ABSTRACT
After Eton and Trinity, Cambridge, Spencer Horatio Walpole (1806–1898) entered a career in the law, becoming a QC in 1846. The same year he became MP for Midhurst as a Protectionist. From 1856 he sat for Cambridge University. A strong Churchman, Walpole was a staunch defender of the claims and privileges of the Church of England. He spoke out forthrightly against removing Jewish disabilities in 1848, denounced ‘Papal aggression’ in 1851, opposed any traits he detected of Jesuitism and Catholic ritual, and opposed the admission of Dissenters to Oxford and Cambridge in 1854. Abandoning Protectionism in 1851, Walpole became Home Secretary in Derby’s first ministry in 1852. He subsequently entertained hopes, encouraged by his wife, of being elected Speaker of the Commons. He blamed Disraeli for his failure to achieve this, encouraged by his wife’s anti-Semitic smears. This rendered him a querulous and vehemently anti-Disraeli presence in Conservative counsels.
In 1858, after some persuasion, Walpole resumed the office of Home Secretary in Derby’s cabinet. He gave active support to the abolition of property qualifications for MPs, describing the requirement as a sham. But, as Derby’s cabinet began discussion of their Reform bill, Walpole became deeply alarmed that a radical measure was being foisted on Derby by an unprincipled Disraeli. Walpole opposed the equalisation of the county and borough franchises, eradicating, he argued, a county vote based on property and a borough vote based on occupancy. In late December, Derby received ‘a Chancery brief, 87 folios’ written by Walpole objecting to the recommendations of the cabinet committee on Reform, particularly the equalisation of the borough and county franchises. Upon Derby reaffirming, in late January, the committee recommendations as the basis for their measure, Walpole informed the prime minister of his determination to resign.
During the Commons debate of the Second Reading of the Reform bill and Russell’s motion in March, Walpole, from the backbenches, gave a long speech. In the course of his statement, he reiterated his objection to equalisation of the franchise in counties and boroughs, eradicating the distinction between the two electorates. He could not support the Second Reading of the Reform bill in its present form, but hoped for suitable amendments in Committee, a settlement of Reform being necessary. He urged the ministry not to regard equalisation of the franchise as vital to their measure. In the event of Russell’s motion being passed, he pressed the government to persevere with their bill, not to withdraw it, not to resign, and not to dissolve parliament. Walpole voted against Russell’s motion, though he regarded it as unusual, but not irregular.
Walpole’s two essays in the Quarterly Review, ‘Parliamentary Reform, or the Three Bills and Mr Bright’s Schedules’ and ‘Reform Schemes’, surveyed the long historical experience and continued usage that produced the existing electoral system. The result was not the product of experimental innovation, a priori arguments, or abstract reason, but practical experience. Walpole then examined the Reform bills of 1852, 1854, and 1859; extension of the suffrage; the distribution of seats; electoral corruption; and the duration of parliaments. He deprecated the drawing of arbitrary lines in extending the vote, the disfranchisement of boroughs because they were small, and the redistribution of seats in proportion to numbers. ‘Public opinion’, he observed, was not in favour of extensive Reform. He regretted the tendency, since 1832, for MPs to regard themselves as representatives of their respective constituency, ambassadors from distinct communities, rather than as elected custodians of the national interest. The great question confronting parliament, Walpole concluded, was not what sort of Reform was likely to be passed by parliament, satisfy supporters, or conciliate critics, but what was right, wisest, and best.
