Members of Parliament 1920-1960

Members of Parliament 1920-1960


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Members of Parliament 1920-1960
Richard AclandBarnstaple, Gravesend1935-1955
William AdamsonWest Fife1910-1931
Frank AllaunSalford East1955-1983
William AllenWest Belfast1929-1931
Leo AmeryBrightspark, Birmingham1911-1945
John AndersonScottish Universities1938-1950
Herbert AsquithEast Fife/Paisley1886-1926
Waldorf AstorSutton1910-1919
Nancy AstorSutton1919-1945
Norman AtkinsonTottenham1964-1979
Clement AttleeLimehouse/West Walthamstow1922-1955
Stanley BaldwinBewdley1908-1937
Arthur BalfourHertford/East Manchester/City of London1874-1922
George BarnesGlasgow1905-1921
Vernon BartlettBridgwater1938-1950
John BecketGateshead/Peckham1924-1931
William Wedgwood BennWapping/Leith/Gorton1906-1942
Ernest BennettWoodstock/Cardiff Central1906-1945
Aneurin BevanTredegar1929-1960
William BeveridgeBerwick-upon-Tweed1944-1945
Ernest BevinCentral Wandsworth/East Woolwich1940-1951
Geoffrey BingHornchurch1945-1955
Margaret BondfieldNorthampton1923-1945
Robert BoothbyEast Aberdeenshire1924-1958
Brendan BrackenNorth Paddington1929-1945
Fenner BrockwayEast Leyton/Eton & Slough1929-1960
George BrownBelper1945-1970
George BuchananGorbals1922-1948
R.A. ButlerSaffron Walden1929-1965
Charles BuxtonAshburton/Elland1910-1931
Noel BuxtonWhitby/North Norfolk1905-1930
James CallaghanCardiff1945-1987
John CartlandKing's Norton1935-1940
Barbara CastleBlackburn1945-1979
Robert CecilEast Marylebone/Hitchin1906-1923
Samuel ChapmanPerth1922-1945
Austin ChamberlainEast Worcestershire/West Birmingham1892-1937
Neville ChamberlainLadywood Birmingham/Edgbaston1918-1940
Henry (Chips) ChannonSouthend1935-1958
Winston ChurchillOldham/N.W. Manchester/Dundee/Epping1900-1955
Joseph ClynesNorth-East Manchester1906-1945
Alfred Duff CooperOldham/Westminster St George1924-1945
Richard Stafford CrippsEast Bristol/Bristol South East1931-1950
Will CrooksWoolwich1903-1921
Anthony CrossleyOldham/Stretford1931-1939
Richard CrossmanCoventry East1945-1974
Pete CurranJarrow1907-1910
Hugh DaltonCamberwell/Bishop Auckland1924-1959
Clement DaviesMontgomeryshire1929-1962
Alec Douglas-HomeLanark/Kinross1931-1974
Tom DribergMaldon/Barking1942-1974
Evan DurbinEdmonton1945-1948
Anthony EdenWarwick & Leamington1923-1957
James EdmondsonBanbury1922-1945
Herbert FisherHallam/Combined Universities1918-1926
Bernard FloudActon1964-1967
Isaac FootBodmin1922-1935
Michael FootPlymouth Devonport/Ebbw Vale1945-1997
Robert ForganWest Renfrew1929-1931
John FreemanWatford1945-1997
Hugh GaitskellSouth Leeds1945-1963
William GallacherWest Fife1935-1950
Harry GoslingWhitechapel1923-1930
Arthur GreenwoodNelson and Colne/Wakefield1922-1954
Mary HamiltonBlackburn1929-1931
Vernon HartshornOgmore1918-1931
George HardieSpringburn1922-1937
Denis HealeyLeeds1952-1992
Edward HeathBexley & Sidcup1950-2001
Arthur HendersonBarnard Castle/Widnes/East Newcastle1903-1931
Alan P. HerbertOxford University1935-1950
Samuel HoareChelsea1906-1944
Charles HobhouseBristol East1906-1918
John HodgeGorton1906-1923
Frank HodgesLichfield1923-1924
Leslie Hore-BelishaDevonport1923-1945
Lester HutchinsonRusholme1945-1950
Emrys HughesAyrshire1946-1969
Thomas HunterPerth1935-1945
Rufus IsaacsReading1903-1913
Lena JegerHolban and St. Pancras1953-1974
Santo JegerHolban and St. Pancras1950-1953
Roy JenkinsSouthwark/Stetchford/Glasgow Hillhead1948-1987
Dorothy JewsonNorwich1923-1924
Tom JohnstonStirling and Clackmannan/Dundee1922-1945
William Joynson-HicksNorth Manchester/Brentford1908-1929
Fred JowettWest Bradford1906-1931
Anne KerrRochester1964-1970
Russell KerrFeltham1966-1979
David KirkwoodDumbarton Burghs1922-1951
George LansburyBow & Bromley1910-1940
Andrew Bonar LawGlasgow Blackfriars/Dulwich1900-1923
Susan LawrenceEast Ham1923-1924
Jennie LeeNorth Lanark/Cannock1929-1970
Hastings Lees-SmithNorthampton/Keighley1910-1941
Marcus LiptonBrixton/Lambeth1945-1978
David Lloyd GeorgeCaernarvon1890-1945
Oliver LytteltonAldershot1940-1954
Ramsay MacDonaldLeicester/Aberavon/Seaham1906-1937
John MacKieGalloway1931-1958
Neil MacleanGovan1918-1950
William H. MainwaringRhondda East1933-1959
Cecil ManningNorth Camberwell1944-1950
Leah ManningEast Islington/Epping1931-1950
Charles MastermanWest Ham North/Rusholme1906-1924
James MaxtonBridgeton Glasgow1922-1946
Harold MacmillanStockton/Bromley1924-1964
David Maxwell-FyfeWest Derby1935-1954
John MendelsonPenistone1959-1978
Ian MikardoReading/Poplar/Bethnal Green1945-1979
Rosslyn MitchellPaisley1924-1929
Gilbert MitchisonKettering1945-1964
Walter MoncktonBristol West1951-1957
Edwin MontaguCambridgeshire1918-1922
Herbert MorrisonSouth Hackney/East Lewisham1923-1959
Edmund Dene MorelDundee1922-1924
Phillip MorrellHenley/Burnley1906-1918
Oswald MosleyHarrow/Smethwick1918-1931
John MuirMaryhill1922-1924
Alexander MurrayMidlothian/Peebles and Selkirk1900-1912
Airey NeaveAbingdon1951-1979
Stan NewensEpping/Harlow1964-1979
Harold NicolsonWest Leicester1935-1945
Philip Noel-BakerCoventry/Derby1929-1970
F. Pethick-LawrenceLeicester1923-1945
Phil PiratinStepney1945-1950
Arthur PonsonbyStirling Burghs/Brightside1908-1930
Mabel PhilipsonBerwick on Tweed1923-1929
Morgan Philips PriceWhitehaven/Forest of Dean1929-1959
John Platts-MillsFinsbury1945-1950
D. N. PrittHammersmith North1935-1950
John ProfumoStratford-on-Avon1940-1963
Archibald RamsayMidlothian and Peebles1931-1945
Eleanor RathboneCombined English Universities1929-1946
John ReithSouthampton1940-1940
Jo RichardsonBarking1974-1994
Shapurji SaklatvalaNorth Battersea1922-1929
Herbert SamuelCleveland/Darwen1902-1935
Sydney SilvermanNelson and Colne1935-1968
John SimonWalthamstow1906-1945
Tom ShawPreston1918-1931
Hartley ShawcrossSt. Helens1945-1958
Emanuel ShinwellLinlithgow/Seaham/Easington1922-1970
Robert SmillieMorpeth1923-1929
Henry SnellWoolwich1922-1931
Philip SnowdenBlackburn/Colne Valley1906-1931
Leslie SolleyThurrock1945-1950
Edward SpearsLoughborough/Carlisle1922-1945
Ben SpoorBishop Auckland1918-1928
Arthur Steel-MaitlandEast Birmingham/Tamworth1910-1935
Campbell StephenCamlachie1922-1947
Jimmie StewartSt. Rollox1922-1931
Katharine Stewart-MurrayPerth & Kinross1923-1938
Richard StokesIpswich1938-1957
John StourtonSouth Salford1931-1945
George StraussLambeth North/Vauxhall1929-1979
Stephen SwinglerStafford1945-1950
Mavis TateWest Willesden/Frome1931-1945
Vera TerringtonWycombe1923-1924
Margaret ThatcherFinchley1959-1992
James ThomasDerby1910-1936
Will ThorneWest Ham South/Plaistow1906-1945
Ben TillettNorth Salford1917-1931
Charles TrevelyanElland/Newcastle Central1899-1931
Stephen WalshInce1906-1929
William WarbeyLuton/Broxtowe/Ashfield1945-1966
Sidney WebbSeaham1922-1929
Josiah WedgwoodNewcastle-under-Lyme1906-1942
James WelshCoatbridge1922-1931
John WheatleyGlasgow1922-1930
George WiggDudley1945-1967
Ellen WilkinsonMiddlesbrough East/Jarrow1924-1947
Harold WilsonOrmskirk/Huyton1945-1979
Margaret WinteringhamLouth1921-1924
Tom WintringhamLouth1920-1921
Frank WiseLeicester East1929-1931
Edward WoodRipon1910-1934
Kingsley WoodWoolwich West1918-1943
William YatesWrekin1955-1966
Konni ZilliacusGateshead/Gorton1945-1967

