Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T00:18:40.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Representation of Interests in British Government: Historical Background

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Samuel H. Beer
Samuel H. Beer
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Out-of-date ideas—if they can only manage to survive long enough—are often put to new and surprising uses. A case in point is British Toryism. This pre-capitalist, pre-individualist, pre-liberal creed, one might think, ought surely to have died out during the 19th century. Yet not only has it survived into the era of socialism, it can also claim credit for having helped build the Welfare State. And today British socialists and Tories—both collectivists in a degree—often have more in common than either have with their fellow Liberals. Old traditions of strong government, paternalism and the organic society have made easier the modern re-assertion of state power.

New policies usually produce new kinds of politics. For every major concept of public policy, Schattschneider has observed, there has been a different theory of political organization. Over a period of decades, British collectivism has created not only a new pattern of policy, but also a new structure of power, especially in the realm of political parties and interest groups. Along with a collectivist theory of policy has arisen a collectivist theory of representation. And the latter, like the former, is today supported in interesting and subtle ways by attitudes and ideas deriving from a distant past. The purpose of this article is to look at the historical background of certain of these attitudes—especially those concerning the role of interest groups in politics.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , September 1957 , pp. 613 - 650
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1957

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Neumann, Sigmund (ed.), Modern Political Parties (Chicago, 1955), p. 195Google Scholar.

2 Gibbons, P. A., Ideas of Political Representation in Parliament, 1651–1832 (Oxford, 1914), p. 36Google Scholar.

3 De Grazia, Alfred, Public and Republic: Political Representation in America (New York, 1951), p. 17Google Scholar. I wish to express the great debt which this paper owes to De Grazia's book, especially to his discussion of American ideas.

4 Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and Her Parliaments, 1559–1581 (London, 1953), p. 189Google Scholar.

5 In his election speech on November 3, 1774. The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke (Boston, 1901), Vol. 2, pp. 89–98Google Scholar.

6 Butterfield, H., George III, Lord North and The People, 1779–80 (London, 1949), p. 192Google Scholar.

7 Pares, Richard, King George III and the Politicians (Oxford, 1953), pp. 52–53Google Scholar.

8 Butterfield, p. 341.

9 Porrit, Edward and Porritt, Annie, The Unreformed House of Commons: Parliamentary Representation before 1832 (Cambridge, 1903), Vol. I, p. 270Google Scholar. “Cockburn, in describing public opinion in the last twenty years of the eighteenth century states that it was ‘recognized only when expressed through what were acknowledged to be its legitimate organs,’ which meant its formal or official outlets,” ibid., p. 270.

10 Speech in the House of Commons on the state of the representation, 7 May 1782 Writings and Speeches, Vol. 7, pp. 92–3Google Scholar.

11 Parl. Deb., 3d ser., Vol. II, Cols. 1090ff.

12 See, for example, Hume's, ambiguous attitude toward party in his Essays, moral, political and literary (World's Classics edn., London, n.d.)Google Scholar, Part I, Essay 9 and Part II, Essay 14.

13 Report of the Committee of Privileges; H.C. 118, 1946–47; minutes of evidence, p. 7.

14 Parliamentary History, Vol. xxx, Col. 793.

15 Namier, L. B., The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (London, 1929), Vol. I, p. 182Google Scholar.

16 Quoted in Porritt, Vol. I, p. 311.

17 Ferguson, R. S., Cumberland and Westmoreland M.P.s from the Restoration to the Reform Bill of 1867 (London, 1871), pp. 173–74Google Scholar.

18 Hist. MSS Comm.; 13th Rept.; Appx. Pt. VII; Lonsdale MSS, 27 Feb. 1783.

19 Gash, Norman, Politics in the Age of Peel (London, 1953)Google Scholar, passim.

20 Replying to a Conservative who asked why an M.P. who was an official of the miners' union should not “declare his interest” in pending legislation as would, e.g., a director of a mining company, a Labour member said that the distinction was that the miners' official sat in “a representative capacity.” 348 H.C. Deb. 1720ff (16 June, 1939).

21 See the debate on the report from the Committee of Privileges mentioned above; 440 H.C. Deb. 284–386 (15 July, 1947).

22 Journals of the House of Commons, Vol. xxvi (1753–1754), 15 November, 1753Google Scholar.

23 Statutes at Large, Vol. 7 (London, 1786)Google Scholar.

24 Pares, p. 3.

25 The words are those of Clifford who implies that they stated the criterion in the 18th century—when also, as he notes, some local bills were included among public bills by being explicitly declared to be public. Clifford, Frederick, A History of Private Bill Legislation (London, 1885), Vol. I, p. 267Google Scholar. I have not yet found a contemporary 18th century definition of the scope of private bills. The best contemporary account of procedure, The Liverpool Tractate (ed. Strateman, C., New York, 1937)Google Scholar does not take up the question.

26 This summary of private bill procedure is based principally upon Williams, O. Cyprian, The Historical Development of Private Bill Procedure and Standing Orders in the House of Commons (London, HMSO, 1948), Vol. 1Google Scholar.

