Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:12:18.756Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence, Parties and the Constitution: Changing Attitudes, 1783–1832

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. A. W. Gunn
J. A. W. Gunn
Affiliation:
Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The existence of royal ‘influence’ was central to the political system of eighteenth-century England. However, the influence of the Crown occupies a curiously tangential place in the political thought of the period. Always difficult to ignore, influence gained recognition chiefly from those groups intent on destroying it – the Old-Whig enemies of corruption, the Country opposition to Walpole and the radical reformers late in the century. But the constant ambiguity as to the exact nature of the balance of the constitution may be explained primarily by the presence of opposed views about influence. While the numerous enemies of influence seem to have had their way in the law-books and other standard accounts of die constitution, an interpretation of British government, leaning more to realism than to legalism, sometimes surfaced in those ministerialists who defended places for M.P.s as the essential lubricant to die machinery. A realistic assessment of influence not only departed from die model of three equal and independent estates, it was also to provide a basis for understanding political parties within the framework of the balanced constitution.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1974 , pp. 301 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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 A brief treatment of this theme appears in the introduction to my collection of documents on the idea of party. See Factions No More: Attitudes to Party in Government and Opposition in Eighteenth-Century England (London, 1972), pp. 11–15. Here, I have tried to draw upon new illustrations.Google Scholar

2 Swift, , A Discourse of the Contests and Dissentions between the Nobles and Commons in Athens and Rome…(1701), Ellis, F. H. (ed.) (Oxford, 1967), pp. 121–2.Google Scholar

3 See[McCulloh, Henry], The Fatal Consequences of the Want of System in the Conduct of Public Affairs (London, 1757), p. 54,Google Scholar where Pitt's independence of George II is seen as introducing a ‘fourth principle’ into the constitution, and [Douglas, John], Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man on the Present Important Crisis of a New Reign and a New Parliament (London, 1761), p. 10.Google Scholar In 1761 the practical difficulty lay in the new king's desire to rid himself of popular ministers, here accused of trying to erect themselves into a ‘fourth estate’. As late as 1770, Thomas Townshend described the cabinet as a ‘midnight assembly’, unknown to the constitution. Parliamentary History, vol. xvi (1770), col. 836.Google Scholar

4 Hume, , ‘Of the Parties of Great Britain’, in Essays Moral, Political and Literary, Green, T. H. and Grose, T. H. (eds.) (London, 1875), i, 134.Google Scholar The same difficulty had already been admitted in Hume's ‘Of Parties in General’, in ibid. p. 128.

5 ‘Of the Parties of Great Britain’, p. 138.

6 Scholars who have dealt with this problem include, with varying degrees of enthusiasm about Montesquieu's insight, Wood, Neal, ‘The Value of Asocial Sociability; Contributions of Machiavelli, Sidney and Montesquieu’ in Fleisher, Martin (ed.), Machiavelli and the Nature of Political Thought (New York, 1972), pp. 282–307;Google ScholarShackleton, Robert, Montesquieu: A Critical Biography (New York, 1961), pp. 295–6Google Scholar and Merry, Henry J., Montesquieu's System of Natural Government (West Lafayette, Indiana, 1970), p. 81.Google Scholar

7 Wood, , op. cit. p. 305.Google Scholar

8 Anon., Characters of Parties in the British Government (London, 1782), pp. 10–11, 29. See too The London Packet, no. 116 (23–25 July 1770) and the writings of Baptist N. Turner.Google Scholar

9 [Ferguson, ], Remarks on a Pamphlet Lately Published by Dr. Price, intitled Observations on the’ Nature of Civil Liberty (London, 1776), p. 16.Google Scholar

10 SeeHill, B. W., ‘Executive Monarchy and the Challenge of Parties, 1689–1832: Two Concepts of Government and two Historiographical Interpretations’, above, xiii (1970), pp. 379–401 at p. 393.Google Scholar

