Deference and Aristocracy in the Time of the Great Reform Act

Abstract

A THEORY OF DEFERENCE has recently played a significant role in modifying older explanations of intention and effects of Great Reform Act. The historian chiefly responsible for new interpretation is D. C. Moore, who insists on the electoral importance of what might be called 'deference community,' community of men who lived in close contact with one another, who had same occupation or were connected by same 'interest,' and-most important of all-who recognized same individual, or individuals, as their social, economic, and ideological leader or These deference communities, Moore contends, were all-important and allpervasive. Every elector was a member of one or another community, and great bulk of electorate tamely followed preferences of relatively few leaders. Moore goes so far as to assert: For conceptual purposes, of course, deferential behaviour should be distinguished from behaviour motivated by economic, social, or religious interest. In practice, however, in most constituencies for most of century this distinction cannot be made.' Moore argues that Lord Grey and his colleagues in reform ministry were aware of this phenomenon and built their measure upon it. They had no intention of increasing electoral power of middle classes or of giving individual elector a real voice. Rather, they sought to strengthen influence of leaders in several deference communities, most particularly influence of larger landowners, class that had always dominated English politics. The Reform Act was intended, then, not as a concession, but as a cure.2 John Cannon and Michael Brock have argued convincingly, however, for