Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:15:06.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Losing of the Initiative by the House of Commons, 1780–1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2009

Valerie Cromwell
Valerie Cromwell
Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over forty years ago with great elegance and scholarship Professor Notestein gave his famous Raleigh lecture on ‘The Winning of the Initiative by the House of Commons’: in this he developed the thesis that amongst the reasons for the great yet inconspicuous change ‘between the time of Elizabeth and that of the Long Parliament in the relation of the Council to the Commons’ was that

Almost without observation, Privy Councillors ceased to guide the Commons. And, quite as much unobserved, with no document or charter to serve as a milestone, there came into power in the Commons a group of leaders, who had no official connexion with the Government, who had no common tie, except those of the opinions and feelings that bound English country gentlemen together. These men without purpose or intent but to do the next thing that came to hand, created a new leadership. With the establishment of that leadership the Commons gained the real initiative in legislation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 18 , December 1968 , pp. 1 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1968

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 Notestein, Wallace, The Winning of the Initiative by the House of Commons, printed separately for the British Academy (London, 1924), pp. 1–53.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., p. 4.

3 Ibid., p. 53.

1 The Winning of the Initiative by the House of Commons, p. 23.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., p. 44.

3 Trevor-Roper, H. R., ‘Oliver Cromwell and his Parliaments’, in Essays presented to Sir Lewis Namier, edited by Pares, Richard and Taylor, A. J. P. (London, 1956), pp. 1–48.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., p. 47.

1 SirNamier, Lewis, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, 2 vols. (London, 1929; revised ed. 1957);Google ScholarBrooke, J., The Chatham Administration 1766–68 (London, 1956);Google ScholarChristie, I. R., The Fall of North's Ministry (London, 1958);Google ScholarOwen, J. B., The Rise of the Pelhams (London, 1957);Google ScholarPares, R., King George III and the Politicians (Oxford, 1953);Google ScholarPlumb, J. H., Sir Robert Walpole, 2 vols. (London, 1956-1960)Google Scholar and his lectures, Ford, The Growth of Political Stability in England, 1675–1725 (London, 1967) inter alia.Google Scholar

2 SirNeale, John, Elizabeth I and her Parliaments, 2 vols. (London, 1953-1957);Google ScholarAylmer, G. E., The Kings Servants (London, 1961).Google Scholar

1 The Times, Thursday, 15 September 1966.

1 Public Record Office, P.R.O. 391/4, Clarendon to Hammond, 19 March 1858.

2 Hughes, Edward, ‘The Changes in Parliamentary Procedure, 1880–1882’, in Essays presented to Sir Lewis Namier, p. 296.Google Scholar

1 Reitan, E. A., ‘The Civil List in Eighteenth-Century British Politics: Parliamentary Supremacy versus the Independence of the Crown’, Historical Journal, ix (1966), pp. 326–28.Google Scholar See also Binney, J. E. D., British Public Finance and Administration, 1774–92 (Oxford, 1958).Google Scholar

2 British Museum, Perceval MSS, the Duke of Newcastle to Perceval, 11 February 1810, quoted in Gray, D., Spencer Perceval: the Evangelical Prime Minister, 1762–1812 (Manchester, 1963), p. 125.Google Scholar

3 Foord, A. S., ‘The Waning of the Influence of the Crown’, English Historical Review, lxii (1947), pp. 484–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, 8 vols. (London, 1871), ii, p. 55,Google Scholar cited in Reitan, , loc. cit., p. 331.Google Scholar

1 Hanham, H. J., ‘Political Patronage at the Treasury, 1870–1912’, Historical Journal, iii (1960), p. 83.Google Scholar

2 The Times, 20 December 1966.

3 Camden Society, 3rd series, lxv, p. 16, Arbuthnot to Castlereagh, 14 March 1819.

1 Kitson Clark, G. S. R., ‘“Statesmen in Disguise”: Reflexions on the History of the Neutrality of the Civil Service’, Historical Journal, ii (1959), pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

