Page 45 - History 2020

deprive them of a majority voice. These are the elaborate and unlikely-sounding

lengths to which Bagehot is prepared to go to avert democracy. In this, he
exemplifies the stance of many Victorians towards parliamentary reform.

We shouldn’t of course forget that “democracy” had been a forbidden word for
2,000 years, ever since the Roman empire overthrew the Roman Republic, ushering
th
in two millennia during which democracy was equated with anarchy. The 18 and
th
th
19 centuries saw the slow transition to its 20 century rehabilitation. Bagehot’s
views reflect this. Today, a democracy is judged by how effectively it succeeds in
giving everyone a voice, including disadvantaged and marginalised groups. But here
we see Bagehot, enlightened, pro-science and liberal, scratching about for ways to
deny, dismiss or delay extending the vote, from fancy franchises to talking up the
dignified aspects of the Constitution.

Critics of Bagehot, including politicians who’ve studied him, argue that he hasn’t
stood the test of time. Leo Amery, a strong House of Commons man, felt Bagehot

underestimated the importance of the Commons. Richard Crossman, a Labour Party
big beast and cabinet minister, felt he underestimated the importance of party and
the cabinet. Norman St John Stevas (Baron St John of Fawsley), a life-peer and friend
of the royal family, felt he underestimated the importance of the Lords and the
monarchy. But the more important criticism is that Bagehot’s elitist assumptions
prevented him from envisaging the possibility that mass democracy need not mean
the end of civilisation; that a combination of rising standards of life, education, mass
media, the secret ballot, broad-church political parties and payment of MPs, could

enable the masses to participate fully and responsibly in parliamentary democracy.
The system was more adaptable than Bagehot realised. His latest editor, Miles
Taylor, is more generous: “Lacking a modern Bagehot, we would do well to go back to
the original.” Bagehot’s famous “dignified/ efficient” distinction in particular is often
quoted to explain the enduring popularity of the modern British monarchy. Indeed, it
could even be a metaphor for Victorian Britain itself; the industrial revolution the

“efficient” part, generating the production and wealth on which the country with its
ever-rising population depended; and the escapist cults of Merrie England and the
Garden the “dignified”, theatrical part, providing emotional solace and psychological
balm. Maybe Britain’s “Gothic constitution” was better adapted to Victorian Britain
than even Bagehot realised.

th
One thing is clear. There was no 19 century march towards democracy, more a
stumble. Our Gothic Constitution, as exemplified in the new Palace of Westminster,
looked backwards to a glorious past, not forward to the dawn of a new age of

democracy. The Victorians may have been “creating the modern world”, but their