11 Writers in the 1760s who discussed the nature of party, only to reject the institution, are recorded in Mansfield, Harvey C. Jr., Statesmanship and Party Government (Chicago & London, 1965), pp. 120–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The most remarkable defence of party government to appear in that decade was an anonymous pamphlet called A Letter to… the Duke of Grafton on the Present Situation of Public Affairs (London, 1768). This may have been an effort by Rockingham's party, but it maintains a much less partisan tone than Burke's Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents.Google Scholar

12 Kemp, Betty, King and Commons, 1660–1832 (London & New York, 1968), pp. 2, 90.Google Scholar

13 Parliamentary History, vol. xi (1740), cols. 363–6. The bill in question was not intended to bar all office-holders from the Commons, though Walpole argued as if it were a general place-bill.Google Scholar

14 See Anon., A Second Letter to a Member of Parliament Concerning the Present State of Affairs (London, 1741), pp. 57–61.Google Scholar This is an unusually able defence of influence, both as a substitute for prerogative and as a concomitant of party competition. See too a similar effort written on behalf of the Wilmington Administration. Anon., A Compleat View of the Present Politicks of Great Britain. In a Letter from a German Nobleman to his Friend at Vienna (London, 1743), p. 22.Google Scholar

15 Anon., Ministerial Influence Unconstitutional, or the Mischiefs of Public Venality (London, n.d. [1761]), p. 5.Google Scholar Both John Douglas and Owen Ruffhead were writing pieces of this sort after the accession of George III, so one of them may well have been the author.

16 Parliamentary History, vol. xvi (1770), col. 796.Google Scholar

17 The relevant sections are reprinted in Kemp, op. cit. Appendix F.

18 The Bodleian catalogue attributes the pamphlet to one ‘Powis’, obviously Thomas Powys, who was described by contemporaries as Thomas Pitt's disciple. A manuscript note on the copy of the pamphlet in the Redpath Collection at McGill University says that ‘Mr T. Pitt' was the author. The evidence for Pitt's authorship seems overwhelming, see notes 20 and 24, below.

19 Parliamentary History, vol. xxii (1782), cols. 1427–8.Google Scholar

20 A Letter to the Author of the Lucubrations During a Short Recess (London, 1782).Google Scholar Pitt was identified as author by Sir John Sinclair, who wrote the original Lucubrations. See letter from Sinclair to Rev. Christopher Wyvill, 28 Nov. 1782, in Wyvill, (ed.), Political Papers Chiefly Respecting the Reformation of the Parliament of Great-Britain (York, n.d. [1802]), iv, 224.Google Scholar Powys also named Lord Camelford as the writer when quoting from the pamphlet in the House. See Parlia mentary History, vol. xxv (1785), cols. 353–4. There are striking parallels, both in argument and in language, between this tract and the later Dialogue.Google Scholar

21 A Dialogue on the Actual State of Parliament (London, 1783), pp. 44–5.Google Scholar

22 Ibid. p. 49. Cf. A Letter to the Author of the Lucubrations…, p. 27.

23 Lofft, , Observations on a Late Publication, entitled ‘A Dialogue on the Actual State of Parliament…’ (London, 1783), p. 2.Google Scholar

24 Parliamentary History, vol. xxiv (1784), cols. 348–9. Burke named Camelford, but not the publication in question. However, it was obviously the source of the passages read in the House. See Dialogue, pp. 8–9, 36–7. Camelford had even argued that ministers were not the servants of the king, their formal master, but of parliament (p. 10). This was exacdy what the Coalition wanted to hear.Google Scholar

25 [Basset, ], Thoughts on Equal Representation (London, 1783), p. 17.Google Scholar

26 Ibid. The Contractors' Bill was actually very important legislation from the point of view of parliamentary reformers. Basset's hostility to the cause was notorious. The Wyvill correspondence contains a very uncomplimentary description of this ‘forward, presuming young man’. See Wyvill, , op. cit. iv, 267.Google Scholar

