How could the Walpolean oligarchy be at once exclusive and stable?

Ian Bishop

The force and longevity of the Whig dominance of politics in Britain at this time, culminating in Walpole’s record term of office, created the most clearly defined period of oligarchical rule in British history. The ‘Whig oligarchy’ created a powerful and potentially dangerous division in the country, as the Tories were kept from office year after year. With such exclusion, there was real danger of resultant instability as the excluded party sought extra-parliamentary routes to power. The spectre of Jacobitism haunted the political nation throughout the period. Furthermore, the length of the Whig dominance meant that the exclusion of Tories extended beyond the centre of power to social institutions as well. Economically powerful Tory landowners were embittered by the Whig dominance of local and central duties which their rank and acreage would normally have commanded. This disgruntlement, caused by their exclusion from many aspects of political, social and even economic life led to virulent parliamentary criticism, even flirtation with extra-parliamentary dissidence.

With this situation, it is easy to imagine that the political climate was not at all tranquil. However, as Langford points out, stability can often be mistaken for tranquillity. The turbulent and embittered opposition of the Tories to oligarchy translated into a lack of political tranquillity, yet in the period there were no major uprisings, nor was parliamentary government ever threatened. Indeed, the fear of Jacobitism was more advantageous to the Whigs as a reason for the exclusion of the Tories than it was ever for the Tories themselves. It is important to heed Langford’s distinction between tranquillity and stability, for though this particular period is epitomised by a bitter political atmosphere, the stability under Walpole was, if not total, great enough to ensure the survival of the system. The major constitutional achievement of Britain in the eighteenth century in the creation of a stable political system is clear testament to the success of Walpole in ensuring that the oligarchy never threatened to destabilise the kingdom. However, it is false to assume that the inherent stability of the British constitution made instability impossible. Rather, a combination of personal qualities and events ensured the stable continuation of the parliamentary system during the Walpolean oligarchy.

Walpolean oligarchy and the exclusion it created meant that in order to preserve stability Walpole would have to steer a course that would permit his opponents to reconcile their unhappiness at being excluded with continued tolerance of his administration. In many respects, it was the character of Walpole that allowed this to occur. Walpole managed to endear himself to two successive Kings, and through clever political manipulation of contacts within the royal family, he embedded himself in the court. In the eighteenth century no minister could hope to attain and maintain office without royal support, and Walpole was able to use the royal patronage he enjoyed to help ensure his exceptionally long tenure. Furthermore, the Tories found it difficult to contemplate extra-parliamentary opposition to Walpole whilst he was so clearly supported by the King. As the Tories were ideologically committed to support the King as far as possible, they could not resort to unparliamentary means to attack Walpole. The policy that Walpole adopted towards foreign policy was also ideologically close to the Tories, for he too favoured peace over war. Walpole’s emphasis on peace as a necessary feature of prosperity, and his success in delivering that prosperity, provided perhaps the greatest sweetener to the sour taste of Whig oligarchy for the Tories.

Walpole himself also made for a rather poor ‘hate-figure’. Although his name became synonymous with corruption and many of his opponents fiercely disliked him, his actions were not those of an ‘evil adviser’ that might have provided a focus for attack in more traditional exclusion crisis. Walpole’s long experience and distinguished career, marked out by his brilliant handling of the South Sea bubble crisis, coupled with his verbal mastery in the House made it difficult for opponents to depict him as a serious and immediate threat to the nation.

Interestingly, Walpole’s infamous nepotism and favouritism actually served ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Interestingly, Walpole’s infamous nepotism and favouritism actually served to assist the stability of his administration. Walpole, although not afraid to ditch friends when expedient, was also surprisingly loyal to many of his supporters. At times his actions in protecting his friends were politically ill-advised, yet such support did foster a sense of loyalty and cohesion amidst his allies. Also of importance was the fact that though the Tory gentry were excluded from such professions as the law, this allowed for lower orders to rise, giving social mobility to an appreciative middle class. In this way, although exclusion occurred, it did not occur universally, and Walpole never came close to alienating the entire country. Furthermore, those that Walpole did exclude, though men of power, were not in the powerful position of enjoying court patronage. Walpole appreciated the importance of ensuring that he balanced his control of Royal Prerogative with his control of Parliament. (Such was the import of the Royal support that Walpole devoted much of his time to ensuring that the King was kept as his ally. When George I died in 1727, Walpole gained the loyalty of the new King by pushing through a massive increase in the civil list. In order to cement his position, Walpole outmanoeuvred and replaced George II’s favourite, Spencer Compton, and continued to exploit his old link with Queen Caroline.) Nor was Walpole without wealthy and powerful supporters himself. During the period, as the rich became richer the local control of small constituencies by the wealthy increased, the volatility of the electorate was reduced and the independence of MPs curtailed. Though worrying by our modern standards, at the time this phenomenon was important in assisting the growth of stability. Walpole himself assisted this ‘corrupt’ growth in stability by continuing the development of a modus vivendi between the executive and legislature through expert management and judicious use of patronage. From his endeavours emerged a strong Court and Treasury Party that was able, for the first time, to largely control the House of Commons. This resulted, Langford argues, in the creation of something like a modern system of government buttressed by a majority in parliament, an developing cabinet system and an emerging role for the Prime Minister. These structural shifts were of the utmost importance in the creation of a durable British constitution, able to withstand the blasts of party politics and contain them within Parliament. Walpole himself benefited, as the 1727 election returned a 270 seat majority for the Whigs. Yet the underlying structural significance of Walpole’s strategy was the more important in ensuring the stability of his government, Professor Plumb argues that although the early part of the eighteenth century were exceptionally violent in terms of political conflict, the underlying trends were all towards political stability.

