On the English Reform Bill1

The primary intention of the Reform Bill now before the EnglishParliament2 is to bring justice and fairness into the way in whichthe various classes [Klassen] and sections of the populace are allowedto participate in the election of Members of Parliament.3 This is tobe achieved by introducing a greater degree of symmetry in placeof the most bizarre and informala irregularity and inequality whichprevail at present.4 It is numbers, localities, and private interestswhich are to be rearranged; but in fact, the change in question alsoimpinges on the noble internal organs of Great Britain, on the vitalprinciples of its constitution and condition. It is this aspect of thepresent Bill which merits particular attention, and the aim of thisessay will be to bring together those higher points of view whichhave hitherto come up for discussion in the parliamentary debates.It is not surprising that so many voices were raised in opposition tothe Bill in the Lower House, and that it gained its second readingonly by the accident of a single vote; for it is precisely those interestsof the aristocracy which are powerful even in the Lower House thatare to be challenged and reformed. If the Bill were opposed by allthose who stand to lose (or whose sponsors stand to lose) theirformer privileges and inuence, it would most decidedly have themajority against it at once. Those who promoted the Bill could relyonly on the fact that a sense of justice had now prevailed overentrenched privileges even in those whose advantage lay in these

a Translators note: The words most bizarre and informal occur in Hegels manu-script, but not in the published text of .

On the English Reform Bill

very prerogatives a sense which was greatly reinforced by thedisquieting impression produced among interested Members ofParliament by the example of neighbouring France;5 and the almostuniversally expressed view in England concerning the need forreform is regularly invoked in Parliament as a motive of the highestimportance.6 But even if public opinion in Great Britain were quiteunanimously in favour of reform to the extent, or within the limits,proposed by the Bill, there would still have to be an opportunity toexamine the substance of what this opinion demands especiallysince we have not infrequently discovered, in recent times, that suchdemands have turned out to be either impossible to implement ordisastrous in practice, and that this universal opinion has meanwhileturned vehemently against what it seemed to demand and approvewith equal vehemence a short time before.7 Those ancients who, asmembers of democracies since their youth, had accumulated longexperience and reected profoundly about it, held different viewson popular opinion from those more a priori views which are preva-lent today.8

The projected reform begins with the indisputable fact that thegrounds on which the share of the various counties and communi-ties in parliamentary representation was [originally] determined hadcompletely changed over the course of time, with the result thattheir rights to this share were now completely at odds with theprinciples underlying those grounds themselves, and in contradic-tion to everything which, in this part of a constitution, strikes [even]the plainest common sense as just and reasonable. One of the mostprominent opponents of the Bill, Robert Peel,9 admits that it maywell be easy to hold forth on the anomalies and absurdity of theEnglish constitution; and its incongruities have indeed been fullyand circumstantially described in the proceedings of Parliament andin the national press. It may therefore be sufcient here to recallthe main points: towns with a small population, or indeed theircouncillors (who in fact appoint one another and act without refer-ence to the citizens), and even boroughs which have declined to twoor three inhabitants (themselves leaseholders), have retained theright to ll seats in Parliament, while many ourishing cities ofmore recent origin with , inhabitants or more are denied theright to elect candidates; and between these extremes, the greatestvariety of other inequalities is also to be found. An immediate

Political writings

consequence of this is that the lling of a large number of parlia-mentary seats is in the hands of a small number of individuals. (Ithas been calculated that the majority of the House is controlled by persons of eminence.) A further consequence is that an evenmore signicant number of seats can be purchased, and are in somecases a recognised market commodity, so that possession of such aseat can be gained by bribery or by the formal payment of a certainsum to the electors, or is in general reduced, with numerous othervariations, to a purely nancial matter.

It would be difcult to discover a comparable symptom of politi-cal corruption in any other people. Montesquieu declared thatvirtue, the unselsh sense of duty towards the state, is the principleof the democratic constitution;10 and in the English constitution,the democratic element has signicant scope in the participation ofthe people in electing members of the Lower House (i.e. those poli-ticians who have a major share of power in deciding matters ofuniversal concern). It is probably a fairly unanimous view amongpragmatic historians11 that, if private interest and squalid nancialadvantage become the predominant factor in the election of headsof government within a given nation [Volk], this condition can beregarded as a prelude to the inevitable loss of that nations politicalfreedom,12 the downfall of its constitution and of the state itself. Inresponse to the pride of the English in their freedom,13 we Germansmay well point out that, even if the old constitution of the GermanEmpire was likewise an amorphous aggregate of particular rights, itwas only the external bond of the German territories, and politicallife within these, as far as the lling of seats in the surviving provin-cial assembliesb and rights to elect to them were concerned, didnot display such anomaliesc as those just mentioned, let alone thatselshnessd which permeates all classes [Klassen] of the [English]people. Now even if, in addition to the democratic element, thearistocratic element is an extremely important power in England;even if purely aristocratic governments like those of Venice, Genoa,Berne,14 etc. have been accused of maintaining their security andstability by submerging the people they govern in base sensualityand moral corruption;15 and even if the ability to cast ones vote

b Translators note: Reading Landstanden (provincial assemblies) for Hegels Landern(territories).

c Translators note: The manuscript version has absurdity.d Translators note: The manuscript reads corruption.

On the English Reform Bill

entirely as one pleases, irrespective of what motive determines thewill, is counted as freedom we must nevertheless acknowledgethat it is a fair indication of the reawakening of the moral senseamong the English people that one of the feelings which the needfor reform has evoked is repugnance at the corruptione just referredto. It will also be acknowledged that the right way to seek improve-ment is no longer to rely simply on such moral means as represen-tations, admonitions, or associations of isolated individuals designedto counteract the system of corruption and to avoid becomingindebted to it, but to change the institutions [themselves]. Thecommon prejudice of inertia, which clings on to the old faith in thevalue of an institution even if the condition to which the latter givesrise is totally corrupt, has thus nally given way. The demand fora more thoroughgoing reform was all the greater, given that theproposals for improvement which were put forward in response tospecic accusations of bribery at the opening of each new Parlia-ment had produced no signicant results. Even so commendable aproposal as the recent attempt to transfer to the city of Birminghamthe franchise from a small community in which bribery had beenproved, and thus to show a just inclination to remedy a glaringinequality if only to a modest extent was outmanoeuvred byministerial tactics in Parliament, especially by those of Peel, a Min-ister otherwise acclaimed for his liberal sentiments. Thus, a greatinitiative which was taken at the opening session of the currentParliament was subsequently reduced to prohibiting candidatesfrom distributing any further badges to their supporters among theelectorate. Since the great majority of members of both Houses,who are the judges in criminal cases of this kind, are themselvesinvolved in the system of corruption, and since most members ofthe Lower House owe their seats to this very system, accusations ofbribery directed at a place entitled to elect [a Member of Parlia-ment], and the ensuing investigations and trials, have been tooopenly and loudly denounced as pure farce, and indeed as shamelessprocedures, for anyone to expect even isolated remedies to emergefrom this source.

The usual argument advanced on other occasions in Parliamentagainst attacks on positive rights is based on the wisdom of our ances-tors;16 but it was not employed in this instance. For this wisdom,

e Translators note: The manuscript reads depravity.

Political writings

which presumably distributed parliamentary constituencies inaccordance with the then existing population of counties, cities, andboroughs or with their importance in other respects, contrasts tooglaringly with the way in which the population, wealth, and import-ance of the different regions and interests have developed in morerecent times. Another consideration which has not been mentionedis the fact that many individuals would suffer a loss of capital, whilean even greater number would suffer a loss of income; for nancialgain derived from direct bribery is illegal, although all classes[Klassen] are implicated in it either as givers or takers. The capitalvalue lost to boroughs which are to be disenfranchised is based onthe transformation, over the course of time, of a political right intoa monetary value. And although the acquisition [of a seat in Parlia-ment] at a price which is now falling was no less bona de a trans-action than the purchase of slaves, and although the English Parlia-ment, when new laws are passed, usually pays particular attentionto the preservation of real assets in such cases and, if these assetsshould suffer a loss, to [the need for] compensation, no claims ofthis kind have been made in the present instance, nor have anydifculties been raised in this connection, however strong a motiveagainst the Bill this circumstance may furnish for a number ofMembers of Parliament.