Women MPs & parliamentary candidates since 1945

The chart below shows the number of female Members of Parliament from each party elected in UK general elections from 1945�. The x (horizontal) axis shows the election year, and the y (vertical) axis the number of women who won seats.

The table below shows the number of female Members of Parliament elected in each UK general election since 1945 the percentage of female MPs how many women were elected from each party and the total number of female candidates standing for election.

Table showing women elected in general elections since 1945
Election Year Female MPs % Con Lab Lib Others Candidates
1945 24 3.8 1 21 1 1 87
1950 21 3.4 6 14 1 - 127
1951 17 2.7 6 11 - - 77
1955 24 3.8 10 14 - - 92
1959 25 4 12 13 - - 81
1964 29 4.6 11 18 - - 90
1966 26 4.1 7 19 - - 81
1970 26 4.1 15 10 - 1 99
1974 (Feb) 23 3.6 9 13 - 1 143
1974 (Oct) 27 4.3 7 18 - 2 161
1979 19 3 8 11 - - 216
1983 23 3.5 13 10 - - 280
1987 41 6.3 17 21 2 1 329
1992 60 9.2 20 37 2 1 571
1997 120 18.2 13 101 3 3 672
2001 118 17.9 14 95 5 4 636
2005 128 20 17 98 10 3 720
2010 143 22 49 81 7 6 861
2015 191 29 68 99 0 24 1,033

Note: Data for Lib Dems includes Liberal/SDP/Alliance. Candidates includes all parties
Source: House of Commons Research Papers 01/75, 05/33 & 10/36, Fawcett Society.

The data visualization below shows women's representation in parliaments around the world from 1990 to 2010


There are currently 577 French MPs. They are elected through the two-round system in single-member constituencies.

In 2019, it was reported that the French government wanted to cut the number of MPs by 25%. [2]

The number of MPs are codified in the Constitution of France.

Deputies have parliamentary privilege, and are restricted by the accumulation of mandates. MPs are paid 5,782.66 euros per month. [3]

  1. ^ Nationale, Assemblée. "Rôle et pouvoirs de l'Assemblée". Assemblée nationale (in French) . Retrieved 2021-01-07 .
  2. ^
  3. "French government wants to scrap number of MPs by 25 percent". France 24. 2019-08-29 . Retrieved 2021-01-10 .
  4. ^
  5. "Fiche de synthèse : La situation matérielle du député - Rôle et pouvoirs de l'Assemblée nationale - Assemblée nationale". www2.assemblee-nationale.fr . Retrieved 2021-01-10 .

This article about politics in France is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.


Access options

1 The Times, December 14, 1885.

2 See, for instance, Theodore Hoppen , K. , ‘ Tories, Catholics, and the General Election of 1859 ,’ The Historical Journal , Vol. 13 ( 1970 ), pp. 48 – 67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar Dermot Quinn, Patronage and Piety: the Politics of English Roman Catholicism, 1850–1900 (Stanford: Stanford U.P., 1993) and Alan O’Day, ‘The Political Representation of the Irish in Great Britain, 1850–1940,’ in Governments, Ethnic Groups, and Political Representation, ed. by Geoffrey Alderman (Aldershot, Hants.: Dartmouth Pub. Co., 1993), pp. 31–38.

3 Craig , F. W. S. , British Electoral Facts, 1832–1987 ( Aldershot, Hants.: Dartmouth Pub. Co. , 1989 ) p. 173 .Google Scholar


The Jamaican Parliament – History

The Jamaican Parliament is responsible for making the laws of the land.

The Jamaican Parliament has its history in the House of Assembly that first met on January 20, 1664 in Spanish Town, then called St. Jago de la Vega. At that time, Spanish Town was the capital of Jamaica and the seat of the Government.

However, since 1960, the official meeting place of the Government has been the George William Gordon House, more popularly called Gordon House, located on Duke Street in downtown Kingston. Gordon House is named in honour of one of Jamaica’s National Heroes.

The Parliament is comprised of the Upper House and the Lower House, together they are known as the House of Assembly (or Assembly).

The Upper House is the Senate which is made up of 21 senators who are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister (13) or the Leader of Opposition (8). Of the 21 appointed officials, no more than four (4) can be members of the Cabinet

The Lower House is also called the House of Representatives. It is comprised of the elected representatives, known as Members of Parliament (MP), of the 63 constituencies in Jamaica.

Both Houses of Parliament must elect leaders upon first sitting or when there is a vacancy. The Senate is led by a President and a Deputy President. The House of Representatives has a Speaker who ensures that members observe the rules of the House, the rights of the Opposition are protected, and that every member gets a fair hearing.

The maximum life of a Parliament is five years, at the end of which it must be dissolved and a General Election held. Parliament can also be dissolved by the Governor-General at any time, upon the advice of the Prime Minister.


Divorce since 1900

“We are not here, Mr. Adam, to secure your happiness, but to preserve the institution of marriage and the purity of the home. And therefore one of you must commit adultery . someone has to behave impurely in order to uphold the Christian idea of purity.”
A.P. Herbert MP Holy Deadlock (1934)

Before 1914 divorce was rare it was considered a scandal, confined by expense to the rich, and by legal restrictions requiring proof of adultery or violence to the truly desperate. In the first decade of the 20th century, there was just one divorce for every 450 marriages.

As it did in other areas of social policy, WWI led to reforms of divorce law that put men and women on a more equal footing. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1923, introduced as a Private Member's Bill, enabled either partner to petition for divorce on the basis of their spouse's adultery (previously, only the man had been able to do this). A further Act in 1937 offered additional grounds for divorce: cruelty, desertion and incurable insanity. Though it was becoming more widespread, divorce remained uncommon enough to be a potential source of shame throughout the first half of the 20th century. As late as 1955, the Tory cabinet minister Lord Salisbury threatened to resign if a bill were passed to allow Princess Margaret to marry Peter Townshend, the innocent party in a divorce case.

Both World Wars caused a spike in divorces, but it was not until the Divorce Reform Act 1969 that they reached the level we are familiar with today. This legislation marked an important shift not merely because it added further grounds for divorce, on the basis of two years' separation with the other party's consent, or five years' without, but because it removed the concept of ‘matrimonial offences' and hence the idea of divorce as a remedy for the innocent against the guilty.

These liberalisations of divorce law, combined with changing attitudes and expectations of marriage, and the greater economic independence of women, all contributed to a rise in the number of divorces from 50,000 per year in 1971 to 150,000 a decade later. More recently the number of divorces has fallen steadily, although this may be more to do with the fact that fewer people are getting married in the first place, rather than a trend toward matrimonial bliss. Today, there are just two marriages for every divorce each year.

Tying and untying the knot
The chart shows the number of divorces and marriages.


