,no ,"/e il4n't"'t bI d.

a]%"<
/,
"4 T h*
v+n,
.1uo'15 atre , *
lo,h^ .* tcal,t a. rJ}e'.|-L lu 4
.ffi)4 ,y\ ,e^^J,,,F l*,t,

To
TheUnreformedElectoralSyste,m:
BoHy Go ril/hcreFewHistoriansHaveGoneBefore

PatrickMcEvoy-llalston
97t2576

Rr@
APft 9 ,ggg

i?i.
?firj,5Jlrn:
uNrv.Rsriv ri;sfcny
or'r,t;i#il

History323
fh. Money
April 9199
 -1-

The questionof why the unreformedelectoralsystemin eighteenthandnineteenthcentury

Britain lastedaslong asit did no longerpuzzleshistoriansasmuchasit oncedid. Thereis a

that this fact is troublingonly to thosewho makethe mistakeof readingtoo

nearconsensus

muchof the presentinto the past. If oneis carelessenoughto assumethat parties,parliament

andconstitutionare somehowinevitably linked to individualismandrepresentation,or if one

that developingprovincialcenters,industryor middling ordersareclearsignpostsof a

assumes

modernsociety,thenthe idea of an oligarchymanagingto preventreform for a hundredyearsis

troublinganda historicalproblem. But historians,now emphasizingthatthe eighteenthcentury

wasnot the nineteenthor twentieth,acceptthe strengthof oligarchy,Whig hegemony,andrural

deferencemorereadily. Yet while agreeingthat this wsrsa deferentsociety,whenshowinghow

deferenceworkedthey often succeedin characteizing deferenceprimarily as a meansof

entirely. By emphasizingthe
meetingneeds:the ideaof deferenceasservitudedisappears

effectivenessof a voice both within traditional structures,andin developingextra-parliamentary

ones,readersleaveconvincedthat, while the institutionsandvalue systemswere not asmoderns

now know them,the peopleoperatingwithin thernboth were not so different from themselves.

Historiansseemconcernedto cautiontheir readersfrom imaginingthat hadmodernsbeenalive

backthen, not withstandingthe realitiesof a Whig oligarchy,the electoralsystemwould not

haveremainedunreformedfor so long a period of time. The result is that we are often left with

the impression- reinforcedby a de-emphasis

of comrption,andthroughan emphasison

demonstratinghow an oligarchicalsystemmanagedto satisff the people- that the unreformed

electoralsystemlastedprimarily becauseit worked. If it had not, the peoplewould not have

toleratedit, and,we can assumethat the electoralsystemwould havebeenreformedearlierthan

 -2-

it in fact was. We might though,first pauseto askourselvessomequestions,namely: how

muchof this impressiondependson a Whiggrshsenseof peopleafter all; how far have

lr* 4
historiansreally in
succeeded reipring ingeadingfreir presentinto the psst; andwhetheror not
s""' 4hL(ss) lop'aa
thisalwaysresurtsinpoorhistory.|ffif
A commonpoint madeby historiansof the unreformedelectoralsystemis that a lack of
'feudal': innocentto
reformdoesnot imply that earlymodernBritain wassomehownaively

imaginingsof change;indeedit is arguedthat the long life sparrof the unreformedlife spanwas

itself due to a largerawarenessof new realitieseffectedfrom the massivedisturAanceof the

seventeenthcentury:the English Civil War. Mark Kishlansky,for example,arguesthat after

1640,parliamenthadproveditself too importantandtoo powerful for its membershipto depend

on chance. He commentsthat "men's estates,indeedtheir very lives were defendedor takenby

thosewho held seatsin the Houseof Commons".rThe corollaryis that therewasa new

emphasison parliamentaryconstituenciesincluding their composition,their patrons,andtheir

electorate.

born out of 1640,combinedwith the immediateexperienceof the rage

This new awareness

of party, helpsexplainthe attemp (and its effectiveness)madeby the Whigs, with their

parliamentarywin in l7ts,to controlboth the Tory oppositionandthe electorate.The 1716

SeptennialAct providedthe Whigs with the time to removeTory influenceover the wardsin the

city of London. It alsoincreasedthe worth of a parliamentseat,therebyincreasingthe amount

that would be spentto obtain one,andthus limiting the numberof families and individualswho

could afford the expense.The Whigs followed by limiting the franchisewith the notorious

amendingAct af 1729,which essentiallypermittedparliamentto decideanddeterminethe

 r
!
i
'. 1

-t.-

worJ :,/[$ffilii"r"eftr]itegup${nosesylaewr} *a$ oi gerrq lerit ,dguodt tr{girrrrW .a$+r}g.S nr ti

sv*d rr'l vrorl ;l{*:stte tlqoqJ* gafigedeigg;6lg I no abuaqsbnoi*r"*rqrrriairb}$ rl.*$rfl

fi' .c-rl
lnn rorsrtmdwbne;Iast pdfotni trsasTrt"rierflgcibrqaignrn$is ni bebssr{}ua
vllcs'tarrsirr:leir{
-.t !'+

.,ilrr'...i; {*},-. -i *.r$- $o *t;,**.J .rr..,r, .*.,i-.*i

?r", 1.*a *.,,_, *S
.t] ,"r:r'''+d1*, 3-..n;$;.o,1f
,p+iairlmori rti rJlup:r: eidi
ay-r;rria
't$
irsl r tsrfl ai rrlstr'{alsroJmls boffi$?ilnu rflt 1o ansi:o:eid gti ebsnr lnrcifl nornnr+r A

ri' tfr$ilrlrrni :'lnfrrrell' '1b.risfi worfsmoeasw nir;Iftfl nrgbo*-tqlr*e tstfl ylqfrli tori ffiob nnulgr

as,,vnsqagtil bsffnotsri:$ sdllo neqerlit gnol erlt tsdt he*grn ai li bsehni ;l,gn*da to *gcinlgsrai

sdit', sr"ursdilteilrsvia**rn gdt morl L,$asfts eritileer '##rin eeener$rr$trgrs{ s uJ rub tlsati

'g'Hra'x+gx't'8 dhrrs''ra
o,.,*,ffi $uqpriffupo
,-a'rusqlr, srqidard-rorq
rc$**, err:ollfuorqq
tulcr.irnrr{nni|drdFeth4{ff F6ffi r
.o+'a
;r@ry.,g-tW
w,$i* 4"ffi*%,#,,fr,ffi%*"m#"m ffilt n,r*
",o,'
risrttb*s .anorteqriert .rrnilieoqrnso ,q'mlltameifr*r;
rigdtgnibulrni aeic$gl.llhenop no eieerJqnrt

