Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T18:59:36.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE POLITICS OF REFORM AND THE MAKING OF THE SECOND REFORM ACT, 1848–1867

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 August 2007

ROBERT SAUNDERS
ROBERT SAUNDERS*
Affiliation:
Lincoln College, University of Oxford
*
Lincoln College, Oxford, OX1 3DRrobert.saunders@lincoln.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The second reform act came at the close of a remarkable period of constitutional debate, in which seven different governments had committed themselves to reform. Yet historians have shown little interest in this debate, seeing it as largely irrelevant to the making of the second reform act. This article seeks to reconnect the discussions of the 1850s with the measure of 1867, and to explore some of the issues that shaped the course of legislation. It argues that the failure to achieve reform in the 1850s was the result not of hostility to reform in the abstract, but of an inability to agree on the type of reform that was desirable. Depending on who was enfranchised and where, different reform bills could produce quite different electorates, making consensus elusive. The article shows how the Liberal opposition to the 1866 bill was fuelled by concerns over the nature of Liberal politics after Palmerston, and concludes that the disagreement over the rating franchise concealed a wider disagreement on the whole nature of reform, exerting a powerful influence on the measures of both 1866 and 1867.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 571 - 591
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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 Reform bills were introduced in 1852, 1854, 1859, 1860, 1866, and 1867; Palmerston promised a bill in 1857 but failed to deliver. Reform was widely discussed in the elections of 1857, 1859, and 1865.

2 Disraeli, Hansard, 3rd ser. [unless otherwise stated], clxxxii, 99 (27 Apr. 1866); Derby to Carnarvon, 8 May 1866, London, British Library (BL), Carnarvon papers, Add. MS 60765, fo. 32; Lord Elcho, Hansard, clxxxi, 841 (20 Feb. 1866).

3 Elcho, Hansard, clxxxviii, 1580 (15 July 1867).

4 K. T. Hoppen, The mid-Victorian generation, 1846–1886 (Oxford, 1998), p. 237; F. B. Smith, The making of the second reform bill (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 5, 31.

5 J. Prest, Lord John Russell (London, 1972), p. 319; Smith, Making, p. 29; J. Parry, ‘Past and future in the later career of Lord John Russell’, in T. Blanning and D. Cannadine, eds., History and biography: essays in honour of Derek Beales (Cambridge, 1996), p. 151; J. Parry, The rise and fall of liberal government in Victorian Britain (London, 1993), pp. 174–5; A. Hawkins, Parliament, party and the art of politics in Britain, 1855–1859 (London, 1987), p. 19. For a different approach stressing the impact of the 1848 revolutions, see Quinault, R., ‘1848 and parliamentary reform’, Historical Journal, 31 (1988), pp. 831–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Zimmerman, K., ‘Liberal speech, Palmerstonian delay, and the passage of the second reform act’, English Historical Review, 118 (2003), pp. 1176–207, at p. 1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 G. M. Trevelyan, The life of John Bright (London, 1913), p. 363. See also Harrison, R., ‘The 10 April of Spencer Walpole: the problem of revolution in relation to reform, 1865–1867’, International Review of Social History, 7 (1962), pp. 351–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 M. Cowling, 1867: Disraeli, Gladstone and revolution: the passing of the second reform bill (Cambridge, 1967), pp. 2–3, 311–12, 340.

9 John Russell, Essay on the history of the English government and constitution, since the reign of Henry VII (London, 1821), new editions in 1823, 1865, and 1873; W. E. Gladstone, The state in its relations with the church (London, 1839), new edition in 1841; Benjamin Disraeli, The vindication of the English constitution, in a letter to a noble and learned lord (London, 1835); Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (2 vols., London, 1835–40); J. S. Mill, Considerations on representative government (London, 1861); Walter Bagehot, The English constitution (London, 1867).

10 Gladstone to Russell, 30 Apr. 1866, London, The National Archives (TNA), Russell papers, 30/22/16b, fo. 353; J. Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby and the Conservative party: journals and memoirs of Edward Henry, Lord Stanley, 1849–1869 (Hassocks, 1978), p. 292.

11 Himmelfarb, G., ‘The politics of democracy: the English reform act of 1867’, Journal of British Studies, 6 (1966), pp. 97–138, at pp. 107, 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Hansard, cliii, 535 (22 Mar. 1859); BL, Carnarvon papers, Add. MS 60765, fo. 32. Party nomenclature was confused in this period; in this article I use the labels Conservative and Tory interchangeably.

