No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 November 2014
The concept of a governing class is as old as political speculation. Like so much else, it is found in Plato and Aristotle, and in most of the classic works of political thinkers from their day to the present. In this paper, however, I am not concerned with a history and comparative treatment of the concept, but with the idea and fact of the governing class in Britain within the period when the democratic state was evolving from the aristocratic; that is, from the Second Reform Bill of 1867 to the present. Yet a brief initial comment on the general concept is essential, even at the risk of raising more questions than one can answer here.
Every state is a hierarchy of power and authority. A governing class consists of the individuals within the hierarchy who frame the agenda and plans for public action, make the final decisions about government, and hence about the people and interests affected by government. In the contemporary world of reality a sharp dividing line between governed and governors in this sense is seldom easy to draw. Yet there is a line. Democracy is not government by all the people, but by a few accountable for their decisions to the rest. The quality and modes of such accountability depend upon the laws and institutions of the state, especially upon the persons who actually make the laws, operate the institutions, and seek to render their actions acceptable to the majority of the electorate. Such a governing class, group, or élite, whatever term we apply, consists of those whose primary concern is with acquiring, sustaining, and exercising political authority. Their function in this matter is definite and clear, and in its performance they come to think in like ways about procedure, develop common skills appropriate to their purpose, and in miscellaneous efforts learn what is feasible and not feasible.
1 A report prepared for the House of Lords in 1874, known then as the Modern Domesday Book, claimed that about a quarter of the land in the United Kingdom was owned by 1,200 persons and about a half by 7,400. The statistics of this report are doubtful. See Clapham, J. H., An Economic History of Modern Britain (Cambridge, 1932), II, 253.Google Scholar But whatever the figures, the concentration in landownership was pronounced. An analysis on the basis of the Modern Domesday and illustrating the large holdings of the aristocracy is contained in Bateman, John, The Great Landowners of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1878).Google Scholar
2 Laski, Harold, Studies in Law and Politics (London, 1932), 188.Google Scholar Laski's analysis, in restricting the aristocracy to the sons of titled fathers, severely limits the numbers of the class. On such a definition Sir Robert Peel was an aristocrat, but Lord Brougham was not; the second Lord Selborne was an aristocrat, but the first Lord Selborne was not. A brief but useful discussion of this theme is also contained in Guttsman, W. L., “The Changing Social Structure of the British Political Elite, 1886–1935,” British Journal of Sociology, II, 1951, 122–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Ross, J. F. S., Parliamentary Representation (2nd ed., London, 1948), 80.Google Scholar Ross here takes the aristocracy as synonymous with membership in a family which bears an hereditary title, a concept which is much broader than Laski's. The advance of democracy in Britain has not resulted in any diminution in the creating of hereditary titles. Such titles are often looked upon as rewards that political leaders give to supporters. Lloyd George distributed titles freely to business men and journalists in order to win their political favour. During his period as Prime Minister men of business received 26 peerages, 130 baronetcies, and 481 knighthoods. The press received 5 peerages, 5 baronetcies, and 37 knighthoods. But Lloyd George's action was not without precedents. See Jones, Thomas, Lloyd George (London, 1951), 202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Quoted in Christie, O. F., The Transition to Democracy, 1867–1914 (London, 1934), 211.Google Scholar
5 In the year of the Second Reform Bill, Leslie Stephen gave a shrewd forecast on the enduring influence of the aristocracy despite the enlarged electorate: “When we consider the enormous power which the upper classes can exert, either by the means of money or by the prestige of rank and birth, we may fairly doubt whether any extension of the suffrage would materially alter the composition of Parliament. The representatives of the people would naturally be selected chiefly from the classes which would have an undeniable advantage in the struggle for votes.… So long as the aristocracy are willing to provide us with legislators, it is pretty certain that the demand will equal the supply.” Essays on Reform (London, 1867), 106–7.Google Scholar
6 Veblen, T. B., Imperial Germany and the Industrial Revolution (New York, 1939), 142.Google Scholar
7 Winterton, Earl, Pre-War (London, 1932).Google Scholar
8 Ross, J. F. S., Parliamentary Representation, 51.Google Scholar
9 The remark is in Lord Lindsay's farewell letter to old members of the college in September, 1949.
10 The quotation is from the twelfth chapter of Bleak House.
11 Dibelius, Wilhelm, England (New York, 1930), 165.Google Scholar
12 Young, G. M., Stanley Baldwin (London, 1952), 74.Google Scholar
13 Quoted in Haxey, Simon, Tory M.P. (London, 1939), 28.Google Scholar
14 Another effort of the Conservative party in this period to ensure more social representativeness in its ruling group is illustrated in the establishment of the Industrial Department, which seeks to crystallize the opinion of trade unionists in its ranks, bring that opinion to play on party policy, inform members of the parry about the significant role of democratic unionism, and encourage promising trade unionists to run as Conservative candidates (a far from easy task).
15 In the general election of 1951, for example, 72 lawyers were successful as Conservative candidates and 40 as candidates of Labour. Butler, D. E., The British General Election of 1951 (London, 1952), 40.Google Scholar
16 Of the 53 members only 29 were sponsored by the Labour Representation Committee, the forerunner of the present Labour party. The others were members of the Liberal-Labour group.
17 This point is illustrated by Pelling, Henry in The Origins of the Labour Party (London, 1954).Google Scholar
18 Cole, Margaret, General Election 1945 and After, Fabian Research Series, no. 102 (London, 1945), 19.Google Scholar
19 In the general election of 1950 some 90 teachers ran as Labour candidates, and formed the largest professional group in the party. Nicholas, H. G., The British General Election of 1950 (London, 1951), 50.Google Scholar
20 George, Lloyd, War Memoirs (London, 1933), II, 1023.Google Scholar
21 Young, G. M., Stanley Baldwin, 152.Google Scholar
22 See Williams, Francis, The Triple Challenge (London, 1948), 39.Google Scholar