Before 1919 "most people" had no right to vote, so I'm not sure how the question can be answered. Prior to 1919, the preferences of the people could only be demonstrated - on the street - often by riot. This was especially true in the early 19th century. For excellent coverage see E P Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class". Riots were common,and in 1831 England came very close to revolution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_May).
In the period of the Industrial Revolution, England was not democratic.
Pre-1715, when the Hanoverians shut the Tories entirely out of government, the Tories had a better track record in winning elections, especially in constituencies with a wider electorate. The Whigs both gradually narrowed eligibility to vote and reduced the frequency of elections with the Seven-Year Parliament act, which combined to increase their control over the composition of Parliament. Per Geoffrey Holmes, the leading scholar of late 17thC & 18thC electorate composition, the 1714 election won by the Tories probably had the broadest electorate until the 1830 reform.
I’ll try rummaging to see if I can find stats for you. But a few points.
1. As you suggest, ”most people” by that definition weren’t eligible to vote until the latter 19thC with universal male suffrage, and of course not even then until female suffrage in the 20thC. However the 18thC electorate doesn’t appear to have been all that unrepresentative of wider sentiments. (The same is less true in the 19thC until electoral reforms.) And we can say various things about that electorate.
2. Relative to adult males, the percentage eligible to vote in 1710 and 1714 (when the Tories had a big victories) was significantly above the percentage Piketty cites for 1820. Population had increased while the electorate had been reduced. Some eligibility requirements had actually been narrowed, especially re property qualifications in constituencies with wider electorates (eg counties). In growing constituencies with a narrow electorate, such as sharp limits to corporation membership, eligibility didn’t keep pace with population. And many smaller boroughs were rotten.
3. In effect, the Whig Ascendancy had the ability to “choose its electorate” through control over narrow constituencies (recall, no secret ballot) and reducing the electorate in broader constituencies. This made it possible for the Whig grandees to maintain decades of uninterrupted political control, whereas the odds are good that the Tories would otherwise have been somewhere between very competitive and dominant for significant portions of the 18thC.
4. As for political attitudes of “most people ,” though England was a precocious urbanizer, the rural population was still substantial, and the rural/urban divide was already apparent in political preferences. The visibility of Dissenters in urban areas probably added to rural hostility towards urban and Whig interests, even though political participation of non-CofE citizens was limited. Which is not to suggest the Tories couldn’t rile up urban masses with Church and Crown when the occasional opportunity presented itself. So I don’t find it a stretch for historians to say “[more] people were probably Tory.”
Allen (1999): "While enclosure often led to the more extensive use of new methods, these had little impact on output or efficiency. On light arable soils, for instance, enclosed farms modernized the management of sheep and cultivated turnips and clover to a much greater extent than open farms."
What an entertaining and useful tour d’horizon. One tiny nit - the master of the Whig ascendancy was Sir Robert, not his son Horace, the author.
Thanx for this. Was it really true 'that most people were probably Tory' or rather that that most electors were probably Tory?
Before 1919 "most people" had no right to vote, so I'm not sure how the question can be answered. Prior to 1919, the preferences of the people could only be demonstrated - on the street - often by riot. This was especially true in the early 19th century. For excellent coverage see E P Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class". Riots were common,and in 1831 England came very close to revolution. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Days_of_May).
In the period of the Industrial Revolution, England was not democratic.
Pre-1715, when the Hanoverians shut the Tories entirely out of government, the Tories had a better track record in winning elections, especially in constituencies with a wider electorate. The Whigs both gradually narrowed eligibility to vote and reduced the frequency of elections with the Seven-Year Parliament act, which combined to increase their control over the composition of Parliament. Per Geoffrey Holmes, the leading scholar of late 17thC & 18thC electorate composition, the 1714 election won by the Tories probably had the broadest electorate until the 1830 reform.
But only 2.5% of adults were eligible to vote until 1820 (Piketty, 2020: 169). It is a long stretch from this to 'most people'.
Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology (Trans A. Goldhammer). Harvard University Press.
I’ll try rummaging to see if I can find stats for you. But a few points.
1. As you suggest, ”most people” by that definition weren’t eligible to vote until the latter 19thC with universal male suffrage, and of course not even then until female suffrage in the 20thC. However the 18thC electorate doesn’t appear to have been all that unrepresentative of wider sentiments. (The same is less true in the 19thC until electoral reforms.) And we can say various things about that electorate.
2. Relative to adult males, the percentage eligible to vote in 1710 and 1714 (when the Tories had a big victories) was significantly above the percentage Piketty cites for 1820. Population had increased while the electorate had been reduced. Some eligibility requirements had actually been narrowed, especially re property qualifications in constituencies with wider electorates (eg counties). In growing constituencies with a narrow electorate, such as sharp limits to corporation membership, eligibility didn’t keep pace with population. And many smaller boroughs were rotten.
3. In effect, the Whig Ascendancy had the ability to “choose its electorate” through control over narrow constituencies (recall, no secret ballot) and reducing the electorate in broader constituencies. This made it possible for the Whig grandees to maintain decades of uninterrupted political control, whereas the odds are good that the Tories would otherwise have been somewhere between very competitive and dominant for significant portions of the 18thC.
4. As for political attitudes of “most people ,” though England was a precocious urbanizer, the rural population was still substantial, and the rural/urban divide was already apparent in political preferences. The visibility of Dissenters in urban areas probably added to rural hostility towards urban and Whig interests, even though political participation of non-CofE citizens was limited. Which is not to suggest the Tories couldn’t rile up urban masses with Church and Crown when the occasional opportunity presented itself. So I don’t find it a stretch for historians to say “[more] people were probably Tory.”
Out of interest, what evidence is there that enclosed farms had a greater uptake of nitrogen-fixing/root crops?
Allen (1999): "While enclosure often led to the more extensive use of new methods, these had little impact on output or efficiency. On light arable soils, for instance, enclosed farms modernized the management of sheep and cultivated turnips and clover to a much greater extent than open farms."
This is interesting! Please give bibliography, it would be useful.