Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T19:51:15.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Matter of the Missing Contests: Towards a Theory of the Mid-19th Century British Political System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

D. C. Moore
Get access

Extract

General elections occurred in mid-19th century Britain for various reasons. Sovereigns died; prime ministers tried to enlarge their xsmajorities in the House of Commons—or to reduce their miniorities; and, of course, the Septennial Act put an outside limit upon the length of time a given Parliament might last. The seven year limit has since been replaced by a five year limit. Also, the death of a sovereign no longer requires the summoning of a new House of Commons. These changes are important. They have often been noted. But they are far less important than certain other changes to which less attention has been given. As a rule today a contest takes place in every constituency on every possible occasion. But at some general elections in the mid-19th century a contest took place in fewer than half of the constituencies.

Presumably, historians have always been vaguely aware that such was the case. But until fairly recently this awareness was indeed rather vague. To my knowledge Professor Gash was the first person to make a systematic count of the numbers of constituencies from which candidates were returned to Parliament without opposition. He made the count for each of the general elections between 1832 and 1847. And then, in a way that suggests his uncertainty what the phenomenon of the uncontested election really meant, when he published his figures in 1953 in his Politics in the Age of Peel, he did so not in the body of the book but in an appendix to which no significant reference was made. Since then others have continued to count. In 1965 Trevor Lloyd published a short piece entitled “Uncontested Seats in British General Elections, 1852-1910.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Summer 1974 , pp. 93 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 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 Gash, Norman, Politics in the Age of Peel (London, 1953), Appendix E.Google Scholar

2 The Historical Journal, VIII (1965): 260–5.Google Scholar

3 Aydelotte, William O., “A Data Archive for Modern British Political History,” in Lorwin, Val R. and Price, Jacob M., eds., The Dimensions of the Past: Materials, Problems and Opportunities for Quantitative Work in History (New Haven, 1972), pp. 333–59.Google Scholar

4 Dunbabin, J.P.D., “Parliamentary Elections in Great Britain, 1868-1900: a Psephological Note”, English Historical Review, LXXXI (1966): 82–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 The graphs in the following tables have been drawn from the evidence contained in McCalmont's Parliamentary Poll Book, Vincent, J. and Stenton, M., eds., (Brighton, 1971)Google Scholar. For purposes of simplicity the four categories which F. H. McCalmonl used to identify English county Members and candidates during the period 1832-1880 have been reduced to two. McCalmont identified them as (C) Conservative, (L) Liberal, (LC) Liberal Conservative, and (P) Protectionist. Protectionists raise few problems. They have been counted as Conservatives. The Liberal Conservatives, on the other hand, do raise some problems. While they were Conservatives before they became Liberal Conservatives—this term was often adopted by Peelites in the years after 1846—some returned to the Conservative fold, others joined the Liberals. Those who returned to the Conservative fold have been classified as Conservatives throughout. Those who joined the Liberals have been classified as Liberals from the time they were described as Liberal Conservatives. While the procedure might introduce certain errors these would be statistically unimportant.

6 On the borough freeholder question see the author's “Concession or Cure: the Sociological Premises of the First Reform Act”, Historical Journal, IX (1966): 39–59.Google Scholar

7 Webb vs. the Overseers of Birmingham. The decision was reported in Lutwyche, Alfred J. P., Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Common Pleas on Appeal from Decisions of the Revising Barristers (London, 1847), pp. 26–7Google Scholar. The problem had earlier been discussed in Parliament. As Sir James Graham explained, in I 836, various men were “defeating the intentions of the framers of the Act” by exploiting the technical meaning of the word, “occupied,” which had been used in the 25th clause of the Act instead of the proper word, “held.” In consequence, the clause was sometimes being read in such a way that a leaseholder who “held” two or more houses in a borough under a single lease, who occupied one of these houses himself, and who rented one or more to someone else, was allowed to qualify to vote in the county even though the intent of the clause had been to exclude him. (3 Hansard, XXXI (21 June 1836), cols. 701-2.Google Scholar) Lord John Russell not only confirmed Graham's description of the Ministers' “intentions” but expressed his amazement that such “ficticious” votes were ever approved by the revising barristers. (Ibid., cols. 702-3 and 705.) But Graham's effort to put a stop to the practice was defeated.

8 Cox, Edward W. and Grady, Standish Grove, The New Law and Practice of Registration and Elections, 10th ed. (London, 1868), p. xcviii.Google Scholar

9 Cox, Edward W. and Grady, Standish Grove, The New Law and Practice of Registration and Elections, 11th ed. (London, 1872), p. lxxix.Google Scholar

10 See for example, “Liberal Canvassing Book, Cullompton,” Burrow Papers, Devonshire Record Office, 74B/MV3.

11 Mr. Baxter's Calculations, 21 Nov. [1868],” Nostell Papers, D3.8.1. I wish to express my graditude to Lord St. Oswald for permission to quote from these Papers and to Maj. Thomas Ingram for arranging that I might see them.