On the other hand, another legal principle peculiarly character-istic of England is indeed attacked by the Bill, namely that positivecharacter which predominates in English institutions concernedwith constitutional and civil law [Staatsrecht und Privatrecht]. It istrue that, in formal terms, every right and its [corresponding] lawis positive, [that is,] decreed and laid down by the supreme politicalauthority, and requiring obedience because it is a law. But at notime more than today has the understanding of people at large [derallgemeine Verstand] been led to distinguish between whether rightsare merely positive in their material content, and whether they arealso right and rational in and for themselves; and in no constitutionis the judgement so strongly impelled to observe this distinction asin that of England, given that the peoples of the Continent haveallowed themselves to be impressed for so long by declamationsabout English freedom and by that nations pride in its own legis-lation.17 It is common knowledge that the latter is comprehensivelybased on particular rights, freedoms, and privileges which have been

On the English Reform Bill

granted, sold, or bestowed by kings or parliaments or wrestedfrom them on particular occasions. The Magna Charta and Billof Rights, which are the principal foundations of the English consti-tution as further dened by subsequent Acts of Parliament, are forc-ibly exacted concessions or favours granted, agreements, etc., andconstitutional rights [Staatsrechte] have retained that form of privaterights [Privatrechte] which they originally possessed, and hence alsothe contingent nature of their content. This inherently incoherentaggregate of positive determinations has not yet undergone thedevelopment and transformation which has been accomplished inthe civilised states of the Continent, and which the German territor-ies, for example, have enjoyed for a longer or shorter period oftime.18

England has hitherto lacked those elements which have playedthe greatest part in these glorious and auspicious advances.19

Foremost among these elements is the scientic treatment of law[Recht], which on the one hand has applied general principles tothe particular varieties of law and their complexities andimplemented them throughout, and on the other hand hasreduced concrete and special instances to more simple determi-nations. This made possible the [compendia of] common law andconstitutional arrangements of the more recent continental states,which are for the most part based on general principles, whilecommon sense and sound reasoning have also been allowed theirproper share in determining the content of justice. For anothereven more important element in the transformation of law [Recht]must be mentioned, namely the broad vision of princes in makingsuch principles as the welfare of the state, the happiness of theirsubjects, and general prosperity but above all the sense of ajustice which has being in and for itself into the guiding lightof their legislative activity, in association with the due power ofthe monarch, so as to gain acceptance for these principles and toendow them with reality in the face of merely positive privileges,long-standing private interest, and the incomprehension of themasses.20 England has lagged so conspicuously behind the othercivilised states of Europe in institutions based on genuine right,for the simple reason that the power of government lies in thehands of those who possess so many privileges which contradicta rational constitutional law and a genuine legislation.

Political writings

It is on this state of affairs that the proposed Reform Bill issupposed to have a signicant inuence but not, for example, byincreasing the power of the monarchic element of the constitution.21

On the contrary, if the Bill is not at once to encounter universaldisapproval, jealousy of the power of the throne perhaps the mostintractable of English prejudices must be treated with indulgence;and the proposed measure does indeed owe some of its popularityto the fact that the inuence of the monarchy is perceived to befurther weakened by it. What arouses the greatest interest is thefear felt by some, and the hope felt by others, that the reform ofelectoral law will bring other material reforms in its wake.22 TheEnglish principle of positivity (on which, as already mentioned, thegeneral legal arrangements of that country are based) is in factundermined by the Bill in a way which is quite new and unpre-cedented in England, and there is an instinctive suspicion that morefar-reaching changes will follow from this subversion of the formalbasis of the established order.

In the course of the parliamentary debates, some mention hasbeen made of these views (if only in passing). The proponents andfriends of the Bill may either sincerely believe that it will have nofurther consequences beyond its own provisions, or they may keeptheir hopes to themselves in order not to provoke more violent reac-tions among their opponents just as the latter will not hold upthe object of their concern as a prize of victory; and since they owna great deal, they do indeed have much to lose. But the fact that nomore has been said in Parliament about this more substantial aspectof the reform is due in large measure to the convention that, whenimportant matters come up before that assembly, most of the time isinvariably taken up by members own expositions of their personalposition; they present their views not as men of affairs, but as privi-leged individuals and orators.23 There is wide scope for reform inEngland, encompassing the most important objectives of civil andpolitical society. Its necessity is beginning to be felt, and some ofthe matters which have been raised on various occasions may serveto illustrate how much of the work which has been accomplishedelsewhere still remains to be done in England.

Among the prospects for material improvements, hopes are pri-marily directed towards economies in administration [Verwaltung].But however often the opposition urges that such economies are

On the English Reform Bill

absolutely necessary in order to relieve the pressure and generalmisery suffered by the populace, it is also repeated on everyoccasion that all such endeavours have hitherto been futile, and thatthe popular hopes aroused by [successive] administrations [Minis-terien], and even in the speech from the throne, have invariablybeen dashed. These declamations have been repeated in the sameway every time taxes have been reduced over the last fteen years.Better prospects are held out for the eventual fullment of suchhopes in a reformed Parliament where a greater number of its mem-bers would be independent of the administration [Ministerium],whose weakness, hardheartedness towards the people, [self-]interest, etc., have been blamed for chronic overspending. But if weconsider the chief categories of public expenditure in England, thereappears to be no great scope for economy. On the one hand, pay-ments of interest on the enormous national debt cannot be reduced.On the other, the costs of the army and navy, including pensions,are intimately connected not only with political factors (particularlywith the interest of trade as the basis of English existence, andwith the risk of insurrection at home), but also with the habits andexpectations of individuals who enter the armed forces that theywill not be at a disadvantage in relation to other classes [Standen]as far as luxury and afuence are concerned; consequently, therecan be no savings in this area without risk. The gures brought tolight by the outcry over the notorious sinecures have shown thateven the complete abolition [Aufhebung] of these, which could notbe effected without great injustice, would be of little signicance.But we need not go into these material aspects; we need only notethat the tireless efforts of Hume,24 who scrutinised the nances inminute detail, have been almost uniformly unsuccessful. Thiscannot be ascribed solely to the corruption of the parliamentaryaristocracy, which allegedly procures all kinds of advantages foritself and its relatives through sinecures (as well as generally lucra-tive positions in administration [Verwaltung], the armed forces, theChurch, and at court), or to the indulgence with which this aristoc-racy is treated by the administration [Ministerium], which is in needof its support. The relatively very small number of votes whichsuch proposals for reducing expenditure normally attract suggeststhat there is little faith in the possibility of (or scant interest in) suchrelief of the allegedly universal pressure, against which Members of

Political writings

Parliament are in any case protected by their wealth. That sectionof them which is nominally independent tends to be on the side ofthe administration, and this independence sometimes seemsinclined to go further than this sections usual attitude or the accu-sations of the opposition might lead one to expect, as on thoseoccasions when the administration shows an express interest inapproving a nancial payment. Thus a few years ago, when theadministration took great interest in its proposal that a supplemen-tary payment of , be made to the highly respected Huskis-son,25 who resigned from a lucrative post because his salaried dutiesat the Board of Trade had become too onerous, the proposal wasdefeated by a large majority; and the same has not infrequentlyhappened with proposals to raise the maintenance allowances ofroyal princes, which are not exactly generous by English standards.In these cases involving a personality and feelings of propriety, pas-sion has overcome that lukewarm attitude which Parliament hasnormally displayed towards economies. This much is certainlyplain, that no Reform Bill can directly remove the causes of hightaxation in England. Indeed, the examples of England and Francemight lead to the induction that countries in which the politicaladministration [Staatsverwaltung] relies on the approval of assem-blies elected by the people bear the heaviest burden of taxes. InFrance, where the aim of the English Reform Bill to extend thefranchise to a greater number of citizens has been in large measureaccomplished, the national budget has just been likened in theFrench press to a promising child which makes signicant advancesfrom day to day. To adopt radical measures to reduce the oppressivequality of the political administration [Staatsverwaltung] in Englandwould require excessive interference with the internal constitutionof particular rights. No power is available to take serious stepstowards a substantial reduction of the huge national debt, despitethe enormous wealth of private individuals. The exorbitant cost ofthe tortuous administration of justice, which allows only the rich totake cases to court, the poor-rate which no administration couldintroduce in Ireland, where necessity no less than justice demandsit, the use of ecclesiastical assets (which will be further mentionedbelow), and many other major branches of the social union, presup-pose that further conditions should be fullled by the political auth-ority beyond those contained in the Reform Bill before any change

On the English Reform Bill

can be made. Passing reference has been made in Parliament tothe abolition of church tithes and manorial hunting rights in France;all this, it was pointed out, occurred under the auspices of a patrioticking and a reformed Parliament. The implication of such remarksseems to be that the curtailment [Aufhebung] of rights of this kindis in itself a lamentable subversion of the whole constitution, quiteapart from the fact that it has resulted in dreadful anarchy inFrance. But it is common knowledge not only that such rights havedisappeared in other states without any such consequences, but alsothat their abolition has been regarded as an important foundationof increased prosperity and essential freedom.26 Something moremay accordingly be said about them here.

