Talk:1852 United Kingdom general election

Untitled
Shouldn't the Peelites be separated out from Lord Derby's conservatives? As it is, the table is not very useful. john k 02:16, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I shall repeat myself. The "Conservatives" in 1852 did not win a majority. While people calling themselves "Tories" may have been in the majority in this parliament, the organized party of those supporting Lord Derby's protectionists was a distinct minority, a considerably smaller group than Russell's Whigs. It seems to me that this table is nothing less than actively misleading. john k 22:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. I have Blake's Disraeli in front of me, and he breaks down the 1852 House of Commons thusly: 290-310 Conservatives, 270 Liberals, 35-40 Peelites, and 35-40 Irish. The latter two groups held the balance of power, and generally weren't well-disposed to Derby's government (or, more to the point, to Disraeli and protection). Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Probably the best measure is the total for the Budget vote, which the protectionists lost 305-286. Mackensen (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, having read a bit on this period in Jenkins's biography of Gladstone, it would appear that, up to the budget vote, the Peelites had reluctantly tolerated the Derby government, which had, by this time, mostly abandoned protection anyway. I do wonder, though, about the numbers, which seem weird. Taking the low number for Conservatives and the high numbers for Peelites and Irish, you get 640. Taking the high number for Conservatives and the low numbers for Peelites and Irish, you get 650. Our numbers suggest 654 MPs. Also: How on earth is it not possible to know how many Irish Nationalist MPs there were? (I'm not criticizing you, Mackensen, just this list of numbers, which is apparently to be found both in Blake and Jenkins...). I'd add that, while the Peelites were not terribly well-disposed to Disraeli, they didn't much like Lord John and the Whigs, either...perhaps someone could go through the parliamentary directories and actually figure out every MP's affiliation... john k 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I agree with what you said (it just seemd that after kicking this around for a year and a half we should say something on the article itself). The key thing, I think, is that after the Budget the Peelites drift into coalition with the Whigs (under a Peelite PM, no less) and after that there's little chance of them re-uniting with Derby and Disraeli. Through Rayment we've got an online list of every MP for the period concerned, sans affiliation. Mackensen (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Gladstone, et al, supported the Derby 1858-1859 government, didn't they? I started to go through the Rayment page to list all the MPs, but i'm not sure where to go to find partisan affiliation. john k 07:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This article smacks of bias if nearly all of the sources are Karl Marx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.193.123 (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Results
Picking up on the 2004/6 discussion above: -

1. We have an unsourced list of affiliations at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1852 - 'Peelite' appears 28 times.

2. There is a list of affilaitions in McCalmont's Parliamentary poll-book - of the first four Peelites in (1), he records Henry Wickham Wickham in Bradford as a Conservative, Hon. James Stuart-Wortley in Buteshire as a Liberal-Conservative, Henry Goulburn in Cambridge University as a Liberal-Conservative and Sir James Graham, Bt in Carlisle as a Liberal.

3. Rallings and Thrasher, British Electoral Facts, 1832-1999, PP 7-8, give a combined total of 330 Conservative and Liberal-Conservative, which is what appears in United Kingdom general election, 1852. IOW they simply dodge the issue of who was one of Derby's Protectionists and who was one of Aberdeen's Peelites.

4. As regards the Irish seats, Walker, Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland, 1801-1922, P 193, gives: -
 * 40 Conservatives
 * 2 Peelites
 * 15 Liberals - increased to 16 on petition
 * 48 Liberals who became members of the independent opposition after the election.
 * 105 in total.

5. I feel that the article should at least be consistent with itself. As the infobox stands, it suggests that there were 330 + 324 + 37 = 691 seats in the Commons, while in fact there were 654, so the infobox clearly needs fixing. We could: -
 * Stick with the figure of 330 Conservatives of one sort or another, and delete the separate reference to the Peelites in the infobox - but then who do we show as leader?
 * Split the Conservatives into Protectionists and Peelites, but then we would need a reliable source as to which of the 330 were which. Does anyone have access to Craig's 'British Parliamentary Election Results 1832-1885'? Alekksandr (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now accessed Craig's book. In the Introductory Notes, pp xiv-xv, he says 'The problems in defining Liberal Conservatives at the General Elections from 1847 to 1859 are immense and no two sources of reference agree ... Liberal Conservatives have been classed as Conservatives until such time as they appear to have severed all links with that party and become Liberals.' IOW Rallings and Thrasher are following him in dodging the issue of who was one of Derby's Protectionists and who was one of Aberdeen's Peelites. Craig does refer his readers to J B Conacher, 'The Peelites and the Party System 1846-52'. Page 116 of that book has a table of figures given by different sources. Three members tied for the two seats in Knaresborough and two seats were vacated before the elections were completed.
 * The five who give figures for 'Safe Derbyite', 'Liberal' and 'Peelite or L.C.' are: -
 * * The Times, 28th July - Derbyite 284, Liberal 309, Peelite 58, Unaccounted for 3.
 * * Derby - Derbyite 286, Liberal 270 (+ 50 Irish Brigade = 320), Peelite 30, unaccounted for 18. He gives 'maximum ministerial' as (310).
 * * Philip Bonham, Peel's party agent - Derbyite 288, Liberal 313, Peelite 50, Unaccounted for 3.
 * * Henry Goulburn, Peelite MP - Derbyite 301, Liberal 266 (+ 42 Irish Brigade = 308), Peelite 36, unaccounted for 3. He gives 'maximum ministerial' as 307, which is the number of Derbyites which produces 654.
 * * Young - Derbyite 272, Liberal 304, Peelite 34, Unaccounted for 1. He gives 'maximum ministerial' as 315, which is the number of Derbyites which produces 654.


 * The Times and Bonham are fairly close - Bonham gives four of the Times' Peelites to each of Derby and the Liberals.
 * Goulbourn and Young (based on their 'maximum ministerial' for the Derbyites) are fairly close - Goulbourn gives two of Young's Derbyites to the Peelites, gives four to the Liberals, and leaves two unaccounted for.


 * So, based on those figures given by each source which add up to 654: -


 * * Derbyite could be anything from 284 (Times) to 315 (Young).
 * * Liberal (including Irish Brigade) could be anything from 304 (Young) to 320 (Derby).
 * * Peelite could be anything from 30 (Derby) to 58 (Times).


 * I suggest that the article should give those ranges for each party.

All sources agree that there were more Liberals (including Irish Brigade) than Derbyites. - Alekksandr (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)