Democracy and Reform 1815 - 1885

D. G. Wright

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• eBook ISBN: 9781317883241
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: British History
• Index: History

An authoritative study of the bloodless revolution which transformed Britain's political system.

Part One
Introduction

1 The Background

Modern Britain is a representative parliamentary democracy. Electors vote for the 'image' of a party, or even its leader, rather than for a particular candidate judged on his own merits. A government is formed by the party which obtains a majority of seats at a general election. Until the next election, effective power rests in the hands of the Prime Minister, as leader of the party, and his chief Cabinet ministers. The genuine political power of the monarch and the House of Lords is minimal. Assisted by a large and politically neutral civil service, central government has assumed a pervasive influence over the lives of the people since the mid-nineteenth century.

General elections, held by law every five years (though in practice rather more often) are really general, since the vast majority of seats are contested. They also constitute a genuine 'appeal to the people', for voting is by universal adult suffrage, with only minor exceptions. Again, most adults can stand for election, although prohibited groups are rather more numerous than those disqualified from voting. In practice, chances of election are remote unless a candidate has been adopted by one of the main parties. Modern British politics are dominated by the great party machines, which closely link constituency parties to those in Parliament. Constituencies return only one member, although they still vary considerably in size. Election expenses are subject to a strict legal limit and there are stringent laws against electoral corruption. Voting is by secret ballot (16).

While the present electoral system had assumed its basic shape by 1918 (189), both the system and the constitution itself were very different in the eighteenth century (1), Electors did not vote for political parties and national programmes. General elections, held at least every seven years under the Septennial Act of 1716, were not occasions when the people, or rather the small proportion of them which could vote, chose a ministry. Ministers were appointed by the monarch and elections provided a ministry with the opportunity to confirm itself in power (34, ch. 4). Voters chose Members of Parliament and normally based their choice on personal and local, rather than national issues. Elections were certainly not a struggle for mastery between two opposing parties, for there were no great political parties in the modern sense, obedient to their leaders and organised on a national basis for the pursuit of certain policies (31, ch. 1; 33, ch. 20).

It is true that the terms 'Whig' and 'Tory' were used, but normally only of the front bench professional politicians, those who were organised in small groups based on friendship, blood or marriage ties (Melbourne once exclaimed 'Damn the Whigs, they're all cousins!'), or a rather vague sharing of attitudes. Genuine party rivalry, often very bitter, had existed during the reigns of William III and Anne; but the long Whig supremacy after 1715 had robbed party labels of most of their meaning and by 1750 only a discontented rump of politicians continued to call themselves Tory (35). However, the 'professional' politicians accounted for only one section of the House. There were also between a hundred and two hundred 'placemen' or 'King's Friends'. Almost invariably they supported the King's government, since they were financially dependent on it. Their numbers included court officers, civil servants, government contractors, army and naval officers, those holding government pensions and sinecures and those sitting for government boroughs. Finally, there were the mass of independent members who formed a majority of the eighteenth-century House of Commons. Some were lawyers and merchants, but most were country gentlemen. Like the King's Friends, though motivated more by a sense of duty than by the desire for material gain, the country gentlemen tended to support the government. They disliked placemen, suspected 'politicians' and regarded parliamentary business as essentially a part-time activity (33, ch. 5). Yet no ministry could ever be certain of the allegiance of the country gentlemen and it was certain to fall if their support were withdrawn.

The powers of the monarchy and the House of Lords were much greater than they are nowadays and an integral part of the workings of government. It is, perhaps, worth noting that in the eighteenth century the role of the central government was extremely limited by modern standards. Administrations contented themselves with maintaining law and order, raising taxes, conducting foreign policy and defending the realm. They did not regard it as their function to supervise or direct the economy, or to deal with problems like health, housing, education, poverty and unemployment. If such matters were dealt with at all, they were handled at a local level, mainly by justices of the peace (I, ch. 4).