27 Thoughts on Equal Representation, p. 18.

28 See Cannon, John, The Fox-North Coalition, 1783–4: Crisis of the Constitution (London, 1969), pp. 91–2.Google Scholar

29 Parliamentary History, vol. xxiii (1783), col. 862.Google Scholar

30 For an uncompromising version of this position, see Anon., A Vindication of the Conduct of the Late House of Commons, with Respect to the Great Question… (n.p., 1784), pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

31 A genuine defence of Pitt as ‘Minister of the People’ is to be found in Anon., The Protest (London, 1757), pp. 15–16.Google Scholar The same argument appeared in another pamphlet whose author confessed his satirical intent. See S. B., , A Letter to the Right Honorable H[enr]y F[o]x, Esq… (2nd edn., London, 1757).Google Scholar

32 Parliamentary History, vol. xxiv (1784), col. 287.Google Scholar

33 Ibid. cols. 948–55. Burke did not do justice to Richmond's opinions. As the context of the original argument makes clear, Richmond was only quoting others on the supposed balance within the House of Commons, and himself adhered to the traditional view of the balance. See A Letter of His Grace, the Duke of Richmond, in Answer to the Queries proposed by a Committee of Correspondence in Ireland… (London, 1783), pp. 44–5.Google Scholar

34 Scholars have disagreed as to whether this speech, and the publication emerging from it, constitute a temporary repudiation of the conventional theory of the balanced constitution. For the claim that they do, see Pares, Richard, King George III and the Politicians (Oxford, 1954), pp. 31–2n.Google Scholar C. P. Courtney denies the claim and attributes Burke's comments to the circumstances of the time. See Montesquieu and Burke (Oxford, 1963), pp. 124–5.Google Scholar Certainly Burke was attacking the doctrine that branches of the legislature could, acting independently of the House of Commons, check its will. Since he was obviously aware of Camelford's new version of the balance, it was not necessary to deny a balance of sorts in order to attack initiatives by the first two estates; it could now be assumed that they should work through the House of Commons, not against it. In later years Burke admittedly subscribed to quite an orthodox version of the balance, though some of his views, such as the claim that the judicial power was exercised by all three estates, were hardly commonplace. See Parliamentary History, vol. xxx (1793), col. 641.Google Scholar

35 In the period in question Fox was far more willing than Burke to proclaim the merits of party, the former expressing the hope that parliamentary reform would not banish parties in the House. See Parliamentary History, vol. xxv (1785), col. 464.Google Scholar By contrast, Burke finally moved to the position that the subject of ‘party connexions’ was unfit for public discussion. See Parliamentary History, vol. xxx (1793), col. 180.Google Scholar

36 Anon., Letter to a Member of the Present Parliament upon the Extraordinary and Unprecedented Transactions in the Last House of Commons (London, 1784), p. 11.Google Scholar Other Foxite publications to argue in this way included The True State of the Question (London, 1784)Google Scholar and Popular Topics; or the Great Question Discussed (2nd edn., London, 1784).Google Scholar

37 See Parliamentary History, vol. xxiv (1784),Google Scholar col. 663. A recurring argument by the Pittites was that Fox's East India Bill was aimed at setting up a ‘fourth estate’, independent both of king and people. See the speech by Thomas Powys in ibid., col. 348. It was not long before the Whigs were accusing William Pitt of cherishing the same ambition. See, for example, the tract by a Foxite naval officer, Green, James, An Attempt to Explain the Principles of the British Constitution (Newcastle, 1790), p. 194.Google Scholar

38 Anon., A Letter to a Country Gentleman (London, 1784), pp. 41, 48.Google Scholar

38 Ibid. p. 26.

40 See [Rous, George], A Candid Investigation of the Present Prevailing Topic (London, 1784)Google Scholar and The Claims of the House of Commons to a Negative on the Appointment of Ministers by the Crown, Examined and Confuted. By the Author of a Candid Investigation (London, 1784).Google Scholar

