Y110: From Pitt to Peel, 1783-1853

Pitt the Younger

On 19 December 1783 Pitt was appointed PM by George III. The announcement in the House of Commons was received with a great shout of laughter.

The ministry did not have an auspicious beginning. From January to March 1784, the struggle between government and opposition became a personal fight between Pitt and Fox.

Pitt formed a ministry made up of peers; he was the only member of his government who had a seat in the Commons.

He chose men of talent rather than men of influence but omitted Shelburne from his ministry in order to avoid the government being accused of nepotism.

Pitt showed much integrity, honesty and disinterestedness from the start. He refused to accept sinecures from the King although Pitt had no private income. This strengthened the PM’s position among the country gentry.

Pitt's government was defeated several times in January 1784 as the result of Fox's onslaught on Pitt, who refused to resign.

Pitt's tenacity in remaining in office aroused public sympathy and Fox lost more support. Pitt also had full royal patronage.

Votes against Pitt in the Commons were 224 – 203 in February, but only 191 – 190 in March.

The 1784 Election

In March, 1784 Pitt asked George III to dissolve parliament so he could hold a general election and, if he won, govern on a clear mandate.

The full weight of royal patronage was put behind Pitt. King George III hated the previous Fox-North coalition and was determined to ensure that Pitt was returned with a majority.

The King did not personally involve himself in the election, but government agents had ensured that loyal petitions had been presented to Parliament to urge MPs to back the government.

Pitt was returned top of the poll for Cambridge University and 160 opposition MPs lost their seats.

Eighty of them were Fox-North coalition supporters who became known as ‘Fox's Martyrs'.

The results for Pitt's supporters were most significant. In Yorkshire, William Wilberforce was returned and a Pittite won Middlesex.

In the country it was clear that the merchants and the commercial world supported Pitt, who upheld the rights trade and empire.

1

Pitt's stated belief in constitutional reform won him support of country gentlemen.

In Pitt's first ministry, the landed and commercial interests were united in their support of the government.

Because of the variety of supporters whom he attracted, Pitt had a working majority of about two hundred but he could only survive as long as his personality and ability able to maintain that support.

He was young, new and untried, and did not have an automatic party or majority.

Of 558 MPs:

52 regularly supported Pitt, regardless (i.e. his party); 138 were Foxites - the bigger influence group. 183 were independent gentlemen/supporters of current government 185 were Crown party': placemen, treasury officials, king's influence

These last two groups held the balance and determined the future. Pitt did not have a free hand: his support came mainly from the king and from whoever he could win over.

Although Pitt called himself a Whig, he was in office because of royal support; therefore it could be argued that Pitt was a reforming Tory, following progressive, utilitarian policies.

In the first decade of this ministry (1783-93), Pitt implemented a number of policies aimed at restoring Britain's position in the world following the loss of her American colonies and the European wars.  

Reform of Finance and Administration

Pitt's major achievement during his first ministry was the restoration of national finances, administrative reforms.

When Pitt took office, the National Debt stood at £250 million. That was twenty times the annual revenue of £12.5 million from taxes.

The annual interest on government borrowing, which stood at about £8.3 million, automatically produced a deficit which was funded by further borrowing resulting in increased interest and an even greater deficit. National bankruptcy was a strong possibility.

Pitt had to reverse the trend. He had three possible ways of doing this. He could stimulate trade, increase taxation and/or cut government spending.

Pitt chose to implement all three options as one policy. He also needed to avoid involvement in any war since wars were the major cause of the debt. It has been said that Pitt was the most ingenious tax-gatherer over to rule Britain.

2

Smuggling became his first target. It was estimated that smuggling exceeded 20% of imports and accounted for half all tea in Britain, creating an obvious loss of revenue.

High duties made smuggling profitable, so Pitt decided to reduce duties to make the temptation no longer adequate to the risk.

Tea duties, averaging 119%, were reduced to 25%. Duties also were reduced on wines, spirits and tobacco.

By 1789, quantity of tea passing through Customs had doubled and in one year (1784-5) the Exchequer got an extra £200,000.

By 1792, government revenue had increased by £3 m as a result of legal increased consumption.

The 1787 Hovering Act also attacked smuggling by extending the duties of Customs officials to 12 miles off-shore. Again, revenue rose.

The Window Tax was subject to a graduated rise. This tax had been levied since 1697; it was repealed in 1851 although it was withdrawn from houses with fewer than seven windows in 1792.

The Window Tax was easy to administer, difficult to evade and was a form of direct tax paid by those best able to afford it, therefore it was equitable. These increases in taxes offset the losses in customs revenues.

New forms of direct taxation spread a number of taxes thinly over a wide variety of goods and services. This allowed Pitt to increase revenue without arousing great opposition.

The new taxes mainly affected possessions and/or pleasures of the rich: they were levied on bricks and tiles, gold and silver plate, men's hats, ladies' ribbons, perfumes, hair powder, horses and carriages, sporting licences and bachelors (according to number of servants they had).

Customs and excises were simplified by creating the Consolidated Fund into which all revenue was paid.

Under the former system, income from taxes was allocated to forms of expenditure without any overall system of accounting.

The Consolidated Fund enabled the Treasury to have control over government revenue as never before.

Pitt also embarked on a reduction of government spending. The reforms were founded on Pitt's belief that government administration should be carried out by trained and salaried professionals, not by amateurs rewarded by fees.

He aimed at a fundamental reorganisation through the amalgamation of offices with a reduction in staff and the gradual abolition of profitable sinecures which had been used to buy political allegiance.

3

Compensation was paid to those who lost sinecures, but was a once and for all payment and savings were long- term. Pitt even waited for sinecurists to die.

In 1784, Pitt supported John Palmer's proposal to establish a fast, efficient and safe Mail service because charges could be increased.

Administration

Pitt established loans by tender obtain cheap money. The old system of government borrowing was to use family, friends and contacts and pay exorbitant interest rates: fortunes had been made by this method.

He introduced professional auditing of government accounts to stop officials ‘borrowing' to invest privately.

Pitt set up a Sinking Fund in 1786: he set aside £1 million p.a. which accumulated at compound interest.

This fund needed a constant surplus of revenue but despite deficits in 1785 and 1787, the system appeared secure by 1793 when Britain became involved in the French Wars.

The effects of Pitt's economic policies were a substantial increase in Britain's trade and an upturn in the economy.

Confidence was restored in the pound and worries, especially over the National Debt, ended and more people were prepared and able to lend to Government at guaranteed rates of interest.

Anglo-American trade quadrupled, providing an example of the effectiveness of free trade.

Pitt rebuilt the financial foundations of Britain, which later enabled him to subsidise European armies to fight France in the French wars.

Trade

The 1786 Vergennes (or Eden) Treaty was a commercial treaty with France negotiated successfully in the face of strong opposition from leading statesmen in both countries.

France wanted British goods and the French market for British exporters’ potential was huge.

It was so favourable to Britain that it created hardship in France which was a cause of the French Revolution.

France reduced duties on oil, vinegar, wines and spirits. Britain reduced on textiles, pottery, leather goods and manufactures.

Either country, while neutral, could carry goods freely during a war in which the other was engaged.

4

By the terms of the treaty, Britain was left free to negotiate cheaper duties with Spain and Portugal for oil, wines and spirits because there was no clause limiting British trade solely with France.

Reform

Pitt relied on the support of the Independent Gentlemen and he had promised to introduce some measure to reform parliament.

He chose to do this as a Private Member so that - should the Bill be defeated - the government would not have to resign.

The 1785 Reform Bill was proposed that 36 small boroughs should be purchased with the electors' consent, and the 72 seats should be redistributed among county and city constituencies.

£1 million should be put aside for compensating the borough owners who would lose their political property and influence.

The franchise should be extended to both 40/- copyholders and long lease-holders.

There was no suggestion that industrial towns would get representation, but new ports like Liverpool and Bristol would, since they were bigger and more important as yet.

The commercial interest was still more important than manufacturing interest and Pitt recognised the need to support commerce.

The Bill was defeated 248 - 174 because Fox and his supporters, the borough-mongers and placemen killed it. These men feared a loss of influence and said there was a danger of giving in to public opinion.

Pitt did not make any further attempts at reform, nor did he follow up Catholic Emancipation in the 1790s when George III refused to consider it. Pitt was dependent on royal support and was not prepared to compromise that.

How successfully did Pitt face the challenge of the French Revolution, 1789-1801?

Pitt's reforms slowed down in 1789 with the start of the French Revolution and ended almost totally in 1792 at the beginning of the Revolutionary Wars.

Domestic policy regressed from 1792 onwards: there was little progessive domestic policy between 1793 and 1815, because of the total commitment and concentration on defeating France. 

Britain was busy fighting the war, concentrating on war effort' and during this period 'reform' was feared as prologue to Revolution and reform was thought of as treason.

Advocates of reform, however mild the reforms might be, were thought of as traitors.

The events in France in and after 1789 produced a number of reactions in Britain. These are epitomised by the attitudes of Pitt and his government, that of Edmund Burke and that of Thomas Paine.

5

Between July 1789 and April 1792 Pitt's government adopted an attitude of neutrality. Pitt felt that France was on the path of self-destruction in which Britain was only a spectator.

He could not financially or diplomatically afford to get involved because of the parlous state of the British economy.

