Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:10:03.469Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Limits of Deference: Agricultural Communities in a Mid-Nineteenth Century Election Campaign

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

J.R. Fisher
J.R. Fisher*
Affiliation:
The University of Newcastle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The concept of the deferential society appears superficially to provide a valuable sociological underpinning to the phenomenon of the continuing dominance of the landed classes in nineteenth-century English politics. According to Professor D.C. Moore, whose case is advanced most fully in The Politics of Deference (1976), rural society consisted largely of a network of hierarchically structured communities. These, “what might be called ‘deference communities’ or ‘deference networks,’ (were) the essential action groups of mid-nineteenth century English politics.” Their nature and interaction “helps to explain the perpetuation of this structure (the deferential society), the perpetuation of the related political system, and the peculiar selection and formulation of political issues within the system.” It is difficult to do Professor Moore's subtle reasoning justice in a limited space but it would probably be fair to say that he sees most of the major legislative changes of the mid-nineteenth century as shaped and conditioned by the response of deferential leaders to social and economic change, a response which was designed as much to protect and buttress the existing system as to accommodate the new disruptive forces by major concession.

Professor Moore's case depends to a considerable extent on the pervasiveness and dominance of his “deferential communities” in rural society. However, while their existence is undeniable, other historians have expressed reservations as to the emphasis put on their role. Put most simply, in the words of Professor Moore's severest critic, “the electoral history of nineteenth-century Britain cannot be deduced from Bateman's Great Landowners.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , Fall 1981 , pp. 90 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Moore, D.C., The Politics of Deference: a study of the mid-nineteenth century English Political System (New York, 1976) pp. 12–13Google Scholar.

2 Davis, R.W., Political Change and Continuity 1760-1885: A Buckinghamshire Study (London, 1972), p. 224Google Scholar. See also his “The Mid-Nineteenth Century Electoral Structure,” Albion 8 (1976) 142–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for some perceptive remarks on the definition and nature of “deference.”

3 Fisher, J.R., “Issues and Influence: two by-elections in South Nottinghamshire in the mid-nineteenth century”, Historical Journal, 24 (1981) 145–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Most are mentioned in a recent monograph: Crosby, T.L., English Farmers and the Politics of Protection 1815-1852 (London, 1977)Google Scholar.

5 There have been few studies of election campaigns as such in rural constituencies, although see Olney, R.J., Lincolnshire Politics, 1832-85 (Oxford, 1973), pp. 139–54Google Scholar, for the organization of one side in a similar context.

6 Fisher, J.R., “Issues”, Hist. J. 24, Appendix, Table 2Google Scholar.

7 3,532 acres of the Thoresby estate lay within the division. Unfortunately I have no information from Manvers's larger Holme Pierrepoint estate of 9,266 acres. These figures are based on an Estate Valuation of 1861-62 in the Manvers MSS. MaS17 and M4889, held in Nottingham University Library (hereafter N.U.L.).

8 Manvers to Clutton, 13 December, 1850; ibid. Ma 2B 42. None of the three voters for Barrow had a Fledborough address. All details on the poll are taken from A Full and Impartial Report of the Proceedings Connected with an Election Contest in South Nottinghamshire, February, 1851 (Nottingham, 1851)Google Scholar.

9 Manvers MSS. M4890. Manvers owned 480 of the 800 acres in Sneinton parish. 347 acres were residential property.

10 Manvers to Clutton, 3 February, 1851 and Clutton to Falkner, 20 January, 1851; ibid., Ma 2B 42.

11 N.U.L.; Lord Lincoln to W.E. Gladstone, 2 January, 1851; Newcastle MS. Ne C 11699.

12 Newcastle (5th Duke) to Godfrey Tallents, 7 February, 1851; from Golby, J.M., “The Political and Electioneering Influence of the Fourth Duke of Newcastle,” (M.A. thesis, University of Nottingham, 1961), p. 217Google Scholar.

13 H. Heming to Clutton, 6 January, 7 and 8 February, 1851; Manvers MSS. Ma 2B 42.

14 H. Heming's Accounts 1850/51; Newcastle MSS. Ne 3A 46/1 and 145/1.

15 Nottinghamshire Record Office (hereafter N.R.O.); Sherbrooke of Oxton MS., DD. SK 184/1; Survey and Rental of Estates … belonging to Henry Sherbrooke Esquire, Lady Day 1848.

16 Newark to Clutton, 11 December, 1850; Manvers MS. Ma 2B 42. N.U.L.; Middleton MS. M. 38; Lady Day Rents 1845.

17 Papers from Messrs. Hodgkinson and Beevor, Solicitors, Newark, in N.R.O., DD H152/1-44, give some details illustrating Chowler's substance (he was able to leave an annuity of £150 per annum to his wife). His annual rent was over £700 (Middleton MS. M. R. 38). See leaders in The Times, 14 and 27 September, 1850, on “our old friend, Mr Chowler.”

18 Moore, , Politics, p. 346–48Google Scholar.

19 Nottinghamshire Guardian, 12 December, 1850; Farmers' Magazine, 18 (1860), 533Google Scholar; Hole, S.R., The Memories of Dean Hole (London, 1892), p. 272Google Scholar.

20 Reports on the Valuation of Estates in Nottinghamshire, 1861 and 1862 by T.S. Woolley and T. Huskinson; Manvers MSS. M4889 and Ma D 13.

21 P.P., 1846, IX, Select Committee on the Game Laws, II, Evidence Qs 2342-8; Manvers MSS., M4889, Report by T.S. Woolley, 170-171. Nottinghamshire Guardian, 19 December, 1862, 18 March, 1864, 14, 21 and 28 April, 1865. (The latter on the accusations of wholesale vulpecide by the Earl's keepers. “Mr Musters (of the South Notts. Hunt) has never found a live fox at Shelford.”)

