Tag Archives: Whigs

The Glorious Revolution, a couple of religions, and a warming pan

Posted on by
8

Let’s start with a recap to make sure we know when we are. The Civil Wars are over (Parliament won). Charles I–he was king before the Civil Wars–is dead and Oliver Cromwell became the Non-King after him, but he’s dead too and (one of history’s minor details) Cromwell the Sequel (Oliver’s son) proved unconvincing, opening the way for Charles the Sequel (Charles II to his friends) to become king in 1660. So we’ve had regicide, civil war, more civil war, exile, hide and seek, and some time off to mow the lawn and drink lemonade.

Are we caught up? Good, because when we’re studying English history it’s important to pretend we care about the order of the kings and queens. It gives us–. Nah, let’s start that over: It gives one the illusion that one knows something, or at least it gives one the ability to make other people think one does, which is more important. If one can say all that in Latin–even agonizingly bad Latin; just ask Boris Johnson–one appears to know even more. But now that one has done the order-of-kings-and-some-lemonade bit, one can forget about it and get to the fun stuff.

Irrelevant photo: sunrise

The fun stuff

One is dropping into crazy times here, so for no apparent reason one will stay with the present tense.

Everyone in Britain suspects that Charles the Sequel is Catholic, but he keeps his opinions to himself so no one has proof. The Church of England is the official church–all that Puritan, ultra-Protestant stuff that happened in between the Charleses has been packed in a trunk and stashed in the attic where only some crazy aunt knows about it–and whether he believes what the Church of England teaches or not, he’s still its head. Which is pretty bizarre, if you think about it for too long, so let’s not.

Religious gatherings of more than five people are banned unless they’re Church of England-approved gatherings. And that ban doesn’t just cover Catholic gatherings, it also covers more Protestantly Protestant ones. No one’s forgotten that religious change isn’t about walking quietly past one church to go to another (or, gasp, to none at all) on a rainy Sunday morning. (I was going to write “sunny,” but this is England.) Religious change is about arrests, wars, hangings, burnings, torment, death, civil war—

Okay, you get the picture: People are on edge. Understandably. Then Charles’s brother James, who’s also Charles’s heir since Charles and his missus haven’t produced an heir in the form of their own tiny baby, converts to Catholicism. Openly.

Everyone is now on a sharper edge.

 

Conspiracies

Then in 1678, a Church of England clergyman, Titus Oates, announces that Catholics are plotting to assassinate Charles and put James on the throne. Cue hysterical reactions, please. Thirty-five people (give or take a few) are executed. After they’re completely and entirely dead, the case against them falls apart. Oates is sued for libel and loses. Later on, he’s convicted of perjury and pilloried, flogged, and jailed. After that, he’s un-jailed and given a pension, although he can’t be unflogged or unpilloried any more than the dead can be unexecuted. Then he becomes a Baptist. Then he’s expelled from the Baptist Church. Then he dies in obscurity.

No one yet knows what the official religion of Obscurity is.

To understand why people are willing to believe Oates’s accusations without examining them, consider the two Treaties of Dover that Charles signed. One is official and one is secret. The official one’s dull and we’ll skip it. In the secret one, he agrees to convert to Catholicism and to back (Catholic) France’s war against the (Protestant) Dutch. In return, France will provide him with enough money that he won’t have to deal with that pesky parliament.

It’s the sort of thing that erases the line between reason and paranoia, leaving people prey to crazed conspiracy theories, although in our enlightened age we struggle to understand how people could happen.

Charles converts to Catholicism on his deathbed, leaving the country to work out its own problems. He figures he’s going to heaven and has no further need for France’s support or Parliament’s or anyone else’s.

So let’s settle in with James the Sequel, who (do I have to remind you of everything?) is Charles the Sequel’s Catholic brother. You can call him James II if you prefer. Or, if you’re in Scotland, James VII, because the kings of England, at this point, are also the kings of Scotland but Scotland introduced the James brand long before England did and that gave them time to work in extra Jameses. Lots of extra Jameses. In fact, they invented the brand, so James has two numbers after his name, one for each country. On days when his ego’s particularly inflated, he adds them up and tells the mirror he’s James IX.

He’s also the king of Ireland, but Ireland doesn’t get consulted about this, or about which number it likes better.

If you think that’s complicated, imagine how you’d feel if I told you numbers worked differently in Scotland.

 

The proto-parties

James’s Parliament is divided into two loose groupings that haven’t condensed into parties yet. One is happy about him being king because after all he is the king and that makes everything okay. The other isn’t happy because he is the king and, look, he’s Catholic.