There was no aggression by Britain, but Pitt's neutral stand began to change when France started to interfere with other European nations.

In 1792, the French encouraged rebellion in Holland and denounced the right of Holland to control the navigation and commerce of the Scheldt.

This arrangement dated back to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia and Britain wanted to uphold that treaty.

At this time Holland was an ally of Britain and Pitt was concerned about the possible effects on Britain's trade and naval power if Holland came under French control.

This was the clear aim of the French government. Pitt needed to be wary also, because of the risk of invasion from Holland up the Thames.

In November 1792, after the French had issued the Edict of Fraternity calling on people to overthrow their rulers, Pitt's attitude towards France grew much colder. Much suspicion of supporters of the Revolution was generated.

On 21 January 1793, Louis XVI was executed and the Jacobins set up a dictatorship through the Committee of Public Safety. This was seen by Pitt as a threat to national stability in Britain.

On 1 February 1793, France declared war on Britain and Pitt reciprocated. Most people supported Pitt and the king in this action.

Pitt's reforming policies were frozen by the French Revolution and he reverted to the two traditional duties of an eighteenth century PM, which were maintenance of domestic law and order and defence of the realm from foreign invasion

He also felt that the republicanism of the Revolution would spread in England if it was not checked. He therefore changed from being a reformer to being a reactionary.

It was a retrogressive and reactionary step (against progressive reform) but did not happen in the period 1789-92 when France still had a peaceful, constitutional monarchy.

In this period, Pitt maintained a cautious neutrality towards the reform clubs. He did not suppress the Corresponding Societies.

Local JPs, Lords Lieutenant and other influential men in the provinces were advised by the Home Office to keep an eye on any democratic movements.

6

They were asked to send reports, copies of letters sent or received by members, and copies of publications produced by the Corresponding Societies to the Home Office so Pitt and the government could monitor the activities of the potentially dangerous organisations.

It was quite common for the Postmaster to read into the letters of other people at this time and everyone knew that this practice went on.

Whig splits, 1790-94

Pitt was aided in his policies to deal with the impact of the French Revolution by splits in the Whig Party.

Fox and some younger members of the party such as Charles Grey and Richard Brinsley Sheridan were sympathetic to the French revolutionaries.

Others, led by Edmund Burke, were strongly opposed. Burke himself was largely alone in defecting to Pitt in 1791.

The Duke of Portland (Whig leader in the Lords), Rockingham's nephew Lord Fitzwilliam, and William Windham, were increasingly uncomfortable with the flirtations of Fox and his allies with radicalism and the French Revolution.

They split with Fox in early 1793 over the question of support for the war with France, and by the end of the year they had openly broken with Fox.

By the summer of the next year, large portions of the opposition had defected and joined Pitt's government.

Anti-Radical Legislation 1794-1801

1793 saw the execution of Louis XVI and beginning of the Revolutionary Wars. In Britain, toleration of reform movements ended.

The Societies were seen as agents of rebellion: if reformers were sympathetic to the Revolution they were seen as traitors who supported the national enemy: they were known as ‘English Jacobins'. Pitt decided to suppress the Societies.

The Home Office collected all available information on them and clamped down. Several pieces of repressive legislation were passed: 1793 Aliens Act; in 1794 Habeas Corpus was suspended.

The 1794 harvest was poor; food prices were high and trade was dislocated by both the high prices and the war.

The King's coach was attacked by a mob in October following the state opening of Parliament, and there were cries of ‘No King', ‘No war', ‘No famine', and ‘No Pitt'.

The windows of No 10 Downing Street - the Prime Minister's residence - were smashed.

In the summer and autumn of 1794 the government held a series of treason trials.

7

Leaders of most Corresponding Societies, for example Hardy from London and others from Leeds and Sheffield were arrested and tried on charges of sedition and treason.

The English trials were not so severe because the 1792 Libel Act put through parliament by Fox altered the administration of English justice.

Until this Act, the jury advised the judge in cases of libel. The Act gave juries the right to find a verdict.

In the treason trials, once the evidence had been presented the juries tended to find the accused not guilty of treason, or of being revolutionaries and returned ‘Not Guilty' verdicts.

Lord Erskine believed that Pitt's fears were exaggerated, and defended those accused of treason. He destroyed the government's cases against many reformers, including that against Hardy.

The evidence of sedition was slight, although Davidson (of Sheffield) had offered Sheffield pikes so people could arm themselves against the government.

Local JPs were still giving harsh sentences including terms in gaol, transportation and so on, There was a purge against corresponding Societies. Then the government passed a series of excessively repressive Acts.

This included the 1795 Treasonable Practices Act, the 1795 Seditious Meetings Act and in 1797 vast increases in taxes on printed matter

In 1799 and 1800 the Combination Acts were passed. These laws forbade societies or amalgamations of persons for the purpose of political reform.

Interference with commerce and trade became illegal. The penalty for breaking these laws was 3 months in gaol.

Pitt passed the Combination Acts because trade clubs and societies had effectively demanded wage rises to keep pace with inflation. The government saw wage claims as a clear sign of disaffection.

It has been said that this change of approach came from necessity, not hypocrisy and that repression and reaction was against Pitt's usual character and attitude.

It is true that much of the reaction came from the landed interest. The Corresponding Societies were in the towns, and country gentry knew little or nothing about conditions in the towns. Repression was led by the country gentlemen.

Also, war meant that Britain had to be made safe. It was a total and demanding war, and Pitt could not risk domestic.

Lack of adequate communications increased the fears. News was distorted, exaggerated, misinterpreted.

8

The government acted ‘on suspicion', because if things were left to develop, they could be caught with a revolution on their hands, totally unprepared.

By this time, the term ‘revolution' had come to mean a bloody revolt, with violence, threats, executions etc and led to a fear of even minor reform - in case it led to revolution.

From 1793 onwards, a wave of anti-reform feeling existed in Britain which lasted well into the 19th century. With hindsight one can see that the government over-reacted.

9

Lord Liverpool and the Tories 1812-1830

British society at the end of the Napoleonic War.

In 1815, Britain was dominated by the landed aristocracy and gentry. Control of the Houses of Parliament lay in the hands of landowners.

The extent of landed dominance can be seen in the passing of the Corn Laws in 1815. Cheap bread was in the interests of everybody except for farmers and landowners. The middle classes would have preferred it; working people would have wanted it.

Nevertheless, the Corn Laws, which prohibited the import of corn and other grains unless prices in Britain reached high levels, were passed with ease by both Houses of Parliament.

Although a middle class of factory owners and entrepreneurs had appeared in the previous fifty years, successful businessmen tended to copy their social betters, rather than establish a new class in society.

The long wars against France from 1793 to 1815 had effectively prevented any revolt by the middle classes. Instead of following up demands for reform which had developed in the 1780s, they looked to the government to defend their interest against working class agitation.

The Luddites in 1810-11 had been crushed ruthlessly and much the same line would be taken with other protesters in the years after 1815.

Reasons for popular discontent in 1815

Rapid increase in the population and mechanization of agriculture and industry since the 1780s led to declining wages and unemployment.

This was aggravated by the disruption of trade routes during the French wars, the loss of military orders in 1815, and the demobilization of 300,000 soldiers.

Bread prices remained high until 1818. This was the result of growing demand and poor harvests and was not the consequence of the highly unpopular Corn Laws of 1815, which banned the import of foreign wheat unless the domestic price reached 80 shillings a quarter.

The abolition of income tax in 1816 led to higher taxes on consumer goods, which hit the working classes.

There was a wave of mass meetings, rallies, marches and petitions.

‘Bread or Blood’ riots broke out in 1816, especially in East Anglia.

Hampden Clubs campaigned for working-class representation in Parliament.

10

Some Tory ministers such as Lord Eldon, the Chancellor, or Viscount Sidmouth (Henry Addington) were elderly and out of touch and advocated a policy of repression to avert any threat of social revolution as they had witnessed in France.

Liverpool’s policies

Due to the French Wars, Britain had incurred a national debt of £834 million. Income tax had been imposed, according to Pitt, for the duration of the war.

The revenue collected from income tax alone did not vastly reduce the national debt and it would have been more beneficial to Britain to allow it to remain in force.

The Corn Laws

One specific piece of legislation during Liverpool's ministry was to be a cause of domestic unrest for years to come the passing of the Corn Laws in 1815.

This measure limited the import of cheap foreign grain until British grain reached 80/- per quarter, and forced the price of bread to increase at a time when trade was declining, harvests were poor and unemployment rising.

The government's opposition to change can be seen in its stubborn refusal to lift the Corn Laws despite the many protests and petitions which the working classes lodged against them.

In fact, the Corn Laws were largely ineffective as by 1820, the price of wheat in Britain had fallen and imports were unnecessary. The price was reduced to 73/- and then to 66/- and a sliding scale was introduced.

Repression

Further repressive legislation was passed in 1816. The Game Laws restricted the hunting of game to land owners which, although a change, was a reactionary one in that it disadvantaged the bulk of the poor population.

Poaching, which up to this point had provided the means of supplementing a poor diet, now became illegal, forcing the masses to rely more heavily on increasingly expensive bread which many simply could not afford.

Distress and discontent was expressed in the form of riots such as those at Spa Fields in 1816.

