PRIME MINISTERS AND THE COMMONS: PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR, 1868 TO 1987

Since 1868 nineteen Prime Ministers have answered parliamentary questions, made statements, given major speeches, and intervened in debates in the House of Commons. This article presents a comparative and quantitative analysis of PMS' behaviour patterns on these four dimensions. Key findings include: the importance of 1940 as the critical break between a traditional and a modem form of parliamentary activity, in which Prime Ministers make fewer contributions to Commons proceedings altogether, fewer speeches and far fewer interventions in debates than in the pre-1940 period, but more statements; the emergence of question time as the absolutely dominant form of prime ministerial activity in the Commons, especially from the mid-1970s onwards; and the distinctiveness of Thatcher's minimalist Commons activity, when set against other post-1940 PMs.     

Toxicological findings in a multi-drug death involving propoxyphene, caffeine, phenacetin, acetaminophen and salicylate

The toxicological findings of a multi-drug related fatal poisoning are described here. A 35-year-old Caucasian male found dead on the kitchen floor was a known user of abused drugs and had been taking aspirin alone or in combination with phenacetin and caffeine for the relief of joint pains. The gross examination of the organs at autopsy revealed slight grooving of the uncus and various stages of necrosis in the renal papillae. Histological examination confirmed the gross appearance of pulmonary congestion and edema, cerebral edema and interstitial nephritis of the tubules. Toxicological evaluation of the blood and urine samples disclosed the presence of propoxyphene (51 and 250 mg/l), salicylate (185 and 2750 mg/l), caffeine (16 and 37 mg/l), and phenacetin (9.6 and 20 mg/l). Furthermore, acetaminophen also was present in the plasma (54 mg/l) and urine. A gas liquid chromatographic method for simultaneous analysis of phenacetin and caffeine utilizing a nitrogen phosphorus detector was proposed.     

A dynamic test of the marginality hypothesis

The marginality hypothesis is an attempt to relate the voting margins of members of Congress to their subsequent legislative behavior. A major corollary of the hypothesis is that members of Congress with small victory margins will be more responsive to constituents than those with large victory margins. This has been assumed to mean that electorally secure representatives can afford to be more loyal to their congressional parties, since they have less cause to worry about their chances for reelection. Previous empirical studies have produced mixed results. We ask the question in a different way: Do changes in marginality affect party voting within Congress? If so, major shifts in the electorate potentially can have a fundamental impact on the behavior of Congress itself. We find that this is not true. Electoral margin is simply not related to party loyalty.     

Initials: A question of identity

It has been a generally accepted practice among document examiners to request known handwriting standards which duplicate the questioned material under examination.When initials are questioned it is not always possible to have initials duplicated and known signatures are sometimes substituted.A research study was conducted using a sample of 65 writers to determine if the letters in a group of initials were written in the same manner as the capital letters in a signature. The study showed that 69% of the writers in the sample made one or more changes or additions to their initials which were not present when they wrote their signatures.