¹ Clark, G. Kitson, The Making of Victorian England, London, 1962, pp. 13, 4.Google Scholar

² W. O. Aydelotte, “Nineteenth Century British Pamphlets at the Newberry Library”, The Newberry Library Bulletin, 2nd ser., no. 6, May 1951, pp. 179–80.

³ See the articles by Louis Guttman in Studies in Social Psychology in World War II, vol. IV, Measurement and Prediction, Princeton, 1950.

⁴ Frederick Waisanen. I am also indebted, for stimulating conversations on these problems, to David Gold, Martin U. Martel and Duncan MacRae, Jr.

⁵ Bert F. Green, “Attitude Measurement”, in Gardner Líndzey, ed., Handbook of Social Psychology, Cambridge, Mass., 1954, vol. I, pp. 353–4. There is also a useful general description in Samuel A. Stouffer, “An Over-view of the Contributions to Scaling and Scale Theory”, Measurement and Prediction, pp. 3–45.

^6* In none of the divisions analysed did this entire “population” of 815 men take part. Only 658 of them could be in Parliament at any one moment; only 656 after the disfranchisement of Sudbury in 1844. There was also a considerable turnover: of the 658 whom I have counted as elected at the general election of 1841 only 513 were sitting at the time this Parliament was dissolved in 1847; still others entered Parliament at by-elections after the general election and left it before the dissolution. I have also included divisions from earlier and later Parliaments in which a number of the men of the Parliament of 1841–47, the only group whose votes are considered here, did not sit. Nor, of course, did all those in Parliament at a given moment necessarily vote in every division. For these various reasons, none of the divisions used included more than three-fourths of the population of 815, many included less than half, and some so few as one-eighth.

⁶ I am indebted to John P. Dolch of the Computer Center of the State University of Iowa who arranged for this count to be made and also wrote the program for it.

⁷ The problem of objectivity has been more fully discussed, in relation to this period, by G. Kitson Clark in the first chapter of The Making of Victorian England and, in more general terms, by myself in a volume of essays on generalizations in history edited by Louis Gottschalk, to be published by the Chicago University Press in 1963.

⁸ See the account by Duncan MacRae, Jr., in chapter II of his book, Dimensions of Congressional Voting: A Statistical Study of the House of Representatives in the Eighty-first Congress, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1958; also his article, “Intraparty Division and Cabinet Coalitions in the Fourth French Republic”, in this issue of CSSH, pp. 164–211.

⁹ Speech by W. Sharman Crawford on “Reform in the Representation”, 21 April 1842, Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 3rd Series, vol. 62, pp. 907–921.

¹⁰ W. O. Aydelotte, “The Business Interests of the Gentry in the Parliament of 1841–47”, printed as an appendix in G. Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England, pp. 290–305.

¹¹ Gleason, John Howes, The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain, Cambridge, Mass., 1950, pp. 272–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPennock, J. Roland, “The Political Power of British Agriculture”, Political Studies, vol. VII, no. 3, October 1959, pp. 291–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Clark, G. Kitson, “The Repeal of the Corn Laws and the Politics of the Forties”, Economic History Review, 2nd Series, vol. IV, no. 1, 1951, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar Asa Briggs, “The Language of ‘Class’ in Early Nineteenth-century England”, in Briggs, Asa and Saville, Jahn, eds., Essays on Labour History, in Memory of G. D. H. Cole, London, 1960, pp. 43–73. I understand that a student of John Harrison's at the University of Wisconsin is making a further study of this problem.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ This point has been more fully discussed by G. Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England, p. 20.

¹⁴ The fact that the correlations I have found between vote and personal background or constituency are, though substantial, far from complete also suggests the presence of additional variables.

¹⁵ MacRae, Dimensions of Congressional Voting, p. 222. It should be added that, while scales cannot apparently be built for the entire U.S. House of Representatives without the sacrifice of a good deal of information, it has proved possible to construct scales for smaller legislative bodies in the United States that do include the whole group. Most of the studies of the U.S. Senate have scaled the parties together, and MacRae was also able to scale the parties together in his study of the Massachusetts House of Representatives. See his article, “Roll Call Votes and Leadership”, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. XX, no. 3, Fall 1956, pp. 543–558.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Roberts, David, Victorian Origins of the British Welfare State, New Haven, 1960.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Young, G. M., Victorian England: Portrait of an Age, Oxford and London, 1936, p. 47.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Webb, R. K., Harriet Martineau: a Radical Victorian, London, 1960, p. 363.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Edward A. Shíls, “Authoritarianism: ‘Right’ and ‘Left’”, in Richard Christie and Marie Jahoda, eds., Studies in the Scope and Method of “The Authoritarian Personality”: Continuities in Social Research, Glencoe, Illinois, 1954, pp. 27–8.