However, 1816 was not a year of total reactionary outlook. Parliament set up a Select Committee to investigate the education then being offered in Britain. However, no legislation resulted from the report published two years later in 1818.

It indicates that Liverpool's ministry was aware of the need to look into the state of education, if not prepared to act upon its findings.

The work undertaken by this committee laid the foundations upon which later committees were to base their suggestions for reform.

11

In January 1817, the Prince Regent's carriage was mobbed after the State opening of Parliament; its

windows were smashed either by stones or the pellet from an air-gun.

The government believed that a revolution, organised by the numerous Hampden Clubs, was imminent: therefore the Gag Acts were imposed.

Habeas Corpus was suspended on 3 March (until 1 July initially) Seditious meetings were prohibited (Pitt's 1795 Act) On 27 March, Sidmouth ordered the Lords Lieutenant to apprehend all printers, writers and

demagogues responsible for seditious and blasphemous material.

The Blanketeers

In Manchester cotton workers, in the March of the Blanketeers, intended to walk to London seeking the help of the Prince Regent to ease the recession.

The March of the Blanketeers (each man carried a blanket) was broken up by troops on the orders of local magistrates and several men were arrested. Most of the marchers were under 30 years of age and were clearly marching against hunger and unemployment.

Pentrich

In June 1817, in Derbyshire, around 300 unemployed framework knitters marched on Nottingham Castle as part of what they thought was a general uprising against the government.

This Pentrich Rising led by Jeremiah Brandreth was broken up by the authorities and many arrests were made. 45 men were charged with high treason. Three protestors, including Brandreth, were executed and 30 were transported.

The Pentrich Rising of 1817 was instigated by a government spy known as Oliver. He encouraged the people of Pentrich to arm themselves, meet up with other, fictitious, groups and march to London seeking parliamentary reform.

Oliver informed the government of the forthcoming insurrection. At the pre-arranged meeting place government officials awaited the people of Pentrich. The result was the hanging of six men.

The government's fear of radical movement was obvious and unfortunately it motivated them into repressive action rather than into seeking solutions to the causes of the discontent.

Parliamentary reform

This attitude was upheld throughout 1818 and was not aimed solely at the lower classes. Middle class calls for reform were also quashed.

Industrialisation had created a northward shift in the population and a growth in urban towns. Many of the now wealthy individuals had amassed their fortunes in trade, industry and commerce but because they owned no land were unable to stand as MPs.

12

The new industrial population was not adequately represented at government level. When Sir Francis Burdett proposed a moderate reform of parliament in 1818 it was met with immediate rejection.

When Lord John Russell put forward the suggestion again in 1819 once again the motion was thrown out. This is proof of a definite reactionary opinion.

Liverpool's ministry was not prepared to consider compromise regarding changes within their own structure. However, one minor exception to this did arise. In 1819, Grampound was disenfranchised.

Two years later the two seats from this borough were given to the under-represented Yorkshire. As non-reactionary policy this was indeed a small gesture.

Peterloo

In 1819 sixty thousand people met on St Peter's Field, Manchester, to protest for parliamentary reform.

The meeting was noisy but peaceful until, for unspecified reasons, the Yeomanry, called in to ensure law and order was maintained, panicked.

The crowd in turn panicked and the resulting eleven dead and four-hundred wounded has come to be known as the 'Peterloo Massacre'.

Magistrates claimed that the action of the Yeomanry was justified because the meeting had been held illegally anyway.

The government, in fine reactionary style, agreed with this opinion, stating that failure to support the magistrates could result in resignations which would then deplete the country of its means of enforcing law and order.

A government enquiry into the event one year later failed to shed any light on the actual cause, probably because any evidence which had existed had long since disappeared.

In response to Peterloo parliament passed the Six Acts which:

provided methods of hastening trials and prosecutions; stated that it was illegal for civilian bodies to train in the use of weapons; empowered bodies to train in the use of weapons; empowered magistrates to search private dwellings and remove the owners and any seditious

writings and weapons they found; increased the paper tax on newspapers; demanded that all public meetings required the permission of a magistrate.

This legislation was clearly repressive and reactionary, though it is fair to say that it was not repression born out of malice or intolerance but out of fear.

13

Only four years had passed since the end of the French wars, wars which had been preceded by a revolution that had helped to breed a strong conviction amongst British politicians that bloody, revolt would follow reform.

Furthermore, the Acts were only loosely enforced and were soon allowed to lapse

In March 1820, the trials of the organisers of The St. Peter’s Field meeting took place. They were charged with ‘assembling with unlawful banners at an unlawful meeting for the purpose of exciting discontent’.

Henry Hunt received 2½ years imprisonment. Joseph Johnson, Samuel Bamford and Joseph Healey each received 1 year.

Cato Street

In the same year, a small band of men, led by Arthur Thistlewood, plotted to kill the entire Cabinet, seize the Bank of England and establish a revolutionary provisional government.

After being betrayed by an informer, they were arrested in Cato Street. The Cato St. Conspiracy resulted in the execution of Thistlewood and four other conspirators – another five were transported.

Public hostility to the Tory Government was also reflected in many pamphlets and journals’ Cobbett’s ‘Political Register’, Thomas Wooler’s ‘Black Dwarf’, William Sherwin’s ‘Weekly Political Register’.

Richard Carlisle’s ‘Republican’ and in the provincial press such as ‘Leeds Mercury’, ‘Sheffield Independent’ and ‘Manchester Guardian’.

Tory attempts at reform

In 1819, the government established a Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate the criminal law system.

The government were sufficiently aware of the need to make changes in criminal law to issue an enquiry into it, implying a non-reactionary attitude, leading to the assumption that reform would follow.

However, no immediate legislation arose out of this indicating that parliament's willingness to investigate did not extend to action, but one step towards reform was an improvement on none.

A Factory Act (1819) banned child labour in cotton mills, but had little effect because it was to be enforced by JPs, who were often factory owners.

Financial help was given to demobilized soldiers.

Loans were offered for public works and church building.

Limited insurance was provided for miners and ironworkers.

14

Committees were established to prepare more far-reaching reforms: the Romilly Committee investigated legal reform; the Wallace Committee prepared an extension of Free Trade.

The Bullion Committee can be seen as more successful in that economic reforming legislation did result in the passing of the Bullion Act of 1820.

In 1821 the Bank of England was restored to the Gold Standard. This was not a completely new reform but merely a return to the situation previous to the French wars.

In fairness, though, it was a progressive change. Inflation was reduced, interest rates lowered and borrowing increased.

Unfortunately the economic stability this created was a temporary state only The Gold Standard applied solely to the Bank of England.

Private banks were still able to continue printing paper money. This was later to have drastic effect on the economy.

In 1822, Lord Castlereagh, the Foreign Secretary, committed suicide in strange circumstances. The death allowed Liverpool to reshuffle the Cabinet.

Robert Peel became Home Secretary, William Huskisson President of the Board of Trade, and George Canning became Foreign Secretary.

Other new figures were Lord Palmerston and the Duke of Wellington. The average age was slightly younger and the outlook more ‘liberal’.

The Government became less repressive and introduced important measures of reform.

Between 1822 and 1827, with the economy more secure, trade increasing, unemployment declining and a string of good harvests, food prices reduced and the discontent of previous years, although still present, seemed less apparent and less violent.

Also by 1822, seven years after the end of the French wars, the fear of revolution was beginning to fade.

A combination of all these factors brought forth several reforming and non-reactionary measures with the exception of just a few pieces of repressive legislation.

Catholic Emancipation

Upon the issue of Catholic Emancipation Liverpool's government held fast to the traditional viewpoint.

When it was raised in Parliament in 1821, 1822, 1823, and 1825 it was met with almost unanimous rejection.

15

The fear of losing their controlling power would not permit the majority of politicians to extend the franchise to Catholics.

Indeed this was one matter to which the government, in general, were so strongly opposed they refused to even consider it.

Peel at the Home Office

Peel ordered that prison inspections be carried out and regular reports sent back to the Home Office, the result of which was a massive overhaul.

All except one of the Six Acts were repealed; government spies were deemed no longer necessary; three quarters of the criminal law was reviewed, resulting in a vast reduction of transportable offences.

This marked the end of the ‘Bloody Code’ which had 200 capital offences. Prison reform, partly initiated by Elizabeth Fry, resulted in the panopticon prison system being introduced; jailers were salaried; food and clothing were provided for all prisoners.

in 1822, Peel set up a select committee to consider the state of the existing police offices, watchmen, constables and Bow Street Patrols, and began to consider some form of centralisation.

By 1826 he outlined a plan for six police districts to cover a 16 km (10 mile) radius from St Paul's, excluding the City of London.

In 1828, he began drafting the Metropolitan Police Bill of 1829. He appointed Col. Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne to establish the force as much as they saw fit.

In July 1829, he approved the establishment of a force of 895 constables, 88 sergeants, 20 inspectors and 8 superintendents.

Peel stressed that the principal duty of the police was to be crime prevention (rather than detection.)

The nicknames 'Peelers' and 'Bobbies' were uncomplimentary results of his decision to make the force directly responsible to himself in the Home Office.

Huskisson on trade and finance

Until 1823 British trade had operated under a limiting and restricting protectionist structure. All imported goods were subject to a sliding scale of duties until Huskisson, as President of the Board of Trade, replaced this in 1823 with a flat rate of 30%.