The two groupings call each other Whigs and Tories. Both words are insults.

Tory comes from Ireland and means outlaw, highwayman. It’s used to describe the Irish Catholics who’ve been kicked off their land by English settlers and end up living as outlaws because they need to eat and what else are they going to do? The word has overtones of Catholicism, so the non-Tories pick it up to insult the MPs who support James, even though the parliamentary Tories aren’t Catholic, they’re high-church Anglican conservatives.

It’s a bitter kind of joke, but it’s a bitter kind of time.

Does it seem like we’re always dropping in on bitter times? That’s when the interesting stuff happens. Have you noticed how interesting our own times are getting?

Yup, I’m scared too.

Whig comes from Scotland and originally means someone who drives his horses to Leith to buy corn. You can see the connection, right? Or it may mean that. It’s all a little murky and depends on what sources you consult. (Sorry, I’ve lost my links here, both the ones on the internet and the ones in my brain.) From driving horses to Leith, it comes to mean a cattle driver. Or in some tellings, a cattle thief. Then it becomes a less than complimentary name for a Scots Presbyterian, which is why it becomes the less than complimentary name for the group of more Protestantly Protestant MPs who wanted to keep James from becoming king on the grounds that (I know, I’m repeating myself but the issue loops through endlessly) he’s Catholic. The word whig is associated with religious nonconformity, rebellion, and MPs who think they have the power to deny an heir the throne.

 

Heirs Protestant and Catholic

Although by now it’s too late to deny James the throne. The kingly hind end is planted firmly on the fancy symbolic chair that everyone agrees only monarchs get to occupy. Uneasy as the Whigs are about that, they mostly just mutter under their breath. It could be worse: James doesn’t have a son and his heir is his grown daughter, who’s Protestant, so as soon as he dies a Protestant will be back on the throne. And another Protestant daughter waits in the wings in case Protestant Daughter One Point Oh! dies. So mutter, mutter, mutter, it’ll all be okay eventually.

Except that James does several things that increase the volume on the mutterbox. After he puts down a rebellion (Monmouth, and it’s interesting but we’re skipping it anyway), he refuses to disband the army that did the downputting. And not only do standing armies still make people nervous, if this army stays standing, James could fill it with Catholics.

Then he boots an assortment of powerful people out of office and brings Catholics into positions of power.

And in case that doesn’t turn the volume up high enough, he resurrects something called the Declaration of Indulgence, which–oh, never mind, you won’t remember it anyway and neither will I. It’s a step toward freedom of religion. That’s enough to work with.  

Is he a champion of religious tolerance or is he using tolerance to pave the way for a Catholic takeover that won’t be tolerant at all? No one really knows–including, quite possibly, the king himself, since so few things in politics go according to plan.

It all reaches a breaking point over two things: First, seven bishops refuse to have the Declaration of Indulgence read in their churches and James (tolerantly) has them arrested. Second and most outrageously, James becomes a father again. And the baby’s a boy. And a boy trumps a girl, even if he’s too young to eat solid food, so as soon as the kid’s genitalia have been verified and long before he’s old enough to discuss theology or gender reassignment or complain that he’s bored in church, he’s edged out his sisters.

This is the cue for conspiracy theorists to get to work: “No way is that baby the queen’s,” they say. “Some Jesuit smuggled him into her bedroom in a warming pan. “

The theory circulates widely. It’s easy to believe the worst of anyone just now.

What’s a warming pan? A metal pan filled with embers. You—or (what was I thinking?) a servant uses it to warm the bed. They aren’t part of the standard priestly equipment–even I know that–and I have my doubts about fitting a baby into one. But regardless of whether James produces his male heir from a warming pan or a queen, the introduction of this tiny proto-Catholic as the next in line to the throne is a step too far for the Whigs. Before the kid can say his first Hail Mary, six peers and a bishop write to William, the Prince of Orange and the husband of James the Sequel’s Protestant daughter and former heir, Mary.

“Come investigate this alleged baby,” they say. “He looks suspicious to us.”

 

The Glorious Revolution

So William comes for a visit, bringing with him upwards of 400 ships, 21,000 men (or 35,000, or 40,000, but let’s go with the lowest number so I don’t get accused of exaggerating), and an assortment of horses. Not to mention 600 ballerinas wearing shocking pink tutus and an uncounted number of sequins.*

It’s the ballerinas who do James in. He flees, tossing the great seal into the Thames on his way out of London, which is the kingly equivalent of eating your list of computer passwords. It should be enough to halt business for at least a while.