.sfnro?*ftf
:

egstsri;1$*cnrirsqxest*ibgnunisrll rltiw bgnldmoe.0S0['!ofro m*d aasrlsr$'irs argil'

"nrsn
xi bae}iqrueflsedt nie{qrsaqlsd.t}:sq1,?
;r*di dtiw .agidltJodtv"drbeffr{a;':onevin+Tts

(iiTI rrfT .*l*rollef* *rhbns fioitifroqqotrol'*rk drxl lmtmoeo0,lf tt ai xi"*r',4rntritrnsihsq

ffi! ni ei*i:vrgdt rpvr.|exgsuRnipoT" gvomerat sffiit rdi rfti"r r.gitfWgdt bebirr*TrltsA tsinn*lr;et

rftioma*dt gab*er:rniqdsrer{t,18$a nalst[ .nobnaJ]o*i*

tnemrilx;qslo dt'rovrillt beee$rsnl

bns rsiiirnsllo rsqlmuuedl gniriinii alirttbne.enonistrir:*3 inti.lesd liluow tsrtl

$dv,,alsubiErlrni

euoirafcnerll r$i.*re?.idffis**rfl gnilirnil vtJbrwoflol egidW*$"i' "sarruqte

or{tbr*TJshlso?

rrit sninn*tshbnssbioobal fn*rnsilrry berlrrneq1ll*itnsrapr{ridw .p![ f ]o trA gnibr:erns

 -J-

natureofthe fra.nchise aftera disputedretum- mostoftendecidingtheissueof

in a constituency

thc
Accordingto FrankO'Gornn?n,
el€ctoralporticipotionin favourof e resticrcdfranchise.

resrltsof this legislationwerefelt for a century.AlthougbtheWhigoligarchywaswidely

disliked,andalthoughToriesathactedmorevotersdwingthegeneralelectionsof 1722,1734,

controloverporliament.Boroughswith smallelectorates
and1741,theWhigsmaintained

enabledoligarchyto triumph.2
bougbtby Whigmoney,andthroughWhigmanipulation,

Historianswereoncetoubled by a seemingparadox:if theWhigsdepended

on maneuvers

andnoton popularityfor capturingparliamentary oftheseseatswas

seats,andif theimportance

obviousto all, thenwhydid theToriesandthepoliticalnationnottum to parliamentary

reform

answeris thatbecause
Themostaccessible
asanobviousrernedyto theWhigascendency. the

theyprefenedto disassociare
Toriesweretaintedwith Jacobitism, themrduo ffi*Ci*t id.^

for change.J.C.D.Clarkremindsusthoughthatalthoughthis is fue, it is in its ownway

misleading.ThereasonToriesdid notstronglypushfor changeuas lesstheresultof calculated

theframewortofTory thoughtwasdynastic,notpopulist.3True,
prudcnceandmorebecause

parliamentary
reformcouldbe deemed a
a calculatedsteptowardsdynasticchange,butbecaus€

dynasicsolutionseerned a practicalpossibility,parliamentary
reformappeared of marginal
'efu' a't d4Wy!e''C! '
.L ttt .-t* )eF.A 6' ttutta'vau./F'* +
relevance.
,-.- *[i-S" r: ; ;:r, - cv a. o' a.at',.'nie.-,'rttc*ro k o^A^*t l*'ry,
at z'f'aqk).
Accordingto Clark,it is thehistorianthatfailsto imagineeighteenthcenturyBritishsoci€ty

thatloots first to parliementary

asdiffqent Aomhisownin a veryrealsense, reformasa

of restrictedfranchisewould
to Whigoligarchy.It is asthoughthemer€existence
rcsponse

peftaps,but
expectation,
naturallybringaboutits opposition:forcesto enlargeit A reasonable

nota historiinlly informedone. Clarkexplainswhythisis thecase:thoughtherewereparties,

F y h.c. l^-tut
b yo*14* 't 1tu 6' ry a*az'-t*'. -& 'atrpl"'o--''
+ }t.t *
'Ko .lw'',,bmdL , a'a'o
,,^ ca,,^.hjum /.--- ,^,to- v"- at.rr/ ) e ft !h, ubnhsJ
b.q' t&g,ui,p
;'friLu"-S) 1,t^.t,+a) >fat n c; ;k ; *L t?,!4.,u*r#mU
n'* \1','',iil-' /''rQJ P-'4 e'l"h t settc'4av
 /,t* k fr tyuz'olurrr,^' a^It4
Cb*/*1,4,^A4./ulan^it<a'," av.svr
/t-*
e-gyv*la.fWa k^{ba* J4,-tvpul* - aD-O* ^ d\*
44ett
/>a*- /nr/*eA k frL rftr I.

'!'t6'Je a"tno-J' Ttz 1-

T <.a-q6-F ^uwt L^* 3 tEA yo*Ltl--n41"*tt
t,nb/t*^'t>*.t"n(,tJ2u,^
^OO-I u*,stat;e Es"*+T, t^"yf:'

b,tq . 4J * | eal ka***,, ,WU,3 @-t)

+ +6 +,',"".4 *t 1.,'kn" lv'l
h.t*-l>^\c.
h*
q
P4* f^e Ta.Jt>^/z 4, ceru,J;)"todr"
, L ce,r,/;)" ry : -
Taaisgrlu ry; t&?"^a'd cL 44M
ili@ i
h | /& t4.ar",l a4e^^.**pC/azu noln
a-J LJ).1 U le4 .?L,'let k a.,*ffi 4^'l"k+'-' M4 +tr t?4€,.at F-.t
-
J;** alla-al"a t^N bt /u1-\+'-'/'i' h;A'4tlk'le4 ryY
**
fuu4N4r) t+ tdt'J-ttry')A 6'b-wosh"'.l"ar +e L^ilW
4 <7-,4J!./z) A'.".t, &tl>^'l''t^ ry*^ "tlvlnffi
'8'./^l) p'"-t * furt*4l'"' t"n'"fs:-64
4*l ?"^-J 'P'14'r"
-tu'Jl''^ "PJ'Ln'h't4", Le'1"6*
lft^ u'oo /tt ata.1 atzar t* /Mh
^ 4hd lfr+"*'u
W- 'u fa n*Jo'>^9^-x-,e4vtu't -e t't'+
 -4-

thougfithe Houseof Commonshadthe power of the purse,eighteenthcenfirryBritain wasnot a

democracy.He alsoarguesagainstunderstandingearly eiglrteenthcenturyBritain as modernin

embryo. He believesthis leadsto the \Mhighistorians'mistakeof lookingat this periodfor signs

soonto flower. ThusLockeandnaturalrightsget special

of buddingmoderndemocracies

attention,asdo the emerging literatepublic sphereandmiddle classes.The result,accordingto

