Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T03:47:34.095Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Social Composition of the County Magistracy in England and Wales, 1831–1887

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Carl H. E. Zangerl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“The revolution is made,” the Duke of Wellington declared in 1833, “that is to say power is transferred from one class in society, the gentlemen of England professing the faith of the Church of England, to another class of society, the shopkeepers being dissenters from the Church, many of them being Socinians, others atheists.” Wellington's political postmortem was, to say the least, premature. The gentlemen of England and Wales continued to prosper, especially in the counties. In fact, most local government historians have argued that the landed classes virtually monopolized the administration of county affairs before 1888 when county government was institutionally restructured by the County Councils Act. The instrument of their control was the county magistracy acting in Quarter and Petty Sessions. K. B. Smellie, expressing a widely-held viewpoint, describes the county magistracy in the nineteenth century as the “rear guard of an agrarian oligarchy,” the “most aristocratic feature of English government.” Yet no one has furnished statistical evidence for this contention on a countrywide basis or for an extended time span. Is the notion of an aristocratic stranglehold over the counties really more impressionistic than substantive? By examining the “Returns of Justices of the Peace” between 1831 and 1887 in the British Parliamentary Papers, a nearly untapped statistical storehouse, it is possible to determine the degree of continuity in the social composition of the county magistracy.

Before doing so, it might be helpful to sketch the changing character of the Quarter Sessions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , November 1971 , pp. 113 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Quoted in McDowell, R. B., British Conservatism, 1832–1914 (London, 1959), p. 18Google Scholar. Professor Walter Arnstein read the manuscript and made many valuable suggestions for its improvement.

2. Smellie, K. B., A History of Local Government (London, 1968), p. 36Google Scholar. The term “landed classes” encompasses the aristocracy, the gentry, and allied groups. F. M. L. Thompson sets the yearly landed income of the aristocracy at over £10,000, and the income of the gentry at £1,000 to £10,000. See Thompson, F. M. L., English Landed Society in the Nineteenth Century (London and Toronto, 1963), pp. 25-27, 109–111Google Scholar.

In this article, the terms “magistrate” and “Justice of the Peace” are used interchangeably, as are the phrases “county magistracy,” “Commission of the Peace,” “county bench,” and “Quarter Sessions.”

3. Since the Clerks of the Peace did not always follow uniform guidelines in drawing up lists of magistrates, the Returns must be used with care. It should also be pointed out that only those appointees who took the oath of qualification could act in a magisterial capacity. In 1853, only 7,694 of 17,014 J.P.s were qualified to act. See Return of the Number of Justices in the Commission of the Peace for each County in England and Wales, in Parliamentary Papers, 1852-53 (Cmd. 558), LXXVIII, 329Google Scholar. Except where noted, the tabulations used in this paper are based on appointees regardless of whether they had taken the oath of qualification.

4. Keith-Lucas, B., The English Local Government Franchise. A Short History (Oxford, 1952), p. 85Google Scholar. For descriptions of magisterial activities, see Redlich, Joseph and Hirst, Francis W., The History of Local Government in England (London, 1958), pp. 14–16Google Scholar; LordThring, , “Local Government,” Nineteenth Century, XXIII (1888), passimGoogle Scholar; Webb, Sidney and , Beatrice, English Local Government From the Revolution to the Municipal Corporations Act: The Parish and the County (London, 1906), I, Book 2Google Scholar; Hobsbawm, E. J. and Rudé, George, Captain Swing (New York, 1968), passimGoogle Scholar; J. L. and Hammond, Barbara, The Village Labourer 1760-1832. A Study in the Government of England Before the Reform Bill (London, 1911), pp. 216–70Google Scholar. Admittedly, the creation of new local authorities by the central government constricted the powers of the magistracy after 1834.

5. Webb, , English Local Government, I, Book 2, 534–35Google Scholar.

6. Halévy, Élie, A History of the English People 1830-1841 (New York, 1924), III, 220–21Google Scholar.

7. 3 Hansard 36: 419 (10 February 1837). See Kebbel, T. E., “The English Gentry,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, CXLIII (May 1888), 705–09Google Scholar.

8. Report from the Commissioners for inquiring into the County Rates, in Parliamentary Papers, 1836 (Cmd. 58), XXVII, Appendix A, 197; 3 Hansard 238: 919 (7 March 1878). Also see Williams, David, The Rebecca Riots. A Study in Agrarian Discontent (Cardiff, 1955), pp. 42–43Google Scholar.

9. Thompson, , English Landed Society, pp. 1-3, 134–36Google Scholar; Return of the Names of Lord Lieutenants of Counties in England and Wales, in Parliamentary Papers, 1875 (Cmd. 443), LX, 643Google Scholar.

10. 3 Hansard 238: 930 (7 March 1878).