Firstly, as far as tithes are concerned, the oppressive nature ofthis tax has long been commented on in England. Apart from theparticular odium which invariably attaches to this kind of tax, thefeeling against it in England is not at all surprising, given that thereare parts of that country where the clergyman has every tenth meas-ure of milk collected daily from the cowsheds, a tenth of the eggslaid each day, etc. There have also been criticisms of the unfairnessinherent in this tax, for the more the yield of the soil is increasedby industry, time, and expenditure, the higher the tax becomes, sothat instead of encouraging the improvement of agriculture [Kultur],in which England has invested large amounts of capital, it hasimposed a tax on it. Tithes belong to the Church in England; inother countries, especially Protestant ones, they were abolished ormade redeemable, without pomp and circumstance and withoutexploitation or injustice, either long ago (over a century ago in thePrussian territories) or in recent times, and church revenues wereduly deprived of their oppressive character and collected in a moreappropriate and decorous manner. In England, however, the natureof the original justication of the tithes has been essentially dimin-ished and perverted in other respects too. Their function as a meansof support for teachers of religion and for the construction andmaintenance of the churches has largely changed into that of a divi-dend accruing from private property: the ofce of the clergymanhas [taken on] the character of a benece, and its duties have beentransformed into rights to an income.27 Disregarding the fact that ahost of lucrative ecclesiastical positions, [such as] canonries, carryno ofcial duties whatsoever, it is all too common knowledge how

Political writings

often it happens that English clergymen occupy themselves withanything but the functions of their ofce (with hunting, etc. andother kinds of idleness), consume the rich proceeds of their positionin foreign countries, and transfer their ofcial functions to a poorcurate who receives a pittance which barely preserves him fromstarvation. A comprehensive impression of the relationship betweenholding an ecclesiastical ofce and drawing the income from it onthe one hand, and fullling its duties and leading a moral [sittlichen]existence on the other, can be gained from an example which camebefore the courts some years ago. A suit was brought against aclergyman by the name of Frank to have him declared incapable ofadministering his estate because of insanity, and to have his estateplaced under the guardianship of the court. He had a living of [per annum], and other beneces of around (i.e. somewhatless than , Reichstalers). But the lawsuit was brought by hisson, on his coming of age, in the interests of the family. The evi-dence given in public over a number of days concerning this vicarsalleged madness, including numerous statements by witnesses,brought to light acts which he had committed, unchecked by anyecclesiastical authority, in the course of several years. For example,he had on one occasion, in broad daylight, made his way throughthe streets and across the bridge of his home town, in highly dis-reputable company,f followed by a crowd of jeering street urchins.Even more scandalous were the mans own domestic circumstances,g

which were likewise conrmed by witnesses. This shameless behav-iour on the part of a minister of the Church of England had causedhim no difculties in the tenure of his ofce or in the enjoyment ofthe income from his beneces. The Church is brought into con-tempt by such cases, most of all because, in spite of the institutionof an episcopal hierarchy, it fails to take action to prevent suchcorruption and the scandal to which it gives rise. This contempt,like the greed of other clergymen in collecting their tithes, also playsits part in diminishing that respect which the English people arerequired to show for the Churchs property rights. Because it is

f Translators note: Instead of the preceding four words, Hegels manuscript has oneach arm a dissolute female from a house of ill repute.

g Translators note: Instead of the preceding ve words, Hegels manuscript has anec-dotes of his relations with his own wife and a lover of hers who resided in hishouse.

On the English Reform Bill

designated for a religious purpose, such property is wholly differentin character from private property, which can be freely disposed ofby the arbitrary will of its owners; this difference is the basis of adifference in legal status [ein verschiedenes Recht], and the enjoymentof such assets is conditional on the performance of associated duties;and in Protestant states, the [religious] purpose already referred togives the political authority its justication for jointly ensuring thatthis purpose, and the duties for which payment is received, arefullled: principles such as these still appear to be completely alienand unknown in England. But it is too much to the advantage ofthat class [Klasse] which has the dominant inuence in Parliamentto stick to the abstract perspective of civil law [Privatrecht] in thiscontext; for through its inuence, it has links with the adminis-tration [Ministerium], which has the senior and most lucrativeecclesiastical posts in its gift, and the class in question has an inter-est in providing such beneces for those younger sons or brotherswho are left without means, since landed property in England isgenerally inherited only by the eldest son. This same class is alsolikely to retain, or even to extend, its position in Parliament evenafter the Reform Bill [is passed], and it is consequently very doubt-ful whether it has any need to fear for its interest as far as thewealth of the Church and its patronage are concerned.

There is every reason why fears regarding a reform of such con-ditions in the Church of England should extend especially to itsIrish establishment,28 which has been so vigorously attacked for sev-eral years, chiey in the cause of [Catholic] emancipation (which isitself concerned only with the political aspect).29 It is well knownthat the majority of the Irish populace are members of the CatholicChurch. The assets which formerly belonged to the latter in Ireland,the churches themselves, the tithes, the obligation of the parishesto maintain the church buildings in good repair, to supply liturgicalaccessories and pay the wages of vergers, etc. all this was takenaway from the Catholic Church by the right of conquest and trans-ferred to the Anglican Church. In Germany, as a result of theThirty Years War more than years ago and of the growth ofrationality in more recent times, each territory, province, town, orvillage has either been allowed to retain the assets belonging to thechurch of its inhabitants, or the needs of worship have been pro-vided for in other ways; the religion of the prince and government

Political writings

has not requisitioned church assets belonging to another denomi-nation within its territory. Even the Turks have in most casesallowed the Christians, Armenians, and Jews under their dominionto retain their churches; and even where they were forbidden torepair such churches when they became dilapidated, they were stillgiven leave to buy permits to do so. But the English conscated allthe churches of the conquered Catholic population. The Irish,whose poverty, misery, and consequent degeneracy and demoralis-ation are a standing topic in Parliament which all administrationshave acknowledged, are obliged to pay their own clergy out of thefew pence they may possess, and to provide premises for their ser-vices. Conversely, they have to pay tithes on all their produce toAnglican clergymen, in whose extensive incumbencies, which mayencompass two, three, six, or more parish villages, there are oftenvery few Protestants (sometimes only the verger); and they are evenobliged to pay for repairs to the churches which are now Anglican,and for the provision of liturgical accessories, etc. The enemies ofemancipation have also made a point of holding up, as a means ofintimidation, the prospect of a reform of such crying injustice as alikely consequence of this measure. But its friends, on the otherhand, have in essence reassured themselves and their followers [withthe reection] that emancipation will both satisfy the demands ofthe Catholics and make the establishment of the Anglican Churchin Ireland all the more secure. This situation, which is unparalleledin any civilised Protestant Christian nation, and the positive legaltitle [which upholds it], are sustained by self-interest,h and theyhave so far held their own against the presumable religious dispo-sition of the Anglican clergy and the good sense [Vernunft] of theEnglish people and their representatives. Admittedly, the ReformBill does add a few more Irish members to the Lower House, andthese may include Catholics; but this circumstance may be morethan outweighed by the same Bills provision whereby the represen-tation of that class [Klasse] whose interest is linked with the presentcondition of the Church [in Ireland] will be increased.

Similar anxiety is felt that the reform will eventually extend tomanorial rights. These have long ceased to include serfdom amongthe agricultural class [Klasse], but they weigh just as oppressively

h Translators note: Hegels manuscript has acquisitiveness.

