THE MOTHER OF PARLIAMENTS
[Illustration: THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT]
THE MOTHER OF
PARLIAMENTS
BY
HARRY GRAHAM
AUTHOR OF "A GROUP OF SCOTTISH WOMEN"
WITH TWENTY ILLUSTRATIONS
BOSTON
LITTLE, BROWN, & COMPANY
1911
TO
MY WIFE
PREFACE
The history of England's Parliament is the history of the English
people. To the latter it must consequently prove a source of
never-failing interest. That it does so is clearly shown by the long
list of writers who have sought and found inspiration in the subject.
To add to their number may perhaps seem an unnecessary, even a
superfluous, task. This volume may indeed be likened to that "Old
Piece in a New Dress" to which Petyt compared his _Lex Parliamentaria_.
"These things, men will say, have been done before; the same Matter,
and much the same Form, are to be found in other Writers, and this is
but to obtrude upon the World a vain Repetition of other men's
observations." But although the frank use of secondhand matter cannot
in this case be denied, it is to be hoped that even the oldest and
most threadbare material may be woven into a fresh pattern, suitable
to modern taste.
In these democratic days a seat in either House of Parliament is no
longer the monopoly of a single privileged class: it lies within the
reach of all who can afford the luxury of representing either
themselves or their fellows at Westminster. It is therefore only
natural that the interest in parliamentary affairs should be more
widely disseminated to-day than ever. It does not confine itself to
actual or potential members of both Houses, but is to be found in the
bosom of the humblest constituent, and even of that shadowy individual
vaguely referred to as the Man in the Street. Though, however, the
interest in Parliament is widespread, a knowledge of parliamentary
forms, of the actual conduct of business in either House, of the
working of the parliamentary machine, is less universal.
At the present time the sources of information open to the student of
parliamentary history may roughly be regarded as twofold. For the
earnest scholar, desirous of examining the basis and groundwork of the
Constitution, the birth and growth of Parliament, the gradual
extension and development of its power, its privileges and procedure,
the writings of all the great English historians, and of such
parliamentary experts as Hatsell, May, Palgrave, Sir William Anson,
Sir Courtenay Ilbert and Professor Redlich, provide a rich mine of
information. That more considerable section of the reading public
which seeks to be entertained rather than instructed, can have its
needs supplied by less technical but no less able parliamentary
writers--Sir Henry W. Lucy, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. MacDonagh--none of
whom, as a rule, attempts to do more than touch lightly upon
fundamental Constitutional questions.
The idea of combining instruction with amusement is one from which
every normal-minded being naturally shrinks: the attempt generally
results in the failure either to inform or entertain. There does,
however, seem to be room for a volume on the subject of Parliament
which shall be sufficiently instructive to appeal to the student, and
yet not so technical as to alarm or repel the general reader. It is
with the object of supplying the need for such a book that the
following pages have been written.
An endeavour to satisfy the tastes of every class of reader and at the
same time to cover the whole field of parliamentary history within the
limits of a single volume, must necessarily lead to many errors of
admission as well as of omission. The material at the disposal of the
author is so vast, and the difficulties of rejection and selection are
equally formidable. Much of the information given must perforce be so
familiar as to appear almost hackneyed. Many of the stories with which
these pages are sprinkled bear upon them the imprint of extreme old
age; they are grey with the cobwebs of antiquity. But while the
epigram of the past is too often the commonplace of the present, the
witty anecdote of one generation, which seems to another to plumb the
uttermost abysses of fatuity, may yet survive to be considered a
brilliant example of humour by a third. The reader, therefore, who
recognises old favourites scattered here and there about the
letterpress, will deride or tolerate them in accordance with the
respect or contempt that he entertains for the antique.
I cannot lay claim to the possession of expert parliamentary
knowledge, though perhaps, after close upon fifteen years' residence
within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, I may have acquired
a certain intimacy with the life and habits of the Mother of
Parliaments. For my facts I have to a great extent relied upon the
researches of numerous parliamentary writers, past and present, to
whom I have endeavoured to express my indebtedness, not only in
copious footnotes, but also in the complete list of all sources of
information given at the end of this volume. I wish to express my
thanks to the many friends and acquaintances who have so kindly
assisted me with their counsel and encouragement; to Mr. Kenyon, Mr.
Sidney Colvin and the officials of the Print Room and Reading Room at
the British Museum; to Sir Alfred Scott-Gatty, Garter King-at-Arms; to
Mr. Edmund Gosse, Librarian of the House of Lords, and other officers
of both Houses. My thanks are particularly due to Sir Henry Graham,
Clerk of the Parliaments, who placed his unique parliamentary
experience at my disposal, and whose invaluable advice and assistance
have so greatly tended to lighten and facilitate my literary labours.
