The Rise of Majority Rule in Early Modern Britain and its Empire, by William Bulman

Abstract

How, when and why did the ideal of the majority supersede those of consensus or unanimity? These are the questions at the heart of this thought-provoking book, which focuses on the English Parliament as the original fount of majoritarianism. It identifies the 1640s as the key moment of transition, owing to the bitter division between MPs during and after the civil wars. Much of the broad outline of that argument was made some time ago by Mark Kishlansky and others; but William Bulman nevertheless adds to their story (in ways that will particularly appeal to historians of Parliament) and also seeks to broaden the analysis by including an interesting chapter on the diffusion of majoritarianism throughout the Atlantic world. His work draws on political science, and suggests links between delegate-style representation, partisanship and the evolution of majority rule. Bulman charts, in detail, the nature of seventeenth-century decision-making in Parliament through careful analysis of votes, divisions and how MPs talked about these. Although keen to stress the importance of the 1640s in the ‘sudden emergence of majority voting’ (p. 2), he first seeks to establish that, until the civil wars, the English Parliament preferred consensus and proceeded to avoid enumerated majority votes (‘divisions’) in which the votes of MPs were weighed against each other. Minorities usually capitulated before a formal vote, since division was seen as dishonourable, or, when they refused to do so, it was usually over ‘private’ issues or matters of parliamentary privilege. There is much that is sensible here but also a danger in the methodology, since Bulman uses frequency of division as the key indicator, rather than the political importance of a division; and he also takes privilege issues at face value rather than seeing them as indicators of deeper political tensions. Thus, the divisions over the duke of Buckingham in the early 1620s, while admitted to be majoritarian, are not seen as indicative of a changed political culture, since divisions were not used as frequently and routinely as later. Similarly, the divisions in the later 1620s are, it is suggested, focused on ‘status’ issues of parliamentary privilege. The 1620s emerge as ‘the path to division’ rather than division itself. The period 1640–41 saw a renewed emphasis on consensus, it is argued, though some divisions ‘prefigured the sorts of situations that would trigger a constant flow of majoritarian decisions a few months after the outbreak of the civil war’ (p. 70). When they did occur, Bulman argues, they always needed ‘a clear status dimension’ rather than ideological division (p. 74).