41 [Rivers, ], Letters to a Young Nobleman, upon Various Subjects, particularly on Government and Civil Liberty (London, 1784), pp. 203, 214.Google Scholar

42 [Jenyns, ], Thoughts on a Parliamentary Reform (London, 1784), pp. 21, 23.Google Scholar

43 For an early example of this theme, see Jenyns, , A Free Enquiry into the Nature and Origin of Evil (London, 1757), pp. 143–5. Here he proclaimed ‘parties’, ‘opposition’ and ‘corruption’ as ineradicable.Google Scholar

44 See [Bentley, T. R.], A Letter to the Right Honourable Charles James Fox, on the Late Conduct of his Party (London, 1789), p. 3. The tone of this publication is very like that of later ones, known to be by this journalist.Google Scholar

45 See Paley, William, The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy (1st ed., 1785) (16th ed., London, 1806), n, 247.Google Scholar

46 Dalrymple, , Parliamentary Reform, as it is called, Improper in the Present State of This Country (2nd ed., London, 1792), p. 15.Google Scholar

47 Monthly Review, vol. x, new series (01 1793), 577.Google Scholar The reviewer was William Taylor. Another reviewer, writing in the same journal, noted the prevalence of defences of influence written by noblemen's chaplains. See the article by Thomas Pearne in ibid. ix (October, 1792), 223. Reviewers are identified in Nangle, Benjamin Christie, The Monthly Review, Second Series, 1790–1815: Index of Contributors and Articles (Oxford, 1955).Google Scholar

48 Tweedie, Charles Jr., The Conduct of Great Britain Vindicated… (London, 1799), p. 271.Google Scholar

49 Peacock, , Considerations on the Structure of the House of Commons… (London, 1794), p. 45.Google Scholar

50 [John, St.], A Letter from a Magistrate to Mr. William Rose, of Whitehall, on Mr. Paine's Rights of Man (London, 1791), pp. 81–2.Google Scholar

51 Ibid. p. 83.

52 Parliamentary History, vol. xxx (1793),Google Scholar cols. 812–13. In the same debate Richard Colley Wellesley (later Lord Mornington) used the argument that the three principles of government were all present in the Commons. See Ibid. col. 850. One of the contemporary pamphlets that explained how the influence of the Crown and the Opposition balanced each other has sometimes been attributed to Lord Camelford. See Anon., Remarks on the Proceedings of the Society who Style Themselves ‘The Friends of the People’ (London, 1792), p. 35.Google Scholar

53 For identification of the authors of articles in the Review, see Copinger, W. A., On the Authorship of the First Hundred Numbers of the Edinburgh Review (Manchester, 1895).Google Scholar

54 Edinburgh Review, x (1807), 413–14.Google Scholar Radical reformers were outraged. See a letter signed ‘A.B., ’ in Cobbett's Political Register, xii (17 10 1807), 600–4.Google Scholar

55 Ibid. vol. xiv (1809), pp. 301, 305. Jeffrey sometimes distinguished, in the manner of the time, between parties in parliament and those in the country. He identified the latter with extreme polarization of opinions about the constitution and so feared them. Interestingly, it was also the parties in the country, such as the followers of Sir Francis Burdett, that Jeffrey saw as present in all mixed governments. See Edinburgh Review, xv (1810), 505.Google Scholar Thus the familiar parties in parliament had finally escaped identification with class conflict in the ancient world.

