putting pressure on Victoria and the House of Lords. One of Gladstone's MPs advised him to "Mend them or end them." However, Gladstone liked "the hereditary principle, notwithstanding its defects, to be maintained, for I think it in certain respects an element of good, a barrier against mischief". Gladstone was also secretly opposed to a mass creation of peers to give it a Liberal majority. However, these threats did result in conservative leaders being willing to negotiate over this issue. Hamilton wrote in his diary that "the atmosphere is full of compromise". (14)

Gladstone refused to accept defeat and reintroduced the measure. This time the Conservative members of the Lords agreed to pass Gladstone's proposals in return for the promise that it would be followed by a Redistribution Bill. Gladstone accepted their terms and the 1884 Reform Act was allowed to become law. This measure gave the counties the same franchise as the boroughs - adult male householders and £10 lodgers - and added about six million to the total number who could vote in parliamentary elections. (15)

After the redistribution of seats in 1885 Rogers was elected for Bermondsey, but he lost the seat in the July 1886 general election after backing Gladstone's Irish Home Rule policy. (16) He was not considered a successful Parliamentarian: "He was one of those Radicals who feel a strong impulse to make those persons uncomfortable who never realise how little merited is their own ease and comfort. And a great deal of Radicalism is no doubt due to that very primitive instinct of Radicalism... A considerable proportion of modern Radicalism, and that, too, of by no means the most dangerous type, is due to half-generous, half-peevish class-vindictiveness". (17)

In later years Thorold Rogers developed a distinct stoop in his shoulders "which had the effect of projecting his head far forward, so that his face, with his magnificent brow and piercing eyes, seemed to be entering a room before his body crossed the threshold". (18)

Thorold Rogers died on 12th October 1890.

Thorold Rogers referred, in his speech in the Bradlaugh debate of Monday, to the well-recognised connection between religions scepticism and political Conservatism, citing the classical instances in our literature, the abject Toryism of the atheistic Hobbes, and the very decidedly anti-popular tendencies of the agnostic Hume and the deistic Gibbon. We have never denied, but on the contrary always strongly asserted, that there is a real connection between the belief that man is groping his way in a universe where there is no being higher than man who concerns himself about our destiny, and that dread of the mines, so to say, which may be sprung upon us by the possibilities of the future, which is at the root of much Conservatism. But then, though we think that faith in the guidance of divine goodness has a real and very close connection with the belief that the past is the true preparation for a better present, and the present for a still better future, we cannot deny that the absence of that faith is perfectly compatible with either that horror of the unknown which clings as long and as tenaciously as it can to what it finds at least tolerable in the world as it is, or that horror of what is, which is ready to shatter it to pieces, on the mere chance of building something better out of the ruins. It is positive faith which, as it seems to us, cherishes at once reverence for the past and courage for the future. The absence of faith is a purely negative condition, so far as it goes, and you cannot tell what its political bias will be till you have some further data to go upon, such as, for instance, the sympathy of the sceptic with power, or rank, or wealth, which, if it exists, is sure to determine his scepticism in the Conservative direction; or, on the other, the sympathy of the sceptic with misery, humiliation, and rags, which, if it exists, is sure to determine his scepticism in the revolutionary direction. The man who profoundly believes that God has guided human history cannot possibly despise the teaching of experience, and cannot possibly doubt, that courage is our true attitude in looking to the future. But the opposite attitude of mind is perfectly consistent with very different tempers in relation to things as they are. He who regards that condition as a matter of fate or accident, or at least of fate or accident as slightly modified by that modicum of human wisdom to which the beat men in the best ages have been able to attain, may either think that though life is poor as it is, it would be very easy for things to go from bad to worse; or that life is so bad as it is, that it would be almost impossible for any rashness of revolutionary change to make it worse, and be quite willing, therefore, to play with Destiny for double or quits. Now, it is obvious that Hobbes, Hume, and Gibbon all belonged to the classes which had a very strong respect for things as they were. They were all more or less identified with the powers that be, and with the social prepossessions of the classes which have. But this has been absolutely untrue of the greater number of French sceptics, and accordingly in France you generally find scepticism combined with what many English sceptics look upon with horror as foolhardy revolt against law, with economic theories such as those of Proudhon, or politics such as those of Blanqui. In this country, we have not been wanting in sceptical revolutionists of the same sort, whether they have been poets like Shelley, or doctrinaires like Robert Owen, or iconoclasts like Bradlaugh. Nor can we see that there is any reason why such scepticism, when it begins with a prepossession against the present distribution of power and wealth, instead of a prepossession in its favour, should not be prepared to risk a good deal even of such existing well-being as it may admit, in the hope of securing a much more equal division of that well-being amongst the different orders of society.

Professor Thorold Roger's death has brought rather vividly before the world the very rough though highly intelligent and well-informed type of Radicalism of which he was one of the ablest of the surviving representatives. It is wholesome sometimes to remind ourselves that the same political creed in different men often results from the most different elements of character. Sir Walter Scott and Dr. Johnson were undoubtedly Conservatives because they reverenced the Past; Sir Robert Peel was a Conservative rather because he dreaded change, as a builder dreads meddling with a wall which he thinks likely to fall about his ears. Mr. Disraeli became a Conservative chiefly because he thought it easier to rule men by appealing to their old associations than by appealing to their love of innovation. And so it has been with Radicals. Cobden and Bright were Radicals chiefly because they had fully appreciated the mischief of the great Protectionist effort to improve upon Nature by a long series of artificial provisions of which they clearly discerned the folly. Shelley was a Radical because he fed his mind on an abstract ideal which he contrasted with the actual failures and injustices of life, and because he thought that by pulling down what was gross and evil, he should provide a breathing- space for loftier and sweeter emotions. Labouchere is a Radical probably because he despises the political institutions which he knows, not because he has much confidence in any that he hopes for. If idealism attaches itself to aspects of life which are venerable and fleeting, it makes a Conservative, and a hearty Conservative. If the same idealism attaches itself to visions of what may be, but has never yet been, it makes a Radical, and a hot Radical. Yet there is a very close resemblance in essence between the passionate idealism which clings to a dying past, and the sanguine idealism which builds castles in the air of the future. And it is the same with the realists.

