BOOKS
`Minister for the House of Commons'
By L. B. NAMIER THE House of Commons, elected in 1741 and dissolved in 1747, started by overthrowing Walpole and finished by causing his disciple and political heir, Henry Pelham, to be invested with Walpole's authority and functions. How this happened is now told by Mr. Owen* with that deeper insight into the meaning and technique of the transactions which only close acquaintance with the personnel of the Commons could impart. The House was composed largely of 'independent self-returning country gentlemen,' and the primary aim of Mr. Owen's book is `to take into consideration the political behaviour of these independent back-benchers.' There were those who as a rule gave a general support to ministerial measures, while others 'saw fit to maintain a reasonably consistent attitude of disapproval' toward them; but both the Administration and the Opposition were things 'of shreds and patches,' amorphous groups lacking unity and discipline.
There was no landslide in 1741. 'The tireless efforts of the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Argyle . . . routed the Government in its heredi- tary strongholds of Cornwall and Scotland'; elsewhere, if anything, Walpole improved his position. Why at that general election he was stinted for money remains unexplained. His Government had been tottering for some time; misconduct of the war had turned independents against him; now those among his own people who, in the words of the arch-trimmer Dodington, 'will naturally go with a going game,' deserted him, a process fully set out by Mr. Owen's well-informed analysis of division lists. But Walpole's defeat did not signify a change- over between two sides in the House. When Sir John Shelley remarked to Lord Egmont, on January 14, 1742, that 'the King must think it hard to be forced from his prerogative' (of choosing his Ministers), Egmont replied : 'The question was not about placing, but displacing : if Sir Robert were out, His Majesty would still have the power of naming his successor.' In a way it was the old demand for the dismissal of an unpopular 'favourite,' not an attempt to pre- scribe to the King whom he should employ. 'A minister had fallen because he was no longer acceptable to the Commons'; but there was no reason to treat 'an Opposition consisting of a few ill-connected groups and many unconnected individuals' as an entity; sufficient numbers had to be detached from them to assure a slightly * THE RISE OF 111E PI:IMAMS. By John B. Owen. (Methuen, 30s.) reconstructed Administration of a working majority. This was done by gaining over the Prince of Wales with his compact little coterie of some twenty-one personal adherents; Lord Carteret, who 'though a very considerable man as to capacity and parts and experience,' could count at most on seven Members, and even at the peak of his power had less than a dozen; and William Pulteney with ten followers. Added to the 'Old Corps' they constituted a majority. But that Corps was not a regimented, inert body either, and in winning over the 'New Whigs,' care had to be taken not to lose any of the Old : as is shown by Mr. Owen—always with full docu- mentation—between 1730 and 1747 at least 28 per cent. of Walpole's followers at one time or another had on major issues sided with the Oppo- sition, and if more division lists were available an even larger proportion would be found of occasional waverers. The attitude of Members on specific issues was often difficult to predict; and only after it has been studied as that of separate individuals can generalisation be attempted with a degree of sense and safety.
In a House containing so many independents— and it is a great merit of Mr. Owen's book to have proved their numbers—debating talent counted for a good deal, and so did capacity to gauge the mood of the House; repeatedly the Opposi- tion defeated itself by lack of moderation or factious disregard of the national interest : there was impatience at attempts to score political points while the country was in danger. One such attempt, on February 15, 1744, was defeated by 287 to 123 votes, a majority of 164 in what at that time was a fairly full House. But five days later a financial resolution was carried against the Government by 176 to 168. Chapter after chapter in Mr. Owen's book shows the importance of efficient leadership in the Commons, and with- out stressing the point explains why in the eighteenth century the Prime Minister, to achieve long tenure, had to be in the Lower House— it was the rise of party in the nineteenth century which rendered his presence less essential. When Carteret, with supreme arrogance, said that Pelham had been 'only chief clerk to Sir Robert Walpole,' and that he failed to see why Pelham should expect to be more under him, he was showing ignorance of the Commons; and so did George 11 when he thought that Carteret could succeed.
The initiative and formulation of policy still lay with the King; the Sovereign was as inde- pendent as the House of Commons; but in order that the two could co-operate, the 'Minister of the King in the House of Commons' had to be 'Minister for the House of Commons in the Closet.' Only when that double function was properly performed was there a chance of stability in the Government. The experiment with Carteret, which fills about half of Mr. Owen's book, deserves the study it receives from the angle of the atomised House of Commons; for this alone can establish the essential character of what happened during those years. The famous mass resignations of February, 1746, were not the result of factious scheming among the King's servants, but were prompted by a correct per- ception that even if they wanted to, they could not have made the House accept German measures, nor could they secure stable govern- ment unless they were seen to have the confidence and support of the King.
Apart from the 'Old Corps of Whigs,' the 'New Whigs,' and even the 'New Allies,' stands the body of the Tories: much discussed but seldom properly understood. Of the 136 Tories in 1742 'all save ten came of decidedly Tory stock, and the forebears even of these ten had had no association with the Whigs . . . Tories were born, not made.' They could cease to be Tories; but there is little sense in saying that they became Whigs: they did not assume a new tradition but merely merged into the amorphous mass of those who actively played at politics according to the rules of the time; while those who remained Tories 'continued to behave as members of a country party opposed in general to the measures of the Court,' critical spectators without desire to take a hand in the game. Walpole (by then Lord Orford), writing to Pelham on August 25, 1743, while not trying to put an absolute exclu- sion from office against Tories, warned him that 'what they can bring with them, will prove a broken reed.' Two prominent Tories were included in the Broad Bottom Government, Sir John Philips and Sir John Hinde Cotton; Philips, in the words of Philip Yorke, seemed resolved to be 'as troublesome a placeman as a patriot,' and resigned after a few months; while Cotton, who more often opposed than supported the Government, was dismissed a year later; and both went back to the Tory fold. In office neither had any influence over
the Tory independent back-bencher, who was both more moderate than the first [Cotton] and more disinterested than the second [Philips]. The true Tory would acknowledge no political chief, and those who professed to speak for him were
unlikely to be able to lead him on a course con- trary to his innermost susceptibilities. If he sup- ported any administration, it must be by convic- tion, and not by contract.
This was why the approach of 1744 to the Tories as a body failed. They lost none of the inde- pendence so characteristic of them. Their party was not broken, because there was no party to break. They were of real consequence in the House when the great majority of them acted together : for then they spoke for the nation; and the more so as in time their opposition lost its previous bitterness, though critical they remained as onlookers usually are. To have given a proper analysis of the Tories in the Parliament of 1741-47 is another merit of Mr. Owen's book. Such books, rich in detail, will do more to eluci- date Parliamentary history than the spinning of ingeniotls generalisations from insufficient material.
Previous page
