Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 July 2014
Twentieth-century historians of the development of British political institutions have been persuaded by the late Sir Lewis Namier that the eighteenth century cannot fruitfully be analyzed in terms of party politics. “In 1761,” Sir Lewis observed, “not one parliamentary election was determined by party, and in 1951 not one constituency returned a non-party member.” J. H. Plumb has admittedly discerned a temporary “rage of party” during the reign of Queen Anne, and Donald Ginter has noted significant anticipations of modern party rivalry during the 1780s and 1790s while the late Richard Pares found “a tendency to a two party system” present during the immediate post-Napoleonic War years. Yet the modern political party system is generally seen as a direct if unwitting consequence of the Reform Act of 1832. In J.B. Conacher's words:
First of all a political party should exist with the purpose of becoming the basis of government; secondly it should be composed of members sharing common principles and traditions; thirdly it should possess some definite form of organization inside and outside Parliament. For lack of one or more of these essential requirements the modern political party could not come into existence until after the Reform act of 1832.
1 See The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, 2 vols. (2nd ed.; London, 1957)Google Scholar. Namier provides a succinct summary of his conclusions in “Monarchy and the Party System,” Personalities and Powers: Selected Essays (London, 1955).Google Scholar
2 Plumb, J.H., The Growth of Political Stability in England 1675-1725 (London, 1967), ch. VCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gutter, Donald, Whig Organization in the General Election of 1790 (Berkeley, 1967)Google Scholar; Pares, Richard, King George III and the Politicians (Oxford, 1953), p. 189Google Scholar. See also Mitchell, Austen, The Whigs in Opposition, 1815-1830 (Oxford, 1967)Google Scholar and Gunn, J.A.W., ed., Factions No More: Attitudes to Party in Government and Opposition in Eighteenth-Century England (London, 1972).Google Scholar
3 Conacher, J.B., “Party Politics in the Age of Palmerston,” in Appleman, Philip, Madden, William A., & Wolff, Michael, eds., 1859: Entering an Age of Crisis (Bloomington, Indiana, 1959), p. 164.Google Scholar
4 Gash, Norman, Reaction and Reconstruction in English Politics, 1832-1852 (Oxford, 1965), pp. 126–27.Google Scholar
5 Cf. “Peel and the Party System, 1830-1850,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th Series, 1(1951).Google Scholar
6 (London, 1953), p. xviii.
7 “Parties and Issues in Early Victorian England,” Journal of British Studies, 5 (1966): 93–114Google Scholar. See also the same author's “Voting Patterns in the British House of Commons in the 1840's,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 5 (1962–1963): 134–63.Google Scholar
8 Beales, D.E.D., “Parliamentary Parties and the ‘Independent’ Member, 1810-1860,” in Robson, Robert, ed., Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain (London, 1967), p. 11Google Scholar
9 Briggs, Asa, The Age of Improvement (London, 1959), chapter 8Google Scholar. For the politics of the mid-Victorian era see also: Stewart, Robert, The Politics of Protection: Lord Derby and the Protectionist Party, 1841-1852 (Cambridge, 1971)Google Scholar; and Southgate, Donald, The Passing of the Whigs, 1832-1886 (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Conacher, J.B., The Peelttes and the Party System, 1846-1852 (Newton Abbot, 1972)Google Scholar and The Aberdeen Coalition (Cambridge, 1968)Google ScholarPubMed; Jones, Wilbur & Erickson, Arvel, The Peelttes, 1846-1857 (Columbus, Ohio, 1972)Google Scholar; and Vincent, John, The Formation of the British Liberal Party, 1857-1868 (London, 1966).Google Scholar
10 Cited in Brightfield, Myron F., John Wilson Croker (Berkeley, 1940), p. 437.Google Scholar
11 See Beales, D.E.D., “Parliamentary Parties,” p. 12.Google Scholar
12 Houghton, Walter E., ed., The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824-1900, 2 vols. (Toronto, 1966), 2:696–99Google Scholar; Pool, Bernard, ed., The Croker Papers, 1808-1857, abridged ed. (New York, 1967), pp. 5–10Google Scholar; Brightfield, , Croker, pp. 389–449Google Scholar; C.E.L., , “Retrospect: Nos 1-500, Quarterly Review,” Quarterly Review, 253 (1929):1–17Google Scholar. [Hereafter cited as QR].