H. G.
CONTENTS
CHAP. PAGE
PREFACE v
I. PARLIAMENT AND PARTY 1
II. THE HOUSE OF LORDS 18
III. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS 39
IV. THE PALACE OF WESTMINSTER 60
V. HIS MAJESTY'S SERVANTS 81
VI. THE LORD CHANCELLOR 103
VII. THE SPEAKER 119
VIII. THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT 135
IX. RULES OF DEBATE 158
X. PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE AND PUNISHMENT 173
XI. PARLIAMENTARY DRESS AND DEPORTMENT 189
XII. PARLIAMENTARY ELOQUENCE 203
XIII. PARLIAMENT AT WORK (I.) 225
XIV. PARLIAMENT AT WORK (II.) 242
XV. STRANGERS IN PARLIAMENT 259
XVI. PARLIAMENTARY REPORTING 275
SOURCES AND REFERENCES 288
INDEX 299
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT _Frontispiece_
From a Photograph by J. VALENTINE & SONS
FACING
PAGE
THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN 1742 26
From an Engraving by JOHN PINE
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1742 46
From an Engraving by JOHN PINE
WESTMINSTER HALL IN 1797 62
From an Engraving by C. MOSLEY
THE REMAINS OF ST. STEPHEN'S CHAPEL AFTER THE FIRE OF 1834 72
From a Lithograph after the Drawing by JOHN TAYLOR, JR.
SIR ROBERT WALPOLE 84
From the Painting by FRANCIS HAYMAN, R.A., in the National
Portrait Gallery
CHATHAM 92
From the Painting by WILLIAM HOARE, R.A., in the National
Portrait Gallery
A CABINET MEETING (THE COALITION MINISTRY OF 1854) 100
From the Drawing by SIR JOHN GILBERT
LORD ELDON 114
From the Painting by SIR THOMAS LAWRENCE, P.R.A., in the
National Portrait Gallery
CHARLES ABBOT (LORD COLCHESTER) 124
From the Painting by JOHN HOPPNER, R.A., in the National
Portrait Gallery
THE TREASURY BENCH IN 1863 138
From an Engraving after the Painting by J. PHILIP
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1910 162
From a Photograph by London Electrotype Agency
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN 1835 186
From an Engraving by SAMUEL COUSINS from the Painting
by H. W. BURGESS
HENRY BROUGHAM (QUEEN CAROLINE'S ATTORNEY-GENERAL, AFTERWARDS
LORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF GREAT BRITAIN) 194
From the Painting by JAMES LONSDALE in the National Portrait
Gallery
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN WALPOLE'S DAY 200
From the Engraving by A. FOGG
The figures from left to right are:--SIR ROBERT WALPOLE, the RT.
HON. ARTHUR ONSLOW, SYDNEY GODOLPHIN (Father of the House),
SIR JOSEPH JEKYL, COL. ONSLOW, EDWARD STABLES, ESQ. (Clerk of
House of Commons), SIR JAMES THORNHILL, MR. AISKEW (Clerk
Assistant).
EDMUND BURKE 206
From an Engraving by J. WATSON after the Painting by SIR
J. REYNOLDS
RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN 212
From an Engraving by J. HALL after the Painting by SIR
J. REYNOLDS
THE PASSING OF THE REFORM BILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS 246
From an Engraving after the Painting by SIR J. REYNOLDS
THE HOUSE OF LORDS IN 1910 268
From a Photograph by London Electrotype Agency
WILLIAM WOODFALL 284
From the Painting by THOMAS BEACH in the National Portrait
Gallery
THE MOTHER OF PARLIAMENTS
CHAPTER I
PARLIAMENT AND PARTY
It has been asserted that the different social conditions of various
peoples have their origin, not so much in climate or parentage, as in
the character of their governments. If that be true, there is little
doubt that the social conditions of England should compare most
favourably with those of sister nations. But the admirable form of
Government to which Englishmen have now long been accustomed, did not
come into existence in the course of a single night. "The resemblance
between the present Constitution and that from which it originally
sprang," says an eighteenth-century writer, "is not much nearer than
that between the most beautiful fly and the abject worm from which it
arose."[1] And the conversion of the chrysalis into the butterfly has
been a slow and troublesome process.
[1] King's "Essay on the English Constitution," p. 17.
Montesquieu, who was an earnest student of the English Constitution,
after reading the treatise of Tacitus on the manners of the early
Germans, declared that it was from them that England had borrowed her
idea of political government. Whether or no this "beautiful system was
first invented in the woods,"[2] as he says, it is certain that we owe
the primary principles of our existing constitution to German
sources. They date back to the earliest days of the first settlements
of Teutons on the Kentish shores.