56 The two men contributed different sections of the essay, but the relevant comment is included in the respective works of both. See Jeffrey, , Contributions to the Edinburgh Review (Philadelphia, 1852), p. 600Google Scholar andBrougham, , Works (London and Glasgow, 1857), viii, 376.Google Scholar

57 Edinburgh Review, xx (1812), pp. 336, 343.Google Scholar

58 See Clive, John, Scotch Reviewers: The Edinburgh Review, 1802–1815 (London, 1957), pp. 104–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Any suggestion that Jeffrey's article of 1807 was the product of a fit of pique is made implausible by the fact that Jeffrey could refer, in 1812, to three previous treatments of the subject. His commitment to the theory remained strong in 1812 and the rather cursory exposition can be explained by his referring the reader to earlier and more elaborate versions, principally that of 1807. It is true that the constitutional opinions expressed in the Review fluctuated and enemies of reform complained that Jeffrey had strayed from his attractive theory of 1807. See [Hope, Rt. Hon. John], Letter to Francis Jeffrey… by an Anti-Reformist (London, 1811), pp. 40–5.Google Scholar

59 Davis, H. W. Carless, The Age of Grey and Peel (Oxford, 1929), pp. 144–5.Google Scholar Another scholar has noted why the new theory might also appeal to Whigs. See Roberts, Michael, The Whig Party, 1807–1812 (London, 1939), p. 236.Google Scholar

60 See letter of 18 Sept. 1806 from Jeffrey to Francis Horner in Cockburn, Lord, Life of Lord Jeffrey, with a Selection from his Correspondence (Edinburgh, 1852), ii, 112.Google Scholar It was not unusual for reformers to recognize the new balance in the Commons, while regretting that practice could nor conform to the old theory. See ‘Considerations on the Influence of the Crown over Parliament’, Pts. ii and iii (1784) in [Bingley, William (ed.)], The New Plain Dealer (2nd edn., London, n.d. [1792])Google Scholar and ‘Britannicus, ’, Present State of the British Constitution, Historically Illustrated (London, 1807).Google Scholar

61 ‘State of Parties’, Edinburgh Review, vol. xxx (1818), 181–206.Google Scholar On Brougham's authorship, see New, Chester W., The Life of Henry Brougham to 1830 (Oxford, 1961), p. 437.Google Scholar Brougham's judgement on party wavered, as did most of his opinions. But see his description of it as ‘that corner-stone of free Government’ in a letter of 1817 to the Marquis of Lansdowne, quoted in Aspinall, Arthur, Lord Brougham and the Whig Party (Manchester, 1927), p. 82.Google Scholar

62 ‘State of Parties’, p. 193.

63 Brougham, , Political Philosophy (London, 1846), ii, 12–13.Google Scholar

64 For Brougham's views, see Parliamentary Debates, vol. xxxviii (1818),Google Scholar col. 1172 and for those of Canning, ibid. (2nd series), vol. viii (1822), cols. 120–1.

65 Merritt, , A Letter to William Roscoe Esq., Occasioned by his Letter to Henry Brougham Esq. M.P. on the Subject of Parliamentary Reform (Liverpool, n.d. [1812]), p. 3.Google Scholar Merritt credited Brougham with Jeffrey's article of 1807. This seems not to have displeased Brougham, who wrote approvingly of Merritt's political opinions. See Edinburgh Review, xx (1812), 127.Google Scholar

66 Merritt, pp. 28–30.

67 See Anon., Historical Sketches of Politics and Public Men for the Year 1812 (London, 1813), p. 28.Google Scholar

68 Parliamentary Debates, vol. xxiii (1812),Google Scholar cols. 116–17, 131–3 For a Whig pamphlet of the time that both defended parties and denied the possibility of an independent House of Commons, see Anon., The Sentiments of a Party Man on the State of Parties (London, n.d. [c. 1812]), pp. 26, 30.Google Scholar

69 ‘A Review of the Principal Proceedings of the Parliament of 1784’ (1792) in The Works of Henry Mackenzie Esq., in Eight Volumes (Edinburgh, 1808), iv, 182n.Google Scholar George Rose used Mackenzie's essay to explain how the Opposition prevented the influence of the Crown from being burdensome. See Observations Respecting the Public Expenditure and the Influence of the Crown (3rd edn., London, 1810).Google Scholar Rose, in turn, was quoted on the place of the Opposition. See Whitcombe, Samuel, Five Letters to the Prince of Wales, Containing a View of the Three Branches of the Legislature, the Influence of the Crown… (London, 1812), p. 48.Google Scholar

