Parliament the mirror of the nation : representation, deliberation, and democracy in Victorian Britain

434 Pages·2019·3.353 MB·English

by  Conti, Gregory

PARLIAMENT THE MIRROR OF THE NATION
The notion of “representative democracy” seems unquestionably
familiartoday,buthowdidtheVictorianera–theepochwhenthe
moderndemocraticstatewasmade–understanddemocracy,parlia-
mentary representation, and diversity? In the famous nineteenth-
centurydebatesaboutrepresentationandparliamentaryreform,two
interlockedidealswereofthegreatestimportance:descriptiverepre-
sentation, that the House of Commons “mirror” the diversity that
marked society, and deliberation within the legislative assembly.
These ideals presented a major obstacle to the acceptance of
ademocraticsuffrage,whichitwaswidelyfearedwouldproducean
unrepresentative and undeliberative House of Commons. Here,
GregoryContiexamineshowtheVictoriansconceivedtherepresen-
tativeanddeliberativefunctionsoftheHouseofCommonsandwhat
itmeantforParliamenttobethe“mirrorofthenation.”Combining
historical analysis and political theory, he analyses the fascinating
nineteenth-century debates among contending schools of thought
overthenormsandinstitutionsofdeliberativerepresentativegovern-
ment,andexplorestheconsequencesofrecoveringthisdebate.
gregory conti is Assistant Professor of Politics at Princeton
University. He has written numerous articles about the history of
liberalismanddemocratictheory,withaspecialfocusonquestionsof
representation and freedom of speech. He has served as a research
fellowatJesusCollege,Cambridge.
ideas in context
EditedbyDavidArmitage,RichardBourke,JenniferPitts,andJohnRobertson
Thebooksinthisserieswilldiscusstheemergenceofintellectualtraditionsandof
relatednewdisciplines.Theprocedures,aims,andvocabulariesthatweregenerated
will be set in the context of the alternatives available within the contemporary
frameworksofideasandinstitutions.Throughdetailedstudiesoftheevolutionof
suchtraditions,andtheirmodificationbydifferentaudiences,itishopedthatanew
picture will form of the development of ideas in their concrete contexts. By this
means, artificial distinctions between the history of philosophy, of the various
sciences,ofsocietyandpolitics,andofliteraturemaybeseentodissolve.
TheseriesispublishedwiththesupportoftheExxonFoundation.
Alistofbooksintheseriescanbefoundattheendofthevolume.
PARLIAMENT THE MIRROR
OF THE NATION
Representation, Deliberation, and Democracy in Victorian
Britain
GREGORY CONTI
PrincetonUniversity
UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,
NewDelhi–110025,India
79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108428736
doi:10.1017/9781108582469
©GregoryConti2019
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2019
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainbyClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
isbn978-1-108-42873-6Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyof
URLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Contents
Acknowledgments pagevii
NoteontheText ix
ListofAbbreviations x
Introduction 1
1 DiversitywithoutDemocracy:TheTheoryoftheVariety
ofSuffrages 13
PartOne:InstitutionsandSociologies
1 MirroringandElectoralDiversitybeforetheFirstReformAct 15
2 InstitutionsandSociologies 26
a SelectiveTailoring 34
b ClassSpecificity 43
c RadicalRevisionism 54
i GeorgeHarrisandUniversalbutUnequalEnfranchisement 54
ii OtherRadicalRecommendations 67
3 TheDeclineoftheVarietyofSuffrages 74
2 DiversitywithoutDemocracy:TheTheoryoftheVariety
ofSuffrages 77
PartTwo:ValuesandCriticisms
1 Justice 77
2 TheRuleofPublicOpinion 86
a ExclusionandtheOpinion-HoldingPrinciple 86
b AspectsofPublicOpinion 94
3 Deliberation 101
a DiversityandProgress 101
b EpistemicDivisionsofLabor 112
c RealismandUtopianism 118
d Criticisms 125
i TheTechnocraticRebuttal 125
ii Greg’sProblem 129
iii Grey’sProblem 141
4Stability 146
v
vi Contents
3 Democracy,Diversity,andContestability:Democracyagainstthe
VarietyofSuffrages 155
1 DiverseDemocracy 157
2 RadicalorUndescriptiveDemocracy 177
4 DiversitywithDemocracy?ProportionalRepresentation 193
PartOne:ConceptsandTechniques
1 ThePrehistoryofPRinBritain 196
2 TheInstitutionalandConceptualCoreofVictorianPR 207
a STV,theSuffrage,andtheValueoftheVote 211
b TheVoluntaryConstituency 229
c TheTranscendenceofTerritoriality 244
d SocialImaginariesandtheObjectsofRepresentation 252
e TheTransfer 263
5 DiversitywithDemocracy?ProportionalRepresentation 274
PartTwo:TheDebateonPR’sMoralandPoliticalEffects
1 TheMoralBenefitsofPR 276
a FreedomandEfficacy 276
i CleaningupCorruption 277