Clark, is a completelymisleadingimpressionof the times. In regardsto Locke,that it washis

epistemologywhich wasbroadly popularin intellectualcircles andnot his conceptionof natural

rights - which properlyinterpretedwasmuchmore conservativethan naturalright thoughtat the

endof the eighteenthcentury- is missed.In regardsto the public sphere,#t Wahrman'spoint

that the public spherewasnot yet political escapesnotice. Reform of parliament,evenwhen

discussedby the Whig opposition,focusedon balanceof powerissuesaboveall else. This wffi,

o'a
accordingto Clark, directresultof the absencewithin radicaltheoryof an explicitly

democraticcomponentwhich could grvepolitical practicality to schemesotherwiseconceived

with a merelyutopianframework-.4But evenif this wasnot the cqse,therewasstill the reali{y

@*(4"r.*a*f-4J
of Whig hegemonywhich wasnot likely to be challengedby Toriesfntil after 1745,nor by
I
of
oppositionWhigs until after the danger a pro-Stuart
electoratetdgist ting its preferencehad

gorle.

Onecan imagineother obstaclestowardselectoralreform which centeraroundlanguageand

leadershipafter 1745which help explainthe long life spanof the unreformedelectoralsystem.

Thetraditionaloppositionto the Whigs,the Tories,wereco-optedin the 1760's.It would take

time for a new infrastructureof oppositionto emerge,and evenwhenit did - thoughnow using

naturalright languageandcontemplatingfrarrchisereform - it wastoo immatureto withstanda

 -h

s lnn ?svrnisrirfl gruln*r dtn*otdgis.rnrq odl'torewoq*dl trstlerrrlrilffirl}1or*u*i-i *dt rigrrr;i{t

ni rnsl)*:rfip-$nislns putnac rltressrlgieglrnegnib*rtar:brffrlenisgnastrg?s

trels::l{ .q*mr*ru+n

angiar+t boirlrgairltrc gnidoollo gi{s}sirr';nsiratrirl girfWet{lo} ab$elairltae,rsris{1

$}i "{)*rirns

lei*eqatrg etrfghlnrr,Is* lins silcoJ eurfT .rswonol nosr a*is*rlorn*b nrslsrfi :3nihhur!io

slflbiffibnegrrrfqa:ildrq vtsrrtil gnigrarngsril $b r:tri-rroilasJls

ot gnibrmos.ll:lasrrdT ,aeranle
'qietslqrnors ai ,ir**fi)
gnibsefaitrr
aid z-nwli lsr{t-e)lgoJot ahrqrr nI .eErnitsrltlo rr.riaeoqrni

aidtoa brrsegliniclsrrtrsllelnini rel*qgqqfbsordeswd'.ridwrg*lr,rnsleiqs

tsr$lsn?o noitgsorroa

rr{t tn }dguorlttdgir lnru}nnnsdtsvits'fleenocsrornrlc{rrresrr lxtryrgtni '4ir.:qorqrfsir!si- elrlgir

n -:,'*

tniogn'nsrrndeWrds(l,*r:dqr nildurgarll ot af:rngsrnI bs?eimzi - vr:"rta*a

dtnssfr{git*rft }o,}s*

{h n?!?dm rrpffiecsu rffr.ffituh*t

nstJisSt rertqe;ifrluq rdt txr{t

Xt

,,},,,ri.*, i*.,i*,,
-*,i .3,.:r'..**,."{*
; fi'1
vd ron "t$TI r*fle tilnu,aoirnTvJ bgnellsdr *d ol vjgril l$Res\'trrfdrf.r'ry$orn$Belf
gir{Vf}tr
!
rrn:rt?-aqeto r gnsbedtrsffs litrr z.girlWtrr'iii:loqrio
frsde.?ner*inqeli gni:rstaigir:tera!+sl*

.'iil{Jg

bn* ogr.rgnslfrnurruirs]n*.3rbidw rrnotsrle:olsrls al:r-gurol redld]er;igrrntnecsn0

aglg#erJo

l$rolcefs*':rrnrttsr$$*dtlo neqaelil gaeilsdt nidqxs qler{r{ridv+t}f f rsftx tiir{eru*bnri

,rnsle're

*;l* bluow l[ .*'OdfI gdt ui bolqo-orer$w.esiroT"

srl: "agirllVEdlol noitierqqqrinacitif.r.nrl
srl'f

rlguodl- bib ti n*rfwfisvsbRr,agl*meof noitieaqqotosut$urtemtnrwsrtrirdt srfiil

$.rrier:'/r,)fl

ol grulsmmiool eewti - rrnol}sr:aidmentgnirnlqmstnor[:neegerq;nnl

s bnriter{li'rv frfgit [n:l"rt*n'
 -5-

conservativebacklashafter the Americanwar, andafterwardstoo easilyassociatedwith the

violenceof the FrenchRevolutionto haveforcedparliamentarychangeon a confident

aristocraticoligarchy. But historianslike Clark andO'Gonnon still warn that evenin the latter

part of the century,it is alwayspotentiallymisleadingto focustoo muchon either reform or

parliamentin eighteenthcenturyBritain: it risks ignoring largertruths,namely,the realitiesof

deferenceandrural society.

Clark points out that althoughdemographicand geographicalchangewere significant in

urbanphenomenoneither in numbersor in
eighteenthcenturyBritain therewasno homogeneous

termsof mental#. to*ns were not growingenoughto transformthe daily lives of morethan a

to English society:therewasa largeareabetween

minority. Therewasan amphibiousness

distinctly rural and distinctly urbanextremes,but the large arelbetween"took most strongly

from the countryo'.s He concludesthat it is both logical andtrue tlrat sucha society,weighted

in numbersof countryover town, washeavily influencedby the valuesof rural society.