He also relaxed the Navigation Acts, permitting British colonies to trade directly with other countries using their own ships but continuing to pay taxes to Britain.

Huskisson then began to establish reciprocal treaties with individual countries, seeking reductions on specific goods.

16

He then went on, in 1824, to impose further reductions on rum, wool and raw silk and in 1825 reductions on coffee, cotton, copper ore, iron ore, glass and paper were arranged.

In 1825, after 70 private banks, due to the over-issuing of paper money, fell victim to bankruptcy

Huskisson persuaded the Bank of England to melt down its gold reserves and circulate sovereigns. He also managed to coax parliament into passing a law preventing private banks from printing notes of less then £1 in value.

Private banks were also granted permission to become joint companies. The restriction on printing could be seen as reactionary, for most restrictive legislation usually is.

However, this was done for the common good of the country which lends it a claim to be progressive rather than repressive.

Under a General Act of 1826, proposed by Huskisson, a flat rate of 10% was fixed on all imported raw materials and a flat rate of 20% was set on all British manufactured goods.

It was through measures such as these that trade and industry was stimulated for they enabled Britain to increase its purchase, manufacture and export process.

The reforms occurring under the guidance of Huskisson were clearly non-reactionary bringing about much recovery to trade and industry thus generating employment.

The only element which can be seen as reactionary is the government's blindness to previous calls for trade reforms, though most of these had their birth before Liverpool became Prime Minister, his government simply failed to follow them up.

Repeal of the Combination Acts

In 1824 the Combinations Act was finally repealed. Trade unions now became legal. The discontented working classes were provided with a legitimate focus for their dissatisfaction and their calls for reform.

Although basically a non-reactionary step it was countered by a reactionary one in 1825. After a spate of strikes parliament tightened the Conspiracy Laws.

Whilst acknowledging the existence of trade unions they greatly restricted their effectiveness by stating that strikes were illegal.

Was there a real change in Liverpool’s ministry from 1822?

It was not easy for the government to accept the social changes which were occurring in Britain during this period and which, out of necessity, required political and economic changes.

During the first half of this ministry the cabinet consisted of eighteenth century politicians who were unwilling or unable to see the need to alter a constitution which benefited them.

17

It was during the second half of this period, with the influence of younger men from different backgrounds and of differing outlooks, that major reform took place.

The fear of revolution hung long and heavy over the early years of Liverpool's ministry and it can be understood, if not condoned, why few pieces of non-reactionary legislation were passed.

Much of the reform during this fifteen year stretch brought only temporary appeasement. It was to be several years before the constitution underwent changes adequate enough to meet the needs of the country.

It must be noted, however, that this was a late eighteenth/early nineteenth century government - a government of its time.

The repeal of the Test and Corporation Act in 1828 removed civil disabilities against Catholics. Catholic Emancipation in 1829 allowed them to become MPs.

The division between ‘Repressive’ and ‘Liberal’ Tories should not be exaggerated. The so-called ‘repression’ of the Tories before 1822 was a short-term reaction to the perceived threat of Revolution and many of the reforms after 1822 were the product of committees set up by the previous Government.

The Decline of the Tories 1827-1830

Lord Liverpool had been a moderate leader, but his retirement in 1827 left the Tories uncertain and divided.

He had managed to provide a calming and considered balance between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ Tories, but his decline into ill health precipitated an equally dramatic decline in Tory fortunes

Canning

Canning became Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury in April 1827. Canning was mistrusted by many Tories and seven members of the Cabinet, including Peel and Wellington, resigned rather than serve under him.

Canning was obliged to open negotiations with Lord Lansdowne, leader of the Whigs, in order to form a coalition with them. Canning kept for himself the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In June 1827 the government was defeated in the Lords after an amendment to the Corn Bill to reduce the price at which corn could be imported. Wellington introduced the amendment.

The Tory Party was splitting openly into Right (Ultras) and Left (Canningite) factions.

In August 1827 Canning died at Chiswick House where he had been staying in an attempt to regain his deteriorating health.

18

Wellington

Canning was succeeded briefly by Goderich and then in January 1828 Wellington was asked to form a ministry.

The Cabinet included four Canningites - Huskisson, Dudley, Grant, and Palmerston. Peel was once again Home Secretary and completed his work on the Metropolitan Police Force

Wellington’s reforms

The Test and Corporation Acts, which banned Catholics from public office, were repealed in May 1828. Lord John Russell introduced the Bill. Some Tories opposed the moves and bishops protested.

The Corn Laws were amended to 66/- with a sliding scale corn bill was agreed upon, with a sliding scale, at Huskisson’s suggestion. However, he resigned from the government in May 1828.

The other Canningites followed Huskisson, and the government became purely Tory.

The Clare By-election

Vesey Fitzgerald, appointed to the Board of Trade, had to seek re-election for Clare under. This gave the Catholic Association an opportunity to show its strength and discipline.

Fitzgerald was very popular, and had always been a staunch advocate of the Catholic claims, but Daniel O'Connell, though disqualified as a Catholic, stood against him.

O’Connell was returned by the votes of the forty-shilling freeholders. This brought the Catholic question at once to the front.

The Clare election, and the alarming reports that soon followed it from Ireland, convinced Wellington that something must be done without delay ‘to restore to property its legitimate influence.’

The first step was to gain the King’s consent to the consideration of a question which had been forbidden to all ministries since 1810. It was not until 15 January 1829 that the King gave the Cabinet leave to consider the question.

In February the king's speech asked Parliament for fresh powers to maintain his authority in Ireland, and invited it to review the laws which imposed disabilities on the Roman Catholics.

A bill was brought in suppressing the Catholic Association. After this had been passed, Peel introduced a bill on 5 March which swept away all Catholic disabilities.

The bills passed both houses by large majorities, and on 13 April they received the royal assent. But the emancipation bill was passed with the help of opponents and at every step Wellington had had to fight against the intrigues of the Eldon section and the king's shiftiness.

19

George IV died on 26 June, and Parliament was dissolved on 24 July. Two days afterwards the July revolution began in Paris, and on 7 August Louis-Philippe was proclaimed king of the French.

Attempts had been made to strengthen the government, especially in the Commons, and Wellington offered to retire, to give Peel a free hand in this respect.

In the autumn he made overtures to some of the Canningites. Huskisson was killed at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester railway on 15 September 1830.

Hard-line Protestant Tories or ‘ultras’ condemned Wellington’s repeal of the Test and Corporation Act and the granting of Catholic Emancipation in 1829.

The Whigs won the support of the provincial press and the professional and commercial classes who favoured more radical reforms, particularly to make Parliament more representative.

The message of Grey, ‘reform to preserve’ gained increasing support both in and out of parliament, particularly after the supposedly groundbreaking Irish legislation.

Rising unemployment and rural unrest during the ‘Swing’ riots of 1830 further undermined confidence in the Tory Government, as did further revolutionary fervour on the continent. Again the fear of revolution was all-pervading, and the Whig response was to reform.

How did the reform movement revive in the years 1829-30?

The campaign for parliamentary reform had begun to revive before the Whigs took office in 1830 – this revival was triggered by the economic distress of 1829.

In that year, a bad harvest led to increased bread prices and a trade depression bringing unemployment and wage cuts to many industrial areas.

Radical leaders such as Hunt and Cobbett seized on this situation maintaining that economic distress was due to government mismanagement which would only be remedied by the reform of Parliament.

In January 1830, a local banker Thomas Attwood founded The Birmingham Political Union. The Union had the support of the middle and working classes in the towns giving it a unique position in the reform movement. This format was followed by political unions in other cities.

BUT this element of class cooperation was not so well suited to northern industrial cities such as Manchester and Leeds.

In Leeds, for example, there were three separate reform organisations, one for the middle classes, one for the working classes and a third attempting to combine both.

Whatever the differences between the various organisations, all of them followed the insistence of the BPU that all campaigns conducted should be peaceful and disciplined in an attempt to attract both moderate reformers and radicals.

20

In London, the reform movement was more fragmented. Radicals such as Carlyle used the Rotunda (a lecture theatre) to preach class conflict and to demand full democratic rights for the working classes.

More moderate reformers, such as Francis Place, kept their distance from the Rotundists and tried to limit their influence.

As a result, two rival organisations emerged. The radicals channelled their demands through The National Union of the Working Classes.

It was set up in April 1831 and led by William Lovett and Henry Hetherington - it agitated for universal male suffrage.

Moderate middle class reformers established The National Political Union to campaign for householder franchise. There was often bitter rivalry between the two organisations.

In the years 1830-32, Cobbett and Hunt became increasingly active. Hunt was elected MP for Preston in 1830 and could now use his considerable powers of oratory in Parliament.

Cobbett campaigned over the whole country but particularly in the industrial North and Midlands.

By the time the Whigs took office in November 1830, agitation for political reform was underway. Agricultural distress led to machine breaking and arson.

Demonstrations in large towns often attracted greater numbers than those who had attended St. Peter’s Fields in 1819.

Support for political reform was growing among the middle classes and by November 1830, the pressure was becoming irresistible.

21

Foreign Policy 1783-1830

During the American Revolution, Britain was isolated from almost all countries in Europe.

Every major country either declared war on Britain, or joined the League of Armed Neutrality in 1780.