2 Finer, S. E., ‘Patronage and the Public Service: Jeffersonian Bureaucracy and the British Tradition’, Public Administration, xxx (1952), pp. 356–57.Google Scholar

3 Todd, Alpheus, Parliamentary Government in England: its Origin, Development and Practical Operation, 2 vols. (London, 1867-1869), ii, pp. 251–52. For much of this information, I am indebted to the assistance of Dr Peter Fraser of the University of Manchester.Google Scholar

1 Hansard, xxxv, 679, 25 February 1817.Google Scholar

2 British Museum, Add. MSS. 40, 304, f. 125, Liverpool to Peel, 12 April 1823, cited in Fraser, Peter, ‘The Conduct of Public Business in the House of Commons, 1812–27’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis in the University of London, p. 51,Google Scholar but cf. the case of SirMartin, T. B.Fraser, , op. cit., p. 52.Google Scholar

3 Camden Society, 3rd series, lxv, pp. 15–16,Google Scholar Arbuthnot to Castlereagh, 14 March 1819, quoted in Fraser, , op. cit., p. 61.Google Scholar

1 Aspinall, A., ‘English party organization in the early nineteenth century’, English Historical Review, xli (1926), pp. 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 The Session of Parliament for 1825, p. 19,Google Scholar quoted in Fraser, , op. cit., p. 34.Google Scholar

3 Duke of Buckingham, and Chandos, , Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets of George IV, 2 vols. (London, 1859), i, p. 292,Google Scholar Wellington to Brougham, 6 March 1822, quoted in Fraser, , op. cit., p. 36, n. 6.Google Scholar

4 Fraser, , op. cit., pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

1 Ibid., p. 31 ff.

2 Ibid., p. 33 and 64 ff.

3 Ibid., p. 65, n. 7.

4 Vide Fraser passim.

5 Redlich, J., The Procedure of the House of Commons: a Study of its History and Present Form, 3 vols. (London, 1908), i, p. 57.Google Scholar

6 Fraser, P., ‘The Growth of Ministerial Control in the Nineteenth Century House of Commons’, English Historical Review, lxxv (1960), p. 446, n. 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

1 Fraser, , ‘Business of the House’, op. cit., pp. 41–42.Google Scholar

2 Hansard, xviii, 1216, speech by Creevey, 15 February 1811, quoted in Fraser, pp. 76–77.Google Scholar

3 Redlich, , op. cit., i, p. 70.Google Scholar

4 Colchester, Lord, Diary and Correspondence, 3 vols. (London, 1861), ii, p. 41.Google Scholar

1 Parliamentary Papers, 1810, ii, p. 551.Google Scholar

2 Hansard, xxxix, 70–71, Robinson, 22 January 1819.Google Scholar

3 Fraser, , ‘Business of the House’, op. cit., pp. 80–82, 137 ff.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., pp. 85–89.

5 Dicey, A. V., Lectures upon the relation between Law and Public Opinion in England in the Nineteenth Century (London, 1905).Google Scholar This book discusses the problem of scrutiny of the vast mass of legislation: the problems of delegation were discussed in Carr, C. T., Delegated Legislation (Cambridge, 1921).Google Scholar

1 SirMay, T. E., A Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 9th edn. (London, 1883), p. 276.Google Scholar

2 May, Parliament, 13th edn. edited by Sir T. L. Webster (London, 1924), pp. 246–49.

3 Chubb, B., The Control of Public Expenditure; Financial Committees of the House of Commons (Oxford, 1952), pp. 88–91.Google Scholar

4 Hansard, 4th series, cii, 568, 6 February 1902, quoted by Fraser, , ‘Minis terial Control’, op. cit., p. 462.Google Scholar

1 Public Record Office, Treasury ‘Blue Notes’, T. 165/23, 1905–6, p. 1.

2 E.g Hansard, 3rd series, clxxix, 605, Whalley, 19 May 1865, and many remarks every July on the part of members.Google Scholar

1 May, Parliament, 7th edn. (London, 1873), p. 217; 3.45 p.m. was the normal time for the opening of the sitting except on Wednesdays.