There is a realism which makes men Conservative because they cannot believe in any substantial change of the human nature they know; and there is a realism which makes men innovators because they cannot endure the foolish complacency with which the obvious stupidities and injustices of the past are treated by those who propose to perpetuate them. So that the very same attitude of mind which, when it concerns itself with the vacant-minded complacency of optimists, turns men into cynics who treat substantial improvement as all but impossible, when it concerns itself with that equally vacant-minded complacency towards evils which might certainly be greatly attenuated, if not removed, turns men into rough-and-ready reformers. It is worth while to remember this when we wax indignant with the mistakes of either party. Perhaps the most dangerous of all reformers are those who, like Shelley, are made reformers by their passionate and inexperienced idealism. Perhaps the most dangerous of all Conservatives are those Conservatives who are made so by their imaginative delight in forms of social and political action which are rapidly becoming obsolete and impossible. It is the ultra-idealist who makes alike the most reckless reformer and the most reckless Conservative; and yet it is not the ultra-idealist whom we can ever in our hearts despise. We may think very badly of his sagacity and wisdom, but we can hardly think very badly of his eager devotion to even impracticable aims.

Professor Thorold Rogers was not a Radical of a dangerous type, for his Radicalism was not only curbed and moderated by a very large knowledge of economic facts, which are quite sufficient to prevent a man from crying for the moon, as reformers of the Shelley type are apt to do, but he was both a student and a rough sort of wit, and the habit of mind of either a student or a wit is not one which suits well the sanguine political visionary. His weakness was rather his strong party feeling than his abstract creed. He never could endure to hear people pouring forth their satisfaction with the existing condition of things, without striking a blow at such Philistinism; but he fell into similar Philistinism himself in his thick-and-thin advocacy of the democratic policy which was constantly quite as blind and undiscriminating, as that thick-and-thin advocacy of the Conservative policy which he resented with all his heart. He was a Radical of the Cobdenite type, but with somewhat less than Cobden's candour and openness of mind, for Professor Rogers had lived almost all his life amongst Oxford Conservatives of a very prosperous and comfortable school, and he rebelled against that prosperous Conservatism with all the heat of one who knew well what the physical sufferings of the masses have been, and, even though greatly ameliorated, must always continue to be, and he could not bear to see the serene satisfaction with which dignified and well-to-do persons who have won all their honours by a little diligence and a very moderate amount of talent, treat the miseries and troubles, not all of them beyond amelioration, of the great majority of their fellow-creatures. He was one of those Radicals who feel a strong impulse to make those persons uncomfortable who never realise how little merited is their own ease and comfort. And a great deal of Radicalism is no doubt due to that very primitive instinct of Radicalism. For even genuine Radicalism is by no means wholly due to sympathy with the miserable; a great deal of it is due to a sort of disinterested wrath against the complacency of classes who are a great deal more fortunate than they deserve to be, and who yet are very apt to think that all their good luck is due to their merits, and all its deficiency to their wrongs. A considerable proportion of modern Radicalism, and that, too, of by no means the most dangerous type, is due to half-generous, half-peevish class-vindictiveness. And of that there was no doubt a very large dash in Professor Rogers. He cannot have thought the progress of democracy too slow, and he must have had his doubts at times as to whether it was not too rapid; but he could not bear to throw his weight into the scale of resistance to what was called progress, if only on this account, that it so greatly alarmed those whom he loved to alarm, for which he cared quite as much as he did to serve those whom he loved to serve. The Radicalism which exults when the prosperous Conservatives can be made to tremble, is extremely common in this country, and is, in fact, more or less due to the existence of so much smug and unconscious conceit in the possessors of property and influence. It is the negative political current which seems to be excited by the mere strength of the positive current of sedate and complacent determination to hold fast by power and wealth and rank. We cannot regard Radicalism of this kind as an evil, because it is almost as much due to a natural force as the physical recoil of a gun; but it is not at all the kind of Radicalism to which we can trust as a guide in matters of political judgment, and the wonder is that men so highly furnished as Professor Thorold Rogers was, with all the means of checking it by the teaching of history and of philosophy, should give themselves up so frankly to its guidance. The truth is, we suppose, that he loved political buffeting as dearly as some men love boxing, and especially loved buffeting those who were quite unconscious of their own shortcomings. But he was by no means unaware of the follies to which eager Radicals are liable, and he would have been found one of the most strenuous foes of that Socialism which is the chief danger of modern Radicals. Perhaps we may think of Professor Thorold Rogers and of his class as the representatives of that Nemesis whom Nature prepares for the selfish and sleepy Conservatism of satisfied Englishmen. Such men will always prevent our settling down into self-complacency when we are disposed to think that we may "rest and be thankful." Indeed, Radicals of this class are rendered restless by the sight of rest, and feel under am imperious obligation to disturb the thankfulness of those who are thankful for their own merits.

Child Labour Simulation (Teacher Notes)

1832 Reform Act and the House of Lords (Answer Commentary)

The Chartists (Answer Commentary)

Women and the Chartist Movement (Answer Commentary)

Benjamin Disraeli and the 1867 Reform Act (Answer Commentary)

William Gladstone and the 1884 Reform Act (Answer Commentary)

Richard Arkwright and the Factory System (Answer Commentary)

Robert Owen and New Lanark (Answer Commentary)

James Watt and Steam Power (Answer Commentary)

Road Transport and the Industrial Revolution (Answer Commentary)

Canal Mania (Answer Commentary)

Early Development of the Railways (Answer Commentary)

The Domestic System (Answer Commentary)

The Luddites: 1775-1825 (Answer Commentary)

The Plight of the Handloom Weavers (Answer Commentary)

Health Problems in Industrial Towns (Answer Commentary)

Public Health Reform in the 19th century (Answer Commentary)

(1) William Hewens, Thorold Rogers : Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(2) Paul Foot, The Vote (2005) page 135

(3) Alan Ruston, Peter Alfred Taylor : Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(4) Annette Mayer, The Growth of Democracy in Britain (1999) page 48

(5) Edward Royle, Radical Politics 1790-1900 (1971) page 62

(6) The Spectator (29th May, 1880)

(7) Roy Jenkins, Gladstone (1995) page 493

(8) Joseph Chamberlain, speech in Hyde Park (21st July, 1884)

(9) Paul Foot, The Vote (2005) page 166

(10) Edward Walter Hamilton, letter to Queen Victoria (July, 1884)

(11) The Spectator (18th October, 1890)

(12) Roger Fulford, Votes for Women (1957) page 92

(13) William Ewart Gladstone, memorandum on the House of Lords sent to Queen Victoria (August, 1884)

(14) Edward Walter Hamilton, diary entry (30th October, 1884)

