Parliamentary reform and the Great Reform Act, 1832
Economic distress and social discontent grew in 1830 - Napoleonic wars brought unrest in urban and industrial areas But in 1830 there were signs of rural protest From mid-summer large areas of southern England were hit by 'Swing Riots' Demanding: - Higher wages - Abolition to tithes - Destruction of threshing machines 'Swing' alarmed the landed classes - Rural labourers were seen as loyal and docile - Activities in 1830-31 were organised and threatening Labourers were: - Reading political newspapers - Influenced by radical agitators - Calling for reform of parliament Disturbances continued - In 1831 supporters of Lord Ashley were attacked Causes of violence were mostly economic: - Rural poverty - Loss of winter employment (new threshing machines) The Whigs were no more lenient than the Tories - 2,000 people arrested and tried in 34 countries - 19 hanged - 481 transported to Australia Swing activity showed the dangers associated with popular unrest with troops being brought in to restor order - Increasing numbers of MPs thought it unwise to delay the passing of reform
How important was popular discontent in bringing about parliamentary reform, 1830-32?
Other factors: - Wellington was not able to form a government in May 1832 - Though William IV disliked the bill he did not block it. Eventually agreeing to create pro-reform peers - Peel refused to join a Tory government in May 1832, wisely reckoning that the Tories would be forced to pass reform (not wanting a repeat of the situation of the pass of Catholic Emancipation - being accused of treachery) Without Peel, Wellington would not take on the premiership
How important was popular discontent in bringing about parliamentary reform, 1830-32?
The Bristol Riots: - Riots were sparked by the arrival of Sir Charles Wetherell - Wetherell was an outspoken opponent of reform - After being attacked by a crowd he threatened the protesters with the use of force - 500-600 people then attacked Bristol's Mansion House - The Bishops' Palace was burned down - The troops present did not act, as commanded, through fear that it would cause greater disturbance and loss of life After time they acted with sabers and the crowd dispersed - The riots lasted 3 days
How important was popular discontent in bringing about parliamentary reform, 1830-32?
The political unions: O'Connell's campaign for Catholic Emancipation had showed the effectiveness of well-organised pressure groups The growth of the BPU and of similar such unions meant that pressure to pass a reform bill increased - From Nov 1830 - March 1831 654 pro-reform petitions were sent to parliament by various middle-class organisations Attwood addressed a meeting of the BPU which was attended by 15,000 people - The meeting was peaceful - Attwood made an inspiring speech which was circulated nationwide by sympathetic pro-reform newspapers When the Lords threw out the Bill on the 8th of October protests followed - Political unions established round the country following the aims of the BPU - Newspapers throughout the country protested - An attempt was made by Francis Place to set up a national political union to co-ordinate protests - Meetings and large scale protests continued. In Manchester 12,000 people protested Protests followed after the resignation of Earl Grey in May 1832 - Wellington considered forming a new Tory ministry, there was a power vacuum as no government was formed - The unions used the economic power of the middle class and threatened a tax strike to put pressure on the king and Tories to not establish a new government Leaders of the BPU and national political unions planned economic actions: - In London placards were produced: 'Stop the Duke, Go for Gold'. Urging those with deposits in the Bank, especially the Bank of England to redeem paper money only by gold - £1.6 million was withdrawn in May The agitation had been bad for trade and business confidence Both unemployment and food prices rose Petitions and public meetings were increasing - The return of Grey was met with great jubilation
How important was popular discontent in bringing about parliamentary reform, 1830-32?
Unrest in Nottingham: - Unrest was provoked by the rejection of the reform bill by the Lords - A crowd in Nottingham attacked municipal buildings after hearing rumours that London reformers had taken up arms - The public meeting on October 10th was dispersed but agitators ransacked Colwick Hall - Nottingham Castle, owned by the anti-reform Tory, the Duke of Newcastle, was burned
How important was popular discontent in bringing about parliamentary reform, 1830-32?