27 A petition for a bill to enclose, however, was not sent to a committee on the petition, but led directly to the introduction of the bill.

28 Williams, p. 30.

29 Judd, Gerritt P. IV, Members of Parliament, 1734–1832 (New Haven, 1955)Google Scholar.

30 Tate, W. E., Parliamentary Land Enclosures in the County of Nottingham during the 18th and 19th centuries (Nottingham, 1935)Google Scholar; Thoroton Society Record Series, V, p. 137.

31 For example: in 1773 the Rt. Hon. J. Shelley helped prepare a bill for which the second Duke of Newcastle had petitioned. Shelley had been returned for Newark in 1768 by the Duke, then the 9th Earl of Lincoln, of whom Shelley was a boon companion. This information based on Tate, p. 49; Namier, , Structure, p. 269Google Scholar, and Debrett's.

32 Turner, E. R., “The Excise Scheme of 1733,” Engl. Hist. Rev., Vol. 42 (Jan., 1927), pp. 34–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Turner's appendix lists some 700 pamphlets issued during the struggle.

33 Willan, T. S., River Navigation in England, 1600–1750 (Oxford, 1936), pp. 34–6Google Scholar.

34 The account of the passage of these two acts is based on the Journals of the House of Commons and the House of Lords; Clifford's, History; Samuel Smiles, Lives of the Great Engineers (London, 1867), Vol. IGoogle Scholar; Wedgwood, J. C., Parliamentary History of Staffordshire (London, 1922), Vol. IIGoogle Scholar, Part II; Philips, J., A General History of Inland Navigation (London, 1792)Google Scholar; and Namier's, Structure of Politics and England in the Age of the American Revolution (London, 1930)Google Scholar, which have been particularly useful in identifying nominees and patrons.

35 See especially Sutherland, Lucy S., The East India Company in Eighteenth Century Politics (Oxford, 1952)Google Scholar, and also Philips, C. H., The East India Company, 1784–1834 (Manchester, 1940)Google Scholar.

36 See, for instance, what appears to have been the successful lobbying of the Treasury Board by Sir James Lowther to have an exception made in his favor regarding the duty on coals. The Jenkinson Papers, 1760–1766, ed. Jucker, Ninetta S. (London, 1949), pp. 34–36Google Scholar.

37 152 H.C. Deb. 966ff. (28 Feb. 1859).

38 Bagehot, Walter, Essays on Parliamentary Reform (London, 1883), p. 63Google Scholar.

39 Essays on Reform, n.a. (London, 1867)Google Scholar, “The Balance of Classes,” by A. V. Dicey.

40 285 H.C. Deb. 173–8 (28 Feb. 1884).

41 Amery, , Thoughts on the Constitution (London, 1947), p. 63Google Scholar.

42 Conservatism: 1945–1950 (Cons. Political Centre: London, 1950), pp. 87–89Google Scholar.

43 The Federalist, No. 10.

44 For example, Flood in his famous speech of 4 March 1790 (Parl. Hist., Vol. 28, Cols. 452ffGoogle Scholar); and in America, Gouverneur Morris.

45 SirBlackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 4 vols. (Philadelphia, 1771–1772), Vol. I, p. 171Google Scholar.

46 Parl. Deb., new series, Vol. 7, Cols. 51–141 (25 April 1822)Google Scholar.

47 2 H.C. Deb. 1190ff. (1 March 1831).

48 Quoted in Dicey, A. V., Law and Opinion in England in the 19th Century (London, 1905), p. 186Google Scholar.

49 Gibbons, op. cit., p. 47.

50 The Federalist, No. 10.

51 Ostrogorski, , Democracy and the Organisation of Political Parties (New York, 1902), Vol. I, pp. 156–8Google Scholar.

52 Pares, op. cit., p. 192.

53 Gash, op. cit., p. 109.

54 Essay on the History of the English Government and Constitution (London, 1823)Google Scholar, ch. xvii.

55 Quoted in De Grazia, op. cit., p. 105.

56 For a good example of this view in Britain in 1884, see H. H. Fowler's speech on Feb. 28th; 285 H.C. Deb. 167–172. De Grazia, who holds that the Radical theory is the “most indigenous to American life and buried most deeply in the American spirit,” has traced its course through the Jacksonian, Populist and Progressive periods. In Britain representative spokesmen would be the early John Bright, the early Joseph Chamberlain, Charles Dilke and Lloyd George. Yet for a complete survey one would need to go back to the Levellers of the 17th century.

57 “Truth is a thing, not of divisibility into conflicting parts, but of unity. Hence, both sides cannot be right.” A Definition of Parties (Philadelphia, 1794)Google Scholar.

58 See Pares' discussion in relation to the role of the monarchy, op. cit., ch. 6.

59 For a survey on the Radical side, see Maccoby, Simon, English Radicalism, 1762–1914 (London, 1935–1955), 5 volsGoogle Scholar.

60 Butterfield, op. cit., p. 250. President Washington stigmatized the Democratic Societies of the 1790's with the same term, “self-created.” Link, E. P., Democratic-Republican Sotieties, 1790–1800 (New York, 1942), p. 30Google Scholar.