(15) Annette Mayer, The Growth of Democracy in Britain (1999) page 57

(16) William Hewens, Thorold Rogers : Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(17) The Spectator (18th October, 1890)

(18) The Newcastle Daily Leader (14th October, 1890)


Political economy [ edit | edit source ]

Simultaneously with these occupations he had been studying economics. He became the first Tooke Professor of Statistics and Economic Science at King's College London, from 1859 until his death. During this time he also held the Drummond professorship of political economy at All Souls College, Oxford between 1862 and 1867, when Bonamy Price was elected in his stead. Α] Β] In this he became a friend and follower of Richard Cobden, an advocate for free trade, nonintervention in Europe and an end to imperial expansion, whom he met during his first tenure as Drummond professor. Rogers said of Cobden, "he knew that . political economy . was, or ought to be, eminently inductive, and that an economist without facts is like an engineer without materials or tools." Γ] Rogers had a wealth of facts at his disposal: his most influential works were the 6-volume History of Agriculture and Prices in England from 1259 to 1795 and Six Centuries of Work and Wages.

He served as President of the first day of the 1875 Co-operative Congress. Δ] He was Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) for Southwark 1880-85 and Bermondsey 1885-86. Rogers also lectured in political economy at Worcester College, Oxford in 1883 and was re-elected Drummond professor in 1888.


Для показа рекламных объявлений Etsy по интересам используются технические решения сторонних компаний.

Мы привлекаем к этому партнеров по маркетингу и рекламе (которые могут располагать собранной ими самими информацией). Отказ не означает прекращения демонстрации рекламы Etsy или изменений в алгоритмах персонализации Etsy, но может привести к тому, что реклама будет повторяться чаще и станет менее актуальной. Подробнее в нашей Политике в отношении файлов Cookie и схожих технологий.


Thorold Rogers - History

Front of vault facing north, shown above: JAMES EDWIN THOROLD ROGERS, M.A.
PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY / IN THIS UNIVERSITY / DIED OCTOBER 12 &ndash 1890 / AGED 67

Back of vault facing south, shown below: ANN SUSANNA CHARLOTTE ROGERS
WIFE AND MOTHER / DIED FEBRUARY 3 &ndash 1899 / AGED 73 / WHEN I AWAKE UP AFTER THY LIKENESS / I SHALL BE SATISFIED WITH IT

Under the cross to the right of the vault, image shown below: HENRY REYNOLDS KNATCHBULL / ROGERS ,
CAPTAIN OF / WESTMINSTER SCHOOL / SEPTEMBER 11 &ndash 1876, / AGED 18 / BLESSED ARE THE PURE IN HEART / FOR THEY SHALL SEE GOD

See the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and also Wikipedia for the full career
of James Edwin Thorold Rogers, political economist and politician

James Edwin Thorold Rogers (later always known as Thorold Rogers) was born at West Meon, Hampshire on 23 March 1823, the eleventh son of George Vining Rogers, a surgeon, and Mary Anne Blyth.

On 9 March 1842, when he was 19, Thorold Rogers was matriculated at the University of Oxford from Magdalen Hall

On 19 December 1850 at Petersfield, he married his first wife, Anna Peskett, but she died in 1853.

On 14 December 1854 at All Souls&rsquo Church in Marylebone, Thorold Rogers married his second wife, Ann Susannah Charlotte Reynolds. Bborn in Marylebone in 1825/6, she was the daughter of the Treasury Solicitor Henry Revell Reynolds. They had six children:

  • Annie Mary Anne Henley Rogers (born in Oxford, probably at 4 Wellington Place, in 1856 and baptised at St Giles&rsquos Church on 2 April)
  • Henry Reynolds Knatchbull Rogers (born in Oxford, probably at 4 Wellington Place, in 1858 and baptised at St Giles&rsquos Church on 17 June)
  • Bertram Mitford Heron Rogers (born at 4 Wellington Place, Oxford on 25 August 1860 and baptised at St Giles&rsquos Church on 1 November)
  • Leonard James Rogers (born at 8 Beaumont Street, Oxford on 30 March 1862 and baptised at St Mary Magdalen Church on 3 May)
  • Arthur George Liddon Rogers (born at 8 Beaumont Street, Oxford on 18 December 1864 and baptised at St Mary Magdalen Church on 7 February 1865)
  • Clement Francis Rogers (born at 8 Beaumont Street, Oxford on 25 October 1866 and baptised at St Mary Magdalen Church on 29 November).

Rogers took holy orders, and acted voluntarily as assistant curate at Headington Quarry from 1854. He was ordained at Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford on Sunday 20 December 1856.

Between 1856 and 1861 he and his family lived at Wellington Place in St Giles&rsquos parish.

In 1859 Rogers was elected first Tooke Professor of Economic Science and Statistics at King&rsquos College, London.

The 1861 census shows Rogers, who described himself as both the Curate of Headington [presumably Headington Quarry] and Tooke Professor of Political Economy, living at Wellington Place with his wife Ann and their first three children: Annie (5), Henry (2), and Bertram (eight months). They had four servants (a nurse, cook, and two nursemaids).

Right: Photograph by Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carroll) of Henry and Annie Rogers, taken in January 1861. In June that year he also took photographs of young Annie seated with her mother Mrs Anne Rogers and of James Edwin Thorold Rogers himself with his eldest son Henry

A year or so after the 1861 census the family settled at 8 Beaumont Street in St Giles&rsquos parish, and as their family expanded, they took over No. 9 as well. (Both houses were demolished to make way for the Playhouse.). In 1862 Rogers was elected Drummond Professor of Political Economy at the University of Oxford, a position tenable for five years, and it was during this period that he became involved in radical politics.

The 1871 census shows Rogers (described simply as a Professor of Political Economy) living at 8 Beaumont Street with his wife and five of their children: Annie (15), Bertram (10), Leonard (9), Arthur (6), and Clement (4) and three servants (a nurse, housemaid, and a nursemaid aged only 13).

In the 1870s Rogers and his wife Eleanor became leading supporters of women's suffrage: more information on their involvement can be found in Katherine Bradley's doctoral thesis &ldquoFaith, perseverance and patience: the history of the Oxford suffrage and anti-suffrage movements, 1870&ndash1930&rdquo.

