Patterns of parliamentary legislation, 1660–1800

Historical Journal

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 109-131

  Hoppit, Julian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85011519511     PISSN: 0018246X     EISSN: 14695103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0018246X00020690     Document Type: Article

References (108)

1. All counts of acts in this article are taken from O. Ruffhead (ed.), Statutes at large…, 18 vols. (1769–1800).
2. C. H. Firth & R. S. Rait (eds.), Acts and ordinances ofthe interregnum, 1642–1660, 3 vols. (1911) is a selection, numbering over 1,300.
3. This is discussed in D. Lieberman, The province of legislation determined: legal theory in eighteenth-century Britain (Cambridge, 1989), Introduction.
4. P. Langford's excellent Public life and the propertied Englishman, 1689–1798 (Oxford, 1991) is perhaps the best available discussion of parliament's legislative activities.
5. See also W. Holdsworth, A history of English law, 17 vols. (1922–1972), esp. vol. XI.
6. Done by checking the date acts received their royal assent. Session dates are in E. B. Fryde, D. E. Greenway, S. Porter & I. Roy (eds.), Handbook of British chronology, 3rd edn (1986), pp. 576–80, with two corrections: the session beginning on 19 May 1685 ended on 20 November 1685, not 2 July (when parliament was adjourned but not prorogued)
7. the session of 14–24 April 1707 must be added. Because compilations of statutes and the Journals sometimes use different regnal years (and none follows precisely C. R. Cheney, Handbook of dates for students of English history (1970), pp. 26–8), I refer to sessions by their dates.
8. For a discussion of which see J. P. Greene, Peripheries and center: constitutional development in the extended polities of the British empire and the United States 1607–1788 (Athens, Georgia, 1986)
9. idem, The quest for power: the lower houses of assembly in the southern royal colonies 1689–1776 (Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1963).
10. A major part of this work was undertaken by Sheila Lambert and she has kindly made her research notes available. For a fuller discussion and details see J. Hoppit (ed.), Failed legislation, 1660–1800: extracted from the Commons and Lords journals (forthcoming).
11. Numerically the role of the royal veto was insignificant; only 12 bills were vetoed in this peirod, the last being by Anne. See also C. E. Fryer, ‘The royal veto under Charles II’, English Historical Review, xxxii (1917), 103–11. Through the eighteenth century direct royal influence could still occasionally halt bills in their tracks, witness Fox's India bill.
12. On procedure see S. Lambert, Bills and acts: legislative practice in eighteenth century England (Cambridge, 1971)
13. P. D. G. Thomas, The house of commons in the eighteenth century (Oxford, 1971), ch. 3
14. A.J. Rees, ‘The practice and procedure of the house of lords 1714–1784’ (University of Wales Aberystwyth, Ph.D. thesis, 1987), ch. 3 and appendix 1.
15. Length of sessions is taken from the Journals of the house of commons, noting when the Commons actually met and conducted business (excluding days solely concerned with the consideration of election disputes). Because of holidays and adjournments the dates of sessions imprecisely indicate length. The average length of sessions in days was: 1660–1688, 70.5; 1689–1714, 108.7; 1714–1760, 99.1; 1760–1800, 97.4.
16. The institutionalization of this in the 1690s was partly related to the absence of William and other major figures during the campaigning season - he was out of Britain for 40 per cent of his reign - requiring organizational forethought from both king and parliament. Absences calculated from the dates given in C. Cook & J. Stevenson, British historical facts, 1688–1760 (Basingstoke, 1988), p. 3.
17. Many important points are made in H. Horwitz, Parliament, policy and politics in the reign of William III (Manchester, 1977).
18. Some points are made in K. M. Ellis, ‘The practice and procedure of the house of commons 1660–1714’ (University of Wales Aberystwyth, Ph.D. thesis, 1993).