4
O'Gormdn agreeswith Clark that the abiding strengthof local considerationsprecludedthe

expressionof anykind of 'national' sentiment.In his studyof electionshe t*rrfft s "that since

electionsfocusedessentiallyupontlre candidate,his suitabillty for the constituency,andthe

likelihoodof his beingof serviceto its inhabitants,it followedthat the electioncampaigRwould

agttateissuesof parliamentaryandnationalconcernonly in so far asthey impingeduponthese

primary, local concerns".6He alsoagreesthat the historianmustthereforeboth stressand

explorerural value systems;althoughin his studyof electorswithin the constituenciesof the

unreformedelectoralsystem,he stressesfrom the onset that this doesnot meanthat the

electoratein rural societywere either slavishor indifferent to anythingotherthan material

 :-t i

'" ':' ','

i; ; t

: : I .."

;ij

t..
I.

i": t ;. I l.i

,f, '.
t, 1 i '|': | 1

'la*r"ula.a

% yrrrq ryl
j.,." ,
'.:7
'ivvft'Qtv-+
-:

@
"tf -+**aq Tf*/..?
f-rfu vrxlvt/,
\f
q^a/ 9*<o7 W -rye
lryrd/t4t 'F {M, fry
wrez
i, ,i

Ji

:..;, { t

I '
 -6-

until 'politicized' at a laterdate.7What it doesmeanthoughis that, in general,

persuasions

"paternalismof the patronor classof patronstowardsthe constifuencyand its inhabitants

elicitedthe deferenceof the voter or classof voters".EIn both of the abovequotes,what is

importantto noteis O'Goffin's stressingof the conditionalityof a deferentresponse.He has

in mind historianswho in providing an "unfavourablehistoriographicalffeatmentof the

unreformedelectoralsystem"stressits unconditionality.eHe refersto L.B. Namierwho

believedthat "not onevoter in twenty could freely exercisehis statutoryright", ild that the

voters"followed at electiontime the instructionsof their socialsuperiors".r0Insted, that the

expectationsof paternalismand deferencelasted- in particularbecauseof the very real

reciprocalcapacitiesin suchrelationships- as long as it did partly explainsthe enduranceof the

unreformedelectoralsystem.
4
O'Gormfn's emphasisis mainly on electors,but he notesthat electorswerenot simplygentry

andprofessionalelites:their compositionwaslargelyfilled by craffsmen,andincluded

andevenfarmers. He doesacknowledgethat electorswerehighly resistantto

shopkeepers

electoralchange.They knew their placeandrespectedtheir betters. They honouredhierarchic

conditions:popularor political causesmustneverleadto anarchy.ttBut this wasnot simplythe

resultof a sharedvalue system,but also,andperhapsprincipally, of self-interest.

In 1826Lord JohnRussellwasastoundinglysuccessfulin bringingforwarda BriberyAct

which passedthe Commons.But howeverwell intentioned"suchreform proposalsfounderedon

the rock of prevailingelectoralopinion,andexistingelectoralrealities.r2Gifts to votersand

electionfieats wereregardedas legitimatesocialbenefits.Gifts werealsoconsideredasa

birthrightto which theywereautonraticallyentitled.t3 The electoraterequireda greatdealof

 u6t +
ft * n r^.q^n {4 uptJ-artr* pz*t"tt'*' 1""
'
* s. *w v |
d t'^o'*'i^waB ffi' tg'f-*
h&w-nL* l>a*g qe',n)W
-7-

attentionbetweenelectionsaswell - votersmight not vote for their interestwithout such

attention- the communityin generaldid too. They might anddid repudiatetheir earlier loyalty
,t
to a patron,farnily, or candidate.raTrue,therewerevery few contestedelectionsin this period,

of genty paternalismthanit is suggestiveof a

but this wasmorea resultthe effectiveness

passiveppulace.

This shouldnot leadto a conclusionthat the electoratewasas comrpt aswerethe peoplethey

wereelecting. Instea4 comrption needsto be put in properperspectiveandproportion.

Accordingto anotherhistorianof the unreformedelectorate,JohnPhillips,"'treating' of the

electoratedid not necessarilyimpedefreedomof choicein elections;it may well havebeenan

effectivemeansof rewardingloyal support,andmobilizingandreinforcingfavorableopinion,

ratherthana meansof alteringelectionresultsby subvertingthe electorate".rsO'Gorm& **r,

'treating',andnot bribery. Eventhe electorateof 'comtpt'
to the sameconclusion:this was

boroughsuponwhich the Whig oligarchydependedis redeernedby thesehistorians. The

just ascapableof reigftringin

electorateof theseboroughswherejust asdemandingaselsewhere;

their suppor[ andwhosevotes,therefore,were often equallyexpensiveto maintain. The sense

we gettoo, of their patrons,is lessoneof comrptarogance,thanof exhaustedparenthood.This

is apt aswe arenow awareof the electoratesneedsandaretold that electors,in general,were

particularlysensitiveto any instancesof arrogance.

Although a focuson the relationshipbetweenelectorsandpatronsis important,the demand

for rewards,and supportfor, aswell as,participationin, the systemwhich producedthem,came

from below in a broadsense.Electionswereoccasionswhich stimulatedlocal tradeand

employmentandenabtedthe lesswell offto earn,or at leastreceive,a few shillings. To stopall

 -8-

this would be unpopular,not only by the voters: it would alsohavebeenstoutly resistedby

peoplein othercapacities.Many occupationalandprofessionalgroups- lawyers,officials,

printers,milliners , inn-keepers,ca{penters,andmanyothen - madea very healthyprofit out of

elections,

The impressionwe get of electionsis not merelya legitimationof the socialandpolitical

authority of the elite, but of their limitation: electionswere a periodicopportunityfor public

accountabilityofthe local governingclass. Thusthe unreformedelectoralsystem,with

comrption put in its properperspectiveandproportion,and its meaningfulpaternalistic

characteristicsrecogRized,seemslessin needof rescuing:who would want to put out the sun?

The prospectof completebreakdownof orderhonified contemporaries.Electoralviolenceat

york in 1768,andin Leicesterin 1826leadto plunderandriot. The distantrecollectionof the

'rage of parly' still
Civil War, the Protectorate,the PopishPlot, andthe more vivid oneof the

existedin people'sminds.t6Socialstability,notesG. Holmes,which "from the late 1680s

onwardswasbasicallystrongandgrowingsteadilymoresecure".rtDemographicstability,

steadyeconomicandcommercialdevelopment,andthe growttrof the professionswere all

quietly taking the sting out of political andparty divisions. It permittedthe conflict of partiesto

ragein the reignsof Witliam andAnne without seriousor permanentdamageto the social

fabric. This, too, mustfactor in an acceptanceof an oligarchicalelectoralsystem,anddeterus

from looking primarily for resistanceand its reform.