12 Loc. cit.

13 “Calculations, morning of the polling, 10 February 1874”, loc. cit.

14 “Calculations on the old system, 9 April 1880”, loc. cit.

15 Report on the revision of the electoral register [1879]”, loc. cit.

16 Leicestershire Mercury, 30 March 1839.

17 H. Stiles to Sir Michael Edward Hicks Beach, 5 October 1863, St. Aldwyn Papers, Misc. PP/17. I wish to express my gratitude to Earl St. Aldwyn for allowing me access to these Papers.

18 The Table had been compiled from The Poll for the Election of Two Knights of the Shire to serve in Parliament for the Southern Division of the County of Leicester (Leicester, 1841)Google Scholar, The Poll at the Election of a Knight of the Shire, November 28th 1867 (Leicester, n.d.). The Poll for the Election of Two Knights of the Shire for the Southern Division of the County of Leicester (Leicester, 1869)Google Scholar, and The Poll taken at the Election of a Knight of the Shire (Leicester, 1870).Google Scholar

19 These figures arc laken from Leicestershire Mercury, 5 June 1841. and Parliamentary Papers, 1852, XLII: 303 ff.Google Scholar, 1857-8. XLVI: 571 ff., 1865, XLIV: 550 ff., and 1866, XVII: 15 ff.

20 These figures were reported in Birmingham Journal, 29 October 1864, 21 October 1865 and 11 October 1866.

21 Ibid., 11 October 1866.

22 The legal details are fairly complex. But Cox and Grady's conclusions are fairly simple: “No freehold dwelling house [in a borough] will now give a vole for the county if in the occupation of the owner. Formerly, all such houses below the value of £10 per annum did confer the county franchise. … No copyhold or leasehold dwelling house in a borough will now confer a vote for the county nor will any tenancy of £50 rental, whether in the occupation of the owner or of another,…” Their further remarks are understandable: “Election agents will, therefore, look very closely at the county lists to see that the new borough voters who have hitherto voted for the county in respect of properly in the borough which formerly did not, and now will, confer a vole for a borough, are duly objected to.…[T]he persons who will be thus disqualified will be very numerous.” (Registration and Elections, 10th ed., pp. xix–xx.Google Scholar)

23 Leicester Chronicle, 3 July 1880.

24 In the mid-1840s, when the county registers contained some 445,000 entries, agents of the Anti-Corn Law League made over 143,000 separate objections. Most of these were based upon a decision of the Court of Common Pleas in 1843 in the case of Bartlett vs. Gibbs. The decision concerned section 40 of the Registration Act of 1843. According to this section, if an error occurred in any entry which a register contained, or if the entry did not include all the information legally required, and if the error or omission were not corrected to the revising barrister's satisfaction, the entry was to be expunged. In Bartlett vs. Gibbs it was held that where street numbers existed the legal requirement of adequate description of property was not satisfied unless such numbers were included in the register; also, that the revising barrister had no power to amend an entry except where no objection had been brought. Where an objection had been brought the right to vote had to be proved. Most of the objections initialed by League agenls concerned ihe omission of street numbers. In a large number of cases, however, Tory registralion agenls secured the presence of those objected to at the registration courts. As a rule, the revising barristers allowed these men to recover costs who successfully defended their rights to be registered. As a rule, as soon as costs had been allowed in one case the remaining objections were dropped. By this means further costs were avoided. By this means, however, where the objections had been based on errors or omissions of information these could then be corrected without more ado. According to various League spokesmen the campaign as a whole was an immense success. Ostensibly. 96 1/2% of their objections were sustained in North Warwickshire, 98% in North Staffordshire, 92% in Buckinghamshire, etc.…However, in arriving at these figures these spokesmen obviously ignored those objections which had been dropped. Of the 710 objections served in one polling district in North Warwickshire in 1845. only eleven or twelve were sustained. Of the 1,370 objections served in South Leicestershire, only thirty were sustained. In Lucknett vs. Knowles, in 1846, the Court reversed that portion of its decision in the case of Bartlett vs. Gibbs which concerned the revising barristers' powers. They decided that the revising barristers did have the power to amend an entry even when an objection had been brought. On the legal grounds of the League objections see Lutwyche, , Reports of Cases in Court of Common Pleas., pp. 74–91 and 452–3Google Scholar; and “Report from the Select Committee on Votes of Electors,” Parliamentary Papers, 1846, VIII, questions 4 and 59-61Google Scholar. On the abandonment of further objections as soon as costs were awarded, see ibid., questions 4, 2321-2, and 2655-6. On the “success” or “failure” of the campaign as a whole, see ibid., questions 2310 and 2650, and the exchange between Bright, and Newdegale, , 3 Hansard, LXXXXII (5 May 1847): 398–402.Google Scholar

25 “Voling and ihc Equilibrium of the American Political System”, in American Voting Behavior, Burdick, Eugene and Brodbeck, J. A., eds. (Glencoe, Illinois, 1959), pp. 92 and 96.Google Scholar