The Structure of Politics at the
of George
The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III. By L. B. Namier. 2 vols. (Macmillan. 30s. each volume.)
Hisroay is a hard-mouthed horse, a real bolter. It is strange, at all events, how often what is accepted as history is an idea or assumption which has run with such speed into prominence that nobody has been able to overtake it. Not that any historical tradition, or stereotyped idea, holds good for ever. The writing of history is, indeed, a succession of reactions ; somebody is always being whitewashed, some favourite axiom is always being tilted off its throne. Very necessary is the correcting hand which dives into archives that have been overlooked or picked over carelessly. There is no more useful
work among historians than that of the writer who will go rummaging in the private collections of MS. in this country. Mr. L. B. Namier must now be placed definitely among this useful class, for he brings to the early days of George III. some fascinating new information.
He tells us that his object was really to write a book about the Imperial problem during the American revolution, but the mere preparation of the ground for this study suggested that he should publish the two preliminary volumes which we have here. What are the assumptions which he corrects or, at least, modifies ? There are in the main two : first, that round about 1780 the ruling families formed an oligarchy which was for all practical purposes supreme, and, second, that the money spent on what is comprehensively called "corruption " and on the Secret Service amounted to an enormous sum.
It is very necessary to master the language of a past political age if we are to understand the significance of its movements. It is all too easy to think about the Whigs and Tories of George M.'s reign as though they were organized in parties like those of our own day. But there was no organization in our modern sense. Young men of position used to go into the House of Commons in order, as Chesterfield said to his son, to " make a figure." The phrase need not, indeed must not, be understood only in a " fashionable " sense. A surprising proportion of the members of the House of Commons were the eldest sons of peers and their "making of a figure " was in most cases a cutting of their political teeth. They learnt in the House of Commons how to become later efficient members of the House of Lords. But, as Mr. Namier explains, if the ruling families had maintained an exclusive political corporation, there would not have been any place f(0 such a man as Burke, who rose easily enough to eminence without any other advantage than brain-power.
The country gentlemen did not lag behind the sons of the peerage in regarding it as a public duty to become members of Parliament. So complimentary a statement as this must be made, of course, with some qualification. The motives of the country gentlemen were mixed. A very important motive was the satisfaction, on one side or the other, of that rivalry which was always going on between the leading families in every county. They, too, wanted to " make a figure." Although there was no regular party organization, the cheeki which the political conflict placed upon the ruling families were real. We have often thought it remarkable that the 'Royal families of England did not abandon marriages with commoners until the ruling families became the deciding factor in politics. No Royal person could offend the Whigs by raising a Tory- to a Royal position, or offend the Tories by raising a Whig.
However mixed the motives of politics in the days of George III. may have been, we owe to that age a considerable debt, for nothing has helped this country more than the practice among well-known families of serving the State.
They have acted in effect on those admirable words of an eighteenth-century divine 'and mathematician, Dane Barrow, " What is a gentleman but his. pleasure ? . . . If it is his privilege to do nothing; it is his privilege to be most unhappy."
Mr. Namier says that, in the absence of regular parties and Party whips, personality counted for more than it does now. We cannot help thinking, however, that even in this respect
the historical wheel may come full circle. It is often said that a universal franchise will submerge personality . But will it ? We are inclined to think that the unmanageability of -the present electorate, that multitude of lost and bleating sheep, may make new opportunities for the commanding and alluring personality.
Mr. Namier shows how close was the connexion between Parliament and the Navy and Army. " What interest has he ? " was the foremost question of the eighteenth century when an officer's chances of promotion were being canvassed. An obvious way of coming into contact with " interest " was to enter the House of Commons. Some of the letters begging for favours which Mr. Namier prints make- very amusing -reading. One can imagine that men in high places from whom favours were solicited would have dispensed gratefully with -the-much too ingenious arguments by whieh it was attempted to represent that the donor of a favour would somehow get his quid pro quo. Lord Palmerston nearly a hundred- years -later showed himself to be one of the few' men of great place who had a shorter way with humbug in appellants than with the system of favouritism itself. When a seeker after a post deprecatingly explained that he did not ask for preference, but only asked to be considered " if ceteris • paribus,"
Lord Palmerston replied, " Ceteris parthus ' be damned You shall have it."
We should like to quote many passages from these important, yet entertaining, volumes if we had the space, but we must content ourselves with directing the reader to the microscopic examination of various boroughs, the politics and personalities of Shropshire and Cornwall, the method of " Parliamentary Beggars •" and the Secret Service accounts of -the Duke of Newcastle.
Previous page