'The King's Government' was no empty phrase in the eighteenth century. Executive power, now in the hands of the Prime Minister, then rested with the monarch, who selected his ministers and exerted major influence on policy (34). But Parliament controlled the purse strings and hence the means of carrying out royal policy. Parliamentary support was, therefore, essential for the king's ministers. The king's direct influence over the Commons, through the placemen, was not sufficient to enable him to carry on government against the inflexible opposition of the lower House. Neither could the Commons force on the king ministers he disliked; at least not for long (1, ch. 2; 33, ch. 20). It was the same with policies. George III was forced to end the American War, but was later to cause more than one political crisis by his opposition to Catholic emancipation. Although the power of the monarch began to decline during the last quarter of the century, it remained strong. So did that of the peers. While the House of Commons was stronger than the Lords, because of its representative nature and its exclusive right to initiate financial measures, the upper House had enough power to lend some credence to Blackstone's theory of 'checks and balances' (34, ch. 2). Frequently it joined the king in opposing measures passed by the Commons. Most ministers sat in the Lords; so also did the great landed proprietors, whose property included control of many constituencies. Sir Lewis Namier calculated that in 1761 the election of 111 members of the Commons was influenced by 55 peers (31, ch. 2). Leaders of the army, navy, civil service, Church and local government also sat in the Lords. Each had the right to proffer advice to the monarch.

Parliamentary constituencies were genuine historical communities, unlike the somewhat artificial units of today. They were divided into two groups: the boroughs and the counties. Most boroughs and each of the counties sent two members to Westminster. By an Act of 1710 a county member had to possess an assured annual income from land of £600; for borough members it was £300, In the eighteenth century there were 558 seats: 489 in England, 24 in Wales and 45 in Scotland. There were 122 members for counties and 432 for boroughs. Voters in county elections had to possess a 'freehold' worth 40Í. This sum had been fixed in 1430 and the subsequent decline in the value of money meant that the franchise was a relatively wide one. 'Freehold' could mean land, posts in Church and state, or a guaranteed annual cash income. The fact that each county sent two members ignored population. In 1761 Yorkshire had over 15,000 electors and Rutland only 609.

County elections were dominated by the landed gentry and the aristocracy, although urban and trading interests existed in the home counties, some western counties and in Yorkshire (38). The Government also exerted some influence in Hampshire and Kent through the royal dockyards, and in Cornwall through the revenue officers (31, ch. 2). 'Influence^' is the key word. Crude methods of bribery, employed in some boroughs, were normally regarded as beneath the dignity of the counties. Great landed families usually monopolised the county seats. Often two of the leading families would agree to share the representation and avoid the ruinous costs of a contested election. In 1761 only four counties were contested; only two in 1780. Northamptonshire was contested only four times at thirty-five elections between 1708 and 1832. When agreements broke down, pockets were emptied. The contested Oxfordshire election of 1754 cost £40,000. Sir William Geary spent £22,000 in Kent at the 1776 and 1802 elections. The great Yorkshire election of 1807 cost Earl Fitzwilliam £97,000, the Earl of Harewood £94,000 and William Wilberforce £30,000 (40).

Normally, however, there was no need to go to the trouble and expense of a contest. Deference to social superiors was so strong that tenants, shopkeepers, tradesmen and professional men were rarely willing to oppose the wishes of the landed magnates. Thus it was seldom necessary for the latter to resort to sanctions: eviction of tenants, withdrawal of custom from tradesmen and shopkeepers, the withholding of fees owed to solicitors, doctors and land agents. Open voting made rebels easily identifiable. Perhaps not more than one county voter in every twenty was able to exercise his franchise freely.

Boroughs varied a great deal in size and in voting qualifications. Only twenty-two of the 203 English boroughs had over 1000 voters; twenty-two had between 500 and 1000; eleven had 500 or so. The majority of the other 148 were 'rotten' or 'pocket' boroughs; that is, they were influenced or controlled by a patron or by the government. Some boroughs were tiny. All twenty-one in Cornwall, and most of those in Surrey and Sussex, had under 200 electors. Gatton had only six.

There were five main classes of borough. 'Potwalloper' boroughs had votes for all who had their own house and fireplace; they could be small, but included many of the largest boroughs, where elections were most like modern ones. 'Scot and lot' boroughs, like Northampton, were similar; here the vote was held by all male householders who paid local rates and were not on poor relief. In 'freeman boroughs', like East Retford, a freeman qualification could usually be procured by inheritance, marriage, apprenticeship, or even purchase. 'Corporation boroughs' like Bodmin and Bury St Edmunds restricted the franchise to a closed oligarchy of members of the corporation. They were normally self-elected and frequently non-resident. In 'burgage boroughs' the franchise was attached to a piece of land; whoever owned that piece of land could vote. The most notorious of these was Old Sarum, a mound in Wiltshire with no houses. On election day, the seven voters met in a tent specially erected for the purpose.