[2] "The Spirit of Laws." "Works," vol. i. p. 212.
To the word "parliament" many derivations have been assigned. Petyt
explains the name as suggesting that every member of the assembly
which it designates should _parler le ment_ or speak his mind.[3]
Another authority derives it from two Celtic words, signifying to
"speak abundantly"--a meaning which is more applicable in these
garrulous times than it was in days when debate was often punctuated
by lengthy intervals of complete silence.
[3] "Lex Parliamentaria" (1690), p. 1.
Whatever its derivation, the word no doubt referred originally to the
"deep speech" which the kings of old held with their councillors. The
first mention of it, in connexion with a national assembly, occurs in
1246, when it was used by Matthew Prior of a general convocation of
English barons. About thirty years later it appears again in the
preamble to the First Statute of Westminster. It has now come to be
employed entirely to describe that combination of the Three Estates,
the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons, which with
the Crown form the supreme legislative government of the country.
The ancient Britons possessed a Parliament of a kind, called the
_Commune Concilium_. Under the Heptarchy each king in England enjoyed
the services of an assembly of wise men--or Witenagemot, as it was
called--which advised him upon matters of national importance. The
Witan sat as a court of justice, formed the Council of the chiefs, and
could impose taxes and even depose the King, though the latter too
often took the whole of their powers into his own hands. When the
separate kingdoms became united, their different Councils were
absorbed into the one great Gemot of Wessex. This, in Anglo-Saxon
times, was a small body, consisting of less than a score of Bishops, a
number of Ealdormen (or heads of the different shires), and certain
vassal members. This senate was undoubtedly the germ of all future
systems of Parliamentary government; and though for the first two
hundred years after the Conquest there is no historical record of the
meeting of any body corresponding to our present Parliament, from the
days of the Witenagemot to our own times the continuity of our
national assemblies has never been broken.
The parliamentary historian suffers much from the lack of early
records. None were kept in Anglo-Saxon times, the judgments of the
Witan being only recorded in the memory of the judges themselves. The
Rolls of Parliament begin with the year 1278--though the first mention
of the Commons does not occur until 1304--and somewhere about Edward
III.'s reign was written a volume called the "Vetus Codex" or "Black
Book" which contains transcripts of various parliamentary proceedings.
At the time of the restoration of Charles II., Prynne, the
antiquarian, set himself the task of exhuming old records, and
catalogued nearly a hundred parcels of ancient writs, private
petitions, and returns. The MSS. which he worked upon were so dirty
that he could not induce any one else to clean them, and was forced to
labour alone. Wearing a nightcap over his eyes, to keep out the dust,
and fortified by continual draughts of ale, he proceeded cheerfully
with this laborious undertaking upon which he finally based the book
which has made him famous.[4]
[4] "A Brief Register of Parliamentary Writs" (1664).
The House of Commons Journals begin with Edward VI. those of the Lords
at the accession of Henry VIII. And though during the early part of
the seventeenth century speeches were reported at some length in the
Commons Journals, in the Lords only the Bills read and such matters
are recorded.[5] The material to work upon is consequently of an
exiguous nature, until we reach the later days of freedom of the Press
and publicity of debates.
[5] Elsynge, Clerk of the Parliaments in the seventeenth century, took
notes of the Lords' speeches, which have been published by the Camden
Society (1870-1879).
The history of Parliament proper divides itself naturally into four
distinct periods. The first may be said to stretch from the middle of
the thirteenth to nearly the end of the fifteenth century; the second
dates from the accession of Henry VII., and extends to the Revolution
of 1688. The remaining century and a half, up to the Reform Bill of
1832, forms the third period; and with the passing of that momentous
Act commences the last and most important epoch of all.
During the first two periods of parliamentary history, the whole
authority of government was vested in the Crown; during the third it
gradually passed into the possession of the aristocracy: and it is
only within the last century that the people, through their
representatives in the House of Commons, have gained a complete
political ascendency.
From the days of the absolute monarchy of Norman sovereigns until the
reign of King John, the Crown, the Church, the Barons, and the people,
were always struggling with each other; in that reign the three last
forces combined against the King. The struggle was never subsequently
relaxed, but it took over six centuries to transfer the governing
power of the country from the hands of one individual to that of the
whole people.