13 The best guide to the intricacies of the franchise and the most substantial discussion of reform in this period is to be found in C. Seymour, Electoral reform in England and Wales (1915, reprinted London, 1970). This remains the most lucid account of the Victorian electoral system, but its focus lies rather in the working of that system than in the reform debate as such. Indeed, Seymour cheerfully concluded that the explanation for Disraeli's actions in 1867, ‘if hidden explanation there be, remains yet to be discovered’ (p. 275).

14 For the new reform movement, see Edsall, N., ‘A failed national movement: the parliamentary and financial reform association, 1848–1854’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 49 (1976), pp. 108–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 A. Mackay, Electoral districts, or the apportionment of the representation of the country on the basis of its population (London, 1848) pp. 28, 37.

16 Hansard, c, 195 (6 July 1848).

17 E. Miall, The suffrage, or reconciliation between the middle and labouring classes (London, 1848), p. 9. This first appeared as a series of articles in the Nonconformist in 1841. Roebuck, J. A., ‘Organic reform’, Westminster Review, 55 (1851), p. 477Google Scholar.

18 Mackay, Electoral districts, pp. 32–3.

19 Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby, pp. 6, 62 (5 May 1849 and 24 Apr. 1851); Times, 24 Apr. 1851.

20 Hansard, cxv, 910 (2 Apr. 1851); cxiv, 869 (20 Feb. 1851).

21 Russell to Clarendon, 25 Mar. 1851, Oxford, Bodleian Library (Bod), Clarendon papers, Dep. Irish 1a, Box 44; Hansard, cxiv, 937 (2 Apr. 1851).

22 Standard, 21 June 1848, p. 2; Morning Herald, 7 July 1848, p. 4.

23 Hansard, xcix, 962–3 (20 June 1848); c, 221–2 (6 July 1848).

24 Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby, p. 60; James Harris, earl of Malmesbury, Memoirs of an ex-minister: an autobiography (2 vols., London, 1884), I, p. 415.

25 Hansard, clii, 1034 (28 Feb. 1859).

26 9 Dec. 1851, M. C. Wiebe, J. B. Conacher, J. Matthews, and M. S. Millar, eds., Benjamin Disraeli letters (currently 7 vols., Toronto, 1982–), v, p. 495.

27 Russell, History, pp. 336, 438–9. For Russell's constitutional thought, see Saunders, R., ‘Lord John Russell and parliamentary reform, 1848–1867’, English Historical Review, 120 (2005), pp. 1289–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 J. B. Conacher, The Aberdeen coalition, 1852–1855 (Cambridge, 1968), p. 295.

29 W. R. Greg, ‘Representative reform’, Edinburgh Review, 96 (1852), p. 457.

30 Greg, W. R., ‘The expected reform bill’, Edinburgh Review, 95 (1852), p. 214Google Scholar.

31 William A. Mackinnon, On the rise, progress, and present state of public opinion in Great Britain and other parts of the world (1828, reprinted Shannon, 1971), p. 15.

32 H. Cox, The British commonwealth: or a commentary on the institutions and principles of British government (London, 1854), p. 222; Lowe, Robert, ‘The past session and the new parliament’, Edinburgh Review, 105 (1857), p. 570Google Scholar; W. Bagehot, The English constitution, ed. G. Phillipson (Brighton, 1997), p. 91.

33 Greg, ‘Representative reform’, p. 457.

34 Hansard, clviii, 141 (26 Apr. 1860); clvii, 886–7 (19 Mar. 1860).

35 J. S. Mill, Thoughts on parliamentary reform (London, 1859); Thomas Hare, Treatise on the election of representatives (London, 1859); Economist, 17 Mar. 1860, pp. 277–8.

36 This omits, of course, disagreement over secret ballot and more frequent parliaments. Neither, however, was seriously considered by any government in this period, though Disraeli was agnostic on both points.

37 31 Jan. 1852, Malmesbury, Memoirs, i, p. 301; Press, 18 Feb. 1854, p. 145.

38 13 June 1854, Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby, pp. 125–6.

39 Memorandum by Philip Rose, 24 Jan. 1859, Oxford, Bod., Disraeli papers, Dep. Hughenden 43/3, fo. 123; Derby to Disraeli, 2 Jan. 1859, Dep. Hughenden 110/1, fo. 2.

