Page 22 - History 2020

having government jobs. But nothing of the sort happened; no such law appeared;

the Whigs survived in power; and parliamentary life, and patronage, went on. This
indicates that the constitution had changed. It had broadly attained its distinctive
modern shape, its “constitutional architecture”: a legislature (parliament) which was
merged with its executive (government of prime minister, ministers, and MPs holding
other posts). Parliamentary patronage was the glue that held ministries and
majorities together. The Glorious Revolution and Act of Settlement had disposed of
the past by removing the age-old danger of a Catholic absolutist tyrant on the throne;
Walpole’s Robinocracy pointed the way to the future - modern parliamentary

government with a prime minister in the ascendant.

However, there is another factor. After Walpole’s fall, critics accused him of creating
a political oligarchy, a powerful, self-serving, self-perpetuating elite. Plumb famously
said that Walpole’s mission was to make the world safe for Whigs. But he did more;
he also made it safe for an oligarchy of well-born landed aristocrats, wealthy
financiers and powerful merchants. Overwhelmingly, birth was how you joined its

ranks. Plumb calls them “the possessing classes.” What they owned of course was
property. At the end of the 17th century, English political philosopher John Locke (a
friend of the Duke of Monmouth) introduced a new definition of property. Land, he
said, inherently belongs to no-one. But working the land, mixing your labour with it,
establishes the right of ownership (this concept proved very useful to white settlers
in America). The 18th century British political oligarchy were not just property-
owners: they also regarded as property their places, theirs by virtue of their political
loyalty to Walpole, and their parliamentary seats, theirs by virtue of having

cultivated, bribed, wined and dined voters. They were indeed the propertied,
possessing classes; they were entitled to rule.

These attitudes have had a long life in Britain; two prominent historians - one past,
J.H. Plumb, one present, Robert Tombs - consider that both oligarchy and patronage,
together with the sense of entitlement that go with them, have been features of our

political system ever since Walpole’s time.

In the second half of the 18th century, criticisms of the self-serving, self-perpetuating
oligarchy created by Walpole helped fuel the growing demand for the reform of
parliament in a more fairly representative (i.e. democratic) direction. As we shall see
next session, this culminated in the crisis over the Great Parliamentary Reform Bill of
1832.

But there is another characteristic of oligarchy; it can help provide stability. This helps

to bring the two parts of Walpole’s legacy into focus: patronage and oligarchy greatly