Prior to the reign of Henry III., no regular legislative assembly
existed, though the King would occasionally summon councils of the
great men of the land for consultative purposes. In William the
Conqueror's time the ownership of land became the qualification for
the Witenagemot, and the National Council which succeeded that
assembly thus became a Council of the King's feudal vassals, and not
necessarily an assembly of wise men. When, however, Simon de Montford
overthrew Henry III. at Lewes, he summoned a convocation which
included representative knights and burgesses, and the parliamentary
system, thus instituted, was subsequently adopted by Edward I. "Many
things have changed," says Dr. Gardiner in his "History of England,"
"but in all main points the Parliament of England, as it exists at
this day, is the same as that which gathered around the great
Plantagenet." The first full Parliament in English history may,
therefore, be said to have been summoned by Edward I. on November 13,
1295, and represented every class of the people.
Parliament thereafter gradually resolved itself into two separate
groups; on the one hand the barons and prelates, representing the
aristocracy and the Church, on the other the knights and burgesses,
representing the county freeholders, citizens and boroughfolk. The
former constituted a High Court of Justice and final Court of Appeal;
the chief duty of the latter lay in levying taxes, and they were not
usually summoned unless the Crown were in need of money. These two
component groups originally sat together, forming a collective
assembly from which the modern Parliament has gradually developed.
In the early days of Parliament the Lords came to be regarded as the
King's Council, over which he presided in person; the Commons occupied
a secondary and insignificant position. The power of legislating was
entirely in the hands of the King, who framed whatever laws he deemed
expedient, acting on the humble petition of his people. The Crown thus
exercised absolute control over Parliament, and the royal yoke was not
destined to be thrown off for many hundreds of years.
In the reign of Edward III., the meetings of Parliament were uncertain
and infrequent; its duration was brief. Three or four Parliaments
would be held every year, and only sat for a few weeks at a time. The
King's prerogative to dissolve Parliament whenever he so desired--"of
all trusts vested in his majesty," as Burke says, "the most critical
and delicate"[6] was one of which mediæval monarchs freely availed
themselves in the days when Parliament had not yet found, nor indeed
realised, its potential strength.
[6] "Works and Correspondence," vol. iii. p. 525. (The power to
dissolve Parliament is still theoretically in the hands of the
Sovereign; practically it is in those of the Cabinet. Parliament has
only been dissolved once by the Sovereign since the beginning of the
eighteenth century.)
During the reigns of the Tudors and Stuarts, the power of the Crown
was still supreme, though many attempts were made to weaken it. This
second period of history, between 1485 and 1688, was a time of
peculiar political stress, in which Parliament and the Crown were
engaged in a perpetual conflict. Kings maintained their influence by a
mixture of threats and cajolery which long proved effective. In 1536,
for instance, we find Henry VIII. warning the House of Commons that,
unless some measure in which he was interested were passed, certain
members of that assembly would undoubtedly lose their heads.[7]
[7] Oldfield's "History of Great Britain and Ireland," vol. i.
p. 280.
The Stuart kings were in the habit of suborning members of both
Houses, by the gift of various lucrative posts or the lavish
distribution of bribes. It was ever the royal desire to weaken
Parliament, and this end was attained in a variety of ways. In the
early part of the seventeenth century, we hear of Charles I. summoning
to Hampton Court certain members whose loyalty he distrusted or whose
absence from Parliament he desired. On one such occasion the Earls of
Essex and Holland refused to obey his command, saying that their
parliamentary writ had precedence of any royal summons--an expression
of independence for which they were dismissed from the Court.[8]
[8] May's "A Breviary of the History of Parliament" (1680), p. 21.
In the time of Charles II. a definite system of influencing members of
Parliament by gifts of money was first framed, Lord Clifford, the Lord
Treasurer, being allowed a sum of £10,000 for the purpose. The fact of
holding an appointment in the pay of the Crown was in itself
considered sufficient to bind a member to vote in accordance with the
royal will. In 1685, when many members who were in the Government
service threatened to vote against the Court, Middleton, the Secretary
of State, bitterly reproached them with breach of faith. "Have you not
a troop of horse in his Majesty's service?" he asked of a certain
Captain Kendall. "Yes, my lord," was the reply, "but my brother died
last night and left me £700 a year!"[9]
[9] Burnet's "History of His Own Times," vol. iii. p. 92 n.
Andrew Marvell has drawn a vivid but disagreeable picture of the
Parliament which was summoned immediately after the Restoration. Half
the members of the House of Commons he described as "court
cullies"--the word "to cully" meaning apparently to befool or
cheat--and in "A list of the Principal Labourers in the great Design
of Popery and Arbitrary Law," gives a catalogue of the names of over
two hundred members of Parliament who received presents from the Court
at this time.[10]
[10] _E.g._, "Sir Edward Turner, who for a secret service had lately a
bribe of £4000, as in the Exchequer may be seen, and about £2000
before; and made Lord Chief Baron.