The first attempt to develop a new foreign policy was the Eden Free Trade Treaty in 1786.

This allowed British goods into the highly protected French market.

Along with the impact of war debts (interest payments were 50% of royal expenditure by the mid1780s), the Treaty was to be a considerable factor in the outbreak of revolution in 1789.

Pitt adopted a position of neutrality from 1789 to 1793. He preferred to rebuild Britain’s finances than engage in war against the French Republic.

Pitt resisted attempts to involve Britain in the attempts by Austria and Prussia to re-establish the monarchy in 1792

Opinion in Britain was divided. The Whigs, led by Fox, supported the Revolution, regarding it as the French equivalent of 1689.

Tories were opposed, seeing it as an attack on monarchy, the Church and traditional values.

The French Revolutionary War

The French forced Pitt’s hand on 1 February 1793 by declaring war on Britain. Pitt sent a force to Walcheren under the Duke of York to try to prevent French occupation of the Low Countries (the pistol pointed at the heart of Britain).

The ‘Grand old Duke of York’ was singularly unsuccessful and the forces were withdrawn after a few months.

Pitt henceforth adopted the same tactics as his father Pitt the Elder during the Seven Year’s War (1756-63).

He used the ‘blue water strategy’ of attacking and seizing French overseas possessions, particularly West Indian islands.

This had been standard practice throughout the eighteenth century; the islands had been subsequently used as bargaining chips at the inevitable peace treaty.

The policy was less effective in the Revolutionary War. The republican government was less interested in empire and more interested in spreading the revolution on the continent.

Pitt’s second strategy was to support continental coalitions. He joined the First Coalition (originally just Austria and Prussia) in 1793 and a further five coalitions in the years to 1815.

22

He used subsidies, usually payments in gold (Pitt’s Gold) to persuade the continental powers to fight the Revolution and later Napoleon.

The third prong in Pitt’s approach was the blockade. While the British army was negligible, the Royal Navy had not lost a battle for more than a hundred years.

British fleets blockaded the main French ports such as Brest and Marseilles and attacked the French whenever possible.

Pitt did authorise one aggressive action on the continent. The port of Marseilles revolted against revolutionary forces in 1793 and was occupied by the British. They were forced out after some months by artillery fire organised by Napoleon Bonaparte.

There were several narrow scrapes during the 1790s. in 1797, there were two fleet mutinies at Spithead and the Nore (island in the mouth of the Thames).

The Nore was particularly dangerous because Admiral Duncan was reduced to one frigate and one battleship to blockade the Dutch.

When the mutiny ended, he was able to overwhelm the Dutch fleet at Camperdown.

In 1798, French forces landed in Ireland to support the rising of Wolfe Tone and there was an invasion of Wales, apocryphally defeated by Welsh women wearing red jackets.

Elsewhere, the French and Spanish fleet was heavily defeated at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent in February 1797; Napoleon’s invasion of Egypt was cut off by Nelson at the Nile in August 1798 and the Baltic was opened up by the latter’s victory at Copenhagen in April 1801.

Pitt resigned as Prime Minister in 1801 and Addington, his successor, signed the Peace of Amiens in February 1802.

By then Napoleon had taken power in France and the peace was seen as a temporary move.

The Napoleonic War

War broke out in March 1803. From 1803 Napoleon’s sole aim was to invade and conquer Britain. To achieve this he built a large camp at Boulogne and assembled La Grande Armee for an invasion.

The French Mediterranean fleet, based at Toulon, would break out and sail to the West Indies. The British fleet would follow, thinking that British islands in the Caribbean would be attacked.

The fleet would then double back, join the Brest fleet and sail up the Channel clearing away any British resistance.

The plan looked good on paper and worked up to a point. When Villeneuve, the French commander at Toulon was able to break out and disappear in the Mediterranean the plan seemed to have worked.

23

Nelson was aware that in 1798 the French had landed in Egypt, so first of all sailed east, but then sailed west and found that the French had passed through the Straits of Gibraltar.

He followed and tracked the French down in the West Indies. Luckily he was able to discover the French plan when officers were overheard talking on an island that the French had captured.

He sent a fast ship back to warn of the danger, which was able to overtake the French and count the number of ships.

The Admiralty was forewarned and when Villeneuve arrived back in European waters he found himself faced by a British fleet that forced him to sail south, rather than north-east up the Channel.

Napoleon’s plan for an invasion had now collapsed. While events had been unfolding in the Atlantic, Napoleon had found himself faced with new enemies. Austria, Russia and Sweden had formed the Fourth Coalition with Britain.

Napoleon ordered Villeneuve to sail out of Cadiz and confront Nelson. The Allied fleet was cut into three sections by Nelson’s attack and was completely defeated.

The Continental System

Napoleon was forced to give up any plans to invade Britain and instead issued the Berlin and Milan Decrees in 1806-7. These banned all trade with Britain.

The British government replied with the Orders in Council banning trade with France.

The Peninsular Campaign

Napoleon was able to defeat the Fourth Coalition and Prussia which declared war soon after.

He knew that Portugal was an ally of Britain and he was also concerned that Spain might be tempted to accept British support.

In March 1808 he ordered an invasion of Spain on the pretext that he wanted to protect the coastline from Britain. He then arrested the King of Spain and his son and appointed his brother Joseph as king.

The Spanish rose in revolt and even managed to force a French army to surrender. The French lost control of Madrid and only recovered it after Napoleon himself arrived with a large army in October 1808.

He defeated the Spanish forces, but was less successful in dealing with small British forces that had landed in Portugal.

One British army retreated to Lisbon, the other drew back to Corunna, where, after its commander Sir John Moore was killed; it was evacuated by the Royal Navy. Napoleon then left Spain never to return.

24

The British forces in Lisbon were reinforced by Sir Arthur Wellesley (later Lord Wellington) and for the next four years were to prove a thorn in the French side.

They were supported by the Spanish who began a guerrilla (little war) war against the French. All over Spain French convoys were attacked and isolated units murdered.

Meanwhile, Wellington advanced into Spain every year, fought several battles and then retreated to Lisbon for the winter.

As he retreated, Wellington adopted a scorched earth policy. He destroyed all food, buildings and animals.

The French did not usually carry large amounts of supplies with them. They therefore had to construct long lines of communication, which in turn were open to attack from Spanish guerrillas.

At Lisbon Wellington built three massive lines of fortification behind which his army was secure and supplied by the Royal Navy. The French were forced to survive as best they could in the open countryside.

What effect did the Peninsular Campaign have on the French army?

The Peninsular War became a ‘running ulcer’. French reinforcements were drawn into Spain to be picked off by Wellington and the guerrillas.

There were never more than 40,000 British troops in Spain and Portugal, but they kept 250,000 French soldiers occupied who could have been used much better elsewhere.

For four years, until 1813, they chased Wellington without success and were subjected to constant and vicious attacks by the Spanish.

Wellington won a string of victories against Napoleon’s marshals which demoralised the French.

In March 1814 Wellington finally crossed the Pyrenees and advanced into southern France.

The Peninsular War was not decisive in bringing Napoleon to his knees, but it did over-stretch his supply lines and his manpower when he was attempting to invade Russia.

Napoleon surrendered to the Allies in March 1814 and was exiled to Elba. He escaped after thirteen months and attempted to win a quick victory over the Allied forces in Northern France.

He was defeated at Waterloo and exiled to St. Helena, where he died in 1821.

Foreign Policy under Castlereagh 1815-1822

Castlereagh was an old-fashioned conservative, shocked by the upheaval of the French Revolution, and committed to preserving the existing European order.

This drew him close to some autocratic dynasties in an attempt to counter revolutionary movements.

25

He believed in the ‘Concert of Europe’, close cooperation with continental powers to achieve a balance of power or ‘Equilibrium’ to maintain peace.

The Congress of Vienna

The Congress of Vienna summoned in 1815 was a meeting of the Great Powers, Britain, Austria, Russia and Prussia who had defeated Napoleon.

The three Eastern autocracies wished to contain France, seize land and use the Alliance to suppress nationalist and liberal revolutions throughout Europe.

Castlereagh wanted security from France, but not revenge, and worked to avoid a vindictive settlement. He was opposed to territorial expansion but wanted peace, equilibrium and the defence of Britain’s commercial interests.

The Treaty allowed France to retain her frontiers of 1792 and restored the Bourbon dynasty. She had to accept an army of occupation and an indemnity.

France was surrounded by bolstered buffer states.

The German states were formed into the ‘German Confederation’ led by Austria. Prussia won the Rhineland and half of Saxony, Austria surrendered the Netherlands to Holland who formed the ‘United Netherlands’ and Belgium was granted independence.

Piedmont Sardinia gained land and Norway united with Sweden.

Britain won valuable commercial links: Trinidad and Tobago, Mauritius, St. Lucia, Ceylon, Cape of Good Hope, Malta, Helgoland and the Ionian islands.

The Congress System 1815-1822

Austria, Russia and Prussia wanted to hold congresses regularly in order to secure joint action against Nationalist and Liberal Revolutions which threatened their dynasties.

A second Congress met at Aix-la-Chapelle in September 1818 to which France was invited. Castlereagh refused to guarantee existing regimes and opposed Russian attempts to form a ‘Grand Alliance’.