William has a claim on the throne in his own right, but he’s lower on the legitimate-heir list than his wife, and now that he’s in London this hurts his manly pride, which (I’ve been told) is a brittle thing and demands constant care. He doesn’t want to hang around the palace as a mere king-consort, sitting on a lower throne and being addressed as Mister Queen. It’s one thing for women to put up with that kind of thing, but a man?

Don’t be silly.

Cue a bit of arm wrestling with Parliament and next thing you know William and Mary are proclaimed joint king and queen, each in their own right. In return, though, they have to accept a Bill of Rights limiting the monarchy’s power. They can’t suspend laws that Parliament passes, raise an army during peacetime without its agreement, mess around with Parliamentary elections, inflict cruel or unusual punishments, deny Protestant subjects the right to bear arms “suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law,” punish MPs or members of the Lords for anything they say in debates, or smuggle babies into bedrooms in warming pans. Unless the babies have sworn their allegiance to the Protestant faith.

Parts of that will sound familiar to Americans. This is where we stole the wording from. But what’s most important here aren’t the particulars, it’s that the king and queen have been chosen by Parliament and have agreed to the limits Parliament put on their power.

The wrestling match between Parliament and the monarchy is over. Parliament’s won.

This is called the Glorious Revolution. Why? Because it’s not a revolution and because if you chose the right side back there at the beginning, you feel glorious.

 

* Okay, I invented the ballerinas. And the sequins, although (to my surprise) they did exist in the 17th century and were used on both men’s and women’s clothing. 

The rotten borough and the history of British voting rights

Posted on by
66

The history of British democracy (or semi-democracy, as you’ll see) is long and convoluted, so let’s hack off a small piece to talk about here: the rotten borough. This was an electoral district that had lost most of its population but still sent an MP–that’s a Member of Parliament–to the House of Commons. Or sometimes more than one MP. 

Just before the picture changed with the Reform Act of 1832, 140 MPs represented (if that’s the right word) rotten boroughs. That’s 140 out of 658 Members of Parliament. Fifty of those boroughs had fewer than fifty voters. 

Meanwhile, major industrial cities like Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester had no MPs at all.  What was a rotten borough like? Gatton, in Surry, had twenty voters when the monarchy was restored (that was in 1660, and yes, I had to look it up) and a hundred years later it was down to two. Old Sarum had one farm house, some fields, and a lot of sheep. Both sent MPs to parliament. The former port of Dunwich had crumbled into the sea and only 32 people were left above the water line. It didn’t just send one MP to parliament but two.

Irrelevant photo: A murmuration of starlings (along with some sheep) on Bodmin Moor. Photo by Ida Swearingen.

So who got to vote?

You might want to notice that those examples don’t use parallel categories. For Dunwich, we have the number of residents. For Gatton, though, we have the number of voters. For Old Sarum, we have the number of houses and a vague gesture in the direction of the sheep. What’s worse, I haven’t necessarily given you dates. 

But to hell with it, it gives you enough to work with–as much (if your mind’s at all like mine) as you’ll remember anyway.  

The shifting categories point to a central issue, though: Not many people could vote, so residents form a very different category from voters. Women? Don’t be silly. Who’d trust ‘em with anything as serious as the vote. Men? Well, only the ones who mattered, which is another of saying men of property. How much property varied from place to place, but the requirements everywhere involved (a) being male and (b) owning property.

During the Civil War (that’s from 1642 to 1651), when the Levellers, serving as soldiers in the Parliamentary Army, argued for (nearly) universal male suffrage, their officers defended limiting the vote on the grounds that only people who had a stake in society could be trusted to take part in politics. And by having a stake, they meant owning some part of it.

The Levellers were naive enough to think that risking their lives for a new form of government might prove they had a stake in their country’s political future. They were wrong, and it was centuries before their demands were met. The conviction that owning property qualified a man to vote dominated political thought until the next paragraph, where suddenly it’s 1780.

 

It’s 1780 and we shift to the present tense

Look! It’s 1780. What a surprise. In England and Wales, about 214,000 people have the right to vote. That’s less than 3% of the total population. In Scotland the electorate’s even smaller. 

Now that we’ve pegged those numbers into the ground we can leave 1780 and toss a second element into the discussion of voting: It’s not done by secret ballot. That makes it easy for an ambitious politician–or a would-be politician–to buy votes. Because the electorate’s small, he doesn’t have to buy that many and because voting is public he can see whether the people whose votes he bought are honest enough to stay bought.

