Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:00:11.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Changing Context of British Politics in the 1880s: The Reform Acts and the Formation of the Liberal Unionist Party

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2016

Hugh W. Stephens
Hugh W. Stephens*
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the summer of 1886, the conservative “Whig” wing of the Liberal party, led by Lord Hartington, together with a small group of Radical Unionists under Joseph Chamberlain, broke with the Liberal leader, Prime Minister W.E. Gladstone, and formed the Liberal Unionist party. This not-unexpected event occurred in two stages. The first was the defection of ninety-three Liberals to the Conservative opposition on the second reading of Gladstone’s Irish Home Rule Bill in June, resulting in its defeat. The second stage was the decision of Hartington, Chamberlain, and their followers to contest, with Conservative support, parliamentary seats against Liberals in the ensuing July election which Gladstone called on the issue of Irish Home Rule.

The election of July, 1886 proved to be a critical juncture in British party alignment. The shift in the strength of the parties caused by the return of seventy-eight Liberal Unionists to the parliament of 1886-92 and their support of the Conservatives ended forty years of Liberal domination and began a generation of Conservative hegemony. The Liberal Unionists maintained a parliamentary strength of about seventy members and a separate identity until they merged with the Conservatives in 1912; few of the dissident Liberal Unionists returned to the Liberal party. The formation of the Unionist (Conservative and Liberal Unionist) coalition had long-term ramifications as well because it set the stage for the emergence of class politics shortly after the turn of the century.

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Science History , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , Summer 1977 , pp. 486 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © Social Science History Association 1977 

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

Notes

1 Some of the reasons for disagreement within the Liberal party were concerned with policy matters, and some with personal rivalries among leaders. One of the major cleavages was between the largely aristocratic, conservative Whigs on the one hand, and the middle-class Radicals, on the other, the latter being in a vast majority in parliament. For further discussion, in addition to the references in note three, see Southgate, Donald, The Passing of the Whigs, 1832-1886 (New York, 1962)Google Scholar.

2 For a discussion concerning the emergence of class politics at this time see Cornford, J., “The Transformation of Conservatism in the Late Nineteenth Century,” Victorian Studies, 7 (1963), 35–37Google Scholar.

3 See for instance, Christie, O.F., The Transition to Democracy: 1867-1914 (London, 1934)Google Scholar and Cooke, A.B. and Vincent, John, The Governing Passion: Cabinet Government and Party Politics in Britain, 1885-86 (Brighton, 1974)Google Scholar.

4 Samuel Beer advances the thesis that the reforms put into effect at this time produced what he terms a shift from “Liberal” to “Radical” representation. Beer, S., British Politics in the Collectivist Age. (New York, 1965), Chapter II.

5 See, for instance, Key, V.O., “A Theory of Critical Elections,” Journal of Politics, XVII (February, 1955) 3018Google Scholar, and Burnham, Walter D., Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics (New York, 1970), 10Google Scholar.

6 Dunbabin, J.P.D., “Parliamentary Elections in Great Britain, 1868-1900,” English Historical Review, LXXXI (1966) 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Twenty-five double-member constituencies were retained, all in cities of about 100,000 persons.

8 These figures represent all members serving in a given parliament, including those elected at by-elections; hence, they do not correspond to party strengths at any one time, the figures which are most often given. The party strengths at the beginning of the three parliaments were as follows: the 1880-85 parliament began with 351 Liberals (61 of whom became Liberal Unionists in 1886) and 234 Conservatives; for the 1886 parliament, 334 Liberals (including 64 members who were to become Liberal Unionists) and 250 Conservatives; and for the 1886-92 parliament, 191 Liberals, 78 Liberal Unionists, and 316 Conservatives.

9 Data sources: party identification, constituency type, population, registration and voter turnout are from Vincent, J. and Stenton, M., eds., McCalmot’s Parliamentary Poll Book of All Elections, 1832-1918, 8th ed. (Brighton, 1971)Google Scholar and The Constitutional Yearbook, 1892 (reprinted Brighton, 1972); for density see H.C., Pari. Paper 1883 LIV (321) “Parliamentary Reform (Electoral Statistics),” and Pari Paper, 1893-1894, CIV “Census of England and Wales,” ibid. (C. 6755) “Census of Scotland.”

10 Population density of the constituencies represented by each member were calculated simply by dividing the total population by the constituency’s area. Density figures for members from double- and triple-member constituencies were calculated on the basis of the entire area and population of the constituency. Information on population and area (usually expressed in acres and needing to be converted into square miles) is available in a section on parliamentary constituencies found in most dicennial census reports as well as in documents concerning parliamentary reform, such as the reports of the Boundary Commissioners.

11 For a discussion of franchise requirements and politics surrounding them see, Blewett, N., “The Franchise in the United Kingdom, 1885-1918,” Past and Present, 32 (1965), 27–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Lloyd, Trevor, “Uncontested Seats in British Elections,” The Historical Journal VII (1965), 260–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Cornford, “Transformatipn,” 37.

14 It is interesting to note the subsequent voting behavior of the Liberal Unionists. The average index of party cohesion for Conservatives and Liberal Unionists on 198 divisions in which at least 400 members voted during the parliament of 1886-92 was 94.8 percent, 100 percent being unanimity on all divisions. See Stephens, Hugh W. and Brady, David W., “The Parliamentary Parties & the Electoral Reforms of 1884-85 in Britain,” Legislative Studies Quarterly I, 4 (November, 1976), 491–510Google Scholar.

15 For a brief discussion of the dependence of Liberal success upon the working-class vote see, Dunbabin, “Parliamentary Elections,” 95. Quotations from Cornford, “Transformation,” 37.