Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:55:25.784Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Universal Suffrage Without Democracy: Thomas Hare and John Stuart Mill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Paul B. Kern
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As Great Britain passed into the second half of the nineteenth century, she stood on the thresholdof universal manhood suffrage. Precedent for reform had been set in 1832 but in many ways the soul-searching which culminated in the Reform Bill of 1867 was much more traumatic. Rule by a hereditary aristocracy had been weakened in 1832. Narrow suffrage based on property, nevertheless, preserved the principle of elitist rule. Because of this, Parliament was more of an “equalitarian aristocracy” than a modern democratic institution. The system seemed more rational after 1832 but Parliament still represented “property and intelligence” and the political position of the vast majority of people remained unchanged.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , July 1972 , pp. 306 - 322
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1972

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 For an excellent discussion of the impact of universal suffrage on Western politics, see Barraclough, Geoffrey, An Introduction to Contemporary History (Baltimore, 1967), chap. VGoogle Scholar.

2 The Hare plan of representation is usually associated with John Stuart Mill and deservedly so because he was its greatest champion. Perhaps the best analysis of Mill's advocacy of the Hare plan is in Ostrogorski, Mosei, Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties, 2 vols. (London, 1902), I, 102–110Google Scholar. See also Packe, Michael St. John, The Life of John Stuart Mill (London, 1954), pp. 415–519Google Scholar. The dominating figure of Mill has overshadowed the thought of Thomas Hare who has remained an obscure figure.

3 The Times (London), 05 7, 1891, p. 5Google Scholar.

4 Ibid.

5 Hare, Thomas, The Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal (London, 1865)Google Scholar.

6 For a simplified explanation of the Hare plan, see Fawcett, Henry, Mr. Hare's Bill Simplified and Explained (London, 1860)Google Scholar.

7 Hare, Thomas, “Representation in Practice and Theory,” Fraser's Magazine LX (02, 1860), 192Google Scholar.

8 Ibid., 193 and Hare, The Election of Representatives, pp. 87–88.

9 Hare, , The Election of Representatives, p. xixGoogle Scholar.

10 Ibid., p. xxix.

11 Ibid., pp. 37–38 and 89–90.

12 Ibid., pp. 89–90.

13 Ibid., p. xxiv.

14 Ibid., pp. 55–56.

15 Ibid., pp. 101–02.

16 Ibid., pp. 10–11.

17 Ibid., pp. xx–xxi.

18 Ibid., p. 281.

19 Ibid., p. 266.

20 Ibid., pp. 266–267.

21 Ibid., p. 280.

22 Ostrogorski, , op. cit., p. 106Google Scholar.

23 Elliot, Hugh S. R., ed., The Letters of John Stuart Mill, 2 vols. (London, 1910), I, 215Google Scholar.

24 Ibid.

25 Mill, John Stuart, “Recent Writers on Reform,” Fraser's Magazine LIX (04, 1859), 489Google Scholar.

26 Packe, , op. cit., p. 417Google Scholar.

27 Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty (New York, 1956), p. 78Google Scholar.

28 Ibid., p. 80.

29 Ibid., pp. 80–81.

30 Mill, John Stuart, “Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform,” Dissertations and Discussions, Political, Philosophical, and Historical, 3 vols. (London, 1867), IIIGoogle Scholar.

31 Ibid., pp. 16–17.

32 Ibid., p. 5.

33 Ibid., p. 12.

34 Ibid., p. 14.

35 Ibid., p. 19.

36 Ibid., pp. 21–22.

37 Ibid., p. 25.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid., pp. 35–36.

40 Ibid., pp. 38–39.

41 Ibid., p. 28.

42 Ibid., p. 29.

43 Ibid., p. 31.

44 Mill, , “Recent Writers on Reform,” p. 504Google Scholar.

45 Ibid., pp. 502–03.

46 Ibid., pp. 505–06.

47 Ibid., pp. 507–08.

48 Ibid., pp. 503–04.

49 Elliot, , ed., Letters of John Stuart Mill, I, 219Google Scholar.

50 “Article IX,” The Edinburgh Review, CIX (01, 1859), 284Google Scholar.

51 For the debate on these specific criticisms of the Hare plan, see Hare's Introduction to the Third Edition of The Election of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal, op. cit.; Hare, Thomas, “Representation of Every Locality and Intelligence,” Fraser's Magazine LX (04, 1860)Google Scholar; Mill, , “Recent Writers on Reform,” pp. 502 ff.Google Scholar; and Mill, John Stuart, Considerations on Representative Government (New York, 1958), pp. 121–126Google Scholar.

52 Mill, , Considerations on Representative Government, p. 102Google Scholar.

53 Ibid., p. 105.

54 Ibid., chap. VII, passim.

55 Ibid., p. 113.

56 Ibid., pp. 127–28.

57 Ibid., pp. 135–143.

58 Elliot, , ed., Letters of John Stuart Mill, II, 23Google Scholar.

59 Packe, , op. cit. pp. 447–48Google Scholar.

60 Ibid.

61 Britain, Great, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, CLXXXVII (1867), 1350Google Scholar.

62 Ibid., c. 1362.

63 Mill, John Stuart, Autobiography (New York, 1960), p. 182Google Scholar .