On the English Reform Bill

on the mass of such people as serfdom did, and indeed force themto endure even greater deprivation than that of serfs. In Englanditself, though disqualied from ownership of land and reduced tothe status of leaseholders or day-labourers, they do nd some workas a result of the wealth of England in general, or in its huge manu-facturing industry in times of prosperity; but it is to a greater extentthe poor law, by which every parish is obliged to look after itsown poor, that preserves them from the consequences of extremedeprivation. In Ireland, on the other hand, the class which lives byagriculture is in general propertyless and does not have this protec-tion. Both the descriptions of travellers and data supplied in parlia-mentary documents depict the general condition of the Irish peasan-try as so wretched that it is hard to nd comparable examples evenin small and poor districts of civilised continental countries, orindeed in those where civilisation is less advanced. The prop-ertylessness of the agricultural class has its origin in the laws andrelationships of the old feudal system, which nevertheless, in theform in which it still survives in several states, does guarantee thepeasant who is tied to the land a subsistence on the land he culti-vates.30 But while the serfs of Ireland do on the one hand havepersonal freedom, the landlords have on the other hand taken suchcomplete control of property that they have disclaimed all obligationto provide for the subsistence of the populace which tills the landthey own. This is the justication with which the landlords, if theyhappened to nd more advantage in a mode of agriculture whichrequires fewer workers, drove out hundreds, indeed thousands, ofthose who had formerly cultivated the land, who were tied to it fortheir subsistence no less than the serfs had been, and whose familieshad lived there for centuries in cottages which they did not them-selves own.31 They thus deprived those who were already withoutpossessions of their homes and of their inherited means of subsist-ence as well all in due legal form. And it was again with thebacking of the law that, in order to make sure that the peasantswere well and truly evicted from their cottages (and to rule out anydelay in their departure or any furtive return to such shelter), thelandlords had the cottages burnt down.32

This cancerous afiction of England is brought to the attentionof Parliament year in, year out. How many speeches have been madeon it, how many committees have sat, how many witnesses have

Political writings

been questioned, how many circumstantial reports have been sub-mitted, and how many measures have been proposed which haveproved either wholly inadequate or wholly impracticable! The pro-posal to reduce the surplus numbers of poor by establishing colonieswould have to remove at least one million inhabitants to have anychance of success. But how could this be effected? not to mentionthe fact that the empty space thereby created would soon be lledin the same way as before if laws and circumstances remained other-wise unchanged. An Act of Parliament (the Sub-letting Act)33

designed to restrict the division [of land] into small tenancies (themeans whereby the fertile class of beggars is accommodated in Ire-land, and the main cause of its multiplication) proved so inadequatea remedy for this evil that it recently had to be repealed after a fewyears of experiment. The moment of transition from feudal tenureto property has passed by without the opportunity being taken togive the agricultural class [Klasse] the right to own land; some scopefor this might be achieved by changing the rights of inheritance,introducing equal distribution of parental assets among children,allowing property to be requisitioned and sold in settlement ofdebts, and in general by changing that legal status of landed prop-erty which involves indescribable formalities and costs in the eventof sale, etc. But the English law of property, in these and manyother respects, is too far removed from the freedom enjoyed in thisarea by the continental countries,34 and all private relationships aretoo securely enmeshed in such fetters. Indeed, it would have onlya very insignicant effect in relation to the whole if these laws werechanged so as to make it possible for the agricultural class to acquirelanded property. The power of the monarchy was too weak to over-see the transition [from feudal tenure to property] already referredto; and even after the Reform Bill, parliamentary legislation willremain in the hands of that class [Klasse] whose interests and ineven greater measure its ingrained habits are bound up with theexisting system of property rights. Hitherto, such legislation hasalways been designed merely to remedy the consequences of thesystem by direct means when need and misery became too crying,resorting to palliatives like the Sub-letting Act or to pious hopesthat the Irish landlords might take up residence in Ireland, etc.

Mention has also been made of hunting rights as an area whichcould well be reformed an issue close to the hearts of so many

On the English Reform Bill

English Members of Parliament and their circles; but the mischiefand abuses have become so great that moves to change the relevantlaws were inevitable. In particular, attention has universally beendrawn to the increased number of assaults and murders committedby poachers on the person of gamekeepers, to the increasing loss ofgame suffered on the estates of landowners, and especially to theincreasing number of poaching offences coming before the courts(although these are only a small proportion of those actuallycommitted). Attention has also been drawn to the harsh and dispro-portionate penalties laid down for infringements of hunting rightsand inicted on those found guilty of them for it was the samearistocrats who enjoy these rights who made the laws in question,and who in turn sit in court in their capacity as magistrates andjurors. The interest of hunting enthusiasts is also engaged by theextension of hunting rights in unenclosed [offenen] areas; a squiresson is entitled to hunt, and every parson counts as a squire, so thatthe son may enjoy this privilege even if the father does not himselfpossess it (unless he is himself the son of a squire), etc. A Bill toamend these laws has been brought before Parliament annually forseveral years past, but no such Bill has yet had the good fortune toprevail in face of the privileged hunting interests; the present Parlia-ment also has a Bill of this kind before it. The extent to which theprojected parliamentary Reform might have a signicant inuenceon this legislation must still be regarded as problematic [forexample,] in reducing penalties, in limiting personal hunting rights,and in particular also in the interest of the agricultural class inmodifying the right to pursue stags, hares, and foxes with a pack ofhounds and twenty, thirty, or more horses and even more huntsmenon foot across sown elds and all cultivated unenclosed land. Inmany German territories, the damage done by game, the devastationof elds by hunting, and the consumption of crops and fruit bygame used to be a standing article in the complaints discussed bythe Estates. So far, however, English freedom has not yet imposedany restriction on these rights, which the German princes have longsince relinquished for the benet of their subjects.

The rambling confusion of English civil law, which even theEnglish, proud though they are of their freedom, can bring them-selves to call an Augean stable, might encourage the hope that it willeventually be sorted out. The little that Robert Peel accomplished a

Political writings

few years ago was deemed highly commendable and met with uni-versal praise.35 More far-reaching proposals for judicial reformwhich the present Lord Chancellor, Brougham,36 subsequently putforward in a seven-hour speech, and which were received withmuch approval, did result in the appointment of committees, buthave so far had no further consequences. The English nation hasnot yet achieved through popular representation what several cen-turies of quiet work in the cultivation of science [der wissen-schaftlichen Bildung], and of princely wisdom and love of justicehave accomplished in Germany; and the new Bill is in fact devoidof those particular elements which might allow well-founded insightand genuine knowledge to prevail over the crass ignorance of thefox-hunters and rural gentry, over an education acquired merelythrough social contacts, newspapers, and parliamentary debates, andover the skills of lawyers, which are mostly acquired by mere rou-tine. The preconditions which must be fullled in Germany evenby those of noble birth, wealth, and landed property, etc. beforethey can take part in the affairs of government and the state(whether in general or more specialised areas) namely theoreticalstudy, scientic education, practical training and experience areas little to be found in the new Bill as they were imposed, underthe previous dispensation, on members of an assembly in whosehands the most extensive powers of government and administrationare vested.37 Nowhere but in England is the prejudice so entrenchedand sincerely accepted that if birth and wealth give someone anofce, they also give him the intelligence [Verstand] to go with it.Even the new Bill contains no such conditions; it also sanctions theprinciple that a free income of derived from landed propertyfully qualies an individual for the task of judging and deciding on[a persons] capacity for the business of government and politicaladministration with which Parliament is concerned. But the idea[Vorstellung] of boards of scrutiny composed of sensible and experi-enced men with ofcial duties of their own (as distinct from a massof individuals qualied only by an income of ), like the idea ofdemanding evidence of competence from candidates for the legis-lature and political administration [Staatsverwalten], is too much atvariance with the unconditional sovereignty of those who areentitled to take such decisions.

On the English Reform Bill

The need to secure those material interests of rational law [Recht]referred to above, as well as others which have already been securedin many civilised continental states (especially in the Germanterritories), seems to be almost dormant in England. The need forreform has therefore not been brought to light by the experiencethat little or nothing has been done in this respect by [successive]Parliaments with rights of patronage in their existing form; Englandwill endorse what the Duke of Wellington said recently in theHouse of Lords,38 that from the year (i.e. the year of theRevolution which deposed the House of Stuart with its Catholicsympathies) to the present, the countrys affairs have been conduc-ted in the best and most illustrious manner through that union ofwealth, talents, and manifold knowledge which represented themajor interests of the kingdom. National pride in general preventsthe English from studying and acquainting themselves with theadvances made by other nations in developing their legal insti-tutions.39 The pomp and circumstance surrounding the formal free-dom to debate the affairs of state in Parliament and other assembliesof all classes and estates [Klassen und Stande] and to resolve suchissues in Parliament, together with the unqualied right to exercisethis freedom, prevent the English from grasping the essence oflegislation and government through quiet reection or give themno incentive to do so. (Few European nations display so fully devel-oped a capacity for reasoning [Rasonnement] to suit their prejudicesand so little depth of principle.)i Fame and wealth make itsuperuous to go back to the foundations of existing rights, whereaspeoples who feel such rights oppressive have been driven to doso by external necessity and by the need of reason which this hasawakened.40

We return [now] to the more formal aspects more immediatelyconnected with the present Reform Bill. One aspect of great import-ance, which is also emphasised by opponents of the Bill, is the needfor the various major interests of the nation to be represented inParliament, and the changes which this representation would sufferas a result of the present Bill.

i Translators note: Hegels manuscript reads such shallowness in relation toprinciple.