"Sir Stephen Fox--once a link boy; then a singing boy at Salisbury;
then a serving man; and permitting his wife to be common beyond sea,
at the Restoration was made Paymaster of the Guards, where he has
cheated £100,000, and is one of the Green Cloth." "Flagellum
Parliamentarium," pp. 10 and 24.
The independence of Parliament was first asserted by that staunch old
patriot Sir John Eliot, who, during the reign of Charles I., declared
to the Commons that they "came not thither either to do what the King
should command them, nor to abstain when he forbade them; they came to
continue constant, and to maintain their privileges."[11] But in spite
of such brave words, the power of the Crown was not finally subdued
until the Revolution.
[11] Forster's "Life of Sir John Eliot," vol. i. p. 529.
The downfall of the Monarchy at the time of the Commonwealth was
followed by the temporary abolition of both Lords and Commons, the
latter disappearing in company with Cromwell's famous "bauble." The
Protector then proceeded to call together a body of "nominees," one
hundred and forty in number, who represented the various counties in
proportion to the amount of taxes each of these contributed. Of the
seven nominees supplied by London, Praise God Barebones, a Fleet
Street leather merchant, gave his name to the Parliament thus
assembled. Cromwell also created a new House of Lords, numbering about
sixty.[12]
[12] See "Journal of the Protectorate House of Lords, from the
original MS. in the possession of Lady Tangye, January 20, 1657, to
April 22, 1659." House of Lords MSS. vol. iv. new series, p. 503.
With the Restoration the Crown resumed much of its former power. In
1682 the publisher of a reprint of Nathaniel Bacon's "Historical
Discourse," which declared that Kings could "do nothing as Kings but
that of Right they ought to do," and that though they might be "Chief
Commanders, yet they are not Chief Rulers," was outlawed for these
treasonable statements. It was not, indeed, until the Revolution of
1688 that the royal influence was curtailed, so small a revenue being
allowed to William III. that the ordinary expenses of government could
not be defrayed without assembling Parliament.
The attendance of the King in Parliament had been usual in early days,
but the Commons always deprecated the presence of the Sovereign in
their midst. Charles I. affords the only example of a monarch
attending a debate in the Lower House, when on that famous 4th of
January, 1642, he marched from Whitehall to Westminster, with the
intention of arresting the five leading members, Hampden, Pym, Holles,
Haselrig and Strode, authors of the Grand Remonstrance, whom he had
caused to be impeached on the preceding afternoon. The House had been
put upon its guard by Lady Carlisle, and on the eventful day, a French
officer, Hercule Langres, made his way to Westminster and warned Pym
and his colleagues of the approach of the royal troops. When therefore
the King arrived he found that his birds had already flown, and was
compelled to retire empty-handed, amid cries of "Privilege!" from
members of the outraged assembly.
In those times the desire of the Commons was to keep the Crown as
ignorant as possible on the subject of their doings. The habit of
providing the King with a daily account of Parliamentary proceedings
did not come into fashion until the end of the eighteenth century,
when the House was no longer afraid of the royal power.
The Lords have never objected as strongly as the Commons to the royal
presence. Charles II. often found the time hang heavy on his hands,
and would stroll down to the Upper House, "as a pleasant diversion."
He began by sitting quietly on the Throne, listening to the debates.
Later on he took to standing by the fireplace of the Lords, where he
was soon surrounded by many persons anxious to gain the royal ear, and
thus "broke all the decency of that House."[13] Since the accession of
Queen Anne, however, no Sovereign has been present in Parliament, save
at the opening or closing ceremonies. But long after kings had ceased
to attend Parliament in person they continued to attempt the control
of its proceedings. George III. finally brought matters to a head by
his perpetual interference with the affairs of the Commons, and caused
the passing of that momentous resolution, moved by Dunning on April 6,
1780, "that the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing,
and ought to be diminished," which disturbed if it could not vex Dr.
Johnson.[14]
[13] Burnet's "History of His Own Time," vol. i. p. 184.
[14] "Public affairs vex no man," said Dr. Johnson, when asked whether
he were not annoyed by this vote. "I have never slept an hour less,
nor eat an ounce less meat. I would have knocked the factious dogs on
the head, to be sure; but I was not _vexed_."