19. B. Kemp, Votes and standing orders of the house of commons: the beginning (1971), p. 6.
20. O. C. Williams, The historical development of private bill procedure and standing orders in the house of commons, 2 vols. (1948–1949), 11, 262.
21. Remembrances: or, a compleat collection of the standing orders of the house of lords in England (1744).
22. O. C. Williams, The clerical organization of the house of commons 1661–1850 (Oxford, 1954), pp-53–7.
23. See also The minute book of James Courthope, ed. O. C. Williams, Camden Miscellany, xx (1953).
24. The average number of failed initiatives per session was: 1660–1688, 653; 1689–1714, 60.1; 1714–1760, 26.2; 1760–1800, 59.7.
25. See Lambert, Bills and acts, pp. 172–180.
26. F. W. Maitland, The constitutional history of England (Cambridge, 1908), p. 382.
27. J. Hoppit, J. Innes & J. Styles, ‘Towards a history of parliamentary legislation, 1660–1800’, Parliamentary History, XX (1994), 318.
28. A number of the developments in the 1690s and 1700s had their origins earlier, in some cases in the Interregnum. See C. D. Chandaman, The English public revenue 1660–1688 (Oxford, 1975)
29. H. Roseveare, The financial revolution 1660–1760 (1991).
30. See J. K. Horsefield, British monetary experiments, 1650–1710 (1965)
31. W. R. Scott, The constitution and finance of the English, Scottish and Irish joint-stock companies to 1720, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1910–1912)
32. K. G. Davies, ‘Joint-stock investment in the later seventeenth century’, Economic History Review, IV (1951–1952), 283–301.
33. J. E. D. Binney, British public finance and administration, 1774–92 (Oxford, 1958)
34. J. Ehrman, The younger Pitt: the years of acclaim (1969), ch. 10
35. P. K. O'Brien, ‘The political economy of British taxation, 1660–1815’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser. XLI (1988), 1–32.
36. E. Pawson, Transport and economy: the turnpike roads of eighteenth century Britain (1977), esp. chs. 3–5 raises many important issues concerning turnpike legislation.
37. M. Turner, Enclosures in Britain 1750–1830 (1984), p. 47.
38. Journals of the house of commons, XXXVII (1780–2), 224.
39. Journals of the house of commons, XXXVIII (1780–2), 232, 288.
40. J. M. Neeson, Commoners: common right, enclosure and social change in England, 1700–1820 (Cambridge, 1993), p. 274.
41. For parliament's handling of enclosure legislation see: J. M. Martin, ‘Members of parliament and enclosure: a reconsideration’, Agricultural History Review, XV (1980), 101–9
42. W. E. Tate, ‘The Commons Journals as sources of information concerning the eighteenth-century enclosure movement’, Economic Journal, LIV (1944), 75–95
43. idem, ‘Opposition to parliamentary enclosure in eighteenth-century England’, Agricultural History Review, XIX (1945), 137–42
44. idem., ‘Parliamentary counter-petitions during enclosures of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’, English Historical Review, LIX (1944), 393–403.
45. Most of this legislation has been little studied by historians, though divorce and naturalization acts have been-neither were numerically significant. S. Wolfram, ‘Divorce in England 1700–1857’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, v (1985), 155–86
46. L. Stone, Road to divorce: England 1530–1087 (Oxford, 1990), part x
47. D. A. Statt, ‘The controversy over the naturalization of foreigners in England, 1660–1760’ (University of Cambridge, Ph.D. thesis, 1987).
48. A. W. B. Simpson, A history of the land law, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1986), p. 271.
49. Holdsworth adopts a similar position in his History, XI, 586–94.
50. Some points are in M. Bond, ‘Estate acts of parliament’, History, XLIX (1964), 325–8.
51. B. English & J. Saville, Strict settlement: a guide for historians (Hull, 1983), p. 50.
52. L. Bonfield, Marriage settlements, 1601–1740: the adoption of strict settlement (Cambridge, 1983), especially pp. 86–87.
