On the House
John Kenyon
Parliamentary Reform 1640-1832 John Cannon (Cambridge £5.70) There is more than one view to be taken of the movement for parliamentary reform which culminated in the Reform Act of 1832, but nobody could say that lit was unimportant — indeed, the Act itself was arguably one of the most important in English history; its supporters likened it to the Bill of Rights in 1689, its opponents regarded it as an act of revolution which would have unstoppable implications for the future. These opponents were right, of course; the Reform Act proved the first in a series, 1867, 1884, 1918, 1928, which brought Great Britain complete representative democracy.
Yet it is remarkable that despite the production by first-class scholars of monograph after monograph on specialised aspects of reform — Shelburne and Reform, the Association, the Whig Party and the French Revolution, and so on and so forth—not since the late G. S. Veitch in 1913 (in The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform) has any historian stood back from the action and tried to give a picture of the field as a whole. Until now.
John Cannon is well equipped for this task. His book on The Fox-North Coalition a few years ago showed a rare ability to make the sordid manoeuverings of eighteenth century politicians more than a manifestation of self-regard, decked out with sham public virtue. This gives his judgements on George ill's reign, on the collapse of the reform movement in the 1780s, and Pitt's flight from reform, especial authority, but outside these areas he also displays an unusual capacity to summarise and assess the results of his colleagues' research with lucidity and moderation.
Yet his urbane politeness and civilised good sense are not symptoms of weakness, and he does not leave the reader in doubt of his feelings. Having reviewed the furious controversy as to whether the Levellers did or did not demand universal adult male suflrage in 1647 or 1649, he gently remarks:
In the face of so formidable a barrage of scholarship, the wisest course is to revert to the original texts.
On the Revolution of 1688 he notes: In observing that an opportunity for reform was missed. I do not mean to implyin contrast to some commentators-that the Glorious Reevolution was other than important. necessary, and salutary.
He commends Caroline Robbins's antiquarian disinterment of her eighteenthcentury upper-class republicans, or ' cornmonwealthsmen,' but he adds, "It would be pleasant to believe that they did more than persuade each other." His final chapter, on the motives behind the Reform Act of 1832, is studded with comments like this: Since the authors of the bill wished neither for a drastic change of personnel nor for a revolution, the consequences in this area serve to demonstrate their competence as practising politicians rather than the reverse. Similarly, none of the ministers ever suggested that their object was to produce an increase in the numbr of contests: to observe therefore that the number of contests did not subsequently increase very rapidly may be a legitimate comment per Sc, but can hardly be used as implied criticism of the effectiveness, of the bill.
This last chapter, ' Interpretive,' is the best in the book. And if it is a surprise to some to learn that historians still cannot agree on the causes of the Reform Bill whether it was a defensive or an offensive measure. whether it was intended to protect the upper classes or betray them, to enfranchise the middle classes or bamboozle them with the pretence of power; whether there was any identifiable middle class at this time anyway this is where they can learn all about it. Nor does Dr Cannon, having reviewed his colleagues' attempts at a solution with dispassionate sympathy, refrain from putting his own theories on the line to be shot at But if this is the best chapter, the others do not fall far short of it, It is a clean-cut book, flat bellied and muscular; there is not one word too many, and every one tells. In fact, I would guess,, and the appendices lend me some support, that this is a crash-dieted version, of a much more adipose book.
I would not quibble with this decision (if decision there was) to limit the book's scope, but it has inevitably affected its balance; more than four-fifths of its length is now devoted to slightly more than onethird of the period, after 1760. This may be a reflection of realities; it certainly reflects the interest of historians. The Civil Wars and Interregnum, which produced many schemes for parliamentary reform, which have in turn generated considerable debate among historians, is naturally, worth a chapter in itself, where Dr Cannon has something new to contribute, in a comparison of the ship money assessments of the 1630s with the redistribution of seats attempted by Cromwell in the Instrument of Government. But the century 1660-1760, appropriately christened 'Pudding Time,' is worth just one short chapter.
This is fair enough; undoubtedly there was a lull in the movement for reform of parliament over those years, and if this lull is still difficult to explain except in the most general terms, this is because the phenomenon has aroused remarkably little Interest amongst historians. Holmes, Speck and others, provoked by Walcott, have done a great deal to open up Queen Anne's reign, but Plumb is still the only historian working over the whole field, and his theory of the growth of political stability, though it goes far towards explaining what happened, falls short of explaining why. For instance, it is possible to understand why Parliament evaded suggestions for reform in 1689, though I think those suggestions were stronger than Dr Cannon allows; less easy to understand why it did not persist after 1689 •in its attempt to reform the government of borough corporations, when James II had shown the way the Crown could exploit the chaos and weakness of the governing class in this sector. And it is still difficult to see why a majority of that class permitted the perpetuation of a system of distribution and representation which grew increasingly difficult as t'he century progressed. Yet even the dissident Whigs in Walpole's years of power concentrated instead on the Tory campaign for shorter parliaments and the removal of office-holders from the House. Dr Cannon is conscious of these difficulties, and has taken some steps towards dealing with them (his appendix on contestedelections is particularly valuable), and it is no criticism of him to say that the period 1714-60, when Britain's rise to world power in the economic and diplomatic fields is matched by paralysis or deepening ossification at home, is one of the most baffling in our history.
Previous page