In 1873 their eldest daughter Annie Rogers was entered into the newly established examinations set by Oxford's Delegacy of Local Examinations. She came top in both the junior and senior examinations and should automatically have been offered an Exhibition at either Balliol or Worcester, but this did not happen because she was a girl. When separate degree-level examinations for women were introduced in 1877, however. she took them and won first-class honours in Literae Humaniores (although she was not allowed to take a degree until 1920).

Death of their eldest son Henry Reynolds Knatchbull Rogers

Their son Henry, who was then Captain of Westminster School, committed suicide by hanging himself at home in his bedroom in 1876:

† Henry Reynolds Knatchbull Rogers died at 8 Beaumont Street at the age of 18 on 11 September 1876 and was buried at St Sepulchre&rsquos Cemetery on 18 September (burial recorded in the parish register of St Mary Magdalen Church).

It is probably significant that the word &ldquodied&rdquo is not used in his inscription.

Pat Jalland in Death in the Victorian Family (Oxford University Press, 1996) writes at length about his suicide:

The family of Professor James Thorold Rogers, the historian, could not console itself with the possibility that Henry had suffered from long-term depression, and the father had to take public refuge in the subterfuge that the death in September 1876 was an accident. The suicide of a beloved eldest son, aged only [18], must have been one of the worst forms of parental torture. Henry&rsquos younger brother Bertram, aged 15, later described the tragedy at the inquest, and in an account for the family history entitled &ldquoBlack Sheep and Tragedies&rdquo. Henry and Bertram were spending the school holidays at home in Oxford, while their father was in Germany and their mother was in bed for a day or two with a bad toothache. The two boys had practised cricket and played card-games in the drawing-room before retiring to bed at their usual time. When Henry did not appear for breakfast next morning Bertram went to his room to call him, and found him &ldquosuspended by a strap from the hook on the door, quite dead&rdquo. The 15-year-old boy cut the strap and laid his brother&rsquos body on the floor. Henry had not been to bed and the body was quite cold, so he must have died the previous evening. After making the &ldquodreadful discovery&rdquo, Bertram rushed to his mother&rsquos room and summoned his father and sister home from Germany.

The inquest was held in the dining-room, where Bertram testified that Henry had given no indication that he &ldquomeditated self-destruction&rdquo and had no cause to do so. Their doctor said the death was caused by mental derangement due to overwork, no doubt hoping for a verdict of &ldquotemporary insanity&rdquo, but Bertram privately thought that was nonsense. The housekeeper testified that Henry seemed &ldquovery happy&rdquo, with no particular problems. The verdict of suicide was damning: &ldquoThat deceased hanged himself &hellip and [that] there was no evidence laid before the jury to show the state of his mind at the time&rdquo. The implication was that Henry was sane and therefore responsible for his actions. Fifty years later Bertram remained unable to explain his brother&rsquos suicide, though &ldquothe horror of it is still fresh in my mind&rdquo. He felt sure Henry was happy at home, he was captain of Westminster School, and appeared to have good prospects at Oxford. Some light was cast on his school performance by a letter of May 1876 from a master at Westminster School to Mrs Rogers: he regretted that Henry had not recently been successful in his work and attributed this to his apparently poor health, already discussed with his mother, especially his low level of energy. Henry may have been suffering from mononucleosis, with incipient severe depression.

Even at the time of Henry&rsquos death Bertram was aware that his father &ldquofeared to face the real fact and tried to persuade himself that it was else than a deliberate act&rdquo. It helped James Thorold Rogers to try to believe this fiction. Neither parent ever again spoke of the tragedy to Bertram, presumably because he continued to insist it was suicide, and they preferred to believe otherwise. Whatever their own grief, the parents left this 15-year-old boy to carry an extraordinarily heavy burden of grief and guilt with no parental support. The bereaved parents were unable to respond to the boy&rsquos grief because of their own sorrow and shame. Possibly also the mother was hostile to Bertram because he survived, while her favourite, the eldest son, did not. Nine days after Henry&rsquos death, Professor James Thorold Rogers distributed a most unusual black-edged, printed &ldquoopen letter&rdquo to friends and colleagues concerning the circumstances of his son&rsquos death. Ostensibly this two-page document was an expression of gratitude for the many letters of condolence, but the father&rsquos protests that he would not deceive himself or &ldquoargue falsely on behalf of my dead son&rdquo are not convincing in the light of Bertram&rsquos evidence. James Thorold Rogers contended that Henry&rsquos death was caused by a schoolboy experiment while performing &ldquodangerous gymnastic practices&rdquo in his room. The father affirmed that to argue that such a diligent and contented boy deliberately took his own life &ldquowould be to insult humanity, to outrage reason, to dishonour the providence of God, to reduce human life to chaos or chance&rdquo. A copy of this extraordinary open letter was bizarrely pasted into the family album of photographs, press cuttings, and records of achievements, a sad family claim for posterity.

James Thorold Rogers also went to much trouble over his son&rsquos grave. The family archives include a &ldquofaculty&rdquo, or licence, from the ecclesiastical authorities for the construction of a brick family vault in perpetuity on the south side of Saint Sepulchre&rsquos Burial Ground in Oxford, where Henry&rsquos parents were eventually to join their son. The remainder of the family appear to have been buried elsewhere. The significance of these special burial procedures relates back to the ancient customs which denied Christian burial to suicides, whose bodies were interred in a pit at a crossroads, with a wooden stake hammered through them. Though rites of desecration were abolished by the Act of 1823, private night-time burial between 9 and 12 p.m. continued, and clergymen could decline to perform the customary rights over the bodies of suicides or could amend them. Between 1852 and 1880 legislation permitted suicides to be buried with religious rights if co-operative clergymen could be found, but no clause compelled ministers to perform the burial service. Popular opinion continued to oppose the burial of suicides in consecrated ground. Suicides judged non compos mentis were often buried in the shaded north side of churchyards, along with unbaptized infants and executed criminals. Burial practices varied, and some suicides, including Henry Rogers, were placed in family vaults or other more agreeable locations, at the request of privileged families.