Political writings

Views on this question appear to differ.41 On the one hand, theDuke of Wellington maintains that, as a consequence of the Bill inquestion, the majority of voters would consist of shopkeepers, whichwould seem to confer an advantage on commercial interests.42 Onthe other hand, there is a general view, which is strongly urged inthe Bills favour, that landed property and agricultural interests willnot only lose none of their inuence, but will rather undergo arelative expansion; for the projected cancellation of existing electoralrights will allot only twenty-ve members to the major cities orcommercial interests, while the remaining eighty-one will go to thecounties and landed property, including smaller towns in whichthe inuence of the landowner is also generally paramount. In thisconnection, it is particularly noteworthy that a number of traders,namely the leading London bankers who have connections with theEast India Company and the Bank of England, have declared them-selves against the Bill. Their reason for doing so is that, while thismeasure seeks to base the representation of the kingdom on thebroad foundation of property and to extend this foundation further,it would have the practical effect of closing the main avenuesthrough which nancial, commercial, shipping and colonial inter-ests, together with all other interests throughout the country and inall its foreign possessions down to their remotest regions, have hith-erto been represented in Parliament.

These main avenues are the small towns and minor boroughs inwhich a seat in Parliament can be bought directly. It has hithertobeen possible, by way of the usual trade in parliamentary seats, toensure that bank directors, like directors of the East India Company,had seats in Parliament. The great plantation owners of the WestIndies and other traders who dominate such great areas of com-merce have likewise secured such positions in order to look aftertheir interests and those of their association (which are admittedlyalso of great importance for the interest of England as a whole).The bank director Manning,43 who had held a seat for many years,was excluded from the last Parliament because his opponent provedthat he had employed bribery in his election. The view that thevarious major interests of the nation should be represented in itsmain deliberative body is characteristic of England, and in differentways, it has also been a fundamental part of the constitution of theolder Imperial Estates and provincial assemblies in all the European

On the English Reform Bill

monarchies, just as it still provides the basis on which parliamentarydelegates are appointed under the Swedish constitution, forexample. But it runs counter to the modern principle accordingto which only the abstract will of individuals as such should berepresented.44 It is also true that the subjective and arbitrary will ofthe nobility [der Barone] and others with electoral privileges fur-nishes the basis on which such appointments are made in England,so that the representation of [particular] interests is itself left tochance. Nevertheless, this procedure is regarded as so important anelement that the most respected bankers are not ashamed to indulgein the corruption surrounding the sale of parliamentary seats, andto complain in a public declaration to Parliament that the Bill woulddeprive those major interests of their route to parliamentary rep-resentation, a route which was not exposed to accident since it wasgoverned by bribery. Moral considerations give way before soweighty a point of view as this, but it is a defect in the constitutionthat it leaves a necessary measure to chance, and compels people tosecure it by corrupt means which morality condemns. It is truethat, if the interests are organically divided into estates [Stande] (forexample, into nobility, clergy, citizens of towns, and peasants in thecase of Sweden as mentioned above), they are no longer fully inkeeping with the present situation in most states in which thoseother interests already referred to have become powerful, as in Eng-land. But this defect could easily be removed if the earlier basis ofconstitutional law [des inneren Staatsrechts] were once again under-stood that is, if the real foundations of political life, which aregenuinely distinct and whose distinct content45 must be given essen-tial consideration by the government and administration [Verwal-tung], were also consciously and expressly highlighted and recog-nised, and, whenever they were discussed or made the object ofdecisions, permitted to speak for themselves without this being leftto chance. In a constitution which Napoleon gave to the kingdomof Italy, he had this consideration in mind when he distributed theright to representation among the classes [Klassen] of possidenti,dotti, and merchanti.46

In the earlier parliamentary debates on proposals for very incom-plete reforms, one of the chief grounds which was always citedagainst them (and which is again stressed in the present debate) wasthat all major interests were [allegedly] represented in Parliament

Political writings

as presently composed, and that issues rather than individuals assuch should have an opportunity to be voiced and given a hearing.This argument seems to touch on a matter though without enlarg-ing on it which the Duke of Wellington brought to the attentionof the Upper House in his last speech as something which bothUpper and Lower Houses had hitherto overlooked, namely thatwhat had to be created was a legislative assembly, not a corporationof electors, a Lower House and not a new system for the constitu-ents.47 If it were not a question of voting rights and of who theconstituents should be, but of the [end] result namely the consti-tution of a legislative assembly and a Lower House it might wellbe said that such a Lower House was already constituted in accord-ance with the existing right of representation. In the course of hisspeech, the Duke actually cites the testimony of a supporter48 of theReform Bill to the effect that the present Lower House is so consti-tuted that no better one could be elected. And in fact, the ReformBill itself contains no further guarantee that a House elected underits provisions and in violation of the existing positive rights wouldbe any more excellent.

In his speech, the Duke likens these rights to the right wherebyhe could as little be deprived of his seat in the Upper House as thePrime Minister, Earl Grey, could be divested of his properties inYorkshire.49 The Bill does, however, contain the new principlewhereby the electoral prerogative is no longer placed in the samecategory as actual property rights. In this respect we must acknowl-edge as correct the charge brought by the Bills opponents, namelythat, precisely because of this new principle, the Bill is internallyutterly inconsistent. A personally more offensive charge lies in theallegation that the line of demarcation whereby privileged smallertowns will retain their electoral rights was deliberately drawn by theBill in such a way that the boroughs belonging to the Duke ofBedford (whose brother, Lord John Russell, introduced the Bill inthe Lower House) were left unscathed. The Bill is in fact a mixtureof ancient privileges and the universal principle that all citizens provided they meet the external condition of [drawing] a groundrent of [annually] are equally entitled to vote for those whoare to represent them.50 Since the Bill accordingly contains a contra-diction between positive rights and a universalj principle of thought,

j Translators note: Hegels manuscript reads abstract.

On the English Reform Bill

it brings the inconsistency of everything derived merely from oldfeudal law into much sharper focus than if all entitlementswere collectively placed on one and the same footing as positiverights.

It is true that, in itself, this principle [of equal rights for all]opens the way for an innite number of claims, on which the powerof Parliament can certainly impose limits for the time being although it would amount to a revolution rather than a mere reformif it were followed through consistently. But it seems unlikely thatsuch further claims will be pursued with particular energy in thenear future, given that the middle and lower classes in the threekingdoms appear to be very generally satised with the Bill. Theso-called practical sense of the British nation (i.e. its preoccupationwith earnings, subsistence, and wealth) seems so far to have beenlittle affected by any need for the material rights just referred to.51

It is even less likely to be inuenced by purely formal principles ofabstract equality, for the fanaticism associated with such principlesis even more alien to it. It is true that this same practical sensestands to lose directly, in that a great mass of people will cease toprot from bribes if the electoral qualication is increased fromforty shillings to ve times that amount. [But] if this higher class*has hitherto reaped a material [reellen] benet from its votes, it isnot about to lose it. A Member of Parliament elected by Liverpoolhas just been excluded from the House because it was proved thatthe voters had taken bribes. The voters of this city are very numer-ous, and since the city is very rich, it may be supposed that thosewho did so also included many well-off people. Besides, just assurely as the big estate-owners managed to pass off hundreds andthousands of their propertyless tenants as owners of forty-shillingfreeholds, so also will this peculiar method of acquiring votes beincorporated in the new [electoral] census and the same dependentpeople will appear in the guise of freeholders with an income of tenpounds. And despite the increased electoral qualication, it is alsounlikely that the English rabble52 will readily give up those weeksof feasting and inebriation in which it was encouraged and paid toindulge its unchecked savagery.k In the election before last, it was

* Hegels note: This higher class, with its rent, has recently been given the nameof paupers in the Upper House.

k Translators note: Hegels manuscript reads bestiality.