40 Hansard, clxxxiv, 423 (14 June 1866).

41 Times, 11 July 1859, p. 10 (Charles Villiers); 8 Apr. 1859, p. 5 (Sidney Herbert).

42 Bod., Clarendon papers, MS. Clar. dep. c.524, n.d.

43 Walpole, S. H., ‘Parliamentary reform, or the three bills and Mr. Bright's schedules’, Quarterly Review, 106 (1859), p. 544Google Scholar.

44 E. Horsman, Speech of the right hon. Edward Horsman, M.P. at Stroud (London, 1861), pp. 52–3.

45 Gladstone to Russell, 12 Oct. 1865, TNA, Russell papers, 30/22/15f, fos. 46–7.

46 For (inconclusive) discussion of the subject before Palmerston's death, see George Douglas, duke of Argyll, Autobiography and memoirs, ed. Lady Argyll (2 vols., London, 1906), ii, p. 229; Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby, p. 233.

47 The name was coined by John Bright in reference to the ‘Cave of Adullam’, to which resorted ‘every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and everyone that was discontented’; I Samuel, xxii.1-2.

48 Trevelyan, John Bright, p. 357; J. Bryce, ‘Robert Lowe, Viscount Sherbrooke’, in his Studies in contemporary biography (London, 1903), p. 298.

49 See R. Knight, Illiberal liberal: Robert Lowe in New South Wales, 1842–1850 (Melbourne, 1966); J. Winter, Robert Lowe (Toronto, 1976).

50 Hawkins, Parliament, party, p. 11; Russell to G. Grey, 26 Sept. 1861, London, ING Bank NV (Barings), George Grey papers, vol. iii, fos. 111–12.

51 Lowe to J. T. Delane, 14 Nov. 1865, London, News International Times Archive, Delane papers, 14/92.

52 R. Lowe, Speeches and letters on reform, with a preface (London, 1867), p. 61, my emphasis; A. P. Martin, Life and letters of Viscount Sherbrooke, (2 vols., London, 1893), ii, p. 299.

53 Lowe, Speeches, p. 167.

54 Ibid., p. 10.

55 Ibid., p. 74.

56 Winter, Robert Lowe, pp. 144–7.

57 Lowe, Speeches, pp. 74–5, 118–19.

58 Ibid., pp. 12, 51–2.

59 Ibid., pp. 54–5.

60 Ibid., p. 105.

61 Times, 7 Apr. 1866, p. 9.

62 Gladstone, ‘Party as it was and as it is: a sketch of the political history of twenty years’, Apr. 1855, BL, Gladstone papers, Add. MS 44745, fo. 196.

63 Hansard, cliii, 1067 (29 Mar. 1859).

64 Times, 23 Apr. 1862, p. 6; 25 Apr. 1862, p. 7.

65 Times, 2 June 1865, p. 5.

66 Hansard, clxxv, 326 (11 May 1864).

67 Ibid., 326–7.

68 Elcho, Hansard, clxii, 1677–9 (19 Apr. 1866); Laing, 1311 (13 Apr. 1866); Horsman, 113 (12 Mar. 1866); Gregory, 1799 (20 Apr. 1866).

69 Hansard, clxxxii, 59 (12 Mar. 1866); 873 (23 Mar. 1866).

70 Hansard, clxxv, 319 (11 May 1864).

71 Hansard, clxxxii, 1787 (20 Apr. 1866).

72 McKenna, Hansard, clxxxii, 1395 (16 Apr. 1866).

73 Despite its Gladstonian bias, one of the most lucid explications of rating law and its implications for the franchise remains H. Cox, A history of the reform bills of 1866 and 1867 (London, 1868).

74 Gladstone pointed out that the rental value was also recorded in the rate-book; but this was only a presumptive test, and in the event of a challenge the rental value had to be established before the revising barrister.

75 Walpole, , ‘Parliamentary reform’; idem, ‘Reform schemes’, Quarterly Review, 107 (1860), p. 231Google Scholar.

76 Hansard, clii, 1067 (1 Mar. 1859).

77 Granville to Palmerston, 22 Dec. 1859, University of Southampton Library, Palmerston papers, GC/GR 1868.

78 Correspondence between Carnarvon and Heathcote, 6 and 7 Mar. 1866, BL, Carnarvon papers, Add. MS 61070, fos. 149–52.

79 An act sponsored by Sir William Clay in 1851 permitted compounders over £10 to vote on taking responsibility for the (reduced) rate themselves. Gladstone later estimated that fewer than 500 voters had qualified under this act, but it was viewed nonetheless as a dangerous precedent by many MPs. In 1867 Disraeli proposed to repeal Clay's act rather than admit compounders below £10, though the passage of Hodgkinson's amendment made the question redundant. Seymour, Electoral reform, pp. 151–3.