Between 1688 and 1832 political life in England was excessively
corrupt. Parliament had grown to a certain extent independent of the
Crown, but had not yet learnt to depend upon public opinion. It was
consequently a difficult body to deal with, and had to be managed by a
system of open bribery which first showed itself most conspicuously in
the shape of retaining fees paid to Scottish members.[15] In 1690 the
practice of regularly bribing members of the House of Commons was
undertaken by the Speaker, Sir John Trevor, on behalf of the Tory
party. In Queen Anne's reign a statesman paid thousands of pounds for
the privilege of being made Secretary of State, and a few years later
we find Sir Robert Walpole assuring a brother of Lord Gower that he
knew the price of every man but three in the House of Lords.[16]
[15] Boswell's "Life of Johnson," p. 731. (Cromwell had already
stigmatized Scotland as corrupt. He had been told, he said, that it
was a poor country inhabited by honest people, but found that the
country was not poor and the people anything but honest.)
[16] Dr. King's "Anecdotes of His Own Time," p. 44.
Bribery no longer emanated direct from the Crown, but was practised
vicariously by the King through his ministers. They might object to
the system, but, as King William once said to Bishop Burnet, they had
to do with "a set of men who must be managed in this vile way or not
at all."[17] Macaulay likens the Parliament of that time to a pump
which, though it may appear dry, will, if a little water is poured
into it, produce a great flow. So, he says, £10,000 given in bribes to
Parliament would often produce a million in supplies.[18] Even Pelham,
a man of unblemished reputation in private life, saw the absolute
necessity of distributing bribes right and left. And in 1782 we find
Lord North writing to George III. to remind him that "the last general
election cost near £50,000 to the Crown, beyond which expense there
was a pension of £1000 a year to Lord Montacute and £500 a year to Mr.
Selwyn for their interest at Midhurst and Luggershall."[19]
[17] "History of His Own Time," vol. ii. p. 76.
[18] "History," vol. iii. p. 545.
[19] "Correspondence of George III. and Lord North," vol. ii. p. 425.
Seats in Parliament were regularly bought and sold, the price varying
from £1500 to as much as £7000. Flood, the Irish politician, purchased
a seat in the English House of Commons for £4000. The notoriously
corrupt borough of Gatton was publicly advertised for sale in 1792,
with the power of nominating two representatives for ever, described
by the auctioneer as "an elegant contingency."[20] This same seat was
sold in 1831 by Sir Mark Wood for the huge sum of £60,000, and the
purchaser's feelings may well be imagined when, under the Reform Act
of the following year, the borough was disfranchised and rendered
worthless.[21]
[20] Bell's "Life of Canning," p. 347.
[21] Mark Boyd's "Social Gleanings," p. 246.
Parliament was for long in the hands of a few rich persons. Wealthy
individuals would buy property in small boroughs in order to increase
their political influence, and cared little for the fitness of the
representatives whom they nominated. The story is told of a peer being
asked who should be returned for one of his boroughs, and casually
mentioning a waiter at White's Club whom he did not even know by name.
The waiter was duly elected, and, for aught we know, may have made a
most worthy and excellent member of Parliament.[22]
[22] Russell's "Recollections," p. 35.
In 1815 the House of Commons contained 471 members who were the
creatures of 144 peers and 123 Commoners. Sixteen representatives were
Government nominees; and only 171 members were actually elected by the
popular vote.[23] Five years later nearly half the House were returned
by peers.[24]
[23] Oldfield's "Representative History," vol. vi., App.
[24] "The Black Book," vol. i. p. 430.
The passing of the Septennial Act in 1716, in place of the Triennial
Act of 1694, though meeting with much hostile criticism,[25] had
helped to further that growing independence of both Lords and Crown
which was the chief aim of the Commons. Before the Triennial Act
Parliament could only be dissolved by the Crown. Under the Triennial
Act it suffered a natural death three years after the day on which it
was summoned. The Septennial Act lengthened that existence by a
further period of four years. Members were no longer kept in a state
of perpetual anticipation of an imminent General Election; they were
no more harassed by the fear of losing their seats at any moment. With
security came strength, but purity was a long time in following. The
Septennial Act, says Lecky, gave "a new stability to English policy, a
new strength to the dynasty, and a new authority to the House of
Commons." But it certainly did not tend to decrease the corruption
which was then rampant both in Parliament and in the country.
[25] "By the same violence that one Parliament, chosen but for _Three
Years_, could prolong their own sitting for _Seven_, any other may
presume to render themselves perpetual." Ralph's "Uses and Abuses of
Parliament," vol. ii. p. 716.
The whole body politic was, indeed, utterly rotten, and it was only
considered possible to maintain the ministerial influence by a system
of disciplined Treasury corruption. The secret service money with
which votes were bought was in the control of the Prime Minister, and
Walpole is said to have stated that he did not care a rap who made
Members of Parliament so long as he was allowed to deal with them
after they were made. The produce of the taxes descended in
fertilizing showers upon the proprietors, the agents and the members
for boroughs. For them, as Lord John Russell said, the General
Election was a state lottery in which there was nothing but prizes.
