In theory the king was still the ruler of his kingdom. In his name all laws were made, treaties sealed, governmental officials appointed. Like other monarchs, he had his "Privy Councilors" to advise him, and ministers (Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretaries of State, the Lord Chancellor, etc.) to supervise various details of central administration. But this was largely a matter of form. In fact, the kings of Great Britain had lost most of their power, and retained only their dignity; they were becoming figureheads.
[Sidenote: The British Const.i.tution]
Ever since the signing of _Magna Carta_, back in 1215, the English people had been exacting from their sovereigns written promises by which the crown surrendered certain powers. Greatest progress in this direction had been made amid those stirring scenes of the seventeenth century which have been described already in the chapter on the Triumph of Parliamentary Government in England. In addition to formal doc.u.ments, there had been slowly evolved a body of customs and usages, which were almost as sacred and binding as if they had been inscribed on parchment. Taken together, these written and customary limitations on royal authority were called the "British Const.i.tution."
[Sidenote: Limitations on the Actual Powers of the King]
This Const.i.tution limited the king"s power in four important ways. (1) It deprived him of the right to levy taxes. For his household expenses he was now granted an allowance, called the Civil List. William III, for instance, was allowed 700,000 pounds a year. (2) The king had no right either to make laws on his own responsibility or to prevent laws being made against his will. The sovereign"s prerogative to veto Parliament"s bills still existed in theory, but was not exercised after the reign of Queen Anne. (3) The king had lost control of the judicial system (_i.e._, the courts): he could not remove judges even if they gave decisions unfavorable to him; and the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 provided that any one thrown into prison should be told why, and given a fair legal trial. (4) The king could not maintain a standing army without consent of Parliament. These restrictions made Great Britain a "limited," rather than an "absolute," monarchy.
[Sidenote: Parliament]
The powers taken from the king were now exercised by Parliament. The const.i.tutional conflict of the seventeenth century had left Parliament not only in enjoyment of freedom of speech for its members but with full power to levy taxes, to make laws, to remove or retain judges, and essentially to determine the policy of the government in war and in peace. Parliament had even taken upon itself on one celebrated occasion (1689) to deprive a monarch of his "divine right" to rule, to establish a new sovereign, and to decree that never again should Great Britain have a king of the Roman Catholic faith.
French philosophers who saw so much power vested in a representative body could not be too loud in their praise of "English liberty." Had they investigated more closely, these same observers might have learned to their surprise that Parliament represented the people of Great Britain only in name.
[Sidenote: Undemocratic Character of Parliament]
As we have seen in an earlier chapter [Footnote: See above, pp. 265 f.], Parliament consisted of two legislative a.s.semblies or "Houses,"
neither one of which could make laws without the consent of the other.
One of these houses, the House of Lords, was frankly aristocratic and undemocratic. Its members were the "lords spiritual"--rich and influential bishops of the Anglican Church,--and the "lords temporal,"
or peers, haughty descendants of the ancient feudal n.o.bles or haughtier heirs of millionaires recently enn.o.bled by the king. [Footnote: A peer was technically a t.i.tled n.o.ble who possessed an hereditary seat in the House of Lords. George III created many peers: at his death there were over 300 in all.] These proud gentlemen were mainly landlords, and as a cla.s.s they were almost as selfish and undemocratic as the courtiers of France.
But, the French philosopher replies, the representatives of the people are found in the lower house, the House of Commons; the peers merely give stability to the government. Let us see.
One thing at least is certain, that in the eighteenth century the majority of the people of Great Britain had no voice in choosing their "representatives." In the country, the "knights of the shire" were supposedly elected, two for each shire or county. But a man could not vote unless he had an estate worth an annual rent of forty shillings, and, since the same amount of money would then buy a good deal more than nowadays, forty shillings was a fairly large sum. Persons who could vote were often afraid to vote independently, and frequently they sold their vote to a rich n.o.ble, so that many "knights of the shire"
were practically named by the landed aristocracy, the wealthy and t.i.tled landlords.
Matters were even worse in the towns, or "boroughs." By no means all of the towns had representation. Moreover, for the towns that did choose their two members to sit in the House of Commons, no method of election was prescribed by law; but each borough followed its own custom. In one town the aristocratic munic.i.p.al corporation would choose the representatives; in another place the gilds would control the election; and in yet another city there might be a few so-called "freemen" (of course everybody was free,--"freeman" was a technical term for a member of the town corporation) who had the right to vote, and sold their votes regularly for about 5 apiece. In general the town representatives were named by a few well-to-do politicians, while the common "prentices and journeymen worked uninterruptedly at their benches. It has been estimated that fewer than 1500 persons controlled a majority in the House of Commons.
In many places a n.o.bleman or a clique of townsmen appointed their candidates without even the formality of an election. In other places, where rival influences clashed, bribery would decide the day. For in contested elections, the voting lasted forty days, during which time the price of votes might rise to 25 or more. Votes might be purchased with safety, too, for voting was public and any one might learn from the poll-book how each man had voted. Not infrequently it cost several thousand pounds to carry such an election.