22 Mark Lane Express, 24 February, 1851; “… the farmers were actually dragged from their hiding places, in hay or straw stacks, taken to the poll, and forced to vote contrary to their wishes.” See also Nottingham Review, 21 February, 1851.

23 Manvers to Clutton 20 January, 1851; Manvers MS. Ma 2B 42.

24 Wragge to Clutton 20 January, 1851; ibid.

25 For example, F. Lees to Clutton, 6 May, 1845, and Clutton to Manvers, 21 May, 1845; ibid., Ma 2 C8.

26 Cox's Hints to Solicitors for the Conduct of an Election, 1868 (Open University, 1974) pp. 13–15Google Scholar.

27 Clutton to Falkner, 5 February, 1851; Mosely to Clutton, 3 January, 1851; Manvers to Clutton 20 January, 1851; Manvers MSS. Ma 2B 42.

28 N.R.O.; Stenton to T. Johnson, 24 December, 1850. Stenton MS. DD. ST 8/12.

29 Stenton to E.B. Tattershall, 9 January, 1851; ibid.

30 Cox's Hints to Solicitors, p. 5.

31 Stenton to S. Morley etc., 5-24 December, 1850,3 January, 1851; Stenton MSS. DD. ST. 8/12 and 13.

32 Stenton to Foster, 22 January, 1851; ibid., D.D. ST. 8/13.

33 N.R.O.; Papers from Stenton and Metcalfe, Solicitors, Southwell, DD. M. 107/ 23-25, for canvass entries on Registers of Persons Entitled to … for the Southern Division of the County of Nottingham 1850-1851. In the Sutton electoral district there was a slight underestimate. The canvass entry gave Barrow 196 certain votes with a further 30 as probable. He received 230 votes in the official result.

34 DD. M. 107/32 for lists of canvassers, etc.; ibid.

35 George Storer (1814-88), eventually to succeed Barrow as M.P. for South Notts, (from 1874 to 1885), was regarded by the Nottingham Journal, 20 December, 1850, as the evil genius behind the campaign; “the election is to be fought to please Mr George Storer.”

36 Fisher, J.R., “Issues,” Hist. J., 24 (1981) 151–53Google Scholar.

37 The terms and concept employed here are taken from Rogers, E.M. (with Shoemacher, F.F.), Communication of Innovations: a Cross-Cultural Approach (2nd ed., New York, 1971), especially 200–214Google Scholar.

38 See, for example, their speeches on the hustings; Nottinghamshire Guardian, 13 February, 1851.

39 Details from: Farmers' Magazine, 20 (1861), 198Google Scholar; Corringham, R.W.. “Agriculture of Nottinghamshire,” Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England, 6 (1845), 1–43Google Scholar; P.P. 1848, VI, Selefit Committee on Agricultural Customs, Evidence, Qs. 7344-7455; Duke of Newcastle to Disraeli, 21 October, 1849, enclosing a letter from John Parkinson; Hughenden MSS. B/111/34a and b; Caird, James, English Agriculture in 1850-51 (2nd ed., London, 1968), pp. 207–10Google Scholar; Parkinson to Stenton, 22 January, 1851, DD. ST. 8/13.

40 See Brundage, A., “The landed interest and the New Poor Law: a reappraisal of the revolution in government,” English History Review LXXXVII (1972) 27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; P. Dunkley, “The landed interest and the New Poor Law: a critical note,” ibid. LXXXVII (1973) 836-41; A. Brundage, “The landed interest and the New Poor Law: a reply,” ibid. XC (1975) 347-51.

41 Roberts, D., Paternalism in Early Victorian England (New Jersey, 1979), Part IIGoogle Scholar.

42 P.P. 1859 (1152), XXVI; Reports to the Poor Law Board on the Laws of Settlement and Removal of the Poor, 131.

43 Ibid. 133.

44 Nottingham Journal, 10 February, 1837.

45 Nottinghamshire Guardian, 26 September, 1850; Captain J.A. Legard to the South Nottinghamshire Agricultural Society.

46 J.R. Fisher, “The Tory Revival of the 1830s: An Uncontested Election in South Nottinghamshire,” Midland History (forthcoming).

47 Nottinghamshire Guardian, 5 December, 1850.

48 Estimate based on White's Directory of Nottinghamshire (London, 1853)Google Scholar; Return of Owners of Land, 1872-3 (England and Wales), Vol. II (1874)Google Scholar; local estate records and newspapers.

49 Farmers' Magazine, 18 (1860) 299-303; G. Tallents to the Earl of Lincoln, 28 December, 1845 and 2 January, 1846; Newcastle MSS. Ne C 4576 and 4579; Bell's Weekly Messenger, 5 January and 2 February, 1846.

50 Caird, J., English Agriculture, 211–12Google Scholar; Farmers' Magazine, 20 (1861) 328–29Google Scholar.

51 Stewart, R., The Polities of Protection (Cambridge, 1971), Chapters 6 & 7Google Scholar.

52 Phillips, J.A., “The Structure of Electoral Politics in Unreformed England,” Journal of British Studies XIX (1979) 76–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar, continues the modern trend in emphasising that “the electorate was a significant element in the eighteenth century and it cannot be dismissed as manipulated, corrupt or irrelevant.” (100)

53 See Digby, Anne, Pauper Palaces (London, 1978)Google Scholar, especially Chs. 5 and 11, and Obelkevich, James, Religion and Rural Society in South Lindsey, 1825-1875 (Oxford, 1976) Ch. 2Google Scholar.