In some constituencies, however, this won’t work. Not because the electorate’s above that sort of thing but because whoever holds the power locally controls the process, selecting the MP and tells his people to vote for him. Get his approval and you’re as good as elected. Don’t get it and your chances are thin.

Did you notice how gracefully we slid into the present tense there? It’s going to get in the way eventually, though, so we’ll slip back into the past tense, where we belong. 

I know. When I write anything sane, I comb through and straighten out that sort of thing. Blogs make no commitment to sanity, however, and I enjoy the freedom to screw up so openly.

Buying off the electorate was done as openly as I just shifted tenses. You can even find a few statistics on who spent how much in what year buying which constituency. Approaching a powerful lord if you wanted a seat in parliament was done just as openly. That was democracy in action.

 

That pesky middle class

Pressure to change the system was growing, though. The middle class was getting larger and richer. 

And here I have to interrupt myself: I just hate it when I have to talk about the middle class. It means I have to define it, and it’s a baggy old piece of clothing. It’s easy enough to say that the middle class was made up of people who weren’t poor but weren’t aristocrats, but that’s a hell of a range and tells you less than it seems to. It includes everyone from the most marginal professional or shopkeeper to the richest industrialist. Not only did their incomes range all over the place, so did their interests.

We could probably pick that definition to pieces but I’m going to move on before we get a chance.

A middle class person who was rich enough could vote, but because of the way constituencies were drawn that didn’t mean they’d be in a position to influence an MP. The richest members of the middle class wanted political power that would match their economic power. 

At this point, a couple of little things happened, like the French and American revolutions, and they spoke to people lower down on the economic food chain. Things that had once looked unchangeable had been shaken to pieces. By the end of the eighteenth century, corresponding societies that pushed for universal manhood suffrage had come into existence.

 

Reform vs. revolution

In 1819, a public meeting calling for universal manhood suffrage was attacked and eleven people were killed. It’s known as the Peterloo Massacre. I keep promising to write about it and eventually I will. For the moment, take it as a visible sign that the demand for change was flowing outside the established political channels.

People in power gradually began to acknowledge the need for reform, and the rotten boroughs were high on the list of changes that needed to be made. But that was some people in power, not all of them.

By way of an example, take Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington and in 1830 the Tory prime minister. In an 1831 letter, he defended the rotten borough system, writing, “I confess that I see in thirty members for rotten boroughs, thirty men, I don’t care of what party, who would preserve the state of property as it is; who would maintain by their votes the Church of England, its possessions, its churches and universities. I don’t think that we could spare thirty or forty of these representatives, or with advantage exchange them for thirty or forty members elected for the great towns by any new system.”

That does have the virtue of honesty.

But in 1830 the Tories lost power and a Whig government, headed by Earl Grey, supported reform, which it counted on “to prevent the necessity of revolution.” Toward that end, the House of Commons passed a reform bill in 1831 but it was defeated in Tory-dominated Hour of Lords. 

In response, all hell broke loose, taking the form of riots and “serious disturbances.” You know what serious disturbances are. They’re sub-riots. They’re earnest young riots-in-training. They broke out in London, Birmingham, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Bristol, and other places that we’ll skip over. In Bristol, people set fire to public buildings and houses, doing more than £300,000 worth of damage, which was a hell of a lot more money then than it is now. Twelve people died, 102 were arrested, and 31 sentenced to death.

France had just had another revolution–the 1830 one, which tossed out a Charles and installed a Louis-Philippe. It was enough to make a British king nervous, and William IV agreed to pack the House of Lords with some Whigs so that when another Reform Bill passed the Commons, it could go on to pass the Lords, becoming the Reform Act of 1832. 

As far as I understand British politics, packing the House of Commons is a no-no, or at least getting caught at it is. Packing the House of Lords, though? That’s business as usual.

 

The Reform Act

Fifty-six rotten boroughs disappeared in the Reform Act of 1832 and sixty-seven new constituencies were created, although constituencies still weren’t of remotely even sizes. 

In the countryside the franchise was extended to include small landowners, tenant farmers, and shopkeepers. In towns, men who paid a yearly rent of £10 or more could vote, along with some lodgers, even if they didn’t own the property. If they could afford to rent someplace expensive enough, they could be trusted to vote responsibly.

That left out working class men. In fact, it left out six men out of every seven. 

And for the first time, women were specifically excluded from the franchise. Before that, women’s exclusion was a matter of custom, not law, and in a few rare instances women had voted.

Yeah, progress. It’s a wonderful thing.