[Sidenote: "Rotten Boroughs"]
We may summarize these evils by saying that the peasants and artisans generally were not allowed to vote, and that the methods of election gave rise to corruption. But this was not all. There was neither rhyme nor reason to be found in the distribution of representation between different sections of the country. Old Sarum had once been a prosperous village and had been accorded representation, but after the village had disappeared, leaving to view but a lonely hill, no one in England could have told why two members should still sit for Old Sarum. Nor, for that matter, could there have been much need of representation in Parliament for the sea-coast town of Dunwich. Long ago the coast had sunk and the salt-sea waves now washed the remains of a ruined town. Bosseney in Cornwall was a hamlet of three cottages, but its citizens were ent.i.tled to send two men to Parliament.
While these decayed towns and "rotten boroughs" continued to enjoy representation, populous and opulent cities like Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield were ignored. They had grown with the growth of industry, while the older towns had declined. Yet Parliamentary representation underwent no change from the days of Charles II to the third decade of the nineteenth century. Thus Parliament in the eighteenth century represented neither the different cla.s.ses of society nor the ma.s.ses of population. Politics was a gentleman"s game. The n.o.bleman who sat in the upper house had his dummies in the lower chamber. A certain Sir James Lowther had nine proteges in the lower house, who were commonly called "Lowther"s Ninepins." A distinguished statesman of the time described the position of such a protege: "He is sent here by the lord of this or the duke of that, and if he does not obey the instructions which he receives, he is held to be a dishonest man."
[Sidenote: Parliamentary Bribery and Corruption]
Under conditions such as these it is not hard to understand how seats in Parliament were bought and sold like boxes at the opera or seats in a stock-exchange. Nor is it surprising that after having paid a small fortune for the privilege of representing the people, the worldly-wise Commoner should be willing to indemnify himself by accepting bribes, or, if perchance his tender conscience forbade monetary bribes, by accepting a government post with fat salary and few duties except to vote with the government.
[Sidenote: The Cabinet]
For many years (1714-1761) the arts of corruption were practiced with astonishing success by a group of clever Whig politicians. As has been noticed in an earlier chapter,[Footnote: See above, pp. 291 f.] it was to their most conspicuous leader, Sir Robert Walpole, that the first two Georges intrusted the conduct of affairs; and Walpole filled the important offices of state with his Whig friends. Likewise it has been noticed [Footnote: See above, p. 290.] that during the same period the idea of the cabinet system became more firmly fixed. Just as Walpole secured the appointment of his friends to the high offices of state, so subsequent statesmen put their supporters in office. The practice was not yet rigid, but it was customary for a dozen or so of the leaders of the faction in power to hold "cabinet" meetings, in which they decided in advance what measures should be presented to Parliament. If a measure indorsed by the cabinet should be defeated by the Commons, the leader of the party would normally resign, and the ministers he had appointed would follow his example. In other words, the cabinet acted in concert and resigned as a whole.
If the affairs of the government were all carried on by the cabinet, and if the cabinet depended for its support on the majority in the House of Commons, what remained for the king to do? Obviously, very little!
[Sidenote: British Government under George III]
George I and George II had not been averse from cabinet-government: it was easy and convenient. But George III (1760-1820) was determined to make his authority felt. He wished to preside at cabinet meetings; he outbribed the Whigs; and he repeatedly asked his ministers to resign because he disliked their policies.
Besides the friends he purchased, George III possessed a considerable number of enthusiastic and conscientious supporters. The country squires and clergy who believed in the Anglican Church and looked with distrust upon the power of corrupt Whig politicians in Parliament, were quite willing that a painstaking and gentlemanly monarch should do his own ruling. Such persons formed the backbone of the Tory party and sometimes called themselves the "king"s friends." With their support and by means of a liberal use of patronage, George III was able to keep Lord North, a minister after his own heart, in power twelve years (1770-1782). But as we have learned, [Footnote: See above, pp. 332 ff.]
the War of American Independence caused the downfall of Lord North, and for the next year or two, politics were in confusion. During 1782-1783 the old Whig and Tory parties [Footnote: See above, pp. 285 f.] were sadly broken up, and a new element was unmistakably infused into party- warfare by the spirit of reform.
[Sidenote: Need and Demand for Reform]
Surely, if ever a country needed reform, it was Great Britain in 1783.
The country was filled with paupers maintained by the taxes; poor people might be shut up in workhouses and see their children carted off to factories; sailors were kidnapped for the royal navy; the farmhand was practically bound to the soil like a serf; over two hundred offenses, such as stealing a shilling or cutting down an apple tree, were punishable by death; religious intolerance flourished--Quakers were imprisoned and Roman Catholics were debarred from office and Parliament. And Ireland was being ruined by the selfish and obstinate minority which controlled its parliament.
But about these things English "reformers" were not much concerned. A few altruistic souls decried the traffic in black slaves, but that evil was quite far from English sh.o.r.es. The reform movement was chiefly directed against parliamentary corruption and received its support from the small country gentlemen who hated the great Whig owners of "pocket- boroughs," [Footnote: Boroughs whose members were named by a political "patron."] and from the lower and newer ranks of the bourgeoisie. For the small shop-keepers and tradesmen, and especially the rich manufacturers in new industrial towns like Birmingham, felt that Parliament did not represent their interests, and they set up a cry for pure politics and reformed representation.