53. Summarized in J. V. Beckett, The aristocracy in England, 1660–1914 (Oxford, 1986), pp. 58–65
54. L. Stone & J. C. Fawtier Stone, An open elite? England 1540–1880 (Oxford, 1984), pp. 86–104.
55. H.J. Habakkuk, ‘The rise and fall of English landed families, 1600–1800: 11’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. XXX (1980), 202.
56. The diary of John Evelyn, ed. E. S. de Beer, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1955), v, 209, 21 May 1695.
57. The parliamentary diary of Narcissus Luttrell 1691–1693, ed. H. Horwitz (Oxford, 1972), pp. 189, 323.
58. See especially those orders made in 1705 and 1706 in Journals of the house of lords, XVIII (1705–9). 20, 70, 105–6, 183–4.
59. See P. G. M. Dickson, The financial revolution in England: a study in the development of public credit 1688–1756 (1967), ch. 2
60. C. Brooks, ‘Taxation, finance and public opinion, 1688–1714’ (University of Cambridge Ph.D. thesis, 1971)
61. G. Holmes, British politics in the age of Anne (revised edn 1987), pp. 160–162.
62. J. Locke, Two treatises of government, ed. P. Laslett (Cambridge, 1991), p. 356
63. J. Addison, The Freeholder, ed. J. Leheny (Oxford, 1979), p. 107
64. W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the laws of England, 4 vols. (Oxford, 1765–9), 1, 156.
65. On the issues raised here see Langford, Public life, pp. 148–156.
66. This appears to have operated in a number of areas, especially estates, turnpikes and enclosure legislation. But it was not restricted there. See, for example, J. M. Shaw, ‘The development of the poor law local acts 1696–1833 with particular reference to the incorporated hundreds of East Anglia’ (University of East Anglia, Ph.D. thesis, 1989), p. 115
67. T. V. Hitchcock, ‘The English workhouse: a study in institutional poor relief in selected counties, 1696–1750’ (University of Oxford, D.Phil, thesis, 1985).
68. Public life and discussed in J. Innes, ‘Politics, property and the middle class’, Parliamentary History, XI (1992), 286–92.
69. ‘Landowners… cast their aspirations in local terms, thus significandy decentralizing policy making.’ J. Thirsk, ‘Agricultural policy: public debate and legislation’, in J. Thirsk (ed.), The agrarian history of England and Wales, v, 1640–1750, part 2, Agrarian change (Cambridge, 1985), 387.
70. J. L. & B.Hammond, The village labourer (1911)
71. Neeson, Commoners
72. E.P.Thompson, Customs in common (1991), esp. ch. 3
73. P. B. Munsche, Gentlemen and poachers: the English game laws 1671–1831 (Cambridge, 1981)
74. M. Freeman, ‘Popular attitudes to turnpikes in early-eighteenth-century England’, Journal of Historical Geography, XIX (1993), 33–47.
75. T. N. Williams, A compendious digest of the statute law, comprising the substance and effect of all the public acts of parliament in force, from Magna Charta …to the twenty-seventh year of… George III (1787), p. vi.
76. J. Cay, An abridgment of the publick statutes in force and use from Magna Charta …to the eleventh year of… George II, 2 vols. (1739), 1, Preface (no pagination).
77. D. Veall, The popular movement for law reform 1640–1660 (Oxford, 1970)
78. Lieberman, Province of legislation
79. R. Burn, The justice of the peace and parish officer, 2 vols. (1755)
80. R. Burn, The history of the poor laws (1764).
81. This is related to MP's independence and instructions from constituents. B. Kemp, King and commons 1660–1832 (1957), p. 43
82. L. Sutherland, ‘Edmund Burke and relations between members of parliament and their constituents’, in Sutherland, Politics and finance in the eighteenth century (1984), ch. 13
83. P. Kelly, ‘Constituents' instructions to members of parliament in the eighteenth century’, in C.Jones (ed.), Party and management in parliament, 1660–1784 (Leicester, 1984), pp. 169–189.