Like the counties, the boroughs were open to 'influence', usually of a cruder sort. Again it was mostly the influence of the landowning peers and country squires, although the government controlled about thirty seats (39). The commercial middle class had relatively little influence. To give some examples: Stamford was controlled by the Cecils, Banbury by Lord North, Boroughbridge by the Duke of Newcastle, Knaresborough by the Duke of Devonshire, Horsham by Viscount Irwin and Lichfield by Earl Gower. A member of the Lambton family sat for Durham City between 1734 and 1813. The smaller the constituency, the more likely it was to be a pocket borough. Some were bought and sold like any other kind of property. In 1761, fifty-one peers had forty-two seats in pocket boroughs and exerted influence over sixty other seats. It was difficult to exert dominant influence over a large electorate, chiefly because of the expense involved. Here political issues could be important. Constituencies like Bristol and Westminster only elected members who would make concessions to the point of view of commercial and trading interests.

George III once remarked, 'This trade of politics is a rascally business. It is a trade for a scoundrel, not for a gentleman.' The ramifications of influence were endless. Sometimes borough patrons did not need to exert any, but merely purchased burgage tenures. County voters had to be sweetened by transporting them at election times, as well as a good deal of wining and dining. Various inducements were offered for borough votes. They included direct money bribes, offers of employment, of tenancies, of government posts, of army or navy contracts for local industries, banquets and gifts to corporations and individuals free drinks in local inns, subscriptions to local hospitals and charities.

Electioneering could be a lively business, especially in large boroughs like Westminster with its 11,000 electors. Here in 1784 the Duchess of Devonshire traded kisses for votes. Bloody brawls between rival factions were commonplace when the flow of free beer inflamed electors. In such boroughs corruption (though it was not regarded as such in the eighteenth century) was not enough. Speeches had to be delivered and manifestoes and handbills produced. However, such constituencies were rare. So long as England was still a predominantly agrarian and rural society, the average elector had little interest in general politics and was willing to leave them to his social betters. This was certainly the case in 1760 and in most places for long afterwards.

Before 1832 the law did not require the keeping of accurate electoral registers. It is therefore difficult to be precise about the size of the electorate. It has been estimated that in 1800 about three adult males in every hundred could vote. In 1831, just before the Reform Act, there were about 435,000 electors in England and Wales, out of a population of 20 million. Even in 1760 the distribution of seats was not geared to the social and economic structure of the country (37). During each subsequent decade the pattern became more anachronistic. Boroughs were concentrated in the south; over half were in Wiltshire and the ten counties bordering the sea south of the Wash and the Severn. Almost a third of English boroughs were seaports, many of which were already sliding into decay by 1760. The five counties of south-west England elected no less than a quarter of the House of Commons. Over 40 per cent of the House was elected by the ten counties south of Bristol and the lower Thames. As late as 1831 Cornwall, with a population of 300,000, sent forty-two members to Westminster. Lancashire, with 1,300,000, sent only fourteen. London was badly underrepresented in proportion to its population. Large towns like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield, expanding under the impact of the industrial revolution, were unrepresented.

Nevertheless the system worked until the final years of the eighteenth century. By the standards of the time, all major 'interests' were represented in Parliament. Numbers and proportions were regarded as of little consequence. It was property, influence and interests which were important. As Namier has written, eighteenth-century politicians believed in weighing purses, not counting heads.

2 The Problem

The purpose of this book is to examine how and why the representative system of the eighteenth century was transformed into that of the late nineteenth century, a transformation which amounts to a peaceful revolution. About one person in every twenty-four possessed a vote in 1832, about one in twelve in 1867 and one in seven in 1884. The 1884 Reform Act established democracy in principle rather than in practice. As late as 1911 only 29-7 per cent of the total adult population of the United Kingdom were able to vote. Genuine manhood suffrage was delayed until 1918. Viewed from this angle, the evolution towards democracy was very gradual. Yet it was achieved without bloodshed and was a relatively swift process if one bears in mind the entrenched habit of deference among many sections of the population and the powers of survival of the old ruling class (29, 180, 186, 187).

During the eighteenth century the system of government and representation had rested on broad social and economic foundations. The landed nobility were still the wealthiest class in the nation. A majority of the population still lived in the countryside and looked to the gentry as the natural leaders of society. Most towns were small by later standards and many were controlled, by one means or another, by local landed magnates (32 sec. 1). It has been argued that the eighteenth-century elec...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES
• Dedication
• Part One · Introduction
• Part Two · The Transition to Democracy
• Part Three · Assessment
• Part Four · Documents
• APPENDICES
• CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY
• BIBLIOGRAPHY
• INDEX