Castlereagh blocked Russian attempts to intervene in Spain following a revolt against the despotic and incompetent regime of Ferdinand VII in 1820.

In his state paper of 5 May 1820, Castlereagh stated that intervention in the affairs of any country other than France was outside the scope of the Quadruple Alliance.

Castlereagh also opposed intervention to crush the revolt against King John of Portugal in 1820.

26

Castlereagh failed to prevent Austrian intervention to defend Ferdinand in Naples. Although he sympathised with the arch-conservative Austrian Chancellor Metternich, he opposed the Alliance being used as a means of intervention.

Disillusioned, Castlereagh refused to attend the next Congress first at Troppau in 1820 or at Laibach where it was reconvened in 1821.

Castlereagh repudiated the ‘Troppau Protocol’ which allowed foreign intervention to crush revolutions in other states.

Castlereagh worked to summon another Congress at Verona in order to deter Russian intervention in support of the Greek revolt against Turkey in 1821, but he committed suicide in August 1822.

Relations with the USA

The USA declared war on Britain in June 1812 in protest at her trade blockade and the violation of her waters.

At the Peace of Ghent in 1814, which ended hostilities, Castlereagh was conciliatory, though the disputes remained unresolved.

Castlereagh’s conciliation avoided a renewed war following the execution of two Britons by America in 1818.

Castlereagh recognized the independence of the states of Bolivia and Brazil in an attempt to win commercial influence in South America before the USA intervened.

Foreign policy 1822-1846

The Foreign Policy of Canning and Wellington 1822-1830

George Canning succeeded Lord Castlereagh as Foreign Secretary in 1822. He was a much more flamboyant character who mistrusted the autocratic Imperial powers and was more sympathetic to liberal and nationalist movements.

Spain

Canning opposed foreign help for Ferdinand of Spain, but in 1823 France intervened to crush the new constitutional regime and restore absolute monarchy.

Portugal

French intervention in Spain threatened Portugal, with whom Britain was bound by alliance.

Instability in Portugal was threatened by the conflict between King John’s sons, the liberal Dom Pedro and the arch-conservative Dom Miguel.

Canning secured the dismissal of the French ambassador in Lisbon, sent a naval squadron to them and in 1826 ordered troops to Portugal to defend King John against French intervention.

27

Canning secured an agreement with France in 1827 that all foreign troops should be withdrawn from Portugal.

Latin America

Canning wanted to protect British commercial interests, exclude American influence and encourage constitutional monarchical regimes.

He supported the independence of the rebel states from Spain and Portugal in Brazil, Mexico and Columbia in 1825.

The Greek War of Independence

In 1821 the Greeks rose in revolution against their Turkish rulers.

The revolt threatened to renew the Russo-Turkish war and Britain feared that Russian expansionism would undermine her position in the Aegean, Mediterranean and India.

Public opinion, however, was hostile to the Turks whose rule was barbaric, and sympathetic to the Greeks, whose civilization was widely admired by the educated classes.

Canning rejected Russia’s call for a Congress to organize intervention against Turkey.

A protocol was agreed with Russia in 1826 by which an autonomous Greek state would still pay tribute to the Sultan of Turkey. This was confirmed by the Treaty of London in July 1827 which authorized foreign intervention in support of the agreement.

Turkey, however, rejected the Treaty.

Wellington took control of foreign policy on Canning’s death (August 1827) and authorized the British navy to destroy the Turkish fleet at Navarino.

War between Turkey and Greece continued from 1828-1829.

In 1829 Turkey made peace and accepted Greek independence.

28

Parliamentary Reform and the Great Reform Act

The political system that existed in Britain at the start of the nineteenth century in many respects still reflected the economic structures of the Middle Ages.

Many decayed areas were represented (e.g. rotten boroughs such as Old Sarum and Dunwich), whilst many new industrial towns would not be represented.

There were two principal types of constituency: the county and the borough. In the counties, forty-shilling freeholders held the vote whilst in the boroughs there were various different qualifications to vote.

Two examples are the ‘potwalloper’ qualification (having a hearth large enough to boil a pot on) which meant that many of the men in the borough would have the vote.

‘Burgage’ qualification was where the vote went to people who owned specific parcels of land and consequently far fewer men in the borough would exercise the right to vote.

Defendants of the system argued that this lack of uniformity was a strength as it enabled a range of ‘interests’ to be represented. Only about 5% of the population had the vote.

There was no secret ballot so it was possible to engage in bribery, corruption and intimidation in seeking to influence the ways in which the electorate cast their vote. ‘Treating’ the voters to food and drink was a commonplace practice.

Members of Parliament needed to fulfil the property qualification in order to seek election. This meant that they needed to possess an income that came from land.

This qualification potentially excluded the middle class from seeking election as their income tended to be derived from sources other than land.

The electoral system before 1832 was notorious for the corruption and bribery of its elections. Voting took place in public view. Seats were bought and sold like a commodity.

The total electorate in 1831 was only 440,000 out of a population of 24 million.

Whilst there were a few seats with a wide franchise, like Preston and Westminster, the vote was overwhelmingly restricted to the gentry and landowners.

The system had become increasingly unrepresentative. Whilst the new industrial cities like Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham had no MPs.

Some seats were controlled by great landowners like the Duke of Newcastle (who had 11 ‘pocket boroughs’) or were ‘rotten boroughs’ like Old Sarum, Dunwich or Gratton, with no voters.

The South of England was over-represented compared to the North, where most of the population now lived.

29

Agitation for Reform 1830-1832

There had been attempts at limited parliamentary reform in the 1780s, but the outbreak of Revolution in France in 1789 followed by Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars led to a conservative backlash and the abandonment of reform.

Whig leaders such as Lord Grey and Lord Russell had been long champions of reform and revived their interest as the Tories declined from 1827.

The Whigs, who had been out of office for 40 years, also recognized the political advantage of championing the cause of the middle classes and reforming a system which had favoured the Tories.

The growing wealth, respectability and influence of the commercial classes increased the argument for reform as Britain continued to industrialize.

Businessmen, like the banker Thomas Attwood, formed ‘Political Unions’ to agitate for reform.

The cause of reform was enthusiastically argued by the provincial press.

The onset of economic depression and rural unrest in 1830 strengthened the argument that the parliamentary system could no longer secure prosperity and stability.

Even some die-hard Tories, outraged by Wellington’s concession of Catholic Emancipation, began to blame the existing system as being corrupt.

What was the Whig attitude to parliamentary reform around 1830?

The Whig government took office in November 1830. It was led by Lord Grey who had long been in favour of parliamentary reform.

His ministers were agreed that some reform was both necessary and inevitable but there was no agreement on the detail and there was certainly no plan in place.

Grey himself favoured an increase in county representation since county members tended to be independent of the executive. He also accepted the necessity for the growing industrial towns to be granted representation at the expense of the ‘rotten’ boroughs.

He was also in favour of a uniform franchise qualification for borough seats to replace the existing chaos of borough franchises.

It is important to remember that the Whigs were an aristocratic party and committed to maintaining the power of the landed aristocracy.

Lord Grey and his fellow ministers had no sympathy for radical reform movements and approved of the harsh sentences passed on the ‘Swing’ rioters – agricultural labourers who attacked farm buildings and machinery in the years 1829-30.

30

BUT Whig ministers realised that public opinion favoured parliamentary reform, especially in the middle classes – and after all, Whig principles had always favoured government with the consent of the people and resistance to oppression.

They also realised that aristocratic government needed middle class support to survive. Such support would avoid revolution and the destruction of property. The danger would come if the middle classes allied with the ‘lower orders’.

Whigs such as Grey and Macaulay believed that revolution could only be averted if the aristocracy made concessions to the middle classes. IF NOT, as Macaulay said, the aristocracy might ‘push over to the side of revolution those whom we shut out of power’.

By making concessions to the middle classes, the aristocracy could strengthen the Constitution and protect their own position. ’Reform that you may preserve’ summarises the Whig approach to parliamentary reform.

What was the Tory attitude to parliamentary reform?

Tory reactions were mixed; some like Peel and the remaining Canningites were prepared to accept that some change was necessary

Even some die-hard Tories, outraged by Wellington’s concession of Catholic Emancipation, began to blame the existing system as being corrupt.

But the great majority rejected reform because they believed that the Whigs were trying to subvert the constitution in order to gain political advantage.

The proposed changes would hand much greater influence to the new business classes who the Tories believed would favour the Whigs.

What were the main features of the Whig Reform Bill?

The instructions which Grey issued to the committee preparing the Reform Bill were that they were to prepare a Bill ‘large enough to satisfy public opinion and afford sure ground of resistance to further innovation’.

The Bill presented to The House of Commons in March 1831 was a mixture of concessions to the middle classes together with other measures to strengthen the existing constitution.

Many small ‘rotten’ boroughs were to lose their representation in Parliament and some of the seats gained were to be re-distributed to the growing industrial towns.

Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford, Oldham and Halifax would be among 22 towns to gain 2 seats each in Parliament. This proposal would please the middle classes.

The franchise qualification in borough elections was to be made uniform. Those who owned or occupied a building with a rental value of £10 per year- the £10 householders- would have the right to vote.

31

This line was drawn very carefully to ensure that only the ‘respectable’ middle classes would be allowed to vote in the boroughs.