Former Members of Parliament

Labour Party, 14 July 1984 - 18 April 1989 Independent, 18 April 1989 - 2 May 1989 New Labour Party, 2 May 1989 - 1 December 1991 Alliance, 1 December 1991 - 27 July 2002 Progressive Coalition, 27 July 2002 - 15 April 2004 Progressive Party, 15 April 2004 - 26 November 2011

National Party, 12 May 1998 - 20 September 2014

National Party, 6 October 2005 - 20 September 2014

National Party, 08 November 2008 - 17 October 2020

New Zealand First Party, 20 September 2014 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 15 August 1981 - 27 November 1999 ACT Party, 14 December 2011 - 13 June 2014

National Party, 20 September 2014 - 23 September 2017

Labour Party, 6 November 1993 - 26 November 2011

Labour Party, 12 October 1996 - 8 November 2008

National Party 26 November 2011 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 28 November 2008 - 21 September 2014

National Party, 17 September 2005 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 - 8 November 2008

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 - 16 February 2007

National Party, 09 June 2018 - 17 October 2020

NZ First, 20 September 2014 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 17 September 2005 - 20 May 2013

National Party, 17 September 2005 - 8 November 2008

NZ First, 24 April 2015 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 17 September 2005 - 23 September 2017

ACT Party, 8 November 2008 - 26 November 2011

Green Party, 27 November 1999 - 30 October 2009

National Party, 27 July 2002 - 6 February 2007

NZ First Party, 12 October 1996 - 8 November 2008

Green Party, 26 November 2011 - 23 September 2017

Labour Party, 8 November 2008 - 26 November 2011

Labour Party, 6 November 1993 - 8 November 2008

National Party, 17 June 2009 - 20 September 2014

ACT Party, 12 October 2010 - 26 November 2011

Labour Party, 6 November 1993 - 12 October 1996 27 November 1999 - 10 August 2010 Independent, 10 August 2010 - 30 September 2011

National Party, 13 August 1994 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 15 August 1987 - 17 July 2011

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 - 26 November 2011

Labour Party, 1 August 2006 - 11 March 2013

Labour Party, 27 July 2002 - 26 November 2011

Labour Party, 28 November 1981 - 18 April 2009

National Party, 17 September 2005 - 8 November 2008

Green Party, 2 November 2009 - 23 September 2017

Green Party, 7 October 2016 - 23 September 2017

National Party , 17 September 2005 - 14 April 2018

National Party, 27 July 2002 - 31 August 2008

United Future, 27 July 2002 - 16 May 2007 Independent, 16 May 2007 - 8 November 2008

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 - 23 September 2017

Labour Party, 28 November 1981 - 30 April 2009

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 - 23 April 2017

Labour Party 8 November 2008 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 12 October 1990 - 11 October 2013

Green Party, 8 November 2008 - 23 September 2017

NZ First Party, 12 October 1996 - 14 February 2008

Labour Party, 29 November 1969 - 27 October 1990 ACT Party, 8 November 2008 - 26 November 2011

National Party, 20 September 2014 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 14 July 1984 - 12 October 1994 Independent, 12 October 1994 - 16 November 1994 Future New Zealand, 16 November 1994 - 28 June 1995 United New Zealand, 28 June 1995 - 16 November 2000 United Future, 16 November 2000 - 26 June 2013 Independent, 26 June 2013 - 20 August 2013 United Future, 20 August 2013 - 23 September 2017

Labour Party, 15 August 1987 - 10 September 1990 6 November 1993 - 8 November 2008

Labour Party, 06 November 1993 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 27 October 1990 - 13 March 2018

Labour Party, 27 July 2002 - 8 November 2008

National Party, 23 September 2017 - 21 July 2020

Labour Party, 6 October 2005 - 20 September 2014

Labour Party, 6 November 1993 - 14 February 2007 Independent, 14 February 2007 - 8 November 2008

National Party, 17 September 2005 - 30 January 2019

Alliance, 12 October 1996 - 18 October 1999 Green Party, 27 November 1999 - 11 February 2010

Māori Party, 17 September 2005 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 17 September 2005 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 21 May 2013 - 23 September 2017

Māori Party, 20 September 2014 - 23 September 2017

Labour Party, 6 November 1993 - 6 September 1996 27 November 1999 - 8 November 2008

National Party, 16 May 2019 - 17 October 2020

ACT Party, 24 November 2008 - 17 September 2010 Independent, 17 September 2010 - 23 September 2010

National Party, 8 November 2008 - 26 November 2011 19 February 2013 - 27 May 2013

Labour Party, 28 November 1981 - 27 October 1990 6 November 1993 - 12 October 2016

National Party, 17 September 2005 - 23 September 2017

Labour Party, 12 October 1996 - 8 November 2008

National Party, 27 July 2002 - 26 November 2011

Green Party, 8 November 2008 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 6 October 2005 - 19 December 2015

National Party, 17 September 2005- 17 October 2020

Green Party, 8 November 2008 - 7 October 2016

Māori Party, 5 October 2005 - 23 February 2011 Independent, 24 February 2011 - 20 May 2011 Mana Party, 25 June 2011 - 21 September 2014

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 - 28 February 2008

National Party, 29 May 2013 - 20 September 2014

Labour Party, 27 October 1990 - 26 November 2011

National Party, 22 January 2014 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 5 October 2005 - 20 September 2014

National Party, 16 December 1999 - 20 September 2014

NZ First Party, 6 November - 18 August 1998 Independent, 18 August 1998 - 28 October 1998 Mauri Pacific Party, 28 October 1998 - 27 November 1999 National Party, 17 September 2005 - 20 September 2014

Labour Party, 27 July 2002 - 8 November 2008

ACT Party, 12 October 1996 - 26 November 2011

Labour Party, 12 October 1996 - 8 November 2008

Labour Party, 27 October 1990 - 26 November 2011

NZ First Party, 14 December 2011 - 4 December 2012 Independent, 5 December 2012 - 21 September 2014

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 - 29 April 2013

National Party, 20 September 2014 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 27 July 2002 - 5 April 2011

Green Party, 12 February 2010 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 8 November 2008 - 21 September 2014 15 March 2017 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 15 December 1999 - 20 September 2014

National Party, 29 November 1975 - 15 June 1984 NZ First Party, 27 July 2002 - 11 August 2005, 15 February 2008 - 8 November 2008

Labour Party, 06 October 2005 - 22 May 2014 New Zealand First Party, 23 September 2017 - 17 October 2020

National Party 8 November 2008 - 2 April 2018

Māori Party, 8 November 2008 - 26 November 2011

National Party, 8 November 2008 - 17 October 2020

Green Party, 27 November 1999- 26 November 2011

National Party, 27 July 2002 - 14 April 2017

Labour Party, 14 July 1984 - 27 October 1990 3 November 1993 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 5 October 2005 - 20 September 2014

National Party, 23 September 2017 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 20 September 2014 - 15 May 2019

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 -15 October 2010

National Party, 23 September 2017 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 08 November 2008 - 17 October 2020

Green Party, 27 November 1999 - 26 November 2011

National Party, 31 January 2019 - 17 October 2020

NZ First Party, 14 December 2011 - 21 September 2014

National Party, 8 November 2008 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 08 November 2008 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 29 July 2003 - 21 September 2014

Labour Party, 27 November 1990 - 3 October 2008

National Party, 12 October 1996 - 26 November 2011

NZ First Party, 23 September 2017 - 17 October 2020

NZ First Party, 12 October 1996 - 8 November 2008 20 September 2014 - 17 October 2020

NZ First Party, 26 November 2011 - 17 October 2020

Green Party, 26 November 2011 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 15 August 1987 - 23 September 2017

New Zealand First, 20 September 2014 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 17 September 2005 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 20 September 2014 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 26 November 2011 - 17 October 2020

Green Party, 28 June 2008 - 30 October 2015

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 - 8 November 2008

NZ First, 26 November 2011 - 23 September 2017

NZ First, 27 July 2002 - 8 November 2008 20 September 2014 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 8 November 2008 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 20 September 2014 - 17 October 2020

NZ First Party, 23 September 2017 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 5 October 2005 - 6 November 2011

National Party, 25 November 1978 - 28 November 1981 14 July 1984 - 18 March 1993 Independent, 17 April 1993 - 18 July 1993 NZ First, 18 July 1993 - 8 November 2008 26 November 2011 - 17 October 2020