Not alt historiansagreewith Clark andO'G"*ff" that eithernrral life, aswith Clarlq or the

aswith O'Gornr$n,wasthefuirdamental
ruralconstituency, centuryBritain.
realrtyof eighteenth

Someof thesedissentinghistorians,like KathleenWilson, who concenfiateon provincial towns

 -9-

alsofocus specificallyon resistanc€and on reform; but arguably,they still do not provideus

with a sensethat reformof parliamentwaslikely to bubbleup from below. Accordingto

Wilson:

provincial townswerethe primary beneficiariesof economicand imperial

expansionandimprovementsin communications, building,publishingand
internaltrade,experiencingthe mostdramaticupheavalsin population
growth andcultural refinbistrmentandtaking increasinglystridentroles in
nationalagendas.Suchfar reachingchangesproducedbroadlybased
provincialpolitical publics,engagedby issuesemanatingfrom the stateand
focusedon nationalaffairs; and it wasuponthe mobilization of this wider
communitythat London'sclaimsto nationalleadershiprested.rg

Wilson's conceptionof provincialtownsis quitedifferentfrom Clark's . Clark looksat the

phenomenaof uncontestedelectionsin provincial towns as evidencethat their libertarianism,

of spirit is often greatlyexaggerated,Wilson disagrees,

andindependence andconcentrates
on

the vibrant extra-institutionalpolitical culture of provincial townsandLondonwhich she

believescreatedan alternativeidiom of political discoursethat couldbe usedby a wide rangeof

group$to stakea claim in nationalaffairs. But Wilson's studyof provincial towns is somewhat

althoughWilson arguesthat the

similarto O'Gorrfin', studyof electoralconstituencies:
\r
provincial townsweremuchmore awareof nationaliszues(althoughO'Gormon doesnot
X
wereindiffcrentor completelyignorantofnationalafrairs
exactlyarguetbatruralconstituencies
- his ernphasis
is on hownationslpoliticsaffectedtheconstituency)
sheshueswith O'Gormon -_.v

thc sensethatin makingtheirvoiceheord( in theprovincialtowns'case- at Westninister)

culturenot onlychallengd butmaintained

exta-parliamentary re
existinginstitutions.

politiosin placeslike Birningbarn,

It wouldscemnaturalto focusonexta-parliamentary

t4 L+. Tl"s,l^!to,l* t f^^ E/"tr Pewtt' u,ta sxlr

aA
o1$) Nh/i+h/"a
a-/, Ca^-lrl^btt "nffi- aut"el
a'j'1Jn € uAa* ' tsu F> W^
+
 -10-

but Paul
Manchester,andthe Londonsuburbswhich were all notoriouslyunrepresented,

Langfordarguesthat they did not necessarilyneedtheir own seatsto havetheir interests

representedat Westminister.Accordingto Langfor{ all of them werefrequentapplicantsfor

legislation. They were servedby the diversepropertiedinterestsof MPs and peerswho gained

legislatorswereas
valuablelocal credit by their help. To a markedextenteighteenth-century

of the localitieswherethey residedor held propertyasthosefor which

muchrepresentatives

they satin parliament.2o of Langford's'virtual representation'

The effectiveness from the mid-

centuryon, reflecteda parliamentthat could not afford an unduly restrictiveview of the doctrine

of parliamer$aryrepresentation.He is arguingthat the parliamentwasnot a closedshop:the

unreformedparliamentmay haveownedits existence,in part, by tight control of the franchise,

but it lastedbecauseof its flexibility so that the bizarredistributionof parliamentaryboroughs

did not leadto immediatereform.2rHe is recognizingthat late in the eighteenthcentury,

parliamentneededto be moreresponsivethan it hadto be earlier in the centuryto escape

reform.

Langfordprovidesa sensethat pressurescould easilyhaveemergedfrom below if parliament

wasinaccessible.This is consistentwith the mostgenerallyacceptedview of the populacein

later eighteenthcenturyBritain. Accordingto DouglasHay andNicholasRogers- who would

generallyagreethat refonn was lessan issuein the first half of the centuryfor the reasons

previouslymentioned- in the laterdecadesa new socialtemperwasemerglng:paternalismwas

failing and fading; the moral economydestroyedby forcesof law, a competinglegitimacy,and

armedmight; andthe peoplewerebecomingangry.22They disagreewith Langfordthat it was

parliament'sflexibillty which delayedreform, and instead,arguethat it was dueto the

 ,0t-

lla,uairotrxllr grsw drlrf'r;adrsJdne

lun{ tud -beln},}etosTrru ntrbn*,Jedt bnr .:siesf{}fisM

afes:atni'riedt*run o| atmarrw{-r"rigrltboer qlirseeocan

nn bib y*dt tn,{larugr* br*lgn*J

rrrt rl*srilqq.r larrrparl srevrnrerttla lts $rolgns.I rrl gnibr*rcA .r.etalnimle'rW

fe b*Jn*ie$rr.;er

brnmgadw et*sqbfls aqM't* alssrstnibeinoqorqeerevibedt'qrllrerneefi$fr u*'dl' n$ilstreixel

tfietxgboJrsrns oT .qlor{ri*ril rld tibarr larai efdsulsr

eselsw rlctcfeigslpr;ln*e-dinoetdgis

doidwrat saorJ!ae',4rroqr"rq
blsd ro bebian:llrrdt gte{frraeifilsml .*r$to esvitnlneaslrlelr{wrn

.n"L Lr*rfrry ,ffro,t*n7g[$' +P,$ffi7nreff WffiT&tntgj]* IrI]*ev,*rf

I
fu h6g.tinflbr.rr$rilrvnss

tr.rmotet*lsitrsrrtfiTi
*} l.iseftortl.'rf;
,.frrr'rusldmratdgissflt rri stsl |nrltgnisingo*r ai et{

sr{r:re3ot $lrtnsc er{tni r*ihss d at bedti nndt*vimogeonsrom sd ot bsb*sntn*rn*iflm;