Ann Rogers&rsquos obsessive visits to her son&rsquos grave over many years may reflect her lingering concern about the state of his soul, as she endeavoured to beautify and sanctify his last resting-place. Her diary shows that she did not delude herself about the cause of her son&rsquos death, whatever consolation such vain hopes brought to her husband. Ann had four other sons and one daughter, but she could not assuage her grief for Henry. She recorded in her diary on 11 September 1876, the day of his death: &ldquoGod have mercy upon us for what happened today. My son my son.&rdquo Ann Rogers always visited Henry&rsquos &ldquodear grave&rdquo at least once a week, and frequently twice or more often, to plant flowers or bulbs, lay a wreath, or clean the marble cross. Tending his grave was an essential ritual which brought her some sense of closeness to her dead son. Numerous diary entries simply recorded &ldquovery low. Always thinking about my poor darling&rdquo and at Christmas, &ldquoOh so miserable, longing for my poor Boy.&rdquo Of the first anniversary of Henry&rsquos death she wrote: &ldquoA year of great mental agony to me. My precious Boy always present in my thoughts and his terrible death a source of unceasing suffering. God help us.&rdquo

Bertram Rogers observed that his mother never recovered from Henry&rsquos suicide, and remained in mourning for the rest of her life: &ldquoI think his image was always before her.&rdquo Ann Rogers was unable to resolve her grief. On the third anniversary of the death she observed, &ldquoall the past seems vivid as ever &hellip how vexed is the recollection of that day 3 years&rdquo. In 1882 she wrote on 11 September: &ldquoThe terrible day. My sweet darling Boy I can hardly bear it even now.&rdquo She was still visiting the grave at least weekly and discussing her loss with her two sons Arthur and Clem, though never with Bertram. At least she was able to note an improvement in her health on New Year&rsquos Eve 1882, despite continued depression, and &ldquomy darling Boy not forgotten but more gone into the past&rdquo. Ann Rogers was 51 at the time of Henry&rsquos death and mourned him for twenty-three years until her own death in 1899 when she joined Henry in the vault.

In April 1880 James Edwin Thorold Rogers was elected to parliament as an &ldquoadvanced Liberal&rdquo for Southwark.

At the time of the 1881 census Rogers was a visitor at Cheshunt College, Hertfordshire. His wife Ann was home at 8 & 9 Beaumont Street with Annie (25), who was a school teacher Bertram (20), who was an unattached undergraduate, living at home and Leonard (19), who was a Scholar of Balliol College. They had three servants (a cook, parlourmaid, and housemaid). Clement (14) was boarding at Westminster School and Arthur (16) at Westminster College.

Between 1880 and 1885 Rogers&rsquos four surviving sons were all matriculated at the University of Oxford.

From 1883 Rogers held a lecturership at Worcester College.

Rogers ceased to be a Member of Parliament when he was defeated in the election of 1886 and In 1888 he was reappointed to the Drummond Professorship at Oxford.

On 1 October 1889 Rogers was summoned at the Oxford City Police Court for an infraction of the order of the Local Board compelling persons to have their dogs effectively muzzled. He was in the University Parks on 15 September, and removed his collie&rsquos muzzle so that it could swim in the Cherwell, and before it could be replaced, it attacked a muzzled terrier. Rogers claimed as a member of the University that (1) the case should be tried before the Vice-Chancellor&rsquos Court, and (2) that he was on his own freehold in the park, as it was the property of the University. The Local Board replied that as the public were allowed the use of the park it was a public place for the purpose of the rabies order, and he was fined one shilling and costs.

† James Edwin Thorold Rogers died at 8 Beaumont Street at the age of 67 on 13 October 1890, and he was buried at St Sepulchre&rsquos Cemetery in the same grave as his son on 17 October, following a service in Worcester College Chapel (burial recorded in the parish register of St Mary Magdalen Church).

The following description of the funeral appeared in Jackson&rsquos Oxford Journal on 18 October 1890:

THE FUNERAL

A very large gathering of senior members of the University assembled on Thursday afternoon at the funeral in St. Sepulchre&rsquos Cemetery, Walton-street. At half-past three the body was conveyed to Worcester College from the deceased&rsquos residence in Beaumont-street, in an open hearse, the funeral cortège consisting of three carriages, kindly lent for the occasion In the first were the widow and Miss Rogers and the Rev. R. N. Gandy in the second, Mrs. Bartholomew and Miss Fletcher and in the third, Mr. J. Spencer Balfour, M.P. The other mourners followed on foot, and were Mr. B. M. H. Rogers and Mrs. Rogers, Mr. L. J. Rogers and Miss Rogers, and Messrs. A. G. L. Rogers, C. F. Rogers, C. Woollaston, Julian Rogers, M. Rogers, T. Baines, and S. Woollaston. The deceased&rsquos own carriage brought up the rear. Members of the University and other friends had previously assembled in the Hall of the College, and as the coffin, which was profusely covered with beautiful wreaths, was borne from the College gates to the Chapel they formed in procession after the mourners. First came the Vice-Chancellor (Dr. Boyd) and the Mayor (Ald. Hughes), the Senior and Junior Proctors, the members of Worcester College, Heads of Houses, friends from London, other members of the University, and citizens. The National Liberal Club was represented by Mr. G. W. Osborn, Mr. Philip Bright, Mr. J. Frederick Green, Mr. T. Fisher Unwin, and Mr. Arthur W. Hutton (librarian). Among those also present were the Warden of Wadham, the Provost of Queen&rsquos, the President of Corpus, the Provost of Oriel, the Warden of All Soul&rsquos [sic], the President of Trinity, the Master of Pembroke, the Principal of Brasenose the Rector of Lincoln, the Principal of St. Mary Hall, Sir William Markby, Archdeacon Palmer, Professors B. Prince, Pritchard, Rhys, Westwood, Owen, Cook Wilson, Nettleship, Clifton, Sylvester, Wallace, Burrows, Margoliouth, Dr. Bright, Dr. Legge, Dr. Mee, Dr. Parnkerd, Dr. Neubauer Russell (London), Dr. Murray, Dr. Burdon Sanderson, Dr. Hunt, Dr. Hill, the Revs. G. Moore, J. Dodd, H. A. Harvey, W. B. Keer, W. Esson, H. Hughes, W. B. Duggan, L. R. Phelps, W. A. Spooner, R. H. Charsley, R. G. Livingstone, A. Butler, W. H. Hutton, W. D. Macray, C. J. H. Fletcher, R. St. John Tyrwhitt Major Wilson, Messrs. T. W. Jackson, Hewins, M. E. Sadler, W. W. Fisher, A. R. Tawney, W. B. Gamlen, E. Chapman, J. C. Wilson, G. W. Child, A. G. V. Harcourt, A. Robinson, S. Ball, W. H. Lloyd, H. A. Pottinger, H. T. Gerrans, H. F. Tozer, Strachan-Davidson, F. P. Morrell, J. L. G. Mowat, H. J. Turrell, F. J. Lys, W. H. Hadow, W. R. Morfill, A. Watson, G. R. Scott, Matheson, W. Esson, Forbes, M. A. A. Mathews, and others.