Labour Party, 6 November 1993 - 8 November 2008

Labour Party, 27 July 2002 - 26 November 2011

National Party, 27 November 1999 - 26 November 2011

Labour Party, 28 November 2008 - 20 September 2014

NZ First, 26 November 2011 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 8 November 2008 - 15 December 2011

National Party, 27 November 1998 - 8 November 2008

Labour Party, 27 November 1999 - 26 November 2011

Labour Party, 15 August 1987 - 20 September 2014

Green Party, 26 November 2011 - 23 September 2017

National Party, 05 March 2011 - 16 October 2018 Independent, 16 October 2018 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 6 November 1993 - 20 September 2014

ACT Party, 27 July 2002 - 26 November 2011

National Party, 27 October 1990 - 20 September 2014

National Party, 27 November 2011 - 30 January 2015

Labour Party, 12 October 1996 - 8 November 2008

National Party, 20 September 2014 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 7 February 2007 - 21 January 2014

Māori Party, 5 October 2005 - 20 September 2014

Labour Party, 13 June 2009 - 31 December 2016

National Party, 12 March 1992 - 8 November 2008

National Party, 14 July 1984 - 14 February 2013

National Party, 27 October 1990 - 10 June 2021

Labour Party, 4 April 2005 - 11 August 2005 19 February 2007 - 8 November 2008

NZ First Party, 27 July 2002 - 8 November 2008 26 November 2011 - 23 September 2017

Labour Party, 6 October 2005 - 21 September 2014

Labour Party, 14 July 1984 - 10 September 6 November 1993 - 30 July 2006

Labour Party, 27 October 1990 - 8 November 2008

NZ First Party, 20 September 2014 - 17 October 2020

Green Party, 27 November 1999 - 26 June 2008

National Party, 12 October 1996 - 26 November 2011

National Party, 27 November 1999 - 23 September 2017

Labour Party, 27 October 1990 - 8 November 2008

National Party, 27 November 1999 - 27 July 2002 17 September 2005 - 17 October 2020

National Party, 5 October 2005 - September 2014

Green Party, 27 July 2002 - 23 September 2017

Labour Party, 12 October 1996 - 17 May 2004 Māori Party, 10 July 2004 - 20 September 2014


Members of Parliament


Marisa Dalrymple Philibert’s foray into the world of representational politics began in 2007 when she was elected Member of Parliament for South Trelawny. She was first elected Speaker of the House in 2011, becoming only the second woman to occupy the office. Mrs. Dalrymple Philibert was elected Speaker for the second time in September 2020. During her Parliamentary career, Mrs. Dalrymple Philibert has served as Deputy Speaker and has served as Chairperson and member of numerous Parliamentary Committees.

The Honourable Speaker displayed her leadership qualities from early on, being selected as Head Girl of the Westwood High School in 1973. She pursued tertiary studies at the University of the West Indies earning a Bachelor of Laws Degree, and later Legal Education Certificate from the Norman Manley Law School in 1980.

Mrs. Dalrymple Philibert is a founding partner in the law firm Grayson and company and has been an attorney for over thirty years. She is a director for the SKDP Haulage and Distribution and Sherold Ltd. In addition, she has served as Chairman of the Board for the Brown’s Town Community College and is a founding board member of the MoBay Hope Diagnostic and Medical Centre. Mrs. Dalrymple Philibert was a proud member of the School Board of Westwood High School –her alma mater . She has also served as Chairperson of the Jamaica Labour Party‘s Area Council 4. Mrs. Dalrymple Philibert enjoys horticultural pursuits and cooking.


Murder in Parliament, 200 Years Ago

John Bellingham quietly entered the House of Commons lobby around 5 p.m. on May 11, 1812. As members of Parliament conversed in small clusters, the tall, thin man calmly sat down on the bench next to the fireplace. Beneath Bellingham’s placid veneer, however, roiled a sea of bitterness.

The Liverpool businessman had been arrested in Russia on charges of insurance fraud in 1804, and he spent more than five years festering in rat-infested jails, surviving at times on just bread and water. The British ambassador and the foreign office ignored Bellingham’s repeated pleas to intercede on his behalf. Russian authorities eventually dropped the charges, likely trumped up, and Bellingham returned to his family in England bankrupt and broken. He lobbied the British government for financial compensation for his suffering and the loss of his business, but when his letters went unanswered, Bellingham traveled to London in January 1812 to personally press his case. For weeks the merchant was a regular presence inside the Houses of Parliament, but his direct appeals to government officials fell on deaf ears.

Now, as Bellingham sat in the House of Commons, venom coursed through his veins. He was so consumed by the belief that the British government had denied him justice that he focused his rage on the man in charge of that government. Around 5:15 p.m. Bellingham saw the target of his wrath, Tory Prime Minister Spencer Perceval, cross the threshold into the lobby. Without saying a word, he strode purposefully toward the diminutive prime minister, pulled one of the two dueling pistols he concealed in a specially tailored pocket beneath his overcoat and pumped a shot directly into the chest of the leader of the world’s most powerful country. The large lead ball fired from the gun instantly pierced the prime minister’s heart. Perceval put his hand to his chest and, according to eyewitness accounts, gasped “I am murdered!” or “Murder, Murder!” before falling to the ground. The politician’s blood flowed through the hallowed halls of Parliament as he was carried to a nearby room. Perceval, his white waistcoat scarlet and his crimson cheeks pale, was propped up in a sitting position on a table. Minutes later, a surgeon arrived and put his fingers on Perceval’s wrist. Nothing. The prime minister was dead.

Illustration of the assassination of Spencer Perceval by John Bellingham. (Credit: Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

Bellingham, meanwhile, did not attempt to flee after firing the fatal shot. Instead, he simply returned to his seat beside the fireplace with the smoking gun literally still in his right hand. He offered no resistance as he was taken into custody and placed in a prison cell inside Parliament.

The assassin believed that Britons would applaud his strike in the name of justice, and the reception he received while being escorted out of Parliament in handcuffs hours after the assassination was a shocking affirmation. The large crowd that had swelled outside Parliament cheered lustily upon seeing Bellingham, and the mob even tried to abet the shooter’s escape by throwing open the doors of the hackney coach that was to transfer him to Newgate Prison. Sir Samuel Romilly, a member of Parliament, recounted in his memoir that “the most savage expressions of joy and exultation were heard, accompanied with regret that others, and particularly the attorney-general, had not shared the same fate.” In Wolverhampton, the news of the prime minister’s murder was greeted with celebratory gunfire, while in Nottingham bells pealed, bonfires blazed and crowds beat drums.

The lack of collective mourning testified to just how divisive a figure Perceval had been in Britain since becoming prime minister in 1809. During his tumultuous time in office, he zealously pursued war against Napoleon, and his continuation of efforts to impede American trade with France would soon help to ignite the War of 1812. The high taxes imposed by Perceval to fund the military ventures strained an economy already crippled by French naval blockades. Driven by his religious convictions, Perceval also strangled the illegal slave trade that had been an economic lifeline to port cities such as Bellingham’s hometown of Liverpool. Amid the social tumult of the Industrial Revolution, the prime minister cracked down hard on Luddite rioters, and his government passed controversial legislation making destruction of machines a capital offense.

While many with deep animosity toward Perceval celebrated his demise, justice for Bellingham was swift. Just four days after the assassination, he stood trial in London’s historic courthouse, the Old Bailey. When Bellingham had a chance to address the court, he recounted his experiences in Russia and said that his action, while necessary and justified, did not spring from any personal malice toward the prime minister. “The unfortunate lot had fallen upon him as the leading member of that administration which had repeatedly refused me any reparation,” Bellingham told the packed courtroom. Then he chillingly added, “I trust this fatal catastrophe will be warning to other ministers. If they had listened to my case, this court would not have been engaged in this case.”

The jury, though, was hardly sympathetic to Bellingham, and it took less than 15 minutes to render its verdict: guilty. Bellingham was once again thrown in a prison cell, where he subsisted on nothing but bread and water. This time, however, it wouldn’t be a long stay. On May 18, 1812, just a week after the sensational murder, Bellingham hanged from the gallows. Robert Banks Jenkinson, earl of Liverpool, soon became prime minister, and the stability of his 15-year rule stood in contrast to the rocky tenure of his predecessor. Perceval faded into obscurity, and while he ranks high among Britain’s forgotten prime ministers, he may always be remembered for his violent end.