,ffll$I*T

}srlJsens€r eshi'rrrrqttro}gn*"1
tnsffrnihsf{ti woled rno:l begrorrrsvfft qlienoblrmeeerileeelq

ni **aluq*q *rhto wsiv botqeecallfcmnsg horr sr$ r{fiw taetaienas*i eidT .nftfie*sr*srrip-s+r
:
bluow r;rJw- axigofl eslorlaiHbns 'EafIaslguc(lol gnibrocrA .nintirlTy'r]rtrs] rfureerr{gie
r*trt[

edtrul {$,tngogdtlolfsd fdrfi $dt ni sreeins aeslamr rrnotst lndSstirgslllm**sg

?noener

s €sbscgbtgtsl *dr ni - hsn*itilsr* vfaur:i'r*:n

a$v/rneifsnraig| :gn$:nrm a,swrsqmeflsiaoe\Frpn

bnc.'qrsrnilig*igriiteqrns?
s .wello aes.lol"4C lsrarnvrf| :gnihsil,ns sniiist
bqorlaeby$torrooo

rftivr *ergeeibWrft *t.'{€ns gnirn*aedfls'#f sfgc}srledt bne :ffgirn bsffie

pxwti lsrb brolgrrs..-t

erll at gubasi/ ti tsrft$JgTs.bssleniir*s .rnrrlerb*gnlebrfrirlw'gitidix:rll r'Jn*ntnihq

 -11-

of a 'swamping'by the sheerweightandpnesence

effectiveness of a conservativeChurchand

King movement,which left a popularradicalmovementdangerously

exposed.23

Hay andRogersareamongsthistorians,who in characterizingthe latter part of the centuryas

oneof conflict, follow by concentratingon the aspectsof leadership,language,and shared

'self activating
experiencebriefly referredto earlier. Theytalk aboutthe developmentof

supportor sympathy,anda new senseof collective

protests',lessdependentuponupper-class

identity amongworkersin different tradesbasedon a commonexperienceof exploitation.2a

andattackedby this new sharedpublic consciousness

What couldbe effectivelyaddressed, was

aristocratichegemony.The ideologrc,self-servingcomponentof aristocratichegemonywas

becomingincreasinglyvisible, andthussubjectto alternativesi.e the bafile for consciousness

thatAntonio Gramscidescribes.Hegemonywasvulnerabledueto a weakeningof paternalism-

which resultedin the experienceof real sufferingandin a distancebetweenplebsandpatricians

which alloweda conceptualspaceto emergein which to developtheir own - andthe emergence,

andpopularizationof radical thoughtfrom the period of the FrenchRevolutionaryWar onwards.

New platformswereerectedto createalternativestructuresof democraticpolitics to subvert

the normalchannelsof propertiedpolitics;but parliamentwasalsofocusedon. In a cleareyed

of parliamentasa meansto an end,to the rectification of working-class

fashion,the importrance

grievancesbecameobvious. Parliamentaryreformwould challengethe powerof landedgentry

andthe industrialist,andso it was,despitedelay,eventuallyreformed.2sA conservative

them) but it could not

backtashchastenedreform movements(althoughit also strengthened

preventthe eventual,inevitableawakeningof the exploited- especiallyafter sometime passed

to help makethe noveltiesof reform andradical movernentsmorepalatableto a still cautious

 -12-

public.

that therewasa new

PredictablV,O'Car$nsees thingsdifferently. While he recogRizes

focuson political andconstitutionalissuesin the later part of the c€nturywhich supplanted

he underlinesthat therewas
taditional local issuesconcernedwith oligarchyandindependence,

little evidenceof seriouseconomicandsocialdivisionswithin the electorat€.He saysthat "it is

hardto seemorethan a few distantanticipationsof the origins of the socialcleavagesof the

*althoughthe
Victorian,erawithin the unreformedelectoralsystem".% Hemaintainsthat

electoralsystemexhibitedflaws andinconsistencieswhich enabledradical polemiciststo wil(

the 'movement' for securingparliamentaryreform hada

strongand lyrical...nevertheless,

peculiarlycheckeredhistory,er{oying only infrequentand intermittentperiodsof genuine

poputarsupportandin the 1820's**r"$ to its customarystateof tentativeapathy".2?Instead,

conjunctionof political circumstances":

the reform of parliamentwasdueto "an unprecedented

a political crisis that could not be resolvedwithout a changein the electoralsystem.z8And after

the old electoralsystemdisappearedafter 1832,he believesit gaveway to one remarkablylike

itself But to O'Gormonthis is neithera surprise,nor is it a pessimisticappraisalof the people.

The electoralforms duly changedthroughstatutoryenacfitrentbut the substanceof electorallife

- alreadyperticipatory,partisan,ffid popular- continued.

He doeshowever,seea remarkableeruptionof electoralsentimentin 1831,but againhis

emphasisis on demonstratingthat this wasa projectionof naditional electoralvalues. He

asa displayof distastefor

describesit asan extensionof customaryidealsof independence,

aristocraticcontrol, which were,he believes,integralelementsof the unreformedelectoral

syst€m. The reasontherewasreform in 1831wasbecause"thosewho normally kept them

 I il

o=n -rrr-*lr'* **l'qWq /-

'- +' 44
tp(*ot+v2r' v2'g'7n0
'he,t w'!+ >*'w+*l q -"^"9
,e-7 oo,#;- 7* =+ d
t"''- iw'*t ryl
glqrT
n''' ,*{ 'a.ryrqtz
*'-P 'ru
4o.r
E"l *+ ' vry ry-\r1" 'u-11'\-'e-2
'-a|*n'e ^ !'?
74 'Y4
:' ; ' - *fln wt nt
.r*Wagry9 -4 1nrrt*l-O
',.rn 'dl ? L-''ls :1 ' w'ffi ry
' q' $'e?'yv-?7 d=
-- vY qrr? rl
r,/4M ! 74'--be-
tf'n
*, d+ ''t'*tb '* TtJ
7rt1cJ "'*'h7 lY
r*h ;il-t"'' i*'P4a rtrt
^vttt 4r'r-' ]"7,'''"h'9' t-,9u
'L-lt'al ''d-fiI
,-rh i-* a+W * (r4 ,r.rr fi
 -13-

theexistingelectoralsystem".tTheironyis
[taditional electoralvalues]in checkabaodoncd
of radicalism,offersanaccountof theperiod
thesignificance
thotO'Gormon,whodownplays

whichhasquircradicalimplications:hadthosewhonqrnally kepttheelectoraleia checkfailed

to do soearlier, presumably electoral

evenaearthetimeof thecreationof theunreformed

ard in theteethof theWalpoleandWtrigascen@cy- it wouldnothavelasted

syst€Nn,

thetail doesnot wagthedogafterall?