61 Prentice, Archibald, History of the Anti-Corn Law League, 2 Vols. (London, 1853), pp. 94–95Google Scholar.

62 Prentice, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 393.

63 Jordan, Henry D., “The Political Methods of the Anti-Corn Law League,” Pol. Sci. Qu., Vol. 42 (March, 1927)Google Scholar.

64 Robert, I. and Wilberforce, Samuel, The Life of William Wilberforce, 5 vols. (London, 1839), Vol. I, p. 299Google Scholar; and passim.

65 Wallas, Graham, The Life of Francis Place (London, 1919)Google Scholar.

66 Gash, op. cit., xviii–xxi.

67 153 H.C. Deb. 1268.

68 E.g., by Jordan and Maccoby.

69 See, for example, Ostrogorski, Vol. I, pp. 161–2.

70 Ibid., p. 176.

71 Maccoby, , English Radicalism, 1853–1886, pp. 275–284Google Scholar.

72 Lambert, Richard S., The Railway King, 1800–1871 (London, 1934), p. 152Google Scholar.

73 See Bright's comments on the trouble they caused Disraeli, e.g., over the malt tax; 513 H.C. Deb. 778 (21 March 1859).

74 Parliamentary Papers, 1825; Reports from Committees, Vol. II, Report from the Select Committee on the Constitution of Committees on Private Bills.

75 O. Cyprian Williams, op. cit., p. 88.

76 Parl. Deb., Vol. XX (May-June 1811)Google Scholar, Col. 1012.

77 Report from the Select Committee on Members of Parliament (Personal Interest). H.C. 274. Parl. Papers, 1896. Appendix.

78 Ibid.

79 Aydelotte, W. O., “The House of Commons in the 1840's,” History, Vol. 39, pp. 240–62 (Oct. 1945)Google Scholar.

80 Cracroft, Bernard, Essays, political and miscellaneous (London, 1868), Vol. IGoogle Scholar, ”The Analysis of the House of Commons, or Indirect Representation in the year 1867.”

81 Williams, Philip, “Public Opinion and the Railway Rates Question in 1886,” English Historical Review, Vol. 67 (Jan. 1952)Google Scholar, No. cclxii.

82 Veitch, George S., The Struggle for the Liverpool and Manchester Railway (Liverpool, 1930)Google Scholar.

83 Lambert, op. cit., 185.

84 This account is based mainly on Cleveland-Stevens, Edward, English Railways: their Development and their Relation to the State (London, 1915)Google Scholar.

85 Cohn, Gustav, Englische Eisenbahnpolitik. 2 Bd. (Leipzig, 1874), Bd. I, 164Google Scholar.

86 Philip Williams, op. cit., gives a brilliant analysis of this episode.

87 SirClapham, John, An Economic History of Modern Britain, Vol. II, p. 155Google Scholar.

88 See, for example, Laski, Harold J., Parliamentary Government in England (New York, 1938), pp. 58–59Google Scholar.

89 Laski, op. cit., p. 60; Finer, Herman, Theory and Practice of Modern Government, rev. edn. (New York, 1949), pp. 227, 545Google Scholar.

90 Finer, op. cit., p. 274.

91 Ibid., p. 237.

92 “The Political Power of Private Capital,” Sociological Review; New series; Vol. 3, No. 2 and Vol. 4, No. 1 (December, 1955 and July, 1956)Google Scholar.

93 See Mackenzie, W. J. M., “Pressure Groups in British Government,” Brit. Journal of Sociology, Vol. 6, pp. 133–48 (June, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Pressure Groups: The ‘Conceptual Framework’,” Vol. 3, pp. 247–55 (Oct., 1955)Google Scholar; Finer, S. E., “The Federation of British Industries,” Political Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “The Political Power of Private Capital,” loc. cit.; Beer, S. H., “Pressure Groups and Parties in Britain,” this Review, Vol. 50 (March, 1956), pp. 1–23Google Scholar; Millett, John H., “British Interest Group Tactics: A Case Study,” Pol. Sci. Qu., (March, 1957)Google Scholar; “The Role of an Interest Group Leader in the House of Commons,” Western Pol. Qu. (December, 1956)Google Scholar; Potter, Allen, “The Equal Pay Campaign Committee: A Case-Study of a Pressure Group,” Political Studies, Vol. 5, pp. 49–64, (Feb., 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

94 Of the Anti-Corn Law League, for instance, Prentice wrote, “never, perhaps, had there been any association where so large a portion of the labour to be performed was without other remuneration than the consciousness of discharging a duty.” Prentice, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 189.

95 In the Parliament of 1951, for example, 170 M.P.s were company directors and 98 trade union officials. Ross, J. F. S., Elections and Electors (London, 1955), p. 442Google Scholar.

96 Webb, S. and Webb, B., A Constitution for the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain (London, 1920), p. 69Google Scholar.

97 May, T. E., Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 15th edn. (London, 1950), p. 853Google Scholar.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.