The body was met at the lodge by the Provost of Worcester (Rev. W. Inge) and the Rev. C. H. O. Daniel, the former commencing the service for the Burial of the Dead. The coffin was carried into the Chapel, which was quite filled. At the conclusion of the ante-service, the body was again borne to the hearse, and the procession was reformed and walked in front of the hearse, being preceded by the University Marshall, who tolled a hand-bell. On arriving at the cemetery the procession divided in the avenue leading from the gates to the lodge, the coffin being borne through the lines. It was deposited in a brick grave in the St. Mary Magdalen portion of the cemetery, which already contained the remains of the deceased&rsquos son. The service was concluded by the Rev. H. E. Clayton. The coffin, which was of polished elm, with brass furniture, bore the following inscription:-

JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS.
March 23rd, 1823.
October 12th, 1890.

Wreaths came from the following:&mdash National Liberal Club, Mr. and Mrs. George Scott, Dr. and Mrs. Gray, Mr. C. H. Lloyd and Miss Lloyd, Miss Lathbury, Miss Symonds, Mrs. Lott, the Mayor of Oxford and Mrs. Hughes, Rev. J. Dodd, Miss Robinson, Mr. and Mrs. Fred Baines, of Leeds, Professor and Mrs. Prichard, Mrs. Alexander and Miss Alexander, Rev. C. H. O. and Mrs. Daniel, Dr. and Mrs Grueber, the Misses Cobden, Mr. and Mrs. Bartholomew, of Reading, Mr. and Mrs. Humphery, of London, and Miss Letitia Rogers, of Alton, Hants.

The funeral arrangements were satisfactorily carried out by Messrs. Elliston and Cavell.

His effects came to £939 17s., and his wife Ann and Richard Norris Gandy were his executors.

Immediately after his death Ann Rogers moved with her daughter Annie to more modest premises at 35 St Giles&rsquos Street. She died in 1899:

† Mrs Ann Susanna Charlotte Rogers died at 35 St Giles&rsquos Street on 3 February 1899 at the age of 73 and was buried in St Sepulchre&rsquos Cemetery on 7 February (burial recorded in the parish register of St Mary Magdalen Church).

Her effects came to £1,563 1s. 11d., and her executors were her son Bertram and daughter Annie.

Children of James Edwin Thorold and Ann Rogers
  • Annie Mary Anne Henley Rogers (born 1856) became a promoter of women&rsquos higher education and Oxford&rsquos first woman don, a St Anne's College. She died in 1937 after being hit by a lorry, and the garden to the north of the University Church was laid out in her memory: see her entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, on the St Anne's College website, and in Wikipedia.
  • Bertram Mitford Heron Rogers (born 1860) became a Doctor of Medicine. On 1 October 1891 at Ss Philip & James Church, Oxford he married Agnes Constance Fletcher, the daughter of Cartaret John Halford Fletcher, the Rector of St Martin&rsquos Church, and they had two daughters. He was a well-known Bristol physician, and at the time of the 1911 census he and his wife were living at 1 Victoria Square, Clifton, Bristol with their daughter Mary Elizabeth Mitford Rogers (18). He died in Oxford 1953.
  • Leonard James Rogers (born 1862) became Professor of Mathematics at the Yorkshire College (which developed into the University of Leeds), and was living at 24 Leckford Road at the time of his death at the Acland Nursing Home on 12 September 1933. See his entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
  • Arthur George Liddon Rogers (born 1864/5) became a civil servant in the Board of Agriculture and wrote A Handbook to Bristol and the Neighbourhood. He married Emma Nora M. Hallett in Bromley near the beginning of 1909, and their son Patrick Heron Thorold Rogers was born at the end of that year. Their son Patrick was killed on active service in the Second World War at the age of 31 and was buried at Ramsden on 18 March 1942, Arthur died at Mount Skippet, Ramsden at the age of 79 on 7 March 1944 and was buried there on 11 March.
  • Clement Francis Rogers (born 1866) took holy orders and was the Professor of Pastoral Theology at King&rsquos College, London. He died in Oxford on 23 June 1949, and was cremated at Oxford Crematorium.

The following obituary of James Edwin Thorold Rogers appeared in The Times on 14 October 1890:

DEATH OF PROFESSOR J. E. THOROLD ROGERS.

We regret to announce the death of Mr. Thorold Rogers, the well-known Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, which occurred on Sunday night, somewhat suddenly perhaps, but not altogether unexpectedly, at his residence at Oxford. Hardly any man of his time has been better known or more conspicuous in Oxford for the last 30 or 40 years than Professor Rogers. His personality was at once impressive and aggressive, and even those to whom it was least congenial were fain to acknowledge his peculiar qualities and gifts. He was educated at King&rsquos College, in London, and matriculated in due course at Magdalen Hall, a society which at that time was not remarkable for academical distinction, though Jacobson, afterwards Regius Professor of Divinity and Bishop of Chester, had been its Vice-Principal, and Macbride, a lay divine of high Evangelical repute, was and remained for long afterwards its Principal. Rogers obtained a first class in Classics under the old system in 1846, and might well have looked forward to a distinguished academical career. But open Fellowships were rare in the days before the first University Commission, and Rogers never obtained one. The circumstance may perhaps account for the bitterness with which in after years he was wont to attack the University system, though it must be acknowledged that his criticisms were occasionally just as well as pointed.