"The elector of a borough, or a person he recommends, obtains a
situation in the Customs; the member of Parliament obtains a place in
the Mediterranean for a near relation; the proprietor of the borough
obtains a peerage in perspective; and the larger proprietor, followed
by his attendant members, shines in the summer of royal favour, with a
garter, a regiment, an earldom, or a marquisate."[26] So ingrained had
this idea become in the public mind that the Duke of Wellington is
supposed to have asked ingenuously, on the abolition of the rotten
boroughs, "How will the King's Government be carried on?"
[26] "Essays and Sketches of Life and Character," p. 148.
Several ineffectual efforts had from time to time been made to slay
the monster of corruption. From the days of Cromwell the question of
Parliamentary reform had been anxiously urged by many statesmen,
notably Lord Shaftesbury and Pitt, of whom the latter introduced
reformative measures in 1781, 1782 and 1785. But though Pitt, the
first Prime Minister who did not retain any of the public money for
distribution among his friends and supporters, managed to reduce
"places" worth over £200,000, after the American War, there still
remained any number of inflated pensions and sinecures in the gift of
the Government,[27] and it was not until Parliament came to be
controlled entirely by public opinion that the change from corruption
to purity took place. But notwithstanding many flaws in theory and
blots in practice, the English Parliamentary Constitution prior to the
Reform Bill was, as Mr. Gladstone called it, one of the wonders of the
world. "Time was its parent, silence was its nurse.... It did much
evil and it left much good undone; but it either led or did not lag
behind the national feeling and opinion."[28] With the Reform Act of
1832, Parliament advanced another stage in its career. The House of
Commons definitely shook itself free from the active corruption which
had so long impeded its movements.
[27] For example, one of £7000 for a retired Auditor of the Imprest,
and another of £7300 granted to Lord Bute as some slight compensation
for his loss of office. See Rose's "Influence of the Crown."
[28] "Gleanings of Past Years," vol. i. pp. 134-5.
The principle of Party Government, which now lies at the very root of
our parliamentary system, had its origin during the second period of
parliamentary history, and formed no part of the constitutional scheme
of earlier days.
In Queen Elizabeth's time two definite and distinct parties arose, the
one maintaining the privileges of the Crown, the other upholding the
interests of the people. In Stuart days Cavaliers and Roundheads were
followed by Court and Country Parties, and in the year 1679, when the
Exclusion Bill was being bitterly debated, the distinctive names of
"Whigs" and "Tories" first came into existence. "Whig" was originally
a word applied to the lowland peasantry of the West of Scotland;
thence it came to mean Covenanters, and so politicians who looked
kindly upon Nonconformity. "Tory" was an expression popularly used
with reference to the rebel Irish outlaws who harassed the
Protestants; and thus implied leanings towards Catholicism.[29]
[29] O'Connell showed Pryme an Irish Act of Parliament for the
suppression of "Rapparees, Tories, and other Robbers." Pryme's
"Recollections," p. 231.
The growth of a respect for the people's rights forced politicians to
separate into two sections, and the schism between the rival camps was
still further emphasized by the Revolution of 1688. Regular opposing
parties do not, however, seem to have existed in the Commons until the
eighteenth century, and the party system was not finally established
as a necessary element of constitutional government until the reign of
William III. Kings had hitherto chosen their advisers irrespective of
their political views. William III. was, however, induced by the Earl
of Sunderland to form a Ministry from the party that held a majority
in Parliament, and thus became to a certain extent controlled by that
party.
There have always been, as Macaulay says, under some name or other,
two sets of men, those who are before their age, and those who are
behind it, those who are the wisest among their contemporaries, and
those who glory in being no wiser than their great-grandfathers. But
this definition of the two great political parties of England can no
longer with justice be applied. The Tory of to-day is not at all the
Tory of two hundred years ago: indeed, he rather resembles the Whig of
Queen Anne's time. And though Disraeli continued to use the word
"Tory," and was never ashamed of it, it has now gradually fallen into
disuse, save as a term of reproach on the lips of political opponents.
A change of nomenclature was adopted in 1832. The Tories became
Conservatives, and for the benefit of wavering Whigs it was proposed
that the latter should be known as Liberal-Conservatives, a name
which, as Lord John Russell remarked, expressed in seven syllables
what Whig expressed in one.[30] The term "Radical" did not come into
use until the days of the famous reformer, Francis Place (1771-1854);
his political predecessors contenting themselves with the more modest
name of Patriots. Called by whatever name is popular for the moment,
either party may now claim to come within the scope of Burke's
well-known definition as "a body of men united for promoting, by their
endeavours, the national interest upon some particular principle in
which they are all agreed."