However, some of the proposed clauses in the bill were clearly intended to protect the interests of the aristocracy.

Many of the seats gained from disenfranchising small boroughs were to be re-distributed to the counties, thereby increasing the representation of the landed gentry.

The county franchise was to remain with the 40shilling freeholders, thus limiting the electorate in rural areas to the owners of land.

Voters in the new boroughs such as Birmingham and Manchester were to be disqualified from voting in county elections. This was away of protecting the power of landowners in county constituencies close to industrial areas.

Not all ‘nomination’ boroughs were to lose their representation. Some of them were retained to preserve seats for government ministers. The idea of secret ballots in elections was rejected as being ‘un-English’.

How did the Bill progress through Parliament, 1831-32?

The Bill was presented to Parliament by Lord John Russell on 1st March 1831. It passed its second reading in The House of Commons by 1 vote but Tory opponents succeeded in amending the Bill at the committee stage.

Grey refused to accept this amendment and persuaded the King to dissolve Parliament and call a general election.

The result was a decisive majority for the government and the reformers. In the boroughs, where there was a relatively ‘open’ franchise and in the counties, the election revealed that public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of reform.

Tory opponents of reform suffered heavy losses and those who remained in Parliament were mostly returned for ‘nomination’ boroughs which the Bill proposed to abolish.

On 24th July 1831, a second Reform Bill was introduced in the next Parliament and again, the Tories tried to amend it in the committee stage. One amendment, accepted by the government, was the ‘Chandos Clause’.

This extended the right to vote in county seats to tenant farmers. On September 12th, 1831, the Bill completed its passage through The House of Commons and was sent to The House of Lords.

The House of Lords was made up entirely of hereditary peers and senior bishops and archbishops in The Church of England.

It was far more ‘Tory’ in its sympathies than the elected House of Commons and still had the power of veto over legislation. On 8th October 1831, the Bill was rejected by the Lords.

32

This provoked a storm of protest in the country. Mass demonstrations were organised by the political unions and numerous petitions were sent to Parliament. The radical press attacked the 21 bishops who had voted against the Bill.

In Nottingham, Derby and Bristol, there were serious riots – the worst were in Bristol. They continued for three days before order was restored by the military.

During the riots, the crowd destroyed the Bishop’s Palace, The Mansion House and The Customs House. Estimates of the numbers of dead varied from 12 to 120.

Lord Melbourne, the Home Secretary, was reported as being ‘frightened to death’.

The government had to continue the struggle to get the Reform Bill through Parliament. The Bill was revised to meet some of the objections and a 3rd version was presented to The Commons on 12th

December 1831.

On 22nd March 1832, it was approved by The Commons and introduced to The Lords. Once again, opponents of reform tried to delay the measure and on 7th May, the government was defeated on an amendment to the Bill.

Grey had reached the end of his patience – he asked the King to create 50 new Whig peers to overcome the Tory majority in the Lords. When William1V refused, Grey resigned and the King invited The Duke of Wellington to form a new government.

The radical movement now played a crucial role in events. The political unions organised mass meetings and petitions in support of reform.

In Birmingham, there was talk of an armed uprising. Place and Attwood appeared willing to support the use of force generally and urged members of the political unions to arm themselves.

They also urged the middle classes to refuse to pay their taxes and to withdraw their funds from the banks.

’To stop the Duke, go for gold’ was a slogan intended to create a financial crisis and apply indirect pressure on the attempts being made by Wellington to form a government. This period of unrest and uncertainty is known as ‘the days of May’.

Wellington had to admit defeat when Peel refused to join his government. The King had to recall Grey and agree to his demands to create 50 Whig peers.

The opposition to reform in Parliament collapsed and the extra Whig peers were not needed. On 4th June 1832, The Reform Bill passed through The House of Lords. It received the royal assent and became law on 7th June.

Did pressure from outside Parliament play a part in the passing of The Reform Bill?

The passing of the Reform Bill through Parliament was a long struggle. As it was taking place, meetings, demonstrations and even riots were occurring throughout the country.

33

These events were not referred to directly by the Whigs but the reform campaign outside Parliament was vital in the Whig strategy for passing the Reform Bill through the two Houses of Parliament.

The willingness of radical leaders to consider violence proved the Whig argument that reform was necessary to avoid revolution whereas the Tories accused the Whigs of stirring up physical violence which would only encourage further violence in the future.

Grey took office in 1830 committed to parliamentary reform along with other Whig leaders such as Russell, Brougham and Hobhouse. BUT they had no fixed ideas about what form that reform should take.

The committee drawing up the Bill had not ruled out the idea of secret ballots and a reduction in the length of Parliaments.

BUT most Whigs wanted only moderate reform. Therefore, The Reform Bill had to be radical enough to secure middle-class support but not so radical that it would enfranchise the working classes and thereby alienate both the aristocracy and the middle classes.

Some Whig ministers were linked to the leaders of the moderate reform movement. Home Secretary, Lord Melbourne, regarded Francis Place as a reliable source of information whilst Hobhouse and Brougham had links with James Mill.

Beginning in October 1831 and continuing into 1832, agitation outside Parliament strengthened the hands of the Whigs in Parliament and of Grey in his dealings with the King.

‘The Days of May’ were a major factor in preventing Wellington from forming a government, leaving the King with no alternative but to recall Grey.

Was revolution a real threat during The Reform Bill Crisis of 1831-32?

Some historians believe that during The Reform Bill Crisis of 1831-32, Britain was close to revolution. How valid is this view?

Certainly, many of the ingredients for revolution were in place at this time. There was widespread economic distress caused by poor harvests and unemployment.

There was a deep division within the ruling classes. Not only were the Whigs and Tories in disagreement, the Tories themselves were very divided.

With support from the middle and working classes, the radical movement was well organised. During the passage of the Bill, there was rioting, the arming of members of the political unions and calls for a run on the banks and the non-payment of taxes.

A successful revolution in Paris in 1830 influenced the thinking of some radical leaders in Britain.

BUT in reality, revolution was unlikely. The radical movement itself was deeply divided. In many places, such as Leeds and Manchester, class hostilities split the movement.

34

This was certainly true in London where the moderate National Political Union, led by Francis Place, distanced itself from the radical National Union of the Working Classes.

Attitudes to the Bill were very different. Middle-class radicals naturally favoured the Bill because it extended the franchise to middle-class property owners. Working-class radicals favoured universal manhood suffrage – they saw the Bill as a betrayal.

Cobbett was an exception. He supported the Bill because ‘half a loaf was better than none at all’.

Moderate leaders, like Place and Attwood, had no intention of leading a revolution. Their middle-class supporters were NOT prepared to consider violence BUT they were very happy to use the threat of revolution to extract concessions from Parliament – they had an interest in playing up the agitation.

BUT perhaps the most important reason why a revolution was avoided was because the government never lost complete control of law and order despite there being no professional police force outside London and a shortage of regular troops.

With the exception of the ‘Swing’ rioters, their response to disorder was not repressive.

The 1832 Act: extent of change and reaction to the Act in the 1830s.

In introducing the 1832 Reform Act, the Whigs had three main objectives. They wished to give the vote to new interest groups such as the middle classes.

They also wanted to reform the system of its worst abuses such as rotten boroughs and give representation to the counties.

These were not radical objectives and many historians believe that the Act made no fundamental changes to the system.

Others believe it to be of great importance because not only did it re-draw the political map of England, it also gave the Whigs confidence to embark on further important reforms in the years ahead.

What was changed by the Act?

COUNTY SEATS: As a result of the Act, each Riding of Yorkshire was allocated 2 MPs as were 26 other counties. The Isle of Wight was to have 1 MP. 7 English counties were to gain a third MP and 3 English counties were to gain a second MP.

In county seats, those entitled to vote were 40 shilling freeholders, £10 copyholders, £50 leaseholders with a lease of at least 20 years, £10 leaseholders with a lease of at least 60 years and £50 tenants, if occupiers.

BOROUGH SEATS: 56 boroughs lost both MPs and 31 boroughs lost one. 22 new boroughs with 2 MPs were created as were 19 new boroughs with 1 MP. Many of these new boroughs were in new industrial towns but not all of them – the list included Brighton, Cheltenham, Stroud and Frome.

35

In borough seats, those entitled to vote were owners or occupiers of property worth £10 a year in rent. This qualification was clearly intended to ensure middle class representation.

The method of voting remained open – secret ballots were not introduced. Voters had to register by having their names placed on the electoral roll and paying a fee of one shilling (approximately the wage for working for ½ a day). The maximum length of a Parliament was seven years.

The size of the electorate increased after the passing of the Act BUT by a relatively small amount. In 1831, the size of the electorate was 366,290.

As a result of the Act, it increased to 652,777. The percentage of adult males entitled to vote in England and Wales increased from 11% in 1831 to 18% in 1833.

As a result of the Act, there were more elections. Between 1806 and 1832, the percentage of elections actually contested never rose above 38% and was normally below 30%.

In the first election after the passing of the Act, there were contests in74% of seats and between 1832 and 1865, the average percentage of contested elections was 59%.

What was not changed by the Act?

Voters: The overwhelming majority of working-class people were still not allowed to vote. In London, some of the better-off workers qualified under the £10 franchise but this qualification was deliberately intended to exclude the working classes.