FACT CHECK: We strive for accuracy and fairness. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! HISTORY reviews and updates its content regularly to ensure it is complete and accurate.


Liverpool

As a port Liverpool was by now second only to London, enjoying a quarter of the country’s foreign trade and the largest share of its African trade. It gave employment to about 3,000 shipwrights, who, with ancillary trades, made up the majority of the electorate. Freemen qualified by birth or servitude and no longer by purchase, so the corporation was unable to command them there was in any case a long-standing political conflict between that Anglican body and the dissenting freemen. A further bid by the freemen, begun in 1791, to reduce corporation influence achieved temporary success, but was subsequently bogged down in litigation. The corporation looked to government patronage, but government could not expect to sway parliamentary elections. The venality of the freemen at large was admitted, the merchant class were divided and many of them not even freemen, so contests were both inevitable and rowdy. Candidates were expected to serve the port’s commercial interests, though mutual jealousy precluded local merchants from any prospect of success at the polls, and until 1806, irrespective of politics, Members were under pressure from the corporation to resist the abolition of the African slave trade.1

The contest of 1784 had ended in a political compromise, Gascoyne being the corporation favourite and Lord Penrhyn the representative of the independent freemen. Col. Tarleton, defeated then, renewed his candidature in 1790. Like Penrhyn, he was a Whig, but a more outspoken one and, unlike Penrhyn, he did not have an extensive knowledge of Liverpool’s commercial interests. It was a coalition of the sitting Members, publicly proposed on 16 June, that paved his road to success. At the time he left Liverpool disgruntled and his opponents stopped the taps the mob ‘threatened to pull down Mr Ellis [Leckonby] Hodgson’s house if he did not stand for Col. Tarleton’ an express was sent after Tarleton and he returned to triumph: ‘The journeymen carpenters, and other mechanics, have quitted their masters, and joined the colonel’s party. Nothing is heard in the streets but Tarleton, Freedom and no Coalition!’ Penrhyn retired in a huff, 22 June: ‘as my re-election is attended now with the same contest, disorder and confusion that I have experienced at every dissolution of Parliament for these twenty years past, though I am first on the poll, and have no doubt of success, I beg leave to retire’. Penrhyn’s friends continued the poll in his name, to no avail. Gascoyne, ‘the avowed friend . of Mr Pitt’ and ‘the shadow, echo and instrument of his father’, was too ill to attend the hustings. Tarleton, ‘the brave Colonel’, ‘the True Blue’, was the ‘Anti-corporate’ champion and Penrhyn written off for having ‘sullied his honour in joining a man of diametrically opposed principles’. Parker, the fourth man, opened ‘a bar of convenience only for Col. Tarleton’. By September 1795 report had it that ‘General Tarleton has defeated Lord Penrhyn in his views on Liverpool for the next Parliament’. Nevertheless, ‘a certain number of gentlemen’ who had subscribed £5,300 for Tarleton’s expenses in 1790 now disapproved his persistence in opposition.2

Of five candidates in 1796, three went to the poll: Col. Isaac Gascoyne stepped into his indisposed brother Bamber’s shoes and ministers were urged to encourage a candidate (such as Robert Banks Jenkinson*) to oppose Tarleton. Tarleton found himself challenged by his own brother John, then Member for Seaford. The latter was an eminent Liverpool West India merchant and on that account proclaimed a fitter representative by his supporters: but was also ‘a decided supporter of the present administration’, while his brother was reproached for his ‘attachment to French principles’. Nothing came of efforts to persuade Ellis Leckonby Hodgson or Col. Bryan Blundell to stand on the same interest as Col. Tarleton or of advertisements on behalf of local merchants such as George Case, Thomas Earl or the slave trader Thomas Clarke. John Tarleton was sponsored by John Bolton, and although the candidates stood singly and a coalition between Gascoyne and John Tarleton was disavowed, they split many votes between them before the latter gave up. His candidature had been rebuked as ‘unbrotherly’ and his corporation politics and personal probity impugned by the independent freemen. Even so, Col. Tarleton was assured by ‘Fellow Burgess’ that his politics were uncongenial to many of his own supporters. He was ‘enabled to keep his ground—if not by the discriminating judgment of the town, by the personal attachment of the lower orders over whom he has considerable influence’.3

In 1802 the sitting Members met at first with only a puny opposition from Francis Chalmer, tobacco broker and printer, posing as a champion of the poor. He persevered, but got nowhere. More formidable was the challenge of Joseph Birch, a local merchant esteemed in dissenting circles. He maintained that he would have succeeded but for his late start, and his supporters alleged that the sitting Members had forgotten their political differences to coalesce against him. Dr James Currie described the contest as follows in a letter to Thomas Creevey, 9 July:

I told you that Birch had declined standing, but unfortunately he could not keep to his resolution: people came round about him to say what support he would have had, etc. . they kindled the fire in his ambitious heart and on the morning of the commencement of the poll he came suddenly forward and was proposed as a candidate after the poll had been open an hour. He appeared in great strength and had a decided advantage over Tarleton. In his public profession he avowed his opposition to the late administration and the war, but expressed his approbation of the present administration as peace-makers, and his intention of supporting them while they continued their present career. I dare say this alarmed Gascoyne’s friends: he is you know a Grenvillite and voted against the peace, and holds the patronage of Liverpool, it may be presumed on sufferance only. They had declared against all coalition, but from the first I understand they began more or less to split on General Tarleton, and even lent him a tally now and then when at a loss. As Birch showed more and more strength this partiality appeared more and more, which it might the more safely do as both parties splitting from the first on Gascoyne sent him rapidly ahead. The poll is just closed by Birch’s resignation after four days close contest. . There has been a good deal of ill humour and it will not cease, I fear. The handbills published by Tarleton’s friends have been singularly scurrilous, though the committee disavow them. It is not a little curious that he has been brought in, by a small part only of the interest that has thrice before fought his battle, singly paid every expense, joined to the whole of the party that at last election endeavoured to throw him out and bring in Jack Tarleton, and reinforced by the corporation without which Birch would infallibly have succeeded easy. On this election Jack Tarleton subscribed £500 towards the support of his brother yet after all I doubt if Tarleton has changed his principles, or rather his party, for principles he never had. I am told that he is in correspondence with Fox and that he even talked of it on the hustings.

Birch proceeded to Nottingham, where he was elected.4

Tarleton, who like Birch was well disposed to Addington’s ministry, deserted them in the spring of 1804. Dr Currie wrote of him to Creevey, 11 Mar.:

. it is understood that he is got into opposition and that the patronage of this great town is a-gone a-begging. If you would play the knave you might have it, and no doubt ensure a seat for Liverpool, the present administration standing. I have a good mind to write to Tierney and put in a claim for myself, for really I do not see (strange as it may appear) the least chance of a legitimate claimant. Blackburne, Member for this county, has it seems refused it before Tarleton got it: Lord Derby and Colonel Stanley are out of the question, so is Dent, Gascoyne, etc. Loyal Liverpool has actually got two opposition Members!

In the event Tarleton went on to support Pitt’s second ministry and forfeited Whig support. In February 1806 Lord Sefton, a neighbouring Whig magnate, was urged to come forward on their behalf, but at the dissolution he ‘positively declined’. The Whigs, in office, had no candidate. Ellis Leckonby Hodgson, since become a Yorkshire country gentleman, offered his services. He informed Earl Fitzwilliam, 25 Oct. 1806:

I have been applied to from Liverpool to offer myself there by a large body of freemen—and I should thank your lordship to inform me whether any friend of government is gone down to support their interest. . My friend Arthur Heywood promised to vote for me the last time if I would then have offered myself, and your lordship’s immediate interference with him would have the greatest weight. The voters consist of 1,600 journeymen, and about 500 merchants, and respectable tradesmen—the women and freemen at large are my steady friends, were they left to themselves.