80 The politicization of local rates is discussed in P. Salmon, Electoral reform at work: local politics and national parties, 1832–1841 (Woodbridge, 2002), esp. chs. 6–7; and D. Fraser, ‘The poor law as a political institution’, in Fraser, ed., The new poor law in the nineteenth century (London, 1976).

81 Select committee of the House of Lords, appointed to inquire into … the municipal franchise (Parliamentary Papers, 1859, vii), pp. v–vii.

82 Hansard, clxxxiii, 1526, 1663 (30 and 31 May 1866); Times, 16 June 1866, p. 9; Dunkellin, Hansard, clxxxiv, 545 (18 June 1866).

83 E. Clinton to Gladstone, 27 June 1866, London, BL, Gladstone papers, Add. MS 44411, fo. 48.

84 A. J. Finlay to Gladstone, 21 June 1866, ibid. fo. 12; Times, 2 July 1866, p. 6.

85 For the ministerial crisis, see Smith, Making, pp. 111–20.

86 Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby, p. 293; Hansard, clxxxvi, 664 (26 Mar. 1867).

87 Standard, 18 June 1866, p. 4.

88 Northcote to Disraeli, 16 Jan. 1867, Bod, Disraeli papers, Dep. Hughenden 107/1, fos. 1–2.

89 Diary entry, 8 Nov. 1866, BL, Carnarvon papers, Add. MS 60898, fo. 81; Carnarvon to Disraeli, 2 Feb. 1867, Add. MS 60763, fo. 8.

90 Memorandum, 21 July [1866], Liverpool Record Office (LRO), Derby papers, 920/Der 14 52/3, though at this point Graves still favoured attaching a figure to the rating qualification; diary entry, 1 Feb. 1867, BL, Carnarvon papers Add. MS 60899, fo. 16.

91 Disraeli to Derby, 4 Feb. 1867, LRO, Derby papers, 146/3.

92 Grosvenor to Derby, 17 Feb. [1867], LRO, Derby papers, 52/6; Hansard, clxxxv, 980 (25 Feb. 1867).

93 Manners to Malmesbury, 28 Febr. 1867, in Malmesbury, Memoirs, ii, p. 368; R. A. J. Walling, ed., The diaries of John Bright (London, 1930), p. 296.

94 Standard, 1 Mar. 1867, p. 4; W. Moneypenny and G. Buckle, eds., The life of Benjamin Disraeli, earl of Beaconsfield (6 vols., London, 1910–20), iv, p. 511 (Malmesbury); diary entry, 28 Feb. 1867, BL, Carnarvon papers, Add. MS 60899, fo. 33.

95 Hansard, clxxxvi, 537 (25 Mar. 1867).

96 Times, 19 Mar. 1867, p. 9; Day, 28 Mar. 1867, p. 4.

97 Hansard, clxxxvi, 538 (25 Mar. 1867).

98 M. R. journal-titleD. Foot and H. C. G. Matthew, eds., The Gladstone diaries (14 vols., Oxford, 1968–94), vi, p. 513.

99 N. Johnson, ed., The diary of Gathorne Hardy, later Lord Cranbrook, 1866–1892: political selections (Oxford, 1981), pp. 36–7; Vincent, ed., Disraeli, Derby, p. 301.

100 Standard, 4 May 1867, p. 4; Day, 2 May 1867, p. 4.

101 Hansard, clxxxvi, 1549 (11 Apr. 1867).

102 Hansard, clxxxvi, 1565 (11 Apr. 1867); Day, 20 April 1867, p. 4.

103 Hansard, clxxxvii, 1182–3 (27 May 1867).

104 Hansard, clxxxvii, 800–2 (20 May 1867).

105 Parry, Rise and fall, p. 216.

106 Henley wrongly believed that Hodgkinson's amendment would make no significant difference to the enfranchisement; Hansard, clxxxvii, 742 (17 May 1867). For studies of reform and its unintended consequences, see Hoppen, K. T., ‘Politics, the law and the nature of the Irish electorate, 1832–1850’, English Historical Review, 92 (1977), pp. 746–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davis, John and Tanner, Duncan, ‘The borough franchise after 1867’, Historical Research, 69 (1996), pp. 306–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Standard, 13 Mar. 1866.