The middle-class protest: - More extensive than any other protest movement in Britain since 1783 - Well organised and might threaten Britain's trade and financial interests - Increased the danger of a link between popular and middle-class protest - Had vigorous and committed leaders - Could not be met by repression However, - No agreement existed about either the form of extent of reform - Proposeal for setting up armed forces was seen as too radical, and likely to met with repression of unions - Many saw the run on gold as an excessive and extreme measure, injurious to Britain as a whole - Links between middle-class and working-class protest were quite limited
How important was popular discontent in bringing about parliamentary reform, 1830-32? (How important was middle-class protest?)
- Large numbers were not usually involved and crowds weren't overly politically motivated. Bristol had 6,000 voters and was one of the largest electorates - No link between urban violence and middle-class political organisation - Disturbances had more in common with the riots of the 18th century than with the French Revolution However, - Alarming to the King and many leading landowners that there were parallels with that in France - Some nobility built defenses around their homes - Occurred at a time of restlessness in the countryside - Landowners feared middle-class protesters might join the unrest caused by lower-classes, increasing the threat - Showed the army could not always be relied on the act quickly - Showed political issues could result in popular violence
How important was popular discontent in bringing about parliamentary reform, 1830-32? (How serious was the violence?)
Influential ideas from overseas: - Many reformers drew inspiration from the USA and France - The American colonists raised the issue that those who paid tax should vote for representatives - This very influential idea represented the weakness of the British system e.g. A large and wealthy city like Sheffield had no MPs but its manufacturers paid much more in tax than the small number of voters in poor, less important towns who were represented by 2 MPs - Influenced the work of Thomas Paine Radical ideas were spread by Cobbett's 'Political Register' and Baines' 'Leeds Mercury' which was aimed at a more middle class - 1792 France became a republic - Established a system that 'active citizens' should have the right to vote Attempts to promote these ideas were made - 1792 Charles Grey formed the Society of the Friends of the People, Associated for the purpose of Parliamentary Reform - Ideas spread to 80 societies bearing this name However, None of these groups exclusively focused on reforming parliament until the Birmingham Political Union of 1830 which attracted unprecedented mass support and interest Pitt introduced a parliamentary reform bill in April 1785 - Did not see the existing system as beyond change However, his proposed measures were quite limited - 36 small boroughs purchased with electors' consent and the 72 seats redistributed among country and larger towns - £1 compensation to those who lost their constituency - Proposed to give voting rights to landowners in the counties who were not freeholders but held their land on long lease or had evidence to what amounted to complete ownership. Bill defeated 248 to 174
What characterised early reform movements and why did they fail, 1785-1830?
Until 1780 there was very little demand for reform or parliament A significant development took place in 1780: - Christopher Wyville (Yorkshire landowner) founded the Yorkshire Association - Yorkshire had a large number of voters who were particularly resentful about parliamentary corruption and disliked the return of MPs in the pocket of either the government or patrons However, Wyville was not concerned with democratic ideas or giving more people the vote, but more about standards in public life: - The Yorkshire landowners complained about high taxes - To exert greater control over the government they advocated annual elections, this could tackle corruption because of the additional costs of bribery - Aim was to increase the influence of the country 40-shilling freeholders and to elect more independent MPs - Politicians had to take notice as they relied on the votes of independent country MPs and it was unusual for a reform movement to be so organised Pitt's election in 1784 owed some to the Country Associations since the discontented country voters welcomed Pitt's obvious honesty and determination to reform finance Radical groups were also influenced by the American Revolution: - 'No taxation without representation' - This was also true for the bulk of Britain who did not vote for MPs who voted for taxes imposed on the people - This was a major cause of revolt against Britain which led to American independence, 1783 There were often different strands and conflicting aims of reforming parliament: - Highly educated moralists e.g. scientist Joseph Priestly objected to the corruption associated with political processes and wanted to supplant it with a more rational and uniform system of voting - Philosophical radicals argued the need for rational principles to be applied to all British institutions... 'greatest happiness, for the greatest number'. - Political radicals with a more modest agenda. Some wished to restrict voting rights to owners of property
What characterised early reform movements and why did they fail, 1785-1830?