13 Wellesley Index, 1:8–9Google Scholar; New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, 5 vols. (Cambridge, 1969), 3: 1844Google Scholar. See also Tredrey, F.D., The House of Blackwood, 1804-1954 (Edinburgh, 1954).Google Scholar
14 Wellesley Index, 2:303–311Google Scholar. Parker is cited on p. 311.
15 Maurer, Oscar, “Froude and Fraser's Magazine, 1850-1874,” University of Texas Studies in English, 28 (1949):213–43.Google Scholar
16 Cambridge History of English Literature, 15 vols. (Cambridge, 1933), 12:167–68.Google Scholar
17 Cited in Haight, Cordon S., George Eliot and John Chapman (New Haven, 1940), p. 35Google Scholar. See also Wellesley Index, 2:307Google Scholar, and Victorian Periodicals Newsletters, 1 (1968): 20–23, and 2 (1968): 24.Google Scholar
18 Buchan, Alistair, The Spare Chancellor: The Life of Walter Bagehot (London, 1959), pp. 77, 129–30, 146Google Scholar, and passim; Mrs.Barrington, Russell, Life of Walter Bagehot (London, 1914), pp. 368, 399.Google Scholar
19 Wellesley Index, 1:663.Google Scholar
20 Blake, Robert, Disraeli (London, 1966), p. 227.Google Scholar
21 [Croker, J. W.], “Close of Sir Robert Peel's Administration,” QR, 78 (Sept., 1846):565–67Google Scholar. See also “The Late and Present Ministries,” Blackwood's, 60 (Aug., 1846):249–60Google Scholar; “Politics and Personality,” Fraser's, 34 (Nov., 1846): 618–30Google Scholar; [J. W. Croker] “Parliamentary Prospects,” QR 81 (Sept., 1847):541–78Google Scholar. The Wellesley Index is the authority for the names of authors identified in brackets.
22 [Kebbel, T. E.], “Party,” Fraser's, 88 (Aug., 1863):234–37.Google Scholar
23 [Croker, J. W.], “The Old and New Ministries,” QR, 90 (Mar., 1852):574.Google Scholar
24 [Gladstone, W.E.], “The New Parliament and Its Work,” QR, 101 (Apr., 1857): 562Google Scholar; “Reform” QR, 105 (Jan., 1859): 265–66Google ScholarPubMed; Cf. Grey, Earl, Parliamentary Government (London, 1858), pp. 100–101.Google Scholar
25 [Gleig, G. R.], “The Appeal to the Country,” Blackwood's, 85 (May, 1859): 627Google Scholar; see also QR, 101 (Apr., 1857):566Google Scholar; “Politics as a Profession,” QR, 126 (Jan., 1869): 278–79.Google Scholar
26 [Gladstone, W.E.], “The Declining Efficiency of Parliament,” QR, 99 (Sept., 1856): 526–27Google Scholar; 559-64; see also Conacher, , “Party Politics. …” in Appleman, , et al, 1859, pp. 163–80.Google Scholar
27 [G. R. Gleig], “The State and Prospects of Parties,” Blackwood's, 97 (May, 1865): 627–42Google Scholar; also in the same journal by the same author, “Our Political Prospects,” 98 (Sept., 1868): 364–83Google Scholar; “The Ministerial Resolutions,” 101 (Mar., 1867): 379–88Google Scholar; “The Bill as It Is,” 102 (Aug., 1867): 245–56.Google Scholar
28 [Walpole, Spencer], “Reform Schemes,” QR 107 (Jan., 1860): 553Google Scholar; also in QR, [Cecil, Robert), “The Budget and the Reform Bill,” 107 (Apr., 1860): 265–66Google Scholar; “The Conservative Reaction,” 108 (July, 1860): 295–96.Google Scholar
29 [Cecil, Robert], “The House of Commons,” QR, 126 (July, 1864):245Google Scholar. See also [Rebel, T.E.], “Modern Political Memories,” 112 (Oct., 1862):372–73.Google Scholar
30 [Cecil, Robert], “Parliamentary Reform,” QR, 117 (Apr., 1865): 540–74Google Scholar; also in QR, by the same author, “The Elections,” 143 (July, 1865): 281Google ScholarPubMed; “The Coming Session,” 119 (Jan., 1866):277.Google Scholar
31 [Cecil, Robert, Cranborne, Lord], “The Reform Bill,” QR, 119 (Apr., 1866); 555–56.Google Scholar
32 [Cecil, Robert, Cranborne, Lord], “Conservative Surrender,” QR, 123 (Oct., 1867): 546–53, 559.Google Scholar
33 [Greg, W. R.], “Cost of Party Government,” QR, 126 (Apr., 1869):304–413Google Scholar; and [Cecil, Robert], “The Past and Future of Conservative Policy,” 127 (Oct., 1869):538–61Google Scholar. Review, 45 (Mar., 1846):233.Google ScholarPubMed
34 “Religion in its Relation to Politics,” North British Review, 6 (Nov., 1846): 256Google Scholar. Also, see Gash, p. 123, for an interesting parallel with 1832, and “State of Parties,” Westminster Review, 45 (Mar., 1846): 233.Google Scholar
35 “The Approaching General Election,” Economist, 5 (5 June 1847):640–41.Google Scholar
36 “Ministerial Crisis,” Westminster Review, 55 (Apr., 1851):204.Google Scholar
37 [Greg, W. R.], “Crisis of Political Parties,” North British Review, 17 (Aug., 1852): 559–62Google Scholar; see also “The Two Ministries,” Economist, 11 (1 Jan. 1853):3.Google Scholar
38 “The Mission of the Session of 1852,” Economist, 10 (10 July 1852): 754–55Google Scholar; also, in the same journal, “The Question Before the Country,” 10 (3 July 1852): 725–26Google ScholarPubMed; “The Last Rationale of Parliament,” 10 (10 July 1852): 755.Google Scholar
39 “The Decline of Party Government,” Westminster Review, 64 (July, 1855): 132–34.Google Scholar