Perhaps

ol constitrcncies
O'Gormon'semphasis asthe
seemsto pove mawelouslyappropriate

electorelsystembut of almostanystudyofeighteenth
cental focusofnot onlytheunreformed

reality$,hichis
demographic
cenhryBritainimaginable.It is notonlytheconstituencies'

importantbut alsohowevenat Wesfninister,thereis a sensethatleadersdancedto the

howfar notonlyO'Gormon,but mostof the

of thegrumblinghive. It is astonishing
demands

in thisessay- with theexceptionof Clark- takeusfromassuming

historiansmentioned that

therewasanythingin porticularreally'better'post-1832\aee{ Witson,for o<ample,

leavesus
/
in actioq thatwewonderif perhaps
of thepowerof commgnfties
with sucha strongimpression
( l(3L tt
,.J>e,ft-,61/,/4h{ ry
la ul +^""^ ;/'"-+ aSa-'*r frll
Wearealsogivencauseto wonderhowreallydifrerentthepeoplewere.Couldindividual;xnt!* --
,*^
ard eplitafienismhaveexistedin a realsensebeforethebroadusageof thesetermswas A4'At't"&-
kylt"-*
common- or at leastcouldpeoplehaveexistedwhoseactionswhenstudiedareseenas
+tu
respectableenoughto us modernsstudyingthemthat they elicit from us descriptiveterms &^4"1/',a'4
gt&
'individualistic 'and 'eplitarian'? We hearfor
/ eq\dly flefrrlrinsto them asarethe terms
/'
C/*5\
'
exmple, theword'participalory'overandoveragainfiom mostof theseauthors.An example
+rt
ry
in the
thatwe mustnotlook for egalitarianism
of whatis commonis l,angford'semphasis
'!"* 'trt*^tt,qtcr9'lgt . {^.^rr,tU,t ^ttr*,tt W ft72-,
7V Uog,- %/r4 F^
(g '1te't@\.' bitt n W
D5)Az, t o) ,v, +,a*1 a*( q,r*
4 p*n^l a€<,.*fetl^ .CXa)),r,t .,, t>,r",*, t-'4.t "t W'I>A'
 -14-

eighteenthcentury- but in describingparliament'sresponsiveness

to the demandsof commerce,

but that what

he leavesus with a strongsensenot only that we shouldnot look for subservience

we havehereis an active,demandingpopulacewho were successfulin meetingneedswithin the

realitiesof existinginstitutions.Peoplerespectingtheir bettersso long astheir bettersdid not

get in the way of what they wantedmay not be the egalitarianand individualistic senseof people

seeingeachotherasof equalworth - but it is the spiritedaggressiveness

that we might normally

associatewith an egalitarian,and individualistic populace. And asmentione4 it is precisely

O'Gormon'sconclusionthat the differencebetween(at leastYictorian)post 1832modernsand

W
their predecessors ce et a view so different from that of
is slight. But with so muchacquiescen

the slavishmultitudesonceenvisioned,perhapswe oughtnow be careful- evento the point of

taking risks - to look for a dissentingpoint of view; andwe can find one,ironically, in the

processof takingoneof O'Gormon'sconclusionsonestepfurther.

At the risk of beingredundantit is still usefulto revisit O'Gormon'spersuasiveargument

aboutthe fundamentalimportanceof constituenciesin orderto help makethe casefor a

different point of view Referringto constituencies,O'Gormon states:

Yet it is importantto realizethe significanceof the political culture

for its own sake,too. Hundredsof thousandsof men - votersand
non-votersalike - experienced politics at this level. 'Public opinion'
existedlargely within this framework. Attitudesto authority,and indeed
patternsof resistanceto authority,werefashionedwithin this structure.
Many formsof political organizationconformedto its requirements.
The constituencywasin many! ays the fundamentalunit in the
Hanoverianbodypolitic.s

The importantconcep(to notice is that the constituencywasthe most importantdueto the

 -15-

implicationsof beingthe most fundamental:attitudesto authoritywerefashionedwithin iL and

they playeda part in determiningthe otherformsof political organization.With this in mind

hereis ChristopherLaschon the family:

As the chief agencyof socialieation,the family reproduces cultural

patternsin the individual. It not only impartsethical nonns,providing
the child with his first instructionin the prevailingsocialrules,it
profoundlyshapeshis character,in waysof which he is not even
aware, The family instills modesof thoughtandactionthat become
habitual. Becauseof its enormousemotionalinfluence,it colorsall
of a child's subsequent experience...Ifthe reproductionof culturewere
simplya matterof formal instructionanddiscipline,it couldbe left to
the schools.But it alsorequiresthat culturebe embeddedin
personality...thefamily is the agencyto which societyentruststhis complex
anddelicatetask.3r

for schools, we canimaginea kind of one-

In Lasch'squote,if we substitutedconstituencies

upmanshiphere. Laschis not a historianof eigtrteenthcenturyBritain, but with Lasch'sideaof

of the family, andO'Gormon'sof a fundamentalunit determiningpolitical

quintessence

stnrctures,we eannow turn to LawrenceStone,and ( if we arebrave)Lloyd Demause- two

historianswho havepayedparticularattentionto the family in eighteenthcenturyBritain, Stone

amongstothertopics,andDemause,amongstother ems- to seev/hatfamilies might haveto do

with the unreformedelectoralsystem.

Stonebelievesthat in the eighteenthcenturytherepredominatedamongthe upper

bourgeoisieandsquirkchy a personalityqrpewhosegeneralcapacityfor intimate personal

relationshipswasmuchgreaterthanthat of precedingcenturies,andwhoseemotionalties were

on spouseandchildren.32Althoughhe considersboth
now far morecloselyconcentrated

economicand socialchanges,he believesthat it is quite plausiblethat it wasthis new intimacy

 -16-

in childrearingwhich producedthe 'affectiveindividualism'he seesin this period.33If he is

accusedof readingthe presentinto the past,he couldrebukehis accusersby arguingthat this is

in fact in this casenecessarybecause"four key featuresof the modernfamily - intensified

affectivebondingof the nuclearcoreat the expenseof neighborsandkin; a strongsenseof

l
individual autonomyandthe right to persona"freedomin the pursuitof happiness;a weakening

of the associationof sexualpleasurewith sin andguilt; anda growing desirefor physicalprivacy

