Ing the constitution only because its members were easily corrupted by

the patronage of the Crown, a sentiment that modern observers might

share (Essays, Moral, Political and Literary, 25).

However, external observers might have underestimated the unity

of interest that connected the House of Lords and the House of

Commons. The elected House of Commons was dominated by patron-

age from the House of Lords. Aristocratic interests ran local affairs

and influenced elections by means of bribing or intimidating voters.

Heads of families sat in the Lords, their younger sons in the Com-

mons. In the counties the right to vote was limited to relatively wealthy

property owners and the seats were often in the gift of the landed

families. In the boroughs the number of seats and the right to vote were

based on ancient charters bearing no relation to the size of population.

For example, the notorious ‘rotten borough’ of Old Sarum had two

buildings and two Parliamentary seats while Manchester with a pop-

ulation of more than 60,000 had no seats (see Paine, 1987, p. 222

et seq.). In the boroughs, Parliamentary seats were sometimes attached

to particular properties, sometimes to membership of town councils,

sometimes to self-sufficient householders (‘potwalloper boroughs’) or

local ratepayers and could sometimes be sold and/or handed down

from father to son.

The industrial revolution of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth

centuries permanently changed the political scene. Britain escaped the

major revolution of France and America but from 1780 to 1832 there

was considerable agitation for the reform of Parliament. Universal

male suffrage was sought by radical groups of working people, but

resisted by Whigs and Tory establishments. By 1831 Britain was near

213

Parliament

to revolution, although as usual the rulers skilfully achieved a com-

promise. Respect for tradition and the propaganda of the rule of law

may have played a part (see Thompson, 1963, part III).

The first Reform Act of 1832, passed by a reluctant Parliament and

monarch to stave off revolution, was more important symbolically than

in what it actually achieved. It extended a uniform franchise to certain

moderately well-off property owners and new constituencies were

created in the growing urban areas. However, the extended franchise

was still property-based and reached only the urban middle classes.

Lord Grey, the prime minister, said ‘there is no one more decided

against annual parliaments, universal suffrage and the ballot than I am.

My object is not to favour but to put an end to such hopes and projects’

(Thompson, 1963, p. 892), and ‘it is of the utmost importance to

associate the middle with the higher orders of society’ (ibid., p. 899).

Further electoral reforms took place gradually over the nineteenth

century and the property qualification was progressively removed.

In 1867 the urban working class were given the franchise and the Repre-

sentation of the People Act 1884 extended the franchise to most male

householders. The older ‘rotten boroughs’ were abolished, so that the

influence of landlords and the Crown was reduced. This was also due to

the introduction of secret ballots (1872), financial controls over election

campaigns (1883) and the principle that constituencies should reflect

the number of people within them (Franchise Act 1884). However, it

was not until 1914 that a universal male franchise was introduced and

only in 1928 were women given the franchise on the same basis as

men. In 1945 surviving anomalies such as special university votes were

abolished and in 1969 the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18.

During the nineteenth century there were many proposals for reform

of the House of Lords and throughout the century there was an uneasy

stalemate between the Lords and the Commons. The Lords claimed the

right to veto legislation but not to amend financial measures, since by

convention money could be supplied only by the Commons. There was

also a convention that the Lords should give way to the Commons

whenever the will of the people was clearly behind the Commons. This

gave the Lords the right to precipitate a general election. Thus, it is

sometimes claimed that the Lords are the guardians of democracy

against the executive.

During the early years of this century the Liberal government intro-

duced a programme of social reform. The Lords opposed much of this,

and the uncertain conventions governing the relationship between

Lords and Commons became crucially important. Furthermore it was

unclear whether the monarch could refuse to accept the advice of the