Political writings

stated that , sterling (i.e. nearly , Reichstalers) wasspent in the populous county of York to elect a local landowner bythe name of Beaumont. But if it has been suggested in parliamen-tary debates that the costs of elections have become altogetherexcessive, the question arises of how the people will regard the factthat the rich wish to make economies at their expense. It is stilluncertain how this aspect of material benet will develop, and whatnew combinations will be devised by the tireless speculation ofdealers in parliamentary seats; it would be premature to build con-jectures on the change which this interest is undergoing. But theright to vote itself seems to afford a higher interest, for it automati-cally arouses the expectation and demand that it should be morewidely distributed. Experience suggests, however, that the exerciseof the right to vote is not attractive enough to generate powerfulclaims or the movements to which these give rise. On the contrary,a great indifference seems to prevail in this respect among the elec-tors, despite the interest in bribes which goes along with it. Nopetitions against a Bill so disadvantageous to them have so faremerged from the numerous class of those who will lose their rightto vote specically because of the raised electoral qualication[Wahlzensus], or whose right is considerably weakened because theirvotes are lumped together with the general mass of voters in thecounty. The protests raised against it have come from those whosecertainty or likelihood of gaining a seat in Parliament has beenreduced or lost entirely. When the income required to qualify as anelector in Ireland was raised by Act of Parliament a year ago, a totalof , individuals lost their right to vote without complainingabout this loss of their entitlement to participate in the affairs ofstate and government. To all appearances, the electors regard theirright [to vote] as a property which is chiey of benet to thosewho seek election to Parliament, and to whose personal discretion,arbitrary will, and interest all that this right contains by way ofparticipation in government and legislation must be sacriced. The main electoral business on which the candidates employ agentsconversant with the [relevant] localities and personalities and withhow to deal with them is that of canvassing and mobilising electors,

Hegels note: In one of the last sessions of Parliament, the cost of the Liverpoolelection referred to above was given as , (i.e. over , Reichstalers).

On the English Reform Bill

and equally of inducing them especially through bribery to votefor their patrons. The owners of great estates have hosts of theirtenants rounded up, with some of them (as already mentioned)newly dressed up for the occasion as owners of the necessary free-hold. At a previous election, Brougham wittily described a scenewhere such people were made to camp in the courtyards with res,pudding, and porter and to isolate them from the inuence of theopposition locked up there until the moment when they wererequired to cast their obedient vote. This indifference to the rightto vote and to its exercise stands in stark contrast to the fact that itembodies the peoples right to participate in public affairs and inthe highest interests of the state and government. The exercise ofthis right should be a supreme duty, because the constitution ofan essential part of the states authority, namely the representativeassembly, depends on it, and because this right and its exercise (asin France) are in fact an enactment of the sovereignty of the people,indeed its sole enactment. Such indifference towards this right caneasily invite accusations that a people is politically obtuse or corrupt,as can its addiction to bribery in exercising this right. This harshview must, however, be moderated if one considers what must helpto produce such lukewarmness, and the obvious factor is the feelingthat the individual vote is really of no consequence among the manythousands which contribute to an election. Of the approximately members who are currently elected to the Lower House inEngland, or the elected to the Chamber [of Deputies] in France(and the changes shortly to be made to these gures are of no conse-quence here), only one member is to be appointed [by a given con-stituency], which is a very inconsiderable fraction of this total; butthe individual vote is an even more negligible fraction of the or, votes which contribute to that members election. If the totalnumber of voters to be registered under the new electoral law inFrance is assessed at ,, while the number of members to beelected by them is taken in round gures as , it follows thatthe individual vote is one two-hundred-thousandth part of the totalelectorate, and one ninety-millionth of one of the three branches ofthe power which makes the laws.

In these gures, the individual can scarcely conceive of how neg-ligible his own inuence is. Nevertheless, he has a denite sense ofthis quantitative insignicance of his vote, and the quantitative

Political writings

aspect, the number of votes, is in practice the only decisive factorhere. The qualitatively important considerations of freedom, of theduty to exercise the right of sovereignty, and of participation in thegeneral affairs of state may certainly be held up [as arguments]against apathy. But sound common sense likes to stick to what iseffective; and if the individual is confronted with the usual argu-ment that, if everyone took so apathetic a view, the states continuedexistence would be put at risk, and freedom even more so, he isbound to be no less mindful of the principle on which his duty andhis whole right of freedom is based, namely that he should not lethimself be determined by any consideration of what others aredoing, but only by his own will, and that his arbitrary will as anindividual is the ultimate and sovereign principle which bets himand to which he is entitled. In any case, this [electoral] inuence,so negligible in itself, is limited to [the choice of] personalities, andit becomes innitely more negligible because it has no reference tothe thing, which is in fact expressly excluded. Only in the demo-cratic constitution of the Year III in France under Robespierre,53

which was adopted by the entire people (although it proved corre-spondingly ineffectual in practice), was it decreed that laws onpublic matters should also be submitted to the individual citizensfor nal decision. Furthermore, the voters are not even mandators[Kommittenten] with powers to instruct their delegates. The pro-grammes [cahiers] which the members of the National Assemblytook with them on their [parliamentary] mission were at once setaside and forgotten by both parties, and it is recognised as one ofthe most essential constitutional principles in England and Francethat the elected members are just as sovereign in casting their votesas their electors were in casting theirs. In neither country do mem-bers have the character of ofcials in their deliberations and resol-utions on public matters, and they share with the King what issanctioned for him, namely that they are answerable to no one forthe performance of their duties.

In keeping with the feeling that the inuence of the individual isin fact negligible, and with the sovereign arbitrary will associatedwith this right [to vote], experience conrms that electoral meetingsare not at all well attended. The numbers (as occasionally listed inthe press) of those entitled to vote and of those who actually casttheir votes at a given election are usually widely divergent, as hap-

On the English Reform Bill

pened even in the turbulent nal years of Charles Xs reign inFrance;54 and in the most recent election held in Paris, the centreof political interest, in which the parties appear to have shown nolack of zeal in summoning the electors to cast their votes, it wasreported that out of roughly , constituents some did notput in an appearance. It might also be interesting in this regard todiscover the average ratio of constituents to actual voters in otherareas where all citizens have the right to vote and where this affectsan interest much closer to them for example, in meetings to electtown councillors in the state of Prussia. In the earlier stages of theFrench Revolution, the zeal and conduct of the Jacobins at electoralmeetings put peaceable and honest citizens off exercising their rightto vote, or even made it dangerous for them to do so, and factionalone held the eld. While those great political bodies which arecurrently making decisions on the franchise believe they are full-ling a duty of supreme justice by relaxing the external qualicationsfor this entitlement and granting it to a larger number of people, itmay well escape their notice that they are thereby reducing theinuence of the individual, weakening his impression of its import-ance and hence also his interest in exercising this right not tomention the question of how any political authority comes in therst place to dispose of this right of the citizens, to take a sum offty or one hundred francs or so many pounds sterling into account,and to vary this right in accordance with such sums. The right inquestion was accepted as by denition sovereign, primary, inalien-able, and generally the opposite of all that can be conferred or takenaway.

Just as that sound common sense for which the English peopleare so renowned makes individuals realise how insignicant theinuence of their single vote is on affairs of state, it also gives thema proper sense of their general ignorance and limited ability to judgethe talents, business experience, skill, and education required forhigh ofces of state. Is it then likely that they will regard a freeholdof forty shillings or ten pounds, or [payment of] two hundred francsin direct taxes (with or without the additional centimes) as guaran-teeing so great an enhancement of this ability? The rigour withwhich the French Chambers refuse to consider any ability apartfrom that which is supposed to reside in the two hundred francs(with or without the additional centimes), and ascribe it only to

Political writings

members of the Institute, is characteristic enough. Formalisticrespect for the two hundred francs has prevailed over respect forthe ability and good will of prefects, magistrates, doctors, lawyers,etc. who do not pay so much in taxes. Besides, the voters knowthat their sovereign right exempts them from having to undertakea preliminary judgement, let alone examination, of the candidatesas they present themselves, and that they have to reach theirdecision without any such preliminaries. It is therefore no wonderthat a large number of individuals in England and it still remainsto be seen whether they are not the majority need to be promptedby the candidates to make the undemanding effort of casting theirvotes, and have to be rewarded with badges, roasts, beer, and a fewguineas by the candidates who thereby benet. The French, whoare newer in these political ways, have not yet resorted to this kindof compensation on a similar scale, no doubt also because of press-ure from the central interests of their [political] situation, which hasnot yet been fully consolidated but is in fact exposed to the mostfundamental danger. But inasmuch as they have been encouragedto take [political] matters and their share in them more seriously,they have secured their right and compensated themselves for thenegligible share which their individual sovereignty has in publicaffairs by themselves participating in such matters through insur-rections, clubs, associations, etc.55