Lack of Success: - Aims from different groups who called for change were varied and prevented any concerted or co-ordinated action - Those who supported change were often seen as extremists - The old system had so many vested interests in parliament that even Pitt could not persuade the Commons to vote for reform - Calls for reform were often accompanied by a range of other demands and ideas e.g. currency reform or lower taxes. This weakened their impact and caused divisions - The French Revolution alarmed the Government and the propertied classes who saw any change as too dangerous. Even moderate ideas for reform were rejected - Ownership of boroughs was seen as property and there was reluctance by MPs and governments to interfere with property ownership The system was seen, by many, to work well: - Within parliament a wide range of 'interests' were represented. - The system allowed reformers a voice and there were those who advocated Catholic Emancipation, the abolition of the slave trade even reform of parliament. During the French Wars those who oppose the war could speak in parliament - Many considered it right that wealthy and important men should have influence over the return of MPs and that they would chose people of ability - Neighbours could see if they were voting in a way which best represented the whole local community - The idea of giving the poor and poorly-educated the vote ('democracy') was seen as dangerous
What characterised early reform movements and why did they fail, 1785-1830? (Why did calls for reform of parliament not succeed between 1780-1830?)
The Whigs were dominated by aristocrats, With Grey's cabinet 1830-34 being overwhelmingly aristocratic. With the Tories led by those of much less blue-blood e.g. Robert Peel The Whigs won the 1832 election with 479 - Tory 179 The Act changed the composition of parliament in ways which satisfied the Whigs, but it hardly changed society or the political domination of existing ruling classes - Enough small boroughs survived to ensure some corruption The danger of revolution was averted - The Act was widely greeted with expression of joy, as it was seen as a movement in the direction of progressive change - Grey was seen as a hero, meeting the needs of the people while in fact maintaining the existing system which benefited his party and class The Whigs remained in office until 1841 achieving a 'decade of reform' - Reform met ideological aims of the Whigs and substantially increased their popularity and credibility
What were the aims of the Whigs in introducing parliamentary reform and how far were they met by the Great Reform Act of 1832? (Did the Act meet the aim of the Whigs?)
- Voting was still done in public, no secret ballot - No change to frequency of parliament - MPs weren't paid - Voting was still based on property qualification - The House of Lords remained it's pre-1832 power Could still block proposed legislation even if the commons passed with a majority
What were the aims of the Whigs in introducing parliamentary reform and how far were they met by the Great Reform Act of 1832? (What did not change?)
Rotten and Pocket boroughs: - 56 boroughs returning 111 MPs were disenfranchised. These were small boroughs where patrons could nominate MPs or which had small numbers of, or even no inhabitants - 30 boroughs with under 4,000 inhabitants lost the right to return 1 of their 2 MPs This meant 143 seats could be redistributed Areas which gained more MPs: - The counties gained 65 seats - 22 large towns e.g. Manchester, Leeds etc. gained two seats, making 44 in all - 21 other towns gained one seat - Scotland gained 8 seats and Ireland 5 - In England, the seats taken from boroughs were equally shared between countries and towns - 65 each Voting: - In parliamentary boroughs male householders could vote if they owned a house, rented or lodged (where the landlord was not living) worth £10 a year. - In the counties: - 40 shilling freeholders - £10 copy holders - £50 tenants
What were the aims of the Whigs in introducing parliamentary reform and how far were they met by the Great Reform Act of 1832? (What did the Reform Act of 1832 change?)
- There was now one uniform voting qualification - The number of very small or decaying boroughs returning MPs was reduced and new industrial towns returned MPs - The electorate rose from 526,000/26 million in 1831 to 813,000 in 1833 - 5% of adults voted in 1831 and 7% in 1833 Some categories however, lost the right to vote: - Potwallopers - The freemen and Women - Scot and lot payers E.g. Westminster saw the number of voters reduce
What were the aims of the Whigs in introducing parliamentary reform and how far were they met by the Great Reform Act of 1832? (What were the major changes?)
