Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:00:40.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of a Party-Orientated Electorate in England, 1832–1918

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Gary W. Cox
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Modern British government is government by party leaders in Cabinet. It is still the ‘Crown in Parliament’ which formally takes or authorizes every legislative or administrative action, but of the three major components of the Crown in Parliament – the Commons, the Lords, and the Sovereign – the first is now virtually unchecked. The House of Lords can only minimally delay acts of the Commons, and both the Lords and the Monarch have long since lost their ability to veto (much less initiate) legislation. Since those in the Cabinet control the agenda of the House of Commons, since the Cabinet almost invariably consists solely of the leaders of the party with a majority of seats in the Commons, and since the influence of party on voting in Parliament is very strong, the Commons itself has in essence only retained a veto over the legislative proposals of the majority party's leaders who sit in the Cabinet. As a recent essay on legislation in Britain notes, ‘today's conventional wisdom is that … Parliament has relinquished any capacity for legislative initiative it may once have possessed to the executive in its midst’.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 187 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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 Walkland, S. A. and Ryle, M., eds. The Commons Today (London: Fontana/Collins 1981), p. 91.Google Scholar

2 Butler, David E., The British General Election of 1951 (London: Macmillan, 1952), p. 173.Google Scholar

3 Aydelotte, William O., ‘Voting Patterns in the British House of Commons in the 1840s’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, V (1962–1963), 134–63.Google Scholar

4 Cox, Gary W., ‘Party and Constituency in Victorian Britain’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, California Institute of Technology, 1983.Google Scholar

5 McKenzie, R. T., British Political Parties: The Distribution of Power Within the Conservative and Labour Parties, 2nd edn (New York: St Martin's Press, 1963), p. 5.Google Scholar

6 Jennings, W. Ivor, Parliament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939), p. 27.Google Scholar

7 Butler, David E. and Kavanagh, Dennis, The British General Election of 1979 (London: Macmillan, 1980), pp. 407–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John and Fiorina, Morris, ‘The Constituency Service Basis of the Personal Vote for US Representatives and British MPs’Google Scholar, Hoover Institution Working Paper in Political Science, No. P-84–1.

8 Beattie, Alan, ed., English Party Politics: 1600–1906 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), p. 145.Google Scholar

9 Wald, Kenneth, Crosses on the Ballot: Patterns of British Voter Alignment Since 1885 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1983), pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

10 Feuchtwanger, E. J., Disraeli, Democracy and the Tory Party (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), p. 218.Google Scholar

11 Mackintosh, John P., The British Cabinet (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962), p. 162.Google Scholar

12 Vincent, John R., The Formation of the British Liberal Party (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966), p. 82.Google Scholar

13 Mitchell, J. C., ‘Electoral Change and the Party System in England, 1832–1868’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1976Google Scholar; Mitchell, J. C. and Cornford, J. P., ‘The Political Demography of Cambridge 1832–1868’, Albion, IX (1977), 242–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Drake, Michael, ‘The Mid-Victorian Voter’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, I (1971), 473–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Nossiter, T. J., Influence, Opinion and Political Idioms in Reformed England: Case Studies From the North-East 1832–1885 (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1975), p. 178.Google Scholar

15 Mitchell, , ‘Electoral Change and the Party System in England, 1832–1868’, p. 121.Google Scholar

16 See, for example, Phillips, John A., Electoral Behavior in Unreformed England (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hanham, H. J., Elections and Party Management: Politics in the Time of Disraeli and Gladstone, 2nd edn (Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Nossiter, , Influence, Opinion and Political Idioms in Reformed EnglandGoogle Scholar; Mitchell, , ‘Electoral Change and the Party System in England’Google Scholar; Speck, W. A. and Gray, W. A., ‘Computer Analysis of Pollbooks: A Further Report’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XLVIII (1975), 64–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, William, ‘Cross-voting and the Dimensionality of Party Conflict in Britain During the Period of Realignment: 1918–31’, Political Studies, XIX (1971), 455–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Five major sources were used to collect these ballot counts: (1) Smith, 1844–50 (reprinted, 1973) for the period 1832–47; (2) Bean, 1890 for the six northern counties 1832–80; (3) the collections of poll books in the Institute of Historical Research (University of London), the Guildhall Library (City of London), and the British Library for the period 1832–68; (4) the collection of newspapers at the Colindale Annex of the British Library for the period 1868–80; (5) Craig, 1974 for the period 1885–1910. Approximately 15 per cent of the ballot counts in the data set have been ‘reconstructed’. That is, the original source document gave only the plumpers (or some other partial information) from which it was possible to infer the rest of the information based on certain mathematical relationships holding between the aggregate totals and ballot count information. The method used has been described in Mitchell, , ‘Electoral Changes and the Party System in England, 1932–1968’, p. 112.Google Scholar All ballot counts have been checked for internal consistency. That is, each candidate's total number of votes has been calculated by adding up his plumpers and double votes, and this figure has been compared to the totals given in the source document (if available) or to the official returns. In roughly 80 per cent of the cases, the two figures agree exactly. In only thirteen ballot counts do the figures disagree by more than 3 per cent and these have been excluded from analysis.