The peculiarity already touched upon of [there being] apower in England which is supposedly subordinate and whosemembers at the same time make decisions on the entire business ofthe state without instruction, without accountability, and withoutbeing ofcials, is the basis of a relationship with the monarchicalpart of the constitution. The inuence which the Reform Bill mayhave on this relationship, and on the executive power in general,calls for mention here. Before considering this matter, we must rstrecall the immediate result of the peculiarity in question, namelythat it gives rise to a great difference in England between the powerof the Crown and that of the executive. The power of the Crowncontrols the main branches of supreme authority within the state,particularly those which concern relations with other states, theauthority to make war and peace, direction of the army, the appoint-ment of ministers (though it has become etiquette for the monarchto appoint only the Prime Minister directly, and for the latter to

On the English Reform Bill

put together the rest of the Cabinet), the appointment of army com-manders and ofcers, of ambassadors, etc. Now Parliament isresponsible for the sovereign decision on the budget (even includingthe sum provided for the support of the King and his family), i.e.for the whole range of means for making war and peace and main-taining an army, ambassadors, etc., so that a ministry can onlygovern i.e. exist in so far as it afrms the views and will ofParliament. Consequently, the monarchs share in the executivepower is more illusory than real, and its substance lies with Parlia-ment. Sieye`s56 had a great reputation for profound insight into theorganisation of free constitutions, and when the constitution of theDirectorate was replaced by that of the Consulate, he was at last ableto extract from his portfolio his plan which would enable France toenjoy the benet of his experience and profound reection. Aseveryone knows, he placed at the head of the state a leader [Chef]who would be charged with the pomp of representation abroad, andwith nominating the supreme Council of State and the responsibleministers, along with the other subordinate ofcials.57 Thus, thesupreme executive power was to be vested in the aforementionedCouncil of State, whereas the proclamateur-electeur was to have noshare in it. We all know the soldierly verdict which Napoleon, whofelt he was made to be master and ruler, passed on this project fora leader [chef] of this kind, in whom he saw only the role of a cochona` lengrais de quelques millions which no man of any talent and amodicum of honour would ever be inclined to undertake. What thisproject overlooked (in this case no doubt in good faith, though inothers with full awareness and complete deliberation) was that thenomination of members of the Ministry and other ofcials of theexecutive is in itself a powerless formality, and that the substanceis to be found wherever the power of government effectively lies. InEngland, we see this power in Parliament. In the various monarchicconstitutions whose creation we have witnessed, the formal separ-ation of the power of government, as the executive, from a merelylegislative and judicial power is made explicit, and the former iseven invested with pomp and distinction. But ministerial appoint-ments are always the focus of controversy and strife (even if theright to make such appointments is ascribed exclusively to theCrown), and what is described as the merely legislative power is[in fact] triumphant. Thus, even under the latest constitution in

Political writings

France, amidst the daily questions and controversies, both politicaland non-political, there is an unmistakable tendency to compel theMinistry to move the governments headquartersl to the Chamberof Deputies, where it has itself been reduced to engaging in publiccontroversies with its subordinate ofcials.

The fact that the executive power lies with Parliament has adirect bearing on an argument adduced by the opponents of theReform Bill in support of those boroughs through possession ofwhich many parliamentary seats are dependent on single individualsor families namely that it was through this circumstance that themost distinguished English statesmen found their way to Parliamentand thence to the Ministry.58 It may indeed often happen that anoutstanding and profound talent is recognised primarily as a resultof private friendship, and is in a position to nd its proper placeonly through individual generosity a place which it might other-wise fail to attain in view of the inadequate resources and familyconnections of the mass of citizens in a [given] town or county. Butsuch examples may be ascribed to the realm of chance, where oneprobability can easily be set against another, or a possible advantageagainst a possible disadvantage. Related to this is another allegedconsequence of greater importance, to which the Duke of Welling-ton drew attention.59 (It is true that he is not renowned as an orator,since he lacks that uent volubility, sustained for hours at a timeand full of self-advertisement, through which many Members ofParliament have gained so great a reputation for eloquence. Butdespite those disjointed sentences for which he has been criticised,his speeches are not lacking in substance or in perceptions whichgo to the heart of the matter.) He expresses a fear that those menwho are at present charged with looking after the public interest inParliament will be replaced by very different men, and he asks onanother occasion whether shopkeepers,60 of whom in his view (asalready mentioned) the great majority of electors will consist as aresult of the new Bill, are the people who ought to elect the mem-bers of that great national assembly which has to make decisionson domestic and foreign affairs and on agricultural, colonial, andindustrial interests. The Duke speaks from his [own] observationl Translators note: Instead of amidst the daily . . . headquarters Hegels manuscriptreads simply the government soon found itself compelled to move itsheadquarters.

On the English Reform Bill

of the English Parliament, in which, above the mass of incompetentand ignorant Members with a veneer of the usual prejudices and aculture [Bildung] derived from conversation (and often less thanthat), there stands a number of talented men who are whollydevoted to political activity and to the interest of the state. Themajority of these are also guaranteed a seat in Parliament partlythrough their own wealth and the inuence which they themselvesor their family possess in a borough, city, or county, and partlythrough the inuence of the Ministry as well as their friends withinthe party.

Associated with this class [Klasse] is a large number of men whomake political activity their lifes work, whether out of personalinterest and because they have independent means, or because theyhold public positions which they have obtained through their con-nection with parliamentary inuence. But even if they have obtainedthese positions in other ways, their ofcial standing and generalinner vocation are such that they cannot refrain from joining theclass of politicians and one of its parties. If service to the state isnot tied to other preconditions (for example, a course of specialised[wissenschaftlicher] study, state-approved examinations, preliminarypractical training, etc.), the individual must be incorporated intothis class.61 He must gain some importance within it and he is sup-ported by its inuence, just as his own inuence helps to supportit in turn. Individuals isolated from such connections for example,Hunt62 are rare anomalies; they may enter Parliament, but theydo not cease to cut a strange gure in it.

The other commitments of [members of] this circle their familyconnections, their political discussions and speeches at dinners, etc.,their endless and worldwide political correspondence, as well as thesocial round of country houses, horse-races, fox-hunting, etc. willcertainly suffer no disruption. It is true that a major element oftheir power namely their control of a large number of parliamen-tary seats will undergo a signicant modication as a result of theReform Bill, and this may well have the effect which the Dukementions, in that many other individuals will take the place of thosewho belong to the present circle of those who devote themselvesto the government interest; but this is likely to have the furtherconsequence of upsetting the uniformity of those maxims and atti-tudes which are prevalent in that class, and which constitute

Political writings

parliamentary wisdom. Admittedly, it does not appear that Hunt,for example, goes beyond the usual categories with regard tooppression of the people by taxes, sinecures, etc. But the reformmay provide access to Parliament for ideas which run counter tothe interests of the class in question, and which have therefore notyet entered the heads of its members ideas which form the foun-dations of real freedom,63 and which relate to those circumstancesalready mentioned concerning ecclesiastical property, the organis-ation of the Church, and the duties of the clergy, along with man-orial and other bizarre rights and property restrictions derived fromfeudal relationships, and other areas within the chaos of Englishlaws. In France, such ideas have become mixed with many furtherabstractions and associated with those outbreaks of violence withwhich we are all familiar, whereas in Germany, in less adulteratedform, they have long since become rm principles of inner convic-tion and public opinion, and have produced an actual transform-ation peaceful, gradual, and lawful of the old legal relationships.Thus, we have already made great progress here with the insti-tutions of real freedom; we have now nished work on the mostessential of them and enjoy their fruits, while the executive powerof Parliament [in England] has as yet scarcely been seriouslyreminded of them. In fact, England may well have cause to fear thegreatest disruption of its social and political fabric from the pressingdemands of those principles and the call for their rapid implemen-tation. However enormous the contrast is within England betweenimmense wealth and utterly abject poverty,64 there is an equallygreat or perhaps even greater contrast between, on the one hand,the privileges of its aristocracy and the institutions of its positiveright in general, and on the other, legal relationships and laws asreshaped in the more civilised states on the Continent and prin-ciples which, inasmuch as they are based on universal reason, cannotalways remain so alien even to the English mentality [Verstand] asthey have done hitherto. Those novi homines who, as the Duke ofWellington fears, will supplant the present statesmen may likewisend in these principles the strongest support for their ambition andpopular appeal. Since there can be no question in England of theseprinciples being adopted and implemented by the executive power,which has hitherto been in the hands of the privileged class, mem-bers of this class would have to feature only as an opposition to the

On the English Reform Bill

government and to the existing order of things;65 and the principlesthemselves would have to feature not in their concrete and practicaltruth and application, as in Germany, but in the dangerous shapeof French abstractions. That antithesis between hommes detat andhommes a` principes which at once emerged quite starkly in France atthe beginning of the Revolution and which has not yet gained afoothold in England, may well be introduced when a broader routeto seats in Parliament is opened. The new class [Klasse] can gain afoothold all the more easily because the principles themselves are,as such, simple in character, so that they can be grasped quicklyeven by the ignorant; and since these principles can in any caseclaim, by virtue of their universality, to be adequate for all [pur-poses], they are sufcient to enable anyone with some facility oftalent and some energy of character and ambition to attain thataggressive eloquence which he requires, and to produce a dazzlingeffect on the reason of the masses (who are equally inexperiencedin such matters). Conversely, it is not so easy to acquire the knowl-edge, experience, and business routine of the hommes detat,although these qualities are equally necessary for applying rationalprinciples and introducing them to actual life.