This growth in general political stability is of great importance when understanding how the Walpolean oligarchy managed to endure so well. However, the actions of Walpole himself in extending the basis of that stability through conscious effort should not be underestimated. His election to stay in the House of Commons rather than move to the Lords to signify his elevation to court circles as his predecessors had done was an highly unusual and wise decision. By doing so, he ensured that he could keep in touch with the more important of the two Houses, and the sense of his action set a precedent which was to be unbroken in the century with the exception of the disastrous decision of Pitt the Elder in 1766 to move to the Lords.

This is not to say that Walpole avoided all political obstacles without hindrance. The revival of opposition in the late 1720s, and his ultimate downfall, show this. However, when one considers the rebirth of opposition post-1727, the fact that the major source of serious opposition came from within the Whig party, as a result of a split over the pacific nature of Walpole’s foreign policy, we see another important aspect of the stability of the Walpolean oligarchy: the ineffectiveness of the opposition. The Tory party were unable to mount an effective platform of opposition to Walpole. This was in part due to his successes, notably the level of economic prosperity and the peace which his government brought. Of significance was the Tory failure to mark themselves out as an acceptable alternative to Walpole. The divisions within the Tory party, revolving around the problem of how to best address the problem of seemingly perpetual failure to gain power, played into Walpole’s hands, as the emergence of Jacobitism as an alternative ideology for the Tories gave him to opportunity to play upon the fears of the electorate. Ultimately, as opposition mounted in the 1730s it was the breakdown of these restraints that prevented an outbreak of political violence comparable to that of Queen Anne’s reign. By 1730 it was becoming difficult to seriously argue that Jacobitism was a sufficient threat to justify Walpole’s style of strong government. In the end, it could not be sustained, and events ruled out a continuation of such a style. However, the stability that had been consolidated in the Walpolean era remained, and was to form a basis for the further development of the British constitution.

Thus Walpolean oligarchy was able to remain stable by virtue of the efforts of Walpole himself, the course of events, and because of the political legacy it inherited in the wake of the 1688 Revolution. The latter point is of great significance. As much as Walpole was brilliant in his use of the Commons, the Court and his innovative style of leadership, he could have done none of these things without the existing belief in the Parliamentary system that had been established in the process of the events of 1688. Walpole could capitalise upon this general understanding that Parliament must be the focus of political activity in order to ensure the stability of his regime. Without the general ‘consensus’ between parties that Parliament should be the locus of political activity, Walpole would not have been able to risk riding roughshod over so many landed interests. Walpole was clever in his appreciation that if he could control the Commons and hold the support of the King, then it would be very difficult for his opponents to remove him from power. However, the circumstances which allowed this approach were beyond Walpole’s control: he merely shaped them to his own ends. Walpole might thus be best viewed as the man who first understood the implications of this ethos and how to best operate within the new constitutional understanding. He did undertake to further stabilise the system, and it was probably wise to do so, but by far the most important aspects of the consensus on the importance of political stability had already been set.

In conclusion, a combination of personal skill and insight, use of events, and the inheritance of an important new political understanding allowed the Walpolean oligarchy to endure in a stable environment. The political violence of the period, which focused upon fraught and ferocious Tory assaults on the nature of Whig oligarchy, was a contained party-political event that did not ever threaten the stability of the nation. The force of the understanding that Parliament must act as the forum for political debate, and the appreciation and use of this fact by Walpole, permitted the Walpolean oligarchy to exist within a stable political nation. It was important that Walpole was able to deliver success in areas of policy that mattered greatly, such as economic prosperity, for such successes meant that there was never any need for a reassessment of the wisdom of the understandings and constitutional conventions developed during the 1690s. Yet such successes were only central in ensuring the long term survival of the Whigs as the governing party, and were somewhat incidental to the broader stability of the nation. With the political nation agreed that stability was of prime importance, it was possible for an oligarchic and exclusive government to exist, whilst the considerable successes of that government went on to ensure its prolonged existence.

P. Langford The Excise Crisis 1975

H.J. Plumb The Growth of Political Stability in England 1967