2 The Times, 6 February 1836.

3 Fraser, , ‘Business of the House’, op. cit., appendix D, p. 225.Google Scholar

4 Fraser, , ‘Ministerial Control’, op. cit., p. 450, n.5.Google Scholar

5 May, Parliament, 7th edn., op. cit., p. 552.Google Scholar

8 Ibid., pp. 319–22. May finds an early example of a question to a minister in 1721.

7 Ibid., p. 320, n. 3.

8 Commons Journal, 25 February 1835; Parliamentary Papers, 1837, xiii, p. 295.Google Scholar

1 Fraser, , ‘Ministerial Control’, op. cit., p. 454.Google Scholar

2 May, Parliament, 7th edn., op. cit., pp. 220–21.

3 Hansard, 3rd series, clvi, 163 ff., Thursday, 26 January 1860.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., clvii, passim, and especially 1727, Monday, 2 April 1860.

1 Fraser, , ‘Ministerial Control’, op. cit., p. 461.Google Scholar

2 Hansard, 3rd series, clvi, 175, Thursday, 26 January i860.Google Scholar

3 Ibid., clvii, 1731–32, Monday, 2 April i860.

4 Ibid., 1739.

1 British Museum, Layard Papers, Add. MSS. 38, 985.

2 Blake, R., Disraeli (London, 1966), pp. 400–2.Google Scholar

3 Division Lists, House of Commons, 1859 (1st session), pp. 79 and 83 and passim.

4 Hansard, 3rd series, cliii, 1266, Monday, 4 April 1859.Google Scholar

5 Cromwell, V., ‘The Private Member of the House of Commons and Foreign Policy in the Nineteenth Century’, Liber Memorialis Sir Maurice Powicke: Studies presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions, no. xxvii (Paris and Louvain, 1965), pp. 193–218.Google Scholar

6 Cobden to T. B. Potter, 10 May 1864, cited in Morley, , Life of Cobden (London, 1903), p. 911.Google Scholar

1 May, Parliament, 7th edn., op. cit., p. 56.

2 Chubb, , op. cit., part I, pp. 6–41.Google Scholar Also see Cromwell, V., ‘The Problem of Supply in Great Britain in the Nineteenth Century’, Études sur l‘Histoire des Assembliés d'États (Paris, 1966), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

3 Parliamentary Papers, 1857, session 2, H.C. 279, p. 6.

1 Chubb, , op. cit., p. 88.Google Scholar

2 Hansard, 4th series, cl, 441, Churchill, Wednesday, 26 July 1905.Google Scholar

3 Chubb, , op. cit., passim. More recent attempts to establish an efficient Estimates Committee have been attended with at least one of the handicaps which incapacitated the pre-1914 committees, i.e. size of work, delays in the supply of information, inadequacy of staff, and limited powers etc.Google Scholar

1 Cromwell, V., ‘Changing Parliamentary Attitudes to Income Tax in the nineteenth century’, XIIe Congres International des Sciences Historiques, Vienna, igGS: Studies presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions, no. xxxi (Paris and Louvain, 1966), pp. 33–42.Google Scholar

2 Hansard, 3rd series, clxi, 156–61, Thursday, 7 February 1861,Google Scholar

1 ‘So long as Parliament continues its confidence in ministers, it ought to be willing to leave the exercise of the prerogative in their hands, unfettered by restrictions in regard to its exercise, and should refrain from interference therewith, unless under circumstances of imperious necessity. The general responsibility of ministers for the wisdom, policy, and legality of the measures of government should be sufficient guarantee, in all ordinary cases, for the faithful discharge of the high functions entrusted to them’, Todd, A., op. cit., i, p. 256.Google Scholar