Hodgson duly offered, counting on government support and on that of Sefton’s friends:

As I have always been a strong partisan at Liverpool in favour of Mr Fox the government agents are not very fond of me—they will therefore have the goodness to write in very strong terms to them to influence their relations.

Fitzwilliam’s provisional application to the premier on Hodgson’s behalf was preceded by another from Lord Derby recommending Joseph Birch, who was giving up Nottingham and likely to be ‘an active and zealous supporter of the present administration’. Neither Hodgson nor Birch was thought to be as promising a candidate as Sefton would have been. (Thomas Creevey, whom the chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to sponsor, would not bite.) Hodgson feared that he must be dished by Gascoyne:

I have opposed the Gascoyne family at every election since the year 1780—and I don’t doubt he wishes to be thought the government Member that I might interfere with his patronage also would be another ground of support to Tarleton.

In the event Birch did not offer and Hodgson made way for William Roscoe, the day before the election. Others who had declined included Sir Thomas Hesketh, Sir Isaac Coffin* and Thomas Earl. A self-made Whig intellectual, Roscoe was a startling choice, notably because of his avowed opposition to the slave trade, but he had the support of Lords Sefton and Stanley and government, and that of his fellow Presbyterians and the anti-corporation party. He supported a moderate reform of Parliament, peace and retrenchment. He polled plumpers and the sitting Members felt obliged to deny that they had coalesced against him. On the sixth day he overtook Tarleton, assisted by a muster of outvotes. Tarleton’s friends (led by John Bolton) failed in a bid for alliance with him. Amid riotous scenes, Roscoe headed the poll of 2,345 electors, receiving 867 plumpers, and he was f’ted in a triumphal procession of 10,000 people. He himself was ‘almost surprised at the event and cannot but own that my townsmen are highly risen in my estimation’: how else could they return ‘a friend to liberty and toleration, and an open and proclaimed enemy to the African slave trade’. But his younger supporters had not spared the expense and his return cost over £11,000 compared with the other candidates’ £7,000.5

Roscoe’s débâcle at the Liverpool election of 1807 was thus described by him:

The abolition of the slave trade took place on the 1st May, and on the 2nd I arrived there to offer myself as a candidate. That I had given unpardonable offence to many of those concerned in that traffic I was well aware, but this I believe I should have surmounted, had it not been for the additional cry of Church and King, No Popery etc. which served as a vehicle for the ill will of those who opposed me on grounds which they could not so publicly avow.

He intended to withdraw, but his supporters persisted in nominating him. A subscription for him, proposed on 29 Apr., was reported to amount to £27,000, but he complained of being outmatched by his opponents the generals, who, he claimed, spent over £20,000 in 7 days. There was even a report that Thomas Leyland, Roscoe’s former banking partner and supporter, would offer on a joint interest with Tarleton, who returned to the fray, to revenge ‘a bitter mortification’ at the previous election. Tarleton’s address was friendly to the Portland administration and he claimed to stand singly Roscoe, however, maintained that thanks to the hostility of the corporation there was a coalition against him, and the poll book confirms it. His opponents both called for the restoration of the slave trade. The candidature of William Joseph Denison* was ‘totally unknown’ to him ‘and done with a view to seat Mr Roscoe and myself by petition’, so he learned. He disavowed it. An electors’ petition of 8 July against Tarleton and Gascoyne alleging bribery, treating and foreclosure of the poll was not pursued, though its chances were said to be good.6

Before the next election Liverpool politics were in a state of flux. Roscoe had made it clear that he would not offer again, but he was prepared to be an agent behind the scenes. The campaign against the orders in council, in which local merchants were active, gave prominence to Henry Brougham, counsel for the Liverpool petition against the orders in 1808. An even bigger fish was angled for: in March 1810 George Canning heard ‘there was an arrangement going on at Liverpool for preparing a purse to bring me in . free of expense—and that the offer was to be made to me when the arrangement was completed’. He noted that he had been approached by one Turner of Liverpool who, he suspected, wished to obtain ‘the merit with me of the proposal which he may know is to come’.7 Subsequently a clumsy effort was made by Canning’s friends to make a convert of Gen. Gascoyne, who rebuffed it. Tarleton had disappointed his sponsors’ expectations that he would be a firm supporter of government. In March 1812 Gascoyne alleged to Robert Ward* that

Tarleton would infallibly be thrown out for Liverpool, and that Canning was in negotiation to come in upon the interest that returned him that a deputation from that interest had conferred with him, and he had consented to go to a certain sum in point of expense that government ought to know this as the thing was advancing, and it might be too late to interfere if long delayed. He agreed with me, that this would be a great triumph for Canning if he succeeded and as it was so great a commercial interest, coupled with his conduct on the question of the orders in council, the success would be a proportionable blow upon the government: he added, however, that he was sure of coming in himself, and, if government would give him a coadjutor of a certain weight and consequence in the place, he thought the interest on which he stood might return both Members, but it must be resolved upon directly.

Gascoyne declining to do so, Ward informed the premier, Spencer Perceval, who said:

There was a Mr [John] Bolton, a man of great local weight and consideration at Liverpool, who had expressed a willingness to stand against Tarleton, who was decidedly a friend to government, and who had been in communication with him on commercial questions, particularly in showing that the trading interest there was by no means so adverse on the public policy of the ministry as had been represented. Him he thought of as the sort of man Gascoyne mentioned.

Perceval did not then wish to press for Bolton’s services and was soon afterwards informed by Gascoyne, through Ward, ‘that if anyone stood beside the present Members, whether Canning or the other mentioned, Patten, the present Member for Lancaster, would certainly come forward’.8

Canning, who was at this time (March 1812) under pressure from Mr Lytt, ‘a very great man at Liverpool’, to commit himself, hesitated: ‘nothing but an election as unsought, and as unexpensive as that would be, shall induce me to come into Parliament again’. He doubted if his pro-Catholic views would hurt him at Liverpool, but ‘everything else is uncertain there’.9 That session Brougham earned the gratitude of opponents of the orders in council by his successful campaign against them in the House (supported by Canning). At Liverpool the conduct of the sitting Members was condemned and, both then and on receiving public thanks at Liverpool on 4 Sept., Brougham was given every encouragement to regard himself as a prospective candidate, though he would not commit himself. Roscoe was his stage manager and Lords Derby and Sefton were cheerleaders. Sefton had assured Brougham, on the admission of Foster, ‘the organ of the corporation’, that he was ‘almost certain’ to succeed. On 18 Aug. Broughton had informed the Whig leader Earl Grey, who disliked a notion then current that Brougham and Canning might stand jointly, ‘I would rather come in with Gascoyne than Canning 1,000 times but I still incline to think it not worthwhile if we can’t carry both’.

The Whig dream of carrying both Members was very much Roscoe’s property and he induced Brougham to accept as his running partner Thomas Creevey, a native Whig whose campaign against the East India Company commercial monopoly went down well at Liverpool. Creevey had given his assent to Roscoe on 4 July. He pointed out that he had a seat for Thetford to defend, but consented to come on to Liverpool after securing his election, provided that he was wholeheartedly supported. This he was not, but Roscoe would not go back on his own decision not to stand.10 At this point matters were complicated by a bid by Tarleton to secure his re-election by inducing Grey, the Whig leader, to give up the idea of winning both seats. Informed of this, Brougham, who on the whole objected to standing alone, swore that ‘next to turning out both the generals—and almost equally with that, I should like to come in with Tarleton’. He would jump at a compromise with Tarleton it would mean dropping Creevey, but Creevey ‘won’t do’. The manoeuvre must never be divulged at Liverpool or the game would be up, and Brougham dared not communicate with Tarleton himself. Nothing came of this. Tarleton protested to Grey, ‘You cannot say the conduct of Brougham and Creevey has been kind and fair to a person who walked out of the House with them . and never to any human being had intimated an intention of withdrawing on the dissolution’. He subsequently insisted that ‘the whole business might have been arranged better and Brougham and I might have been the sitting Members’.11