84. Important points are made in S. Handley, ‘Local initiatives for economic and social development in Lancashire, 1689–1731’, Parliamentary History, IX (1990), 14–37.
85. For other examples see P. L. Gauci, ‘The corporation and the country: Great Yarmouth 1660–1722’ (University of Oxford, D.Phil, thesis, 1991).
86. See A. G. Olson, Making the empire work: London and American interest groups, 1690–1790 (Cambridge, Mass., 1992)
87. V. E. Dietz, ‘Before the age of capital: manufacturing interests and the British state, 1780–1800’ (Princeton University, Ph.D. thesis, 1991).
88. Journals of the house of commons, XVIII (1714–18), 701–63.
89. D. Dean, ‘Pressure groups and lobbies in the Elizabethan and early Jacobean parliaments’, Parliaments, Estates and Representation, xi (1991), 139–52.
90. G. C. F. Forster, ‘Government in provincial England under the later Stuarts’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. XXXIII (1983), 29–48
91. A. Fletcher, Reform in the provinces: the government of Stuart England (New Haven, Connecticut, 1986)
92. M. E. W. Maddison, ‘The justices of the peace and the administration of local government in the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire between 1680 and 1750’ (University of Leeds, Ph.D. thesis, 1986).
93. C. W. Brooks, ‘ Interpersonal conflict and social tension: civil litigation in England, 1640–1830’, in A. L. Beier, D. Cannadine & J. M. Rosenheim (eds.), The first modern society: essays in English history in honour of Lawrence Stone (Cambridge, 1989), p. 360.
94. Work in progress by H. Horwitz on chancery proceedings appears to bear this out. The nature of chancery cases heard between 1660 and 1685 can be glimpsed in Cases argued and decreed in the High Court of Chancery, 3rd edn (1730).
95. M. W. Beresford, ‘The decree rolls of chancery as a source for economic history, 1547-c. 1700’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser. XXXII (1979), 1–10
96. E.M.Leonard, ‘The enclosure of common fields in the seventeenth century, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, n.s. XIX (1905), 101–46.
97. E. R. Adair, The sources for the history of the council in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (1924)
98. E. R. Turner, The privy council of England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, 1603–1784, 2 vols. (Baltimore, Maryland, 1927–1928).
99. C. M. Andrews, British committees, commissions, and councils of trade and plantations, 1622–1675 (Baltimore, Maryland, 1908).
100. See for example Privy Council Office. List of unbound papers preserved in the Public Record Office (List and Index Society, vols, xxiv & xxxv, 1967 & 1968).
101. There is an attempt at a general statistical analysis for the period to 1700 in R. W. K. Hinton, ‘The decline of parliamentary government under Elizabeth I and the early Stuarts’, Cambridge Historical Journal, XIII (1957), 116–32.
102. For another example of overlap in jurisdiction of the executive and legislature see W. T. Gibson, ‘“Withered branches and weighty symbols”: surname substitution in England, 1660–1880’, British Journal of Eighteenth Century Studies, xv (1992), 17–18.
103. Calculated from Biblioteca Lindesiana, vol. v, A bibliography of royal proclamations of the Tudor and Stuart sovereigns and ofothers publishedunder authority 1485–1714 (Oxford, 1910), 2 vols. These statistics will not bear much weight, for the start of a reign routinely saw many proclamations issued. Consequendy, the rate of issuing proclamations will tend to be high in a short reign.
104. Two treatises of government, p. 364.
105. D. Defoe, Defoe's Review, facsimile edn (New York, 1938), 1, 87, 6 May 1704.
106. N. Landau, The justices of the peace, 1679–1760 (Berkeley & Los Angeles, Ca., 1984), part 3.
107. Constitutional history of England, p. 383.
108. He was preoccupied with the quest for rather than the use of power. L. Colley, Namier (1989), pp. 78–81.