After taking his degree Rogers took Holy Orders, and for some years in early manhood was either curate or incumbent of Headington Quarry, a poor and somewhat neglected district in the neighbourhood of Oxford. But the bent of his mind and temperament was decidedly anticlerical, and though he still retained the title of reverend for several years, he subsequently relinquished it, having been largely instrumental in procuring the passing of the statute whereby clerks in Holy Orders are now enabled to divest themselves of the disabilities attaching to the sacred office. He married early and settled in Oxford, taking private pupils in large numbers, occasionally examining in the schools, devoting himself to literary pursuits, and gradually taking a large share in the administrative business of the University &mdash he used often to declare that he was the largest holder of unpaid offices in Oxford, and to contrast himself in that respect with the most fortunate holders of comfortable sinecures. His reading was wide and varied, including a vast range of classical and modern literature, but his scholarship was discursive rather than profound, and perhaps somewhat deficient in accuracy. It was one of the disappointments of his life that the Delegates of the Clarendon Press declined many years ago to undertake the publication of an Aristotelian dictionary which he had prepared with much labour and erudition. In 1862 he became a candidate for the Professor of Political Economy founded by Henry Drummond, and vacated at that time by the retirement of Charles Neate, sometime Fellow of Oriel and M.P. for the City of Oxford. The chair was at that time tenable for five years, but the Professor was re-eligible, the election being vested in the Convocation of the University. Rogers, though a noted Liberal and a friend of Bright and Cobden, with the latter of whom he was connected by marriage, had not at that time become notorious and obnoxious in certain quarters as a Radical politician, and he was elected without difficulty. He devoted himself with characteristic energy to the duties of his office, and his studies thenceforth took that distinctively economical turn which resulted some years afterwards in the publication of his well-known &ldquoHistory of Agriculture and Prices in England&rdquo &mdash a learned and elaborate work founded largely on his own personal examination of the accounts of several of the Colleges of Oxford, especially those of Merton College. He was a stimulating and suggestive lecturer, interspersing his graver disquisitions with a racy anecdote, not always of a strictly academical type. But his labours in the Chair of Political Economy were not destined to be continued without intermission. When the time came for his re-election in 1868 an opposition was raised in circumstances which we described as follows in recording the death of Professor Bonamy Price in 1888:&mdash

&ldquoThe Chair had been held for the previous five years by Mr. Thorold Rogers, and Mr. Rogers offered himself for re-election. He had, however, made himself highly unpopular with the Conservative majority of Convocation, and especially with its leaders in Oxford, by his extreme political opinions and his not too discreet expression of them. The contest was accordingly waged, not so much by the candidates themselves as by their respective supporters, on purely party grounds. In special qualifications for the duties no attempt was made by his opponents to impugn the fidelity, industry, and ability with which Mr. Rogers had discharged those duties. Both were Liberals in politics, but Mr. Price, though at one time an advanced Liberal, was now inclining towards the right wing of his party, while Mr. Rogers was regarded by his opponents as an extreme, and even dangerous, Radical. An active canvass was conducted, less in favour of Mr. Price than in opposition to Mr. Rogers, and political animosities of that peculiar type which characterized Convocation and inspired its local leaders in those days were enlisted on behalf of Mr. Rogers&rsquos opponent. The result was a foregone conclusion. Mr. Price was elected by a large majority, the University obtained an excellent professor, and Mr. Rogers was duly punished for his political opinions.&rdquo

The only effect on Rogers was to intensify his Radical sympathies and to leave him more unmuzzled than ever in the expression of his political opinions. He began to take a more active part in politics, and in 1874 he was an unsuccessful candidate for Scarborough. In the general election of 1880 he was returned for Southwark as a colleague of Mr. Arthur Cohen, Q.C., and he represented that borough until it was divided by the Redistribution of Seats Act, when he became a candidate for Bermondsey, and was returned for that division in the general election of 1885. But in 1886, having declared himself in favour of the Gladstonian policy for Ireland, he was defeated by the present Conservative member, Mr. Lafone&hellip. He will be remembered not as a politician &mdash for in this capacity he presented the more aggressive and least temperate side of his character to the public gaze &mdash but as a man of letters, a student, and a diligent thoughtful, and suggestive compiler of economical data and statistics. On the death of Mr. Bonamy Price, with whom after some few years of estrangement his personal relations had become cordial and friendly, he was re-elected to the chair of Political Economy, from which he had been somewhat unceremoniously ousted 20 years before. The election had now been transferred to a Board of which Lord Salisbury, as Chancellor of the University, and Mr. Goschen, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. were members, and it was generally believed at the time that both statesmen, forgetting political differences, and recognizing the value of Rogers&rsquos economical researches, concurred in his nomination. For the last year or two it was evident to his friends that his health was seriously impaired and his death, though somewhat premature, for he was by no means as old as he looked, can hardly have come as a surprise to those who observed his rapidly ageing figure and the decay of his once inexhaustible vivacity.

Professor Rogers&rsquos contributions to economical and political literature were numerous and important. We have already mentioned his &ldquoHistory of Agriculture and Prices,&rdquo and to this may be added his &ldquoSix Centuries of Work and Wages.&rdquo He edited the speeches of his friends Bright and Cobden, produced for the Clarendon Press an annotated edition of Adam Smith&rsquos &ldquoWealth of Nations,&rdquo and collected and edited with historical elucidations the &ldquoProtests of the House of Lords.&rdquo His minor works, often the product of wide reading and research, are too numerous for detailed mention. Of his personal character many different estimates will be formed by those who knew him in different capacities. He was boisterous and uncompromising in the expression of his often aggressive opinions, but of a kindly nature and generous sympathies. His talk was racy and often too full-bodied to satisfy a fastidious taste, but he was generally well worth hearing, for his knowledge was wide and various, and he applied it with no little ingenuity to the support of the opinions he espoused. His wife survives him, and he leaves several children. His eldest son died very suddenly some years ago &mdash it was uncertain whether by his own hand or as the result of an untoward accident. Many of the late Professor&rsquos friends will recollect the very touching letter which he wrote on that occasion in response to their widespread expressions of sympathy and in repudiation of the hypothesis of suicide. A younger son distinguished himself some ten years ago by a brilliant mathematical career at the University. His only daughter was trained by her father in classical studies, and was the first lady admitted to the privileges of a University examination at Oxford, who obtained a distinction pronounced by the examiners to be equivalent in all respects of a First Class in Classical Moderations.

Please email [email protected]
if you would like to add information

These biographies would not have been possible without the outstanding transcription services
provided by the Oxfordshire Family History Society


James Edwin Thorold Rogers

Born 1823, in West Meon, Hampshire died Oct. 12, 1890, in Oxford. English historian and economist. Originator of the historical economic orientation in English historiography.

From 1859, Rogers was a professor of statistics and political economy at the University of London, and from 1862 to 1867 and 1888 to 1890, at Oxford University. In his political views he was a bourgeois radical. He was a member of Parliament from 1880 to 1886.

Rogers wrote many works on the economic and particularly the agrarian history of Great Britain. K. Marx, who had a great deal of respect for Rogers&rsquo conscientiousness, made extensive use of his studies in Das Kapital. Rogers was one of the first to reveal several crucial aspects of England&rsquos social development during the Middle Ages, including the evolution of the manor, the mass shift from the corvée to cash rent in the 14th century, the subsequent stratification of the peasantry, and the growth of pauperism during the Reformation. However, Rogers&rsquo work was characterized by a tendency to gloss over the class antagonisms in English society.