11. Thompson, , English Landed Society, pp. 109–12Google Scholar.

12. 3 Hansard 43: 1280 (5 July 1838).

13. Thompson, , English Landed Society, pp. 109–11Google Scholar.

14. Ibid., p. 288.

15. 3 Hansard 31: 182 (9 February 1836). See McClatchey, Diana, Oxfordshire Clergy 1777-1869. A Study of the Established Church and the Role of Its Clergy in Local Society (Oxford, 1960), pp. 180–81Google Scholar; Report front the Select Committee on County Financial Arrangements, in Parliamentary Papers, 1867–1868 (Cmd. 421), IX, 1Google Scholar, Q 33, testimony given by Lord Kesteven, Chairman of Quarter Sessions, Division of Kesteven, Lincolnshire.

16. Quoted in McClatchey, , Oxfordshire Clergy, p. 183Google Scholar.

17. 3 Hansard 223: 765 (13 April 1875). See McClatchey, , Oxfordshire Clergy, p. 181Google Scholar.

18. Thompson, English Landed Society, Ch. 5.

19. Quoted in Webb, , English Local Government, I, Book 2, 385Google Scholar. See observations of Lord Cottenham, 3 Hansard, 31: 181 (9 February 1836).

20. Quoted in Halévy, , History of the English People, III, 221Google Scholar. See Lord Granville, 3 Hansard 237: 776 (13 April 1875).

21. Quoted in Williams, , Rebecca Riots, p. 37Google Scholar.

22. [Archibald Alison], “Municipal and corporate revolution,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, XXXVII (June 1835), 975Google Scholar; [J. W. Croker], “Municipal Reform,” The Quarterly Review, LIV (July 1835), 237Google Scholar.

23. 3 Hansard 37: 1143-44 (12 April 1837). For evidence of discontent see Report from the Commissioners for inquiring into the County Rates, in Parliamentary Papers, 1836, XXVII, 1Google Scholar. Hume's position can be found in 3 Hansard 34: 681-82 (9 February 1836); Times, January 22, 1836; Report from the Commissioners for inquiring into the County Rates, in Parliamentary Papers, 1836, XXVII, Appendix A, Q 847-84Google Scholar.

24. Report from the Select Committee on County Arrangements, in Parliamentary Papers, 1867–1868, IX, 1, Q 70Google Scholar.

25. 3 Hansard 223: 765 and 769 (13 April 1875). See Lord Waveney's reply in the same debate, 772.

26. Report from the Select Committee on County Financial Arrangements, in Parliamentary Papers, 1867–1868, IX, 1Google Scholar, Q 1931 and 1945. In the same report, see the testimony of Charles Latimer, Chairman of the St. Albans Board of Guardians, Q 1844, 1848, 1914, 1922; Henry Stokes, Clerk of the Peace in Cornwall, Q 485-89; Sir Massey Lopes, M.P., Q 2946; Thomas Hawkins, Poor Law Guardian in Bentley, Suffolk, Q 1112; John Soulby, Secretary of the Chamber of Agriculture, North Riding, Yorkshire, Q 893; Rev. John Eagles, Somerset, Q 677; Rev. John Pearson, Worcester, Q 1693-40.

27. Times, February 9, 1878. For other reports of Chamber of Agriculture sentiment in the Times, see February 27, 1878; March 5, 1878; March 8, 1878; March 25, 1878; May 6, 1878. Magisterial opinion seemed to be divided. See Times, March 25, 1878; April 11, 1878; April 15, 1878. The texts of the 1878 and 1879 bills may be found in County Government Bill, in Parliamentary Papers, 1878 (Cmd. 93), I, 543Google Scholar and County Boards Bill, in Parliamentary Papers, 1878–1879 (Cmd. 105), II, 129Google Scholar.

28. John Floyer, 3 Hansard 238: 925 (7 March 1878). The Times reported that the promise of county boards was “one of the most conspicuous pledges in the Queen's Speech,” January 30, 1878.

29. 3 Hansard 237: 601-02 (28 January 1878).

30. Kebbel, , “Gentry,” Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, CXLIII, 707–08Google Scholar; Thompson, , English Landed Society, pp. 119–121Google Scholar; Lee, J. M.Social Leaders and Public Persons. A Study of County Government in Cheshire Since 1888 (Oxford. 1963), pp. 12–43Google Scholar.

31. Return giving the Names and Professions or Descriptions of all Justices of the Peace for the Counties of England and Wales, in Parliamentary Papers, 1888, LXXXII, 193Google Scholar. J. M. Lee, in his pioneering study of Cheshire, notes this influx of middle-class individuals into the magistracy and argues that the countryside elite had become a series of ill-defined groups shading off into each other; see Lee, , Social Leaders, p. 13Google Scholar.