But the introduction of a new element such as this would disturbnot only the class whose members have the business of state in theirhands; on the contrary, the power of government [itself] might bethrown off course. This power, as already mentioned, lies with Par-liament; and however much the latter is divided into parties andhowever violently these oppose one another, they are in no sensefactions. They remain within the same general interest, and achange of administration [Ministerwechsel] has hitherto had moresignicant consequences in foreign affairs, in relation to war andpeace, than in domestic affairs. The monarchic principle, on theother hand, no longer has much to lose in England. We know thatthe resignation of Wellingtons administration came about when itfound itself in a minority on a motion to regulate the Kings CivilList66 an occasion of particular interest, since it concerned one ofthe few remaining elements of the monarchic principle in England.What was left of the Crown Estate (which in fact had as much thecharacter of a family estate, of the royal familys private property,as did the family estates of dukes, earls, barons, etc. in England)was made over to the Exchequer in the previous century, and in

Political writings

compensation, a specic sum corresponding to its revenue was setaside within the overall budget which the Lower House had toapprove each year. This Crown Estate, the meagre remnant of theCrowns formerly vast resources which had been so greatly reducedby extravagance (and especially by the need to purchase troops andbaronial support during civil wars), had not yet been split up intowhat was to remain family property and what was to be devoted tothe general purposes of the state. Now that character of familyproperty or private property which belonged to one part of thisremaining wealth had already been altered, at least in form, whenit was converted from landed property into an indemnity includedin the annual parliamentary budget. Nevertheless, a form of mon-archic inuence on this minor part of Great Britains annual expen-diture still remained, even if it was subject to [the approval of]Cabinet. But even this remnant of royal or monarchic control hasbeen abolished by Parliaments recent decision to set aside one por-tion [of the Crown revenues] for the King to spend on himself andhis family, and to place the rest (which has already been used inthe past for the states own purposes) at the disposal of Parliament.One cannot fail to notice in this context that, while the majority [ofvotes cast] against an interest involving the monarchy [einmonarchisches Element] was large enough to cause Wellingtonsadministration to resign, the second reading of the Reform Bill,which is directed against the prerogatives of the aristocracy, waspassed, as everyone knows, by a majority of only one.67

It can be seen as typical of the monarchic elements status that,both on the occasion of the Catholic Emancipation Bill and duringthe debates on the Reform Bill, the administration was reproachedfor having allowed the Kings consent to these measures to becomepublic. There is no question here of the monarch having exercisedhis absolute power, or of a so-called coup detat; what was consideredimproper was merely the authority or inuence which the Kingspersonal opinion might exercise. On the one hand, this measure wascertainly adopted out of delicacy, in order to avoid the embarrass-ment of going against the will of the monarch during debates onthe Bill. But it is equally the case that, even with reference to thatinitiative which properly belongs to the monarchic element (i.e. theCrown), Parliament wishes to deal only with an administration[Ministerium] dependent on and incorporated in [Parliament] itself,

On the English Reform Bill

and indeed only with its own members, for it is only in the lattercapacity that Ministers can bring a Bill forward. In the same way,the right which belongs to the King, as the third branch of thelegislative power, of approving or rejecting a Bill which both Houseshave adopted now becomes purely illusory, inasmuch as the Cabinetis once again that same administration [Ministerium] incorporatedin Parliament. Earl Grey has declared,68 in response to the abovereproach, that the royal consent was already implicit in the fact thatthe Bill was introduced by the administration; but he rejected theblame for having expressly announced that the Bill had the Kingsapproval simply by saying that this report did not come from Minis-ters but from other sources.

The peculiar discord which the new men might introduce intoParliament would therefore not be [the same as] that conict whichinvariably arose with each of the various French constitutions overwhether the executive power should actually belong to the Kingand his Ministers as the party [Seite] to which it was expresslyassigned. In the English political administration as it stands at pre-sent, the decision has long since been taken on what in France hasalways rst required a decisive and authentic interpretation throughinsurrection and acts of violence by an insurgent populace. Theinnovation contained in the Reform Bill can therefore impinge onlyupon the effective power of government as established in Parlia-ment. Under present conditions, however, this power suffers onlysupercial variations in the form of changes of administration, butno genuine conict of principles, for a new administration belongsto the same class [Klasse] of interests and of statesmen as its prede-cessor did. It gains the necessary predominance which it requiresas a party to some extent from that group of members who countas independent, but who on the whole side with the current admin-istration out of a feeling that a government must be present; but italso gains it in part through the inuence which it is able to exerciseon the lling of a number of parliamentary seats. Now even if theso-called agricultural interest appears to have declared that it willreceive its due under the new mode of election which is about tobe introduced, and even if a large part of the existing patronage ofparliamentary seats and of the combinations [of factors] involved intheir purchase remains in place, it is inevitable that the class whichhas hitherto been dominant in Parliament, and which furnishes each

Political writings

administration with ready material for [perpetuating] the existingsystem of social conditions, will undergo modication when newpeople and heterogeneous principles are introduced.69 The ReformBill in itself undermines the present basis of this system, namelythe principle of purely positive right which secures the continuedpossession of privileges, whatever relation these privileges may haveto the rights of real freedom. Once claims of a new kind, whichuntil now have barely found involuntary and incoherent expression(and rather as indenite fears than as actual demands) come up fordiscussion in Parliament, the opposition will change its character;the parties will have another object than that of merely taking overthe administration.70

If we take an example of an opposition of different character asit appears in its extreme form in France, this character nds itsmost revealing embodiment in the surprise which has beenexpressed there after every change of administration in recent timesover the fact that those individuals who come out of opposition intogovernment subsequently follow much the same maxims as theirousted predecessors did. In the newspapers of the French oppo-sition, we read naive complaints that so many excellent individualschange course as they progress through government ofce,betraying the left wing to which they formerly belonged i.e. that,while they may have previously conceded in abstracto that a govern-ment existed, they have now learned what government actually is,and that it involves something more than principles alone. Thelatter, as we know, consist in France of general notions [Vorstel-lungen] concerning freedom, equality, the people, popular sover-eignty, etc. National legislation, for men of principle, essentiallyextends no further than those droits de lhomme et du citoyen whichwere prexed to the earlier French constitutions. They do, ofcourse, concede that further specic legislation is necessary, as wellas an organisation of the powers of the state and of administrativeagencies, and that the people must be subordinate to these publicauthorities, and this is duly put into effect. But that institutionalactivity which constitutes public order and genuine freedom isopposed by renewed reference to those generalities whose verydemands for freedom render the basic law contradictory withinitself. It is conceded that obedience to the law is necessary; butwhen this is demanded by the authorities (i.e. by [specic]

On the English Reform Bill

individuals), it seems to go against freedom. The authority to issuecommands, and the difference to which this authority like com-manding and obeying in general gives rise is incompatible withequality. A mass of human beings can call itself the people andrightly so, for the people is this indeterminate mass; but the auth-orities and ofcials, and in general the members of the organisedpower of the state, are distinct from the people, and they thereforeappear to be in the wrong [in dem Unrecht] for having rejectedequality and taken a stance opposed to the people, which has theinnite advantage of being recognised as the sovereign will. This isthe extreme contradiction within whose circle a nation revolves assoon as these formal categories have come to dominate it.71 Themembers of the English Parliament under the present system, andthe English in general, have a more practical approach to politics,and they do have a conception [Vorstellung] of what governmentand governing are; and at the same time, it is in the nature oftheir constitution that the government virtually refrains from allinterference in the particular circles of social life, in the adminis-tration of counties, cities, etc