[30] A German writer, Herr Bucher, wrote as follows, in 1855:--"It
would be difficult to give any other definition of the two parties
than that a Whig is a man who is descended from Lord John Russell's
grandmother, a Tory, one who sits behind Disraeli." "Der
Parliamentarismus wie er ist," p. 152.
Our modern parliamentary system comprises the party spirit as its most
vital element, and owes its success to the fact of being government by
party and not by faction.[31] The existence of an admittedly
constitutional body perpetually opposed to the Government of the
day--"His Majesty's Opposition," as it has been called since 1826--is
now recognised as a very necessary portion of the Parliamentary
machine. The principle of fairness to the minority is never lost sight
of, and expresses itself in many different ways. When, for instance,
the Leader of the Opposition gives notice of a motion of censure on
the Government, the latter consider it their duty to accord their
critics an early opportunity for its discussion; and, generally
speaking, the due consideration of the rights of minorities is among
the primary instincts of party government. The excellent effects of
this system are obvious. Of the two ways of obtaining political
adherents the attachment of party is infinitely preferable to the
attachment of personal interest, formerly so prolific a source of
corruption. Party feeling may also be said to have created general
rules of politics, similar to a general code of morals by which a man
may "walk with integrity along the path chosen by his chiefs,
surrounded and supported by his political colleagues."
[31] "I have a maxim," wrote Horace Walpole to his friend Montague in
1760, "that the extinction of party is the origin of faction."
"Letters," vol. iii. 370.
Opposition is invaluable as providing a stern criticism of the
Government's policy; it can also very often be of service to the cause
it is intended to injure. It excites a keener public curiosity, by
directing attention to the motives of those whom it suspects. And "the
reproaches of enemies when refuted are a surer proof of virtue than
the panegyrics of friends."[32] That the system must possess certain
disadvantages is inevitable. It no doubt engenders animosity and
provokes violent contentions: it stimulates politicians to impute to
their opponents corrupt motives which they could not for a moment
imagine themselves capable of entertaining. It may also on occasion
tempt them to continue obstinately in the support of wrong, because
the admission of a mistake would be hailed as a triumph for their
enemies. "The best cause in the world may be conducted into Faction,"
as Speaker Onslow said; "and the best men _may_ become party men, to
whom all things appear lawful, which make for their cause or their
associates."[33] But as a rule the game of politics is played with
commendable fairness and an absence of undue acrimony. The Opposition,
whose well-known duty it is "to oppose everything, to propose nothing,
and to turn out the Government,"[34] rarely makes its attacks the
vehicle for personal spite. Politicians of adverse views do not carry
their antagonism into private life, and off the stage of Parliament
the bitterest opponents are able to exist upon amicable terms.
Occasionally, however, political differences have been the cause of
ruptured friendship. When Burke made a violent attack upon Fox, in
1791, on the Canada Bill, he declared that if necessary he would risk
the latter's lifelong friendship by his firm and steady adherence to
the British Constitution. Fox leaned across and whispered that there
was no loss of friends. "Yes," replied Burke, "there _is_ a loss of
friends. I know the price of my conduct. I have done my duty at the
price of my friend. Our friendship is at an end!" So terminated an
intimacy of twenty-five years' standing. Such an incident may,
nevertheless, be considered exceptional, the relations of antagonists
being usually of a most harmonious kind. Sir Robert Peel and Lord John
Russell would often be seen together engaged in friendly conversation.
O'Connell once walked arm in arm down Whitehall with Hughes Hughes,
the member for Oxford, whose head he had but recently likened to that
of a calf.[35] And the present Prime Minister and Leader of the
Opposition are doubtless able to play bridge or golf together without
actually coming to blows. In spite, therefore, of much criticism, what
Emerson calls "that capital invention of freedom, a constitutional
opposition,"[36] has been found to be the most practical and
satisfactory means of carrying on government.
[32] See Parr's "Discourse on Education," p. 51.
[33] "Anecdotes and other miscellaneous pieces" left by the Rt. Hon.
Arthur Onslow. (From the MS. at Clandon.)
[34] This saying has often been wrongly attributed to Lord Randolph
Churchill. That statesman's most famous maxim on the subject of
Opposition is given in his son's "Life" (p. 188-9): "Whenever by an
unfortunate occurrence of circumstances an Opposition is compelled to
support the Government," said Lord Randolph, "the support should be
given with a kick and not with a caress, and should be withdrawn on
the first available moment."
[35] This was evidently a favourite simile of O'Connell's. He used it
again with reference to Mr. Shaw, member for Dublin University, in the
debate on the resolution for giving a grant to Maynooth College for
the education of Roman Catholics.
[36] "English Traits," p. 46.