- wereall well established

by l?50 in the key middle anduppersectorsof Englishsociety".v

Demauseagrseswith Stone,addingthat the sort of childrearingcommonamongstthe middle

andupper sectorsof English societyin the eighteenthceirturybecamecommonamongstthe

of the
lower sectorsin the nineteenth,but he carriesthe implicationsof Stone'scharacterization

"limited capacityfor warm relationships"amongstthe lower sectorsto a conclusionwhich

might directlybearon the lengthof the unreformedparliament.3s

Demause'sview of

chil&earing echoesLaschashe explainsthat "a society'schildrearingpracticesare notjust one

item in a list of culturaluaits but arethe very conditionfor the transmissionanddevelopmentof

all culturalelements",sandechoesO'Gormonas he continues,"childrearingthereforeis crucial

becauseit organizesthe emotionstructwettntdeterminesthe transmissionof all cultureand

plarrs definitelimits on what canbe achievedby society"(italics mine).37ln orderfor reformto

emergefrom below,o'therehadto be an evolutionof the psyche,which is first of all

accomplishedby removingterrible abusesof childrenand their resultingdevelopmental

distortions,allowing the psycheto producehistoricalnovelty andachieveits own inherent

humangrowthpath".38*Children udroseimmatureparentsusethem for their own emotional

needs,andwho rejectthemwhenthe child's needsdo not reflecttheir own, develop...a"false

 -17-

self,,"or evenmultiple selves,which may conformto societybut cannotimproveupon it. It is

becauseof this that socialevolutiondependsuponthe evolutionof the viable self, which in turn

is achievedsolelythroughthe slow andunevenevolutionof childrearing".3e

Needlessto say,Demauseis moreoftenconsideredrecklesslyradicalby mosthistorianswho

know of him, than asa man slightly alreadof his time. This is unfortunatebecausemuchof

Demause'swork is basedon the conclusionsof experimentalandclinical psycholorythat

psychiccontentis organizedby early emotionalrelationships;which suggestthat - independent

of the distancein time - if a historianknowshow childrenwereraised,he will haveconsiderable

insiglrt into what kind of peoplethey were. Demausesuggeststhat not only did someaspectsof

modernchildrearingexist in the past,but that manyprevious,moreprimitive formsof

chil&earing exist sideby sidetoday. If onereadsthat in fifteenth andsixteenthcenturyBritain

mostmotherssenttheir childrento be wet-nursed,Demausewould suggestthat we look at

motlrersin easternEurope,wherethis is still done,to help us understandthem better. According

to Demause,the presentis in the pastandvise-versa.But Demause,becausehe emphasizes

a

trarmrabasedpsycholog, andnot a needbasedone,providesus with a senseof the peopleso

differentfrom ourselvesthat whenhetells usthat the eighteenthcenturymind wasdissimilar

from most of ours in the twentieth we are likely to agee. If institutionslike parliamentwerenot

reformedfrom belowbecausepeoples'needsweremet,but becausechildhoodbasedtraumas

restrictedgrourth,then whenwe imaginethat hadwe beenalive backthen - oligarchyor no

oligarchy,satisfied,or unsatisifed- we would havereformedthe electoralsystemwe mightjust

be riglrt.

Very few historianslook to explainthe pastthis way, but it would excitereal expectationsof
 -l 8-

discovery(for this writer at least) if a few historianswould examinethe political life in

system(especiallyWilson's accountof its

the realitiesof the extra-parliamentary
constituencies;

focuson 'poisons'); and late eighteenthcenturyworking classmovements,evenwith oneeye

focusedon the rational,if only they would allow the other oneto drift to the inational, or the

seeminglyunlikely. The link betweenconstituencies,onfamilies, andan unreformedparliament

might provetenuous:Whig hegemonymight be the primary reasonthe unreformedparliament

la$tedover a century;but let us hopethat all othertheories- no matterhow radical they sssrl -

arenot merelyengagedaspart of the processin discreditingthem,but tackledboth critically and

sympathetically,with both eyesfocusedon uncoveringhistoricaltruths - no matterwherethis

might lead.With this in mind, perhapsoneof the reasonseighteenthcenturyBritain is so

attractiveto studyis that it had somethingwe might now be lacking:it was a period with so

manystartlinglyinterestingthinkerscapableof bold, braveandfascinatingimaginings.Let us

retrievemore of this pastinto our present.

D#-bl'l
'tuE",.*' t'JY
&r,,,^Jahk +'fltrMtrr^t a; \
J h Lttwt A'^*tl"t^ T 'P;;"'' u
W'L ,.a^,!L.
'4:v-*F Au/u-eJll4'a A'-44
A^4^'dL -lfrJ4, aJY
trrN,z'
Vrr*. lo aruat.l-- artt'J

[J^kw,**b66**[r:ffi,*"
g* tnaM '"n"'4Yq'
,tt TJil"^
\
ps.-s-ag!/ffi^W:;n; j-*
 FOOTNOTES

Selqgtign:Socia!a4dPoliticaJ,
l. Mark Kishlansky,Parlia$rentary ChpicpilLEflrly,Modern
Engiland(Cambridge:CarrbridgsUniversityPress),p,227

2. FrankO'Gormorr,Votefs.Patrons-andPprtiEs:The UnrefprmqdElpctgral$ystemof
$32(Oxford:ClarendonPress),p.I 3
HenoverianFnglA+dI 73,4:1

3. J.C.D.Clark,E$glishSociety1688-1832: Political Practice

Idpqlory. SgcialStructprp-arld
During thEAnciqn,Regime(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPres),p.291

4. Clark,p.292

5. Clark,p.69

6. O'Gormon,p.224

7. O'Gormon,p.3

8. O'Gormon,p.141

9. O'Gormon,p.3

10.O'Gormon,p.3

11.O'Gormon,p.141

13.O'Gonnon,p.163

14.O'Gonnon,p.142

p.114
15.O'Gormon,

16.JohnPhillips,Ebctoral Behaviorin Uqrefor$pdEngland;.Plp{nbers.

$plitte$.,and,,Sfaights
(Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress),p.77

17.O'Gonnon,p.l13

18.G.Holmes,"The Achievementof Stability:The SocialContextof Politicsfrom the 1680sto

the Age of Walpole",in J.A.Cannon(ed.),Thp ll&ig Ascpndenpy:
Colloquieson
erianEqgland(London),p.2l-22
Hanov,

lg. KathleenWilson, ,
l7=5-I785 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress),p.5{