A subscription was opened for the two Whig candidates on 21 Sept. 1812 at a public meeting attended by 1,000 people, but it was agreed that they should not be formally invited to stand until the dissolution. Their prospects, depressed by the prospect of war with the USA, were momentarily enhanced by a manoeuvre of the Prince Regent’s favourite Lord Yarmouth, in concert with Lord Lowther and Sir James Graham (who declined the honour) to sponsor William Congreve* as ministerial candidate. The premier Lord Liverpool concurred, but nothing came of the venture, or of another speculation that (Sir) Edward Buller* would play the same role. Brougham assured Grey on the eve of his triumphal entry into Liverpool on 5 Oct., ‘If three stand against which we trust will happen, we are next to sure and we rely on their quarrels and poverty’. To Creevey he wrote, ‘An ample fund is ready’. The big question, however, was whether Canning would come. Brougham thought that Canning’s ‘taking the popular line is a piece of stupidity never paralleled. It hampers him for life with his own side and cuts him off from 9/10 of his topics, as you may call them—principles he has none.’ He added, ‘I still doubt his coming. It is so absurd a step, especially if he ever is to be in office again, for we can then make him spend £10,000 without risking £500.’ Canning arrived a day late for his eve of poll entrée joyeuse of 7 Oct. He had received his formal invitation to stand only after the Whig decision to field two candidates and complained that ‘a timely offer’ to him might have prevented a contest on which he would not spend ‘one single obulus’, being assured of a quieter seat. His Liverpool supporters were warned by him of this and about £6,000 was subscribed for him: not enough, he thought, but he refused to assist the chairman of his committee, John Gladstone*, in augmenting it to £10,000, and took it for granted that his supporters were prepared to swallow his non-alignment with government. Of the wish of John Bolton that he should pledge support to ministers, he wrote to Bootle Wilbraham, one of the devotees whose services he enlisted at Liverpool, ‘I would not give such a pledge for 50 seats’. He stood alone, but from the start noted ‘all Gascoyne’s voters vote for me’, in return for which some of his plumpers were directed to vote for Gascoyne as well.12

The contest involved the candidates in an exhausting round of speeches and drinking at the freemen’s clubs. Creevey, who had arrived late from Thetford, assured his wife, ‘There never was such an election here before, the people are as tractable as lambs’. (With candidates of such stature as Canning and Brougham to court them, the unruly almost forgot to riot.) Creevey averred that the other side would spend £20,000 to carry their point ‘and it is a most formidable coalition, it is the corporation and Tarleton’s old party, ours is really the cause of the town and the people’s, and we have in William Heywood, William Ashton and the Earls the best gentry in the place’. He also commended Lord Sefton for his eloquent assistance and Lord Derby for ignoring a corporation threat to oppose his son for the county if he allowed militiamen to vote for the Whig candidates. He praised 21 young men who canvassed for the Whigs and noted that a letter of his to Roscoe denouncing the corporation oligarchy was being circulated. If he did not succeed this time, he was sure that he would at the next opportunity.13

On 13 Oct. 1812 Brougham informed Grey:

Overtures, or half-overtures, of accommodation have been made, but we are so desirous of gaining a complete victory, and of dishing Canning, that these have been rejected, and we are fighting it out.

At that point Brougham was second to Canning, who led from the start, and Creevey just behind Gascoyne. The refusal to negotiate was decisive. On 15 Oct. Gascoyne overtook Brougham and next day at noon the Whigs gave up, with about 150 votes unpolled. The outvote had been drawn on as in 1806 and 2,726 voted. The victors had spent £20,000, as Creevey predicted, and Brougham alleged that they gave ‘20 and 30 guineas a vote, and the thing was done. Our friends have not spent £8,000.’ He had received subsidies of £400 from his admirers at Glasgow and Hull and the offer to buy him a seat elsewhere from Birmingham. The speeches of Canning and Brougham also made it the first Liverpool election to be of national interest—both published them. Canning did not avoid the issue of Catholic relief, denounced reform and favoured war with the USA. Brougham was particularly proud of an impromptu attack on the ‘immortality’ of Pitt to an audience of several thousand, 15 Oct., which he followed up next day with an encomium on Fox.14 Writing to Roscoe after the election in a state of exhaustion, he was ‘clear that the perpetual lectures on good principles read by us all have done great service’, though he saw that his enmity to the slave trade had damaged him. He did not approve of Whig jeremiads which alleged that a compromise with Canning would have been justifiable merely to ensure his winning a seat. Canning, who regarded Gascoyne as his passenger and expected his adherence in Parliament, was equally relieved that no compromise had taken place. Creevey was contented that he had not come in as ‘second fiddle’ to Brougham, being sure that they could not preserve both seats and preferring his own prospects in future.15

What light did the contest of 1812 throw on the need for parliamentary reform? Canning maintained that he had beaten the reformers in a popular election, but Brougham insisted that Liverpool was, in fact, like a close borough:

The proportion of the voters to the inhabitants is exactly the same (and the right of voting too) in Liverpool, as in Camelford—a close borough for which I sat in last Parliament namely—three per cent—and with this difference, that in Liverpool the freemen . are chiefly the lowest and least worthy inhabitants and under the entire control of the shipping interest and other bodies. Thirty or forty individuals really return the Members, and the only wonder was that beside the natural strength of our friends, we could obtain so many of those poor people to vote with us at the certain loss of their bread—as many a one said on giving his vote—while many others openly avowed on the hustings that their hearts were with us but they durst not! This support we owed to the whole people being with us loudly. A reform in Parliament would cure all this.

This was what Brougham wrote to a sympathizer Leigh Hunt, whom he also urged:

Think of such men as Roscoe, having no vote—while every slave captain who served seven years’ apprenticeship to that traffic of blood was enabled to vote against the person who made it a felony. . Every means of influence was exhausted and at last gold carried the day.

(With this last view the embittered Tarleton, who had polled 11 votes and claimed to be assisting the Whigs, so far agreed as to present a petition alleging bribery and corruption, 14 Dec. 1812, but his scheme of revenge failed.)16 Brougham found that other Whigs were sceptical about his Liverpool thesis. To John Allen he wrote at more length:

each shipowner, shipbuilder etc has a certain number of the freemen in his service, and these men vote as a matter of course with their masters. Canning’s friends are the shipping interest, ours the American traders and country gentlemen. The former have if united with the corporation a larger number in their service than the latter, and therefore, being combined together in this instance they carried the day. . In Roscoe’s case, the men were active with him who are now Canning’s chief supporters, and together they beat the corporation. Forty or 50 of these men have the whole freemen—at least a hollow majority in their hands. The wonder was our doing what we did, for we in fact ran them within 200. This being the real number they would have beat us by had we gone on to the end of our force, but the enemy polled a whole day after we gave in. This small majority, and the fact of their considering themselves as beaten on the 3rd and 4th days (when I suspect though I don’t know it for certain they would have agreed to a compromise very gladly) which they acknowledge, and which led to the final coalition of Canning and Gascoyne, can only be explained by the fact of our having the whole people or nearly so with us, which is undoubted, and this tide carrying so many of the freemen off their feet and making them vote with us in spite of all bribes and threats. Many are at this moment starving by having been turned off. I must add that on the 4th day when they were desperate our adversaries said if £50,000 were required they were determined to carry it, and immediately doubled their subscriptions. This raised their money to £20,000, and it has cost them £25,000, us £10,000. . Of course bribery was the last thing they tried and 20 or 30 guineas a man were currently given.