The Whigs and parliamentary reform, 1783-1830 - The most prominent Whig group had supported the reform of parliament in the 1780s and their leader the Earl of Rockingham advised Wyvill - Fox advocated the removal of small pocket and rotten boroughs - Fox ridiculed objections to the measure made by Henry Flood in 1790 with it being dangerous to reform parliament at a time when stability was being threatened by the French Revolution - Fox urged for reform to prevent such instability, avoiding what happened in France Main difference between Tories and Whigs The Whigs saw reform as essential to preventing what happened in France happening in Britain. Younger Whigs admired the ideology of the American Revolution The Society of the Friends of the People formed in 1792 by younger and more radical Whigs politicians - Grouping of radicals such as Major John Cartwright, and aristocrats including Earl Grey - Aim was for more equal representation in parliament and took up the idea of annual parliaments Fox did not approve, fearing the younger men would upset the great nobles who led the Whigs and split the party Grey introduced a petition calling for reform in April 1792 and a reform bill in 1793 - Ideas of the American Revolution were clear, arguing that paying tax entitled men to have some participation in electing MPs - To gain support, Pitt elected 30 new Peers who influenced some 40 MPs - The bill was defeated 282 to 41 The Whigs were conscious that reform was a very difficult proposal to carry: - Gaining popular support for reform would alarm many more MPs - Brought the Whigs close to splitting - Authorities prepared to break up meetings e.g. the third 'British Convention' of radical societies Oct, 1793 - The Society of the Friends of People was disbanded in 1793 The Whigs were in power under Grenville from 1806-1807 with Fox as Foreign Secretary until his death (1806) - Key decision were the abolition of slave trade and political concessions for Roman Catholics rather than parliamentary reform - The slave trade was abolished in 1807 but the King remained firm in his opposition to any concessions for Catholics - Grenville, Pitt's Foreign Secretary 1790s never supported parliamentary reform anyway - His ministers knew that any attempt to rehash the question would be futile After 1807 the Whigs remained the opposition until 1830, with little opportunity to move the reform issue forward - The Tories appeared increasingly dominant However, After Liverpool's retirement (1827) the party saw two short lived PMs before Wellington came to power in 1828 - Agitation in Ireland led to the passing of Catholic Emancipation in 1829 and opened up significant splits in the Tory party - Wellington and Peel were strongly against parliamentary reform - Earl Grey revived his earlier enthusiasm for it and spoke in its favour in 1830 Wellington resigned and Grey became PM making a public commitment to passing parliamentary reform
Why did Whigs and Tories have different attitudes to the reform of parliament, 1783-1830?
The Tories and parliamentary reform, 1783-1830 - Pitt adopted the ideas of modest reform in 1785 - It's failure however, confirmed Pitt's further opposition to change With the publications of Burke's 'Reflections on the Revolution in France' and radical developments in France, Tory attitudes hardened against change - Agreeing with the view that the time was not right for major constitutional change The Tories saw rejection of change and repression of radicalism to achieve the preservation of the existing order, whereas, the Whigs saw moderate reform and the rights to protest and free speech as more likely to maintain the existing system During the French wars Pitt and his successors saw maintained a long struggle against radicalism - This was not an atmosphere in which parliamentary reform would thrive However, the issue could not be ignored - In 1818 there had been blatant bribery in the tiny Cornish borough of Grampound, with it's 23 voters put on trial in 1819 - Lord John Russell introduced a bill in 1820 to end the rights of Grampound and three other corrupt boroughs to send MPs to parliament in 1820 - This was blocked by the government - Russell tried again after the Grampound returned two wealthy merchants who had bought the borough, proposed giving the rights to Leeds - Liverpool agreed to give the rights to the country of Yorkshire instead and Grampound lost the rights to return MPs in 1826 The Tory leadership was not prepared to redistribute seats to new industrial areas Even those like Peel and Canning, who had made changes in domestic and foreign policy, were against parliamentary reform - Peel felt it ensured that MPs were independent thinkers and not ties to the wishes of those who elected them In most Tory eyes... There was no need for change The blurred lines between Whig and Tory became apparent in 1828 - Many Tories were determined not to give into Irish agitation for Catholic Emancipation It was however supported by Peel and Wellington, with 173 'ultra-Tories' voting against it Ultra-Tories - Oppose the reform of the Corn Laws in 1828 - Oppose the government policy of restricting paper money A Bill was introduced by Lord Blandford (ultra-Tory) on the grounds that parliament was not representing the true anti-Catholic feelings of the nation - Bitter feeling in his party caused for Wellington's resignation in 1830
Why did Whigs and Tories have different attitudes to the reform of parliament, 1783-1830? The Tories and parliamentary reform, 1783-1830
1784: - There were 72/243 English constituencies where more than one candidate stood for election (less than 30%) The country elections had a larger electorate and voting qualification was ownership of land worth 40s. - Voting wasn't secret - Landowners could exercise 'informal influence' However, Many independent-minded gentlemen were elected in the country and refused to join party-political groups when the reached Westminster Overall, There was considerably less bribery and corruption than in the boroughs Political parties did not exist - MPs were elected in their own right, but it was known which group of which leading figure they favoured E.g. the election of 1784 returned many MPs who were known to favour the King's choice of minister, Pitt However, this did not mean that the Pittite MPs felt obliged to vote on Pitt's side all the time Politics was less-so democratic - Some people could have multiple votes because they had property in different boroughs - Graduates from Oxbridge could vote for the MPs of the university as well as their own boroughs - Most people couldn't vote - Even those with wealth and property in non-parliamentary boroughs (grew from industrial growth) didn't qualify - Those without property didn't vote - MPs weren't paid The south of England was much more represented than the north as the boroughs had been created at a time when population and economic activity had been stronger there
Why did reformers want to reform parliament before 1832? (How did elections work?)