[Sidenote: Wilkes]
The spirit of reform spread rapidly. In the "sixties of the eighteenth century, John Wilkes, a squint-eyed and immoral but very persuasive editor, had raised a hubbub of reform talk. He had criticized the policy of George III, had been elected to Parliament, and, when the House of Commons expelled him, had insisted upon the right of the people to elect him, regardless of the will of the House. His admirers --and he had many--shouted for "Wilkes and Liberty," elected him Lord Mayor of London, and enabled him to carry his point.
The founding of four newspapers furthered the reform movement. They took it upon themselves to report parliamentary debates, and along with information they spread discontent. Their activity was somewhat checked, however, by the operation of the old laws which punished libelous attacks on the king with imprisonment or exile, and also by a stamp duty of 2-1/2d. a sheet (1789).
[Sidenote: Charles James Fox]
Under the new influence a number of Whigs became advocates of reform.
George III had outdone them at corruption; they now sought to reestablish their own power and Parliament"s by advocating reform. Of these Whigs, Charles James Fox (1749-1806) was the most prominent. Fox had been taught to gamble by his father and took to it readily. Cards and horse-racing kept him in constant bankruptcy; many of his nights were spent in debauchery and his mornings in bed; and his close a.s.sociation with the rakish heir to the throne was the scandal of London. In spite of his eloquence and ability, the loose manner of his life militated against the success of Fox as a reformer. His friends knew him to be a free-hearted, impulsive sympathizer with all who were oppressed, and they entertained no doubt of his sincere wish to bring about parliamentary reform, complete religious toleration, and the abolition of the slave trade. But strangers could not easily reconcile his private life with his public words, and were antagonized by his frequent lack of political tact.
[Sidenote: The Program of Reform]
Despite drawbacks Fox furthered the cause of reform to a considerable extent. He it was who presided over a great ma.s.s meeting, held under the auspices of a reform club, at which meeting was drawn up a program of liberal reform, a program which was to be the battle-cry of British political radicals for several generations. It comprised six demands: (1) Votes for all adult males, (2) each district to have representation proportionate to its population, (3) payment of the members of Parliament so as to enable poor men to accept election, (4) abolition of the property qualifications for members of Parliament, (5) adoption of the secret ballot, and (6) Parliaments to be elected annually.
[Sidenote: William Pitt the Younger]
Such reform seemed less likely of accomplishment by Fox than by a younger statesman, William Pitt (1759-1806), second son of the famous earl of Chatham. When but seven years old, Pitt had said: "I want to speak in the House of Commons like papa." Throughout his boyhood and youth he had kept this ambition constantly before him; he had studied, practiced oratory, and learned the arts of debate. At the age of twenty-one, he was a tall, slender, and sickly youth, with sonorous voice, devouring ambition, and sublime self-confidence. He secured a seat in the Commons as one of Sir James Lowther"s "ninepins," and speedily won the respect of the House. He was the youngest and most promising of the politicians of the day. At the outset he was a Whig.
[Sidenote: The "New Tories"]
By a combination of circ.u.mstances young Pitt was enabled to form an essentially new political party--the "New Tories." By his scrupulous honesty and earnest advocacy of parliamentary reform, he won to his side the unrepresented bourgeoisie and the opponents of "bossism." On the other hand, by accepting from King George III an appointment as chief minister, and holding the position in spite of a temporarily hostile majority in the House of Commons, Pitt won the respect of the Tory country squires and the clergy, who stood for the king against Parliament. And finally, being quite moral himself (if chronic indulgence in port wine be excepted), and supporting a notoriously virtuous king against corrupt politicians and against the gambling Fox, Pitt became an idol of all lovers of "respectability."
In the parliamentary elections of 1784 Pitt won a great victory. In that year he was prime minister with loyal majorities in both Houses of Parliament, with royal favor, and with the support of popular enthusiasm. He was feasted in Grocers" Hall in London; the shopkeepers of the Strand illuminated their dwellings in his honor; and crowds cheered his carriage.
Reform seemed to be within sight. The horrors of the slave trade were mitigated, and greater freedom was given the press. Bills were introduced to abolish the representation of "rotten" boroughs and to grant representation to the newer towns.
[Sidenote: Halt of Reform in Great Britain]
It can hardly be doubted that Pitt would have gone further had not affairs in France--the French Revolution--alarmed him at the critical time and caused him fear a similar outbreak in England. [Footnote: For the effect of the French Revolution upon England, see pp. 494 f., 504.]
The government and upper cla.s.ses of Great Britain at once abandoned their roles as reformers, and set themselves sternly to repress anything that might savor of revolution.
[Sidenote: Conclusion]
Two important conclusions may now be drawn from our study of the British government in the eighteenth century. In the first place, despite the admiration with which the French philosophers regarded the British monarchy as a model of political liberty and freedom, it was in fact both corrupt and oppressive. Secondly, the spirit of reform seemed for a time as active and as promising in Great Britain as in France, but from the island kingdom it was frightened away by the tumult of revolution across the Channel.