Lord Lansdowne, to whom Allen showed this letter, commented: ‘He has certainly failed in convincing me that Liverpool is a close borough. Proportion of voters to inhabitants signifies nothing where the positive number is so great.’ But to Lord Milton, Brougham wrote unrepentantly that Liverpool was not ‘in any sense whatever a popular election had it been so at all, I was perfectly sure of coming in and bringing another in with me’.17

On 26 Dec. 1812 Lord Lonsdale, writing to the prime minister for a piece of Liverpool patronage, asked it on behalf of John Bolton, whom he described as ‘the chief means’ of bringing in Gascoyne and as having ‘required a pledge from him that he should support the government’. Canning had already informed Lord Liverpool that no patronage application made by him was to be construed as serving his personal wishes or interest and had received a very civil reply. So soon afterwards it was suggested that ‘the petition from Liverpool, praying the aid of Parliament for the docks, will perhaps explain in part the preference given there to Mr Canning over Mr Brougham’.18 Canning was nevertheless prepared to shake off Liverpool, which had just established a London office as a channel for patronage applications, and to come in for Oxford University at the first opening. When in the autumn of 1814 he obtained a post at Lisbon after his rapprochement with government he introduced William Huskisson* at Liverpool ‘as the friend who had undertaken their business during his absence on the Continent’. The plan was to retain the seat now, lest Brougham capture it, and to substitute Huskisson for himself when the vacancy for the university occurred but his colleague Gascoyne refused to acquiesce. That Gascoyne felt vulnerable is clear from his objections to Canning’s Liverpool champion (and his own potential challenger) John Gladstone corresponding directly with Lord Liverpool on politics.19 On his return to England and office in 1816 Canning must needs seek reelection at Liverpool—a seat for his university eluded him. He was opposed, ineffectively, by ‘a man of straw’, Thomas Leyland, mayor the previous year, and he reported his chairing as cordial as well as magnificent. The prospect of East India patronage endeared him to his constituents. Brougham, still without a seat, had washed his hands of Liverpool, described by him in 1812 as his ‘second home’.20

Leyland declined an invitation to stand again in the election of 1818. Joseph Birch* was mentioned as the likeliest Whig candidate, but in the event Lord Sefton stood in absentia, sending his heir Lord Molyneux to represent him and stake his own claims for the future. ‘I only consented to be nominated because they could get no one else’, explained Sefton to Creevey, adding that he did not ask a single vote and had instructed Molyneux not to canvass, to avoid any expense. Canning ‘had never a moment’s doubt . there was not a hitch, or a rub of any kind from beginning to end’. The only question was whether Gascoyne could keep Sefton at bay—he had ignored the threat of a compromise between Canning and Sefton, intended to frighten him off. There was ‘no mischief, though plenty of shouting—and the names of Oliver and Ogden occasionally audible among a multitude of inarticulate yellings’, reported Canning. The candidates stood singly. On 20 June the Whigs named a new candidate, Arthur Heywood, to which Canning’s party responded by naming his host John Bolton, and Gascoyne’s friends followed suit. ‘The meaning of this is—that two voting-places (bars as they are called) friendly to each other multiply the effect of the votes—whereas a single candidate can only succeed by what are called plumpers’. By 22 June ‘there were 21 names of candidates on the mayor’s book and nine in whose names votes were actually taken’, and ‘the substantial candidates agreed to withdraw their shadows’. On 25 June the Whigs conceded victory, after 2,876 voters had polled. The outvotes were called in, but Canning had over 300 votes unpolled. Sefton polled 1,148 plumpers, Gascoyne 52. Gascoyne clearly owed his security to Canning’s second votes, and Canning noted that Lord Molyneux would be ‘a formidable opponent to the general next time if there is a third candidate in my room’.21


Member of Parliament (MP)

The term Member of Parliament (MP) refers to individuals elected to represent a single federal electoral district (or “riding”) in the House of Commons. As elected representatives, MPs have three main duties: legislating in Parliament, representing their riding and political party, and serving their constituents’ needs. MPs occupy different roles and levels of influence in government. They hold office until Parliament is dissolved — typically four year terms — and can serve infinite mandates, so long as they are re-elected. Any Canadian citizen who is at least 18 years old on election day can run for office. Most MPs are elected as a member of a political party, but some may campaign and sit as independents. There are 338 seats for Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.

What do Members of Parliament Do?

MPs have three major responsibilities: legislating in Parliament, representing their riding and political party, and serving their constituents’ needs. Policymaking is the domain of Cabinet, its ministers and the senior public service MPs as a group have less effect in policy formation, although some MPs claim a strong voice in caucus and in committees. Part of an MP’s representative role is responding to the grievances of constituents. MPs are elected to represent the interests of the people in their constituencies — where they maintain an office. As representatives, MPs propose, debate and vote on legislation, engage in committee work, speak on matters of local, regional and national importance in the House of Commons (and during caucus meetings), and ask questions of the prime minister and of Cabinet ministers when Parliament is in session. They also review government spending estimates and vote on federal budgets.


Roles in the House of Commons

Members of Parliament occupy different roles and levels of influence in government. Members can be assigned or elected to a variety of positions, including speaker, house leader, party whip, committee chair, Cabinet minister or opposition critic. Members of Parliament are paid public servants whose yearly salary, as of April 2019, starts at $178,900. Members with additional responsibilities (including the prime minister and the positions listed above) earn higher salaries as well as additional perks such as a car allowance.

The prime minister is the head of the federal government, but he or she is also an elected Member of Parliament. In the party system, the leader of the party with the most support in the House of Commons normally becomes prime minister — people are not specifically elected to the position. Party leaders can become prime minister even if they are not an MP (e.g., John Turner spent most of his term as prime minister outside of Commons) however, convention would urge them to seek a seat in a general election or a by-election. The prime minister sets policy direction, manages government, directs and appoints Cabinet, meets with foreign delegations and answers questions — from opposition members and sometimes from backbenchers in his or her party — when Parliament is in session. The prime minister and Cabinet must maintain the support (or confidence) of the majority of MPs in the house in order to govern.

Certain members — traditionally from the party holding the most seats in the House of Commons, but not always — are appointed to Cabinet, the committee of ministers that holds executive power. Most Cabinet ministers are the formal head of one or more government ministries. Those ministries often include safety, health, employment, defence, environment, Indigenous and northern affairs, natural resources, economic development, immigration, agriculture, transportation, tourism, foreign affairs, justice, intergovernmental affairs and finance, among others.

Ministers set departmental priorities, draft public policy, serve on committees and propose legislation.

In the party system, opposition parties form what are known as “shadow Cabinets,” which mirror Cabinet. Shadow ministers (generally referred to as opposition critics) hold the government to account, offering alternative policy, and expressing their party’s position and message.

Members who are not in Cabinet are known by the term backbencher because they historically sat on a bench in the back of Parliament. Principal work for all backbench members is providing services to constituents policy making in conjunction with the party caucus and being members of various committees reviewing legislation.

Representation

There are 338 seats in the House of Commons, distributed among the provinces and territories. Those seats are allocated by a procedure known as redistribution and change every 10 years, after a census in a year ending in “1,” such as 2011 — known as a “decennial census.”

Elected Members of Parliament

Any Canadian citizen who is at least 18 years old on election day can run for office. Virtually all MPs are elected as a member of a political party, but some may campaign or sit as independents.

MPs generally possess a high level of education. After the 2015 election, 227 MPs had bachelor’s degrees, 97 had master’s degrees and 14 had PhDs. Many are elected to serve in the federal government after serving in provincial, territorial or municipal government. Many others enter politics from the private sector. Common professions include careers in business, law, consultancy, teaching and journalism. MPs are mostly male (71 per cent) and middle-aged (in their 40s and 50s). Their careers are usually short-lived — on average, eight years, or two terms — due to shifting electoral behaviour.

Diversity in the House of Commons

In 2015, 54 Indigenous candidates ran in the federal election, with a record 10 MPs elected to the House of Commons. This was up from seven in 2011. In the 2019 federal election, 62 Indigenous candidates ran for office. Of that number, 10 (four First Nations, four Métis and two Inuit) were elected to the House of Commons.

In 2015 visible minority groups represented 12.9 percent of all candidates from the six main parties (see Liberal Party of Canada, Conservative Party of Canada, New Democratic Party, Bloc Québécois, Green Party of Canada, People’s Party of Canada). In 2019, that proportion increased to 15.7 percent. The total number of visible minority MPs elected increased from 47 in 2015 (13.9 percent) to 51 in 2019 (15.1 percent).

The number of women candidates who ran in federal elections increased from 533 in 2015 to 597 in 2019. In total, 98 women were sworn into the House of Commons after winning seats in the 2019 federal election. This was 10 more than in the 2015 federal election. In 2019, 830 men ran as candidates and 240 were elected. As of May 2020, women accounted for 29 per cent of seats in the House of Commons, compared to 71 per cent of seats held by men.

At least 87 candidates from the LGBTQ+ community ran in the 2019 federal election. Of this number, four openly LGBTQ+ people were elected to the House of Commons, representing fewer than five per cent of LGBTQ+ candidates.


Watch the video: Boeren in vroeger tijden 1920-1960