ii ImprovingtheLegislativePersonnel 279
iii TheMoralElevationoftheElectorate 293
b ParliamentaryInclusivity 308
i Stability 309
2 MillianRebuttals:TheLocalConstituencyandtheThreatofStagnation 319
a TheIdealistCaseforFirst-Past-the-Post 319
b EarlyDefensesoftheTerritorialDistrict 327
c FellowTravelers:FredericHarrisonandGrahamWallas 339
3 TheProblemofParties 343
a PRandPartyHegemony 343
b TheDefenseofParties–AndtheEclipseoftheMirroringParliament 346
Conclusion 359
Bibliography 366
Index 400
Acknowledgments
I have incurred a tremendous number of debts in pursuing this project –
morethanIcanpossiblydojusticetohere.
This project began as a dissertation, and so the first round of thanks
must go to the outstanding members of my committee: Samuel Moyn,
Eric Nelson, Nancy Rosenblum, Richard Tuck, and Cheryl Welch.
AspecialwordofthanksisowedtoEricandRichard.Ericwasinvaluable
in helping me to see what a fruitful theme the mirror theory of
representation was. More generally, he has provided a model of how to
conductone’sacademiclifewithgrace.Richardwasthereformeatevery
turn in graduate school, both at a personal and an intellectual level.
My debts to him are so numerous that it would look tacky to attempt
to listthem.
InthecourseofwritingIhaveprofitedfromtheadviceandconversa-
tionofanumberofpeople,duringgraduateschoolandmypostdoctoral
stintatCambridge,aswellasatarangeofotherforumsandevents.These
include Jacob Abolafia, Tom Arnold-Forster, Eric Beerbohm, Duncan
Bell, Jocelyn Betts, Eugenio Biagini, Richard Bourke, Jonathan Bruno,
Hugo Drochon, Jacob Eisler, Sean Fleming, Michael Frazer, Alex
Gourevitch, John Harpham, Tom Hopkins, Emily Jones, Stuart Jones,
Duncan Kelly, Rita Koganzon, Jacob Levy, Daniel Luban, Emma
MacKinnon, Bernard Manin, Jane Mansbridge, Harvey Mansfield,
John McCormick, Zeynep Pamuk, Jennifer Pitts, Arjun Ramamurti,
Michael Rosen, Emma Rothschild, Lucia Rubinelli, David Runciman,
Paul Sagar, Michael Sonenscher, Laura Valentini, Richard Whatmore,
and Bernardo Zacka. I am particularly grateful to the two anonymous
reviewersofthemanuscriptforCambridgeUniversityPressfortheirwise
suggestions and their encouraging words. Benjamin Hofmann provided
editorial assistance in the late stages of preparing the manuscript. And
IamsureIhaveforgottenotherswhosecontributionsmeritmention;all
Icandoisapologize.
vii
viii Acknowledgments
Afewindividualsdeservespecialrecognitionforthemixtureofintellec-
tual and emotional support which they have given me over the last half-
decade.JamesBrandtandMadhavKhoslahavemanagedthedifficultfeat
ofbeingbothscholarlyinterlocutorsandcloseconfidantes.Inadditionto
being dear friends, Sungho Kimlee, Ben Slingo, and Samuel Zeitlin all
patientlyreadlargeportionsofthemanuscriptandofferedhelpfulsugges-
tions.Finally,Icannotimaginehavinggonethroughthelaborsofthelast
few years without Adam Lebovitz and Will Selinger. With Will I had
innumerable discussions about representation and parliamentarianism,
and it was a boon to have had his intellectual companionship as
I worked through these ideas. Adam performed an incredible labor in
carefully combing through every page of the manuscript and suggesting
a number of changes that much improved its final condition; more gen-
erally, he was always ready to assist me with his inimitable energy and
erudition.
IamgratefultoCambridgeUniversityPress,andespeciallytotheseries
editors and editorial staff of Ideas in Context. It is an honor to have this
book appear in a series which has played such an important role in the
developmentofthefieldofthehistoryofpoliticalthought.
Portionsofthefirsthalfofthebookhaveappeared,inratherdifferentform,
in:“DemocracyConfrontsDiversity:DescriptiveRepresentationinVictorian
Britain,” Political Theory, 47 (2019); and “Reappraising Walter Bagehot’s
Liberalism: Discussion, Public Opinion, and the Meaning of Parliamentary
Government,” History of European Ideas, 41 (2015) (co-authored with Will
Selinger).Mythanksfortheirpermissiontore-usethismaterial.
Nosettingcouldhaveprovenmoreconducivetothecompletionofthis
projectthanJesusCollege,Cambridge.Iowemuchtoitsstaffandfellows
for having made it such an enjoyable place to live and work. My most
earnest thanks are due as well to my new colleagues at Princeton for the
warmwelcometheyhavegivenme.
Finallyandmostimportantly,Imustthankthosewhoareclosesttome
inmylifeoutsidework.Ihavebeenblessedtohavehadtremendousfriends
and family at every stage of my life, but I must limit myself here to
mentioning the few people most indispensable to me: Erik, my family,
eVittoria,senzalaqualelavitaperderebbeilsuofascino.