Rogers stressed the paramount role of the economic factor in history, but in his conception of the historical process he did not transcend the limitations of positivist philosophy, with its idealist interpretation of economic evolution as the result of the gradual perfection of man&rsquos spiritual nature. Rogers attributed decisive importance in the development of the economy not to production but to exchange and to money relations.


James Edwin Thorold Rogers

Born 1823, in West Meon, Hampshire died Oct. 12, 1890, in Oxford. English historian and economist. Originator of the historical economic orientation in English historiography.

From 1859, Rogers was a professor of statistics and political economy at the University of London, and from 1862 to 1867 and 1888 to 1890, at Oxford University. In his political views he was a bourgeois radical. He was a member of Parliament from 1880 to 1886.

Rogers wrote many works on the economic and particularly the agrarian history of Great Britain. K. Marx, who had a great deal of respect for Rogers&rsquo conscientiousness, made extensive use of his studies in Das Kapital. Rogers was one of the first to reveal several crucial aspects of England&rsquos social development during the Middle Ages, including the evolution of the manor, the mass shift from the corvée to cash rent in the 14th century, the subsequent stratification of the peasantry, and the growth of pauperism during the Reformation. However, Rogers&rsquo work was characterized by a tendency to gloss over the class antagonisms in English society.

Rogers stressed the paramount role of the economic factor in history, but in his conception of the historical process he did not transcend the limitations of positivist philosophy, with its idealist interpretation of economic evolution as the result of the gradual perfection of man&rsquos spiritual nature. Rogers attributed decisive importance in the development of the economy not to production but to exchange and to money relations.


James Edwin Thorold Rogers

James Edwin Thorold Rogers (1823 – 1890), known as Thorold
Rogers, English economist, was born at West Meon, Hampshire.

He was educated at King’s College London and Magdalen Hall, Oxford. After taking a first-class
degree in 1846, he received his MA in 1849 from
Magdalen and was ordained. A High Church man, he was curate of St. Paul’s in Oxford, and acted voluntarily as assistant curate at Headington
from 1854 to 1858, until his views
changed and he turned to politics. He became the first Tooke
Professor of Statistics and Economic Science at King’s College London , from 1859 until his death. During
this time he also held the Drummond professorship of political economy at Oxford 1862-67
and was M.P. for Southwark 1880-85 and Bermondsey 1885-86. Rogers also lectured in
political economy at Worcester College, Oxford in
1883 and was re-elected Drummond professor in 1888.

For some time the classics were the chief field of his activity. He devoted himself a
good deal to classical and philosophical tuition in Oxford with success, and his
publications included an edition of Aristotle‘s Ethics
(in 1865). Simultaneously with these occupations he had been studying economics. In this
he was friend and follower of Richard Cobden, who he
met during his first tenure as Drummond professor. A radical and a political agitator, he
was instrumental in obtaining the Clerical Disabilities Relief Act, of which he was the
first beneficiary, becoming the first man to legally withdraw from his clerical vows in
1870.

His most influential work was the 6-volume History of Agriculture and Prices in
England from 1259 to 1795.


A History of Agriculture and Prices in England, Vol. 3: From the Year After the Oxford Parliament (1259) To the Commencement of the Continental War . Records 1401-1582 (Classic Reprint)

Rogers, James Edwin Thorold

Published by Forgotten Books (2018)

From: Revaluation Books (Exeter, United Kingdom)

About this Item: Paperback. Condition: Brand New. 814 pages. 9.02x5.98x1.62 inches. This item is printed on demand. Seller Inventory # zk1527900843


Works

  • A History of Agriculture and Prices in England from 1259 to 1793 (1866–1902), 7 vols. I, II (1866), III, IV (1882), V, VI (1887), VII, Part I, VII, Part II (1902)
  • Speeches on questions of public policy by John Bright, M.P. Preface by James E. Thorold Rogers, editor. 2 vols. London: Macmillan and Co. (1868)
  • Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 2 vols. (1869) revised edition (1880) on line at Osmania University, Digital Library of India, Internet Archive. Preface by Thorold Rogers pp. v–xxx1x and v. II (1869)
  • Historical Gleanings, A Series of Sketches (Montagu, Walpole, Adam Smith, Cobbett), London : Macmillan (1869)
  • Speeches on Questions of Public Policy by Richard Cobden, M.P., Edited by John Bright and James E. Thorold Rogers, London, T. Fisher Unwin (1870). Preface by Thorold Rogers. v. 1 ISBN 1-84702-915-9 v. 2 ISBN 1-4254-9223-1 third ed. (1908) on line at Library of Economics and Liberty
  • London, Macmillan (1873) Questia, on line.Cobden and Modern Political Opinion. Essays on certain political topics,
  • Vol. 1 1624–1741. Oxford, Clarendon Press London, Macmillan & Co. (1875) On line.A Complete Collection of the Protests of the Lords: With Historical Introductions, vol. 2. 1741–1825 vol. 3. 1826–1874.
  • Preface by Thorold Rogers, pp. v–xi. 2nd ed., revised. London, Macmillan (1879) On line.Public Addresses by John Bright, M.P., ed. James E. Thorold Rogers,
  • 2 vols. London, Swan Sonnenschein (1884) ISBN 0-415-38229-7 – McMaster. On line.Six Centuries of Work and Wages: The History of English Labour
  • London, Macmillan (1887) Internet Archive, on line.The First Nine Years of the Bank of England,
  • The Relations of Economic Science to Social and Political Action. London: Swan Sonnenschein (1888).
  • The Economic Interpretation of History London, G.P. Putnam's Sons (1888) T. Fisher Unwin (1909).
  • Holland. London, T. Fisher Unwin (1888) New York, G.P. Putnam's Sons (1889) – on line. [9]
  • ed. Arthur G. L. Rogers. New York, G. P. Putnam, 1892. Google Books, on line.The Industrial and Commercial History of England: Lectures Delivered to the University of Oxford,

Watch the video: Thorold Theatre MGM


Comments:

  1. Rodney

    Remarkably, the very valuable phrase

  2. Gugami

    He is very grateful for the assistance in this matter, I would also like something you can help?

  3. Inys

    I would like to encourage you to look for a site where many articles on the subject you are interested in.

  4. Cohen

    it seems to me that is the excellent idea

  5. JoJolrajas

    Theater props come out



Write a message