This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from Explore Bristol Research
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Woodberry, Richard Digby Anthony Title: Redistribution and the second Reform Act : the intended, and unintended, electoral effects on the balance of the political parties General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. REDISTRIBUTION AND THE SECOND REFORM ACT: THE INTENDED, AND UNINTENDED, ELECTORAL EFFECTS ON THE BALANCE OF THE POLITICAL PARTIES. Richard Digby Anthony Woodberry A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts, January 2007. 99,794 words (including all constituency detail in tables). ABSTRACT Whilst both high politics and pressure from below have been both fully and brilliantly studied on the complex events of the years 1866-8, redistribution, as a political concept and effect in its own right, has been rather neglected. The reasons for this are obvious. It lacked the gladiatorial nature of the parliamentary battle, few politicians were intimate with its intricacies, only a net fifty-two seats were changed and to build an edifice of c. four hundred individual constituencies takes time. Nevertheless, the politics of no change and lack of intention was as important, and as interesting, in rather different ways, to the more obvious attractions of the great debates on the nature of constitutional representation in 1866, the dancing on eggshells in the following year and the Irish Church question and General Election of 1868. Partly for reasons of space and time and also to do with the nature of the voluminous evidence, the study is focused on the years 1866-8, though it is put into its context, both before and afterwards. Documents have been quoted, where relevant, to aid other writers in their approach to the period and to give a flavour and authenticity to the work which was undertaken. What emerges is a limited triumph of sorts for Disraeli. A success it was in a party sense because it was a Conservative settlement, it avoided what had to be achieved at all costs, a second Whig/Liberal Reform Bill and it tilted a previously unfair and clearly gerrymandered system, emanating from 1832, back to, if not a position of Tory advantage, then at least to one of some sort of equilibrium. In that sense the final redistribution of 1868 was a negative victory, in that it avoided something worse. The first third of the writing tells the tale of redistribution from when it first re appeared as a political issue after 1832, the fe-emergence in 1848 effectively and rather neatly coinciding with Disraeli's de facto leadership of the Protectionist party in the House of Commons. The remaining two thirds divide Great Britain up into seven major psephological and regional areas in order to see the impact, both intended and unintended, on the individual constituencies. What emerges, and perhaps surprises, is the knowledge and understanding of the British electoral system in general, and its parliamentary seats in particular, which Disraeli had mastered by the time that Liberal error had, rather fortuitously, given him the opportunity to put his ideas and plans into practice. The conclusion of a limited Tory redistribution was due to the political situation and the not to be forgotten circumstance of a parliamentary minority of c. sixty-five seats - in normal circumstances. Disraeli's unique ability to keep matters abnormal was the key to his settlement. 11 AUTHOR'S DECLARATION I declare that the work in this dissertation was carried out in accordance with the Regulations of the University of Bristol. The work is original, except where indicated by special reference in the text, and no part of the dissertation has been submitted for any other academic award. Any views expressed in the dissertation are those of the author. SIGNED: DATE: 11l TABLE OF CONTENTS Title P3i,tes Chapter 1: Introduction: The nature of the evidence 1-7 Chapter 2: Disraeli and the 'Kitchen Cabinet' 8-28 Chapter 3: Derby and the 'Inner Cabinet' 29-44 Chapter 4: Years of Opposition, 1848-66 45-90 Chapter 5: Refonn and Redistribution, 1867 91-117 Ch~ter6: The Boundary Commission and the Select Committee, 1867-8 118-137 Chl:lpter 7: Prime Minister 138-146 Chl!Qter 8: East Anglia 147-182 Chlll'ter 9: London and the South East 183-250 Chapter 10: The South West 251-307 Chapter 11: The Midlands 308-372 Chapter 12: The North West 373-412 Chapter 13: The North 413-461 Chapter 14: Ireland, Scotland, the Universities and Wales 462-504 Conclusion 505-506 Bibliography 506-509 Appendices 510-527 IV CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION. The Problem and the Nature of the Evidence The issue of redistribution and its relationship to the famous reforms of 1867 can best be seen in terms of Hamlet's father: rarely witnessed, not studied, yet central to the unfolding of great events. The reasons why this should be the case are clear: the question was somewhat arcane, as with Schleswig-Holstein few understood its complexities and not very many seats were altered in 1868 anyway. I The matter was often the bridesmaid and rarely the bride. In 1866 redistribution was overshadowed by the superb debates on the franchise, in 1867 by the sheer spectacle of the political battle by outstanding parliamentarians and in 1868 by the Irish Church and the impending election. The main primary source for the question is the Disraeli archive. 2 This is because he knew the issues involved, was interested in the question, kept his papers and had the good fortune to have secretaries and relatives who realised the value of the accumulated treasures, which were often scrappy and, in a sense, of tangential and local interest only, until put together into a coherent whole. 3 There are twenty three boxes marked "Electoral Reform" which provide the starting point. The material covers all the associated topics of the franchise, ballot papers, corruption and constituencies. It is inevitably something of a jumble: mainly in-letters, notes, statistics, census material and working papers. This bric-a-brac was, in part, built for Disraeli by the voluminous correspondence he received from party agents, supporters and workers throughout the country, as well as the big-wigs, M.P.s and landowners who formed his more staple correspondents. I In 1832, 143, in 1867-8, 52 and in 1885, perhaps all parliamentary constituencies could be deemed to have changed persona. 2 The Hughenden Papers, owned by the National Trust, are on permanent loan at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, Department of Western Manuscripts (Modern Political Papers). 3 A magnificent catalogue of the papers exists, prepared by Dr. R.W. Stewart in 1961 and revised in 1968. Disraeli had no direct, legitimate descendants. Previous authorities have not fully used this material in any constituency based, or specifically psephological way, though it clearly has been part of the writing of the outstanding generation of scholars from the 1960s.4 In particular, one has the sense that biographies, realising the irredeemably technical nature of this material, have passed it quickly by. Disraeli shared with his radical ex-friend, John Bright, the belief that redistribution was a more important question than the franchise - especially for the Tories. Evidence of this view was the cavalier acceptance of Hodgkinson's famous Amendment in 1867 as being of no great importance, especially as Disraeli had not thought through its potential consequences. However, where such new voters were placed was of crucial significance. The twenty-three "Electoral Reform" boxes cover the years 1852-68, so there was clearly little support for a third measure of reform at some stage in the 1870s. The bulk of the material is on the latter years. Only the Eastern Question attracted as much correspondence both in the archive and, perhaps, in the Disraelian mind. There are also relevant letters in other sections of the papers: "Major" and "General Correspondence," the "Kitchen Cabinet" (which incorporates the later Sir Philip Rose addition) and "Visits". There were, of course, no formal Cabinet minutes, only the prime ministerial letters to the monarch, mainly for the 1866-8 Tory governments from Derby, not Disraeli. Victoria may have had entirely personal reasons (Balmoral and John Brown) for wishing for a speedy "settlement" but she was a factor in the political equation and this knowledge, sensitively forwarded by her ministers helped to bring about Tory party unity. The letters from, and to, his various writers require careful sifting as they are rarely one dimensional and the more senior the writer, the more discursive in its range of topics are the letters.