18 Hanham, , Elections and Party Management, p. 197.Google Scholar

19 Personal communication from Jeremy Mitchell.

20 The real explanation for the evident contrast between reform periods lies, I believe, in the sheer size and expansion of the electorate. After each expansion of the electorate, the optimal electoral strategies for candidates shifted further and further from the politics of bribery, personal influence and patronage, towards the politics of mass appeals based on policy commitments. Concomitantly, the flow of essentially free information available to voters about the personal characteristics and intentions of candidates dwindled. It became rational for voters to use simple cues in the form of party labels when voting, and for candidates to identify themselves with such labels. I intend to pursue this line of reasoning in future research.

21 Cf. Close, D., ‘The Formation of the Two-Party Alignment in the House of Commons Between 1832 and 1840’, English Historical Review, LXXXIV (1969), 257–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Lowell, A. Lawrence, ‘The Influence of Party upon Legislation in England and America’, in the Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1901 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1902).Google Scholar

23 The final authority used here on party affiliations before 1885 is Craig, F. W. S., British Parliamentary Election Results, 1832–1885 (London:. Macmillan, 1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Indeed, since Craig's policy is identical to that described in the text, all party affiliations before 1885 agree with his. After 1885, party affiliations are as given in Appendix 1, Craig, F. W. S., British Parliamentary Election Results, 1885–1918 (London: Macmillan, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, except that Liberal Unionists have been classed with the Conservatives, and Lib/Lab and Labour candidates with the Liberals.

24 Party affiliations were taken from MacCalmont, F. H., The Parliamentary Poll Book of All Elections, 7th edn, 1910, reprinted with an introduction by Vincent, J. and Stenton, M. (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1971).Google Scholar

25 Cox, Gary W., ‘Strategic Electoral Choice in Multi-Member Districts: Approval Voting in Practice?’ American Journal of Political Science, XXVIII (1984), 722–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Cf. Cox, , ‘Party and Constituency in Victorian Britain’, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar

27 Vincent, , The Formation of the British Liberal Party, p. XX.Google Scholar

28 Fraser, Peter, ‘The Growth of Ministerial Control in the Nineteenth-Century House of Commons’, English Historical Review, LXXV (1960), 444–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Cromwell, Valerie, ‘The Losing of the Initiative by the House of Commons, 1780–1914’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 18 (5th Series; London: 1968); pp. 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cox, , ‘Party and Constituency in Victorian Britain’.Google Scholar

29 Todd, Alpheus, On Parliamentary Government in England: Its Origin, Development, and Practical Operations, Vol. II (London: Longmans, Green, 1869), pp. 63–4.Google Scholar

30 Lowi, Theodore, ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory’, World Politics, XVI (1964), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31 Lowell, A. Lawrence, The Government of England, new edn (New York: Macmillan, 1912), Vol. II, pp. 514–19; Vol. I, pp. 367–93.Google Scholar

32 Vincent, , The Formation of the British Liberal Party.Google Scholar

33 May, Thomas Erskine, A Practical Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usages of Parliament, 2nd edn (London: Butterworth's, 1851), p. 486.Google Scholar

34 May, , A Practical Treatise, p. 529.Google Scholar

35 Beer, Samuel H., British Politics in the Collectivist Age (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), pp. 25–8.Google Scholar

36 Pinto-Duschinsky, M., British Political Finance, 1830–1980 (Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, 1981).Google Scholar

37 Gash, Norman, Politics in the age of Peel (Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1977), p. 156.Google Scholar

38 Gash, , Politics in the Age of Peel, p. 174.Google Scholar

39 Hanham, , Elections and Party Management, p. 67.Google Scholar

40 Gash, , Politics in the Age of Peel, pp. 174–5.Google Scholar

41 Wilson, E., ‘Principles of Representation’, Fortnightly Review, XXII (1866), 421–36, p. 435.Google Scholar

42 Nossiter, , Influence, Opinion and Political Idioms in Reformed England, p. 179.Google Scholar

43 O'Gorman, F., The Emergence of the British Two-Party System, 1760–1832 (London: Edward Arnold, 1982), pp. 75–6.Google Scholar

44 Olney, R. J., Lincolnshire Politics, 1832–1885 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), Chap. 2.Google Scholar

45 Ostrogorski, M., Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, Vol. I, translated from the French by Clark, Frederick (London: Macmillan, 1902).Google Scholar

46 Berrington, Hugh, ‘Partisanship and Dissidence in the Nineteenth Century House of Commons’, Parliamentary Affairs, XXI (1967–1968), 338–74, p. 363.Google Scholar

47 Berrington, , ‘Partisanship and Dissidence’, p. 363.Google Scholar

48 Cox, , ‘Party and Constituency in Victorian Britain’, Chap. 6.Google Scholar

49 Fair, John D., ‘Party Voting Behavior in the British House of Commons, 1886–1918’, unpublished mimeo, Auburn University at Montgomery, 1983.Google Scholar

50 Epstein, Leon D., ‘Cohesion of British Parliamentary Parties’, American Political Science Review, L (1956), 360–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Mayhew, David R., Party Loyalty Among Congressmen (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brady, David W., Cooper, Joseph and Thurley, Patricia A., ‘The Decline of Party in the US House of Representatives, 1887–1968’, Legislative Studies Quarterly, IV (1979), pp. 381–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Turner, Julius, Party and Constituency: Pressures on Congress (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1951).Google Scholar

52 Cox, , ‘Party and Constituency in Victorian Britain’.Google Scholar