70 Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiv (1809), cols. 656–61. The speech subsequently appeared as a pamphlet.Google Scholar

71 Ranby, , An Inquiry into the Present Supposed Increase of the Influence of the Crown… (London, 1811), pp. 12, 31, 37–8.Google Scholar

72 Ibid. pp. 39–42.

73 Parliamentary Debates, vol. xiv (1809), col. 510.Google Scholar

74 Twiss, , Influence or Prerogative? Being an Attempt to Remove some Popular Misconceptions Respecting the Present State of the British Constitution and Government (London, 1812), pp. 21, 23–5.Google Scholar

75 Parliamentary Debates, 2nd series, vol. v (1821), col. 426.Google Scholar

76 Twiss, , Influence or Prerogative?, p. 44.Google Scholar The major authority for Twiss's claim that influence was declining was George Rose, once Pitt's patronage secretary, and so in a position to know. For a modern judgement, see Foord, Archibald S., ‘The Waning of the Influence of the Crown’, English Historical Review, LXII (1947), 484–507 at 502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77 See Hawkins, Henry, ‘Reform of Parliament, The Ruin of Parliament’ in The Pamphleteer, i, 2 (04 1813), 287–349 at p. 325.Google Scholar

78 Cocks, , Patriotism and the Love of Liberty Defended (London, 1792), 2nd dialogue.Google Scholar

79 Somers, Rt. Hon. John, A Defence of the Constitution of Great Britain and Ireland, as by Law Established (Hereford, 1817), p. 68.Google Scholar Like other writers, Somers found it a simpler matter to use the functional ‘Government’ and ‘Opposition’, rather than the labels ‘Tory’ and ‘Whig’. In an era of increasingly Tory governmenr, some Whigs identified Tory and Government parties. By this reckoning, a Tory, whatever he called himself, was always on the side of power. See Anon., ‘A Short Essay on Whigs and Tories’, in Essays on Political Subjects (London, 1791), pp. 62–3.Google Scholar

80 I am indebted here to the valuable account of constitutional opinions between 1821 and 1832 in Weston, Corinne Comstock, English Constitutional Theory and the House of Lords, 1556–1832 (London, 1965), pp. 140, 250.Google Scholar

81 See Parliamentary Debates, 3rd series, vol. iii (1831), cols. 103–5, where Jeffrey's article of 1809 is quoted against him.Google Scholar

82 Canning seems to have been most open in defending influence when speaking outside the House. See a speech of 18 Mar. 1820, delivered in Liverpool, , in The Speeches of the Right Honourable George Canning… (3rd edn., London, 1836), vol. vii, 389–90.Google Scholar

83 Parliamentary Debates, 2nd series, vol. vii (1822), cols. 91–7.Google Scholar

84 See Roberts, William, Letters on Parliamentary and Ecclesiastical Reform (London, 1831), p. 12Google Scholar and L.W., , Two Letters, Addressed to Earl Grey, upon the Substance and Tendency of the Reform Bill… (London, 1831), p. 20.Google Scholar Horace Twiss probably meant the same when he said that the ‘new mode of Parliamentary Government’ had come with the Restoration of 1660. See Twiss, , Conservative Reform… (London, 1832), p. 13.Google Scholar

85 Walsh, , On the Present Balance of Parties in the State (2nd edn., London, 1832), p. 5.Google Scholar

86 John James Park's book, with its heavy reliance on Jeffrey's articles, appeared in the year of the Reform Bill and must have been one of the last works to require such a source. See Park, , The Dogmas of the Constitution (London, 1832), pp. 42–9.Google Scholar