Total Politics 2010 Election Map

Total Politics - because knowledge is power

 

Book Review: The age of reform

 

Keith Simpson MP

 

Keith Simpson on the latest in a magnificent set of volumes that covers one of the most crucial periods in British politics

 

 

 

The History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1820-1832
Edited by DR Fisher
Cambridge University Press, £425

 

As the current House of Commons struggles through its final months, taunted by accusations of corruption and electoral malpractice and with great political issues causing dissent and division, it is perhaps apposite that the latest section of The History of Parliament covers the period between 1820 and 1832, from the unreformed to the reformed House of Commons.

 

This is an expensive but magnificent set of volumes written by a team of professional historians whose research began in 1986. The introductory survey gives a superb overview of the politics, the electoral system, the 387 constituencies, the organisation and management of the House and a biographical sketch of all 1,367 MPs who sat in the parliaments of that period. Two volumes document in detail every constituency based upon letters, official documents and local newspapers, and four volumes with the biographical details of MPs.

 

All of this is serious history with formidable scholarship at its best. Perhaps these volumes are rather daunting - not least because of the overall price. And, be warned, they are not a light read. Yet they provide a mass of information about not just the political system of a crucial period of parliamentary history, but the culture and values of local society. As a source for historians working in this period they are invaluable and, eventually, when they are put online, they will be readily accessed by school and university students. The History of Parliament is a research project which creates a comprehensive account of parliamentary politics in England, then Britain, from their origins in the 13th century. Some 28 volumes have already been published, covering seven periods before 1820. The project was originally conceived before the Second World War by Labour MP Joseph Wedgwood.

 

The House of Commons 1820-1832 is not a political history of the period or indeed of the Great Reform Act. But does the scholarship of this series substantially change our interpretation of the period? Not dramatically, but what it does is to show how change was more incremental and how, even under the very limited franchise of the period, governments could lose their ability to command the House when local politics moved decisively towards reform.

 

Although there was a two-party system in this period - Tories and Whigs - party discipline remained loose, and methods of control makeshift and often ineffectual. Both parties were internally divided over issues such as protectionism and Catholic emancipation.

 

Electorates were a relatively small proportion of the population in most constituencies, and in the case of so called 'rotten boroughs', tiny. Many constituencies were in effect owned by individuals or families who either put up relatives or nominees to serve as parliamentarians. Because of the cost of elections, many were uncontested. County elections could cost an individual over £25,000, a staggering sum for that period. The money was spent on transporting and entertaining electors and, in some cases, bribing them directly. The central issue for many of those demanding parliamentary reform was the fact that there were rotten boroughs at one extreme and new boroughs with large populations but little or no representation at the other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The House was a stronghold of the aristocracy, although it did represent a broad cross-section of the established interests in the state: the church, rural and urban property, the navy, the army, the legal profession, commerce and trade. There were only 15 MPs involved in industrial production. Over half of all MPs were educated at six leading public schools, and at least 813 went to university. Over 250 had been army officers at one time or another, and serving officers could stand as MPs.

 

This was a period when Catholics, Jews and non-conformists agitated for civil rights, including the right to stand for Parliament. Much of parliamentary business, when it was not government business, consisted of local and private bills to do with economic development, trade, business and transportation.

 

The biographical sketches include the political giants of the period: Castlereagh, Canning, Peel, Palmeston, Lord John Russell and Lord Althorp, and prominent backbenchers such as William Wilberforce, 'Orator' Henry Hunt and Joseph Hume.

 

Members who rose from rags to riches include James Morrison, the son of a Wiltshire publican who became a silk merchant and then a merchant banker. Some 90 MPs got into serious financial difficulties, and at least 14 fled abroad. One crook was the banker Rowland Stephenson, MP for Leominster, who fled to America in 1828 taking £200 in exchequer bills with him.

 

At least eight MPs were certified insane, including Lord Dudley who was foreign secretary 1827-8. Four MPs, including Castlereagh, committed suicide. There was the usual cross-section of MPs with lurid reputations for sexual incontinence, including Waldo Sibthorp who was reputed to sleep during the session at a brothel near the House.

 

While the House was sitting, an MP was expected to attend and, when necessary, vote. Unless he effectively obtained leave of absence, he could be 'counted' to see whether he was attending, and failure could result in being
detained and fined. Perhaps an unfortunate precedent that might find sympathy with today's electorate.

 

The final Reform Act did sweep away some aspects of the old system, but the conclusion drawn from this study is that the impact of reform on the constituencies varied enormously, and left a third of the surviving old boroughs with fewer electors than before. Patronage, limited franchise and open voting still continued, but the pressure for reform was unabated. Hopefully, future volumes of The History of Parliament will explore these issues further.