40 Ibid., p. 144-45.
41 “Parties—Their Conduct and Their Obligations,” Economist, 11 (23 April 1852): 447–48.Google ScholarPubMed
42 “Ministerial Responsibility,” Westminster Review, 66 (July, 1856):192–93Google Scholar; “The Crisis,” Economist, 13 (24 Feb. 1855): 193–94Google Scholar; “The New Ministry,” ibid., 13 (10 Feb., 1855): 137-38. The debate over Gladstone's article in QR involved the Saturday Review, 2 (18 Oct. 1856): 544–45Google Scholar; Economist, 14 (1 Nov. 1856): 1201–02Google ScholarPubMed; Edinburgh Review, 105 (Apr., 1857): 552–78Google Scholar. The Westminster Review, 114 (July, 1855): 125–50Google Scholar, provides a useful introduction to the debate.
43 “The Decline of Party Efficiency,” Economist, 14 (1 Nov. 1856): 1201–02Google Scholar; and “Party Government,” 15 (13 June 1857): 642–43.Google Scholar
44 “The Appeal to the Country,” Economist, 15 (14 March 1857): 277–78Google Scholar; see also “The State of the Parties,” ibid., 22 (2 April 1864): 413-14; “Party Government,” Westminster Review, 69 (April, 1858): 402–28Google Scholar; “The Prospect of Parties,” North British Review, 37 (Feb., 1863): 130–33.Google Scholar
45 Greg, W. R.], “Expected Reform Bill,” Edinburgh Review, 95 (Jan., 1852): 229Google Scholar; also, in the same journal, [J. G. Dodson], “The Five Year Old Parliament,” 120 (Oct., 1864): 593–95Google Scholar; [Reeve, Henry], “Dissolution of Parliament,” 121-122 (July, 1865): 129–48Google Scholar; [Moncrief, James], “Extension of the Franchise,” 123-124 (Jan. 1866): 134–41.Google Scholar
46 [Lancaster, H. H.] “The Prospect of Parties,” North British Review, 38 and 39 (Feb., 1863): 125.Google Scholar
47 Ibid. See also, “Parties and Prospects in Parliament,” Westminster Review, 81 (Jan., 1864): 119.Google Scholar
48 [Lancaster, H. H.], “Reform and Political Parties,” North British Review, 34 and 45 (March, 1866): 112–114, 130.Google Scholar
49 Cf. Arnstein, Walter L., “The Religious Issue in Mid-Victorian Politics: A Note on a Neglected Source,” Albion, 6 no. 3 (Autumn, 1974): 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50 “Political Consequences of the Late Division,” Economist, 26 (11 April 1868): 409–410.Google Scholar
51 [Bayley, C. J.], “The Disraeli Ministry,” Edinburgh Review, 227 (Apr., 1868): 580–81.Google Scholar
52 “The Coming Elections,” Saturday Review, 26 (11 July 1868): 37Google Scholar. See also “The Opposition and the Session,” ibid. (25 July 1868): 106-07.
53 Anderson, Olive, “The Political Uses of History,” Past & Present, no. 36 (April 1967): 87–105.Google ScholarPubMed
54 Bagehot, Walter, The English Constitution (Ithaca, N.Y., 1963), p. 255.Google Scholar