Voting qualifications: - 200,000 who could vote in the 203 boroughs - 239,000 who could vote in the counties Less than 13% of the population could vote, with Ireland and Scotland being considerably lower - Because there was often small number of voters and voting was not done in secret, rich and influential men could virtually own boroughs and select their own MPs ('Pocket Boroughs') Some boroughs were in control of patrons loyal to the crown. - They ensured the return of MPs called 'placemen' who, in return of their support were given sinecures The bulk of the Commons were representatives from the boroughs, but this often meant they had been chosen by influential nobles or by royal agents - E.g. Fox became an MP at age 19 for the borough of Midhurst, which was the property of his aristocratic family, the Hollands - Pitt was elected to represent Appleby at age 20 thanks to the patronage of James Lowther, a rich local landowner - Sir Robert Peel was given his seat by his wealthy industrialist father who was rich enough to buy for him the votes of an Irish borough in County Tipperary, 1809
Why did reformers want to reform parliament before 1832? (Who could vote before 1832?)
- Revelations about the extent of corruption in some boroughs were bringing the whole system into dispute with both parties agreeing that action should be taken - In 1829 the government passed Catholic Emancipation, allowing Catholics to be able to take seats - This however stirred up agitation in the Tory party with Bladnford's bill However, By 1830 the major issue had become the under-representation of the industrial cities which were making important contributions to the health of Britain's economy - The free-trade policies had recognised the importance of maintaining high levels of employment, but there was a growing feeling that only a reformed parliament would pass the necessary measures for the 'new' Britain that had been created by factories, canals and population growth There were various reason why reform had become more pressing: - The growing middle-class from the 1780s needed more extensive representation in parliament e.g. The strong support for the Birmingham Political Union, founded 1829 by businessman Thomas Attwood - The aims was to join the Lower and Middle Classes in a powerful pro-reform agitation - Birmingham had a population of 144,000, being the third largest provincial town in England but remained under-represented - The BPU gained massive support with 8,000 signatures on the first reform bill The BPU demanded: - More frequent general elections - Payment of MPs - Men who pay taxes should vote - End of property qualifications for MPs Events in France demonstrated the power of the middle class with the overthrow of King Charles X and the replacement by Louise Philippe who adopted more liberal ideas and had strong support from the middle class The dangers of a reformed parliament passing hostile legislation to the ruler class had before prevented such reform - Catholic Emancipation was passed under an unreformed government The Tory split allowed the Whigs their chance - With only 73 small boroughs in their control compared the the Tory 200 they believed parliamentary reform would work to their advantage in future elections - Lord Grey had also been a long supported of reform and was accompanied by many like-minded individuals e.g. Lord John Russell Growing public pressure presented an ever-sharper spur for reform - The BPU led a number of significant demos which called for more extensive representation of the middle class - Grey told the King that reform could not be ignored Momentum for change was apparent after the death of Liverpool - Encouraged by changes in foreign and domestic policy by liberal Tories and the events in France
Why was there such a demand for reform of parliament, 1828-30?