In reality, because of the abolition of the ‘potwalloper’ and ‘scot and lot’ franchises, there were fewer working-class men eligible to vote after1832 than there had been before.

Constituencies: Even with the removal of ‘rotten boroughs’, there were still many small towns represented in Parliament. After 1832, over 60 constituencies had fewer than 300 voters whilst larger towns with populations over 10,000 continued to have no representation, e.g. Doncaster.

The University seats of Oxford and Cambridge remained. There was some redistribution of seats in response to changes in population distribution but industrial areas and London were still under-represented.

The situation was similar in the counties. The English and Welsh counties had nearly 57% of the population but only 32% of the parliamentary seats.

Elections: Because the Whigs rejected demands for a secret ballot, elections remained open. There was no effective limit on election expenses and bribery and corruption continued as before – new voters were as corrupt as their predecessors. In the 1841 elections, votes were sold for £7 at Sudbury and for £15 at Ipswich.

Contested elections continued to cost candidates large sums of money. At Nottingham in 1841, the unsuccessful candidate spent £17,000.

Many voters remained open to strong influence. New voters who were tenant farmers risked being evicted by their landlords unless they voted according to their wishes.

36

Over 60 parliamentary seats were still controlled by 42 aristocratic patrons. Family boroughs still existed – Sir Robert Peel represented Tamworth, a seat in the ‘pocket’ of his father.

Political power. After the Reform Act, Parliament still consisted mainly of aristocrats and country gentlemen. It has been calculated that the 1841 election returned 342 members closely related to peers and 240 who were country gentlemen – this represented 71% of the total.

By the same calculation, no more than 22% of MPs were middle-class businessmen – not really a significant increase in middle-class representation. There was an absence of representation from the working classes and non-conformists.

Why was there so little change despite the 1832 Act?

The landed classes had greater experience of political life and government than the middle classes – there remained a tendency for the middle classes to defer to their superiors.

The landed classes tended to have more time to devote to Parliament – middle-class businessmen had to devote their time to running their businesses.

Until 1858, county members had to possess land to the value of £600; borough members had to have an estate worth £300.

MPs were not paid a salary – they needed a considerable private income to perform their duties. This made it impossible for people without a fairly large income to become MPs.

The domination of Parliament by the aristocracy remained, particularly in government. Of the 8 Prime Ministers holding office from 1832-65, only Sir Robert Peel came from a non-aristocratic background but he had experienced the same upbringing and education as his aristocratic colleagues.

In all governments, the aristocracy occupied the leading positions. This continuing aristocratic dominance is what Grey intended when he described the Bill as ‘the most aristocratic measure that ever was proposed in Parliament’.

How did the Reform Act change the Constitution?

One of the reasons why the Whigs introduced a Reform Bill was because they believed that the balance of the Constitution had been upset by the increasing use of royal patronage to guarantee the Ministers of the Crown a majority in The House of Commons.

They intended that The Reform Act would restore both the independence of The House of Commons and the balance of the Constitution.

The role of the monarch. The Reform Act did alter the balance of the Constitution by reducing the power and influence of the monarch.

Eighteenth century monarchs had the power to appoint and dismiss ministers; in 1783, George III dismissed the Fox-North coalition government and appointed William Pitt as Prime Minister.

37

BUT when William IV dismissed the Whigs in 1834, circumstances had changed. The King chose Peel as Prime Minister but he was unable to form a government.

After 100 days, he was forced to admit defeat and the King had no alternative but to invite the Whig leader, Lord Melbourne, to form a government.

The monarch could no longer keep ministers in office through patronage nor could he (or she) ensure that the government won a general election.

Public opinion and party were increasingly what mattered after 1832 and the monarch withdrew more and more from involvement in the choice of ministers.

The House of Lords. During his attempts to secure the passage of the Bill through Parliament, Grey secured the agreement of the King to create enough Whig peers to overturn the Tory majority in The House of Lords.

Grey was implying supremacy of the elected House of Commons over the un-elected House of Lords.

When the Lords backed down, there was an acceptance that the electors were the final arbiters of constitutional issues although the Lords retained its power of veto.

38

Peel and the Conservative Party

Before the 1832 Act, ‘Whig’ and ‘Tory’ were labels given to loose groupings of politicians around aristocratic patrons. The parties lacked formal organisation and discipline was very loose. After 1832, political parties became more important.

Patronage had been at the heart of politics but this was in decline by the 1830s. The Act speeded up the decline by the abolition of rotten boroughs and party organisation became more important.

Following the Act, voters had to be registered; it was now in the interests of the parties that their supporters were placed on the electoral register.

In 1832, Conservative Associations began to be set up throughout the country, although this was more due to local initiative and enthusiasm than to the Carlton Club.

The Conservative Associations founded throughout parliamentary constituencies after the passing of the Reform Act dealt with registration and canvassing, and sometimes selected and financed candidates.

This led to local political associations and party agents. Party organisation developed in Westminster and the Carlton Club (Tory) was formed in 1832.

To survive in the years after 1832, both parties needed to broaden their support; this was particularly true of the Conservative Party.

The Tories had strongly opposed the Act, but had to accept the granting of the vote to the middle classes and the representation of the industrial towns in Parliament. They also had to realise that they would not survive if they remained exclusively a party of Anglican landowners.

‘Tory Radicals’, such as Richard Oastler, favoured an alliance with the working classes over factory reform, but Peel recognised a greater need to appeal to the middle classes.

One of the reasons for the eventual electoral success of the Conservatives in 1841 was that they were quicker off the mark than the Whigs in strengthening their party organisation following the passing of the 1832 Reform Act.

The Carlton Club

At first, Peel had little to do with the Carlton Club. It became important after the fall of Peel's 1834 ministry.

Francis Bonham emerged as the Conservatives' chief electoral expert, although independent MPs wanted nothing to do with central funding.

By the end of March 1832, 500 Conservatives had agreed to join; by 1833 the membership was 800.

39

In May 1835, Bonham wrote to Peel saying that electoral management should be placed on a regular, permanent footing. Bonham's advice was taken and he became the first full-time party agent.

Bonham suggested the formation of a permanent committee to deal with electoral matters.

The powers of the Carlton Club were restricted, however, because constituencies kept control of registration, the selection of candidates, canvasses and payment of expenses.

The effectiveness of the Club was further restricted by a dislike of centralisation and therefore because of lack of funds.

The Carlton Club did keep a list of candidates that it could send to constituencies on request.

The Tamworth Manifesto

After the passing of the Act, the Whigs faced difficulties. A number of Irish Catholic MPs, who had entered Parliament after 1829, joined with a few radical members and a number of reform-minded Whigs to create a situation Grey found difficult to control.

The King dismissed the Whigs in 1834 and invited Peel to form a government. The Whigs, now led by Lord Melbourne, made an alliance with the Irish and the radicals to get rid of Peel and the Tory government.

Peel took up the position of Prime Minister in 1834, although he had no majority, out of a sense of duty. He saw himself as the King's Minister.

In 1834, the Tamworth Manifesto set out the principles of the new Conservative Party: resistance to wholesale changes to the Constitution but acceptance of limited changes where necessary. It was issued during the general election campaign of 1835.

This was the time that a politician had set out principles and policies to electors. It reflected a major change that had been brought about by the 1832 Reform Act.

Politicians would have to appeal to the 300,000 new voters that had been created in 1832. MPs could no longer simply buy votes (although many still did); they would have to win support.

Peel’s strengths as a party leader

After 1832, Peel had adopted a more practical and positive style of Conservatism. He gave the party strong and effective leadership between 1832 and 1841. He was a skilful parliamentarian.

Between 1832 and 1841 Conservative MPs progressed from disunity, demoralisation and impotence to unity, confidence and dominating strength.

Peel made the Conservative party coherent and united. Peel's basic policy was the ‘maintenance of our settled institutions in Church and State’ - i.e. opposition to further political reform - and the defence of the Anglican Church.

40

Peel refused to serve in a Tory Party that pledged reform because he did not see the need for any further reform. The key event in the formation of Peel's Conservatism was the 1832 Reform Act.

However, Peel rapidly came to accept parliamentary reform as a fait accompli and in doing so distanced himself from the Ultras.

At the same time he recognised the need for a strong government to cpreserve the fundamental institutions of Britain was essential, given the strength of Radicalism.

The Tory Party from 1832 became the strongest political force in the country. However, the Conservative Party was not as strong as it appeared.

The 1841 Election

Party organisation was a major reason for the Tories' success in the 1841 election. The Carlton Club and Conservative Associations helped create a united party. They also attracted and kept new voters.

Peel was also very important in the Conservative Party's recovery. Peel led the Tory Party as a non-factional opposition which supported modest and judicious reform, as laid down in the 1834.

Peel made the Conservative Party coherent and united. Peel's strength can be seen in the way he successfully constructed a modern Conservative Party from the Tory fragments shattered by the passing of the Great Reform Act.

The achievement of forming a strong party based on conservative principles brought its reward when Peel was in a clear majority at the 1841 election.

However, despite his hard work and success in creating a new Conservative Party, Peel also laid the foundations for its collapse.

While Peel was not in favour of political reform, he was a strong supporter of social and economic reform, particularly in industry.

Whilst it is true that Peel won the General Election of 1841, it is also true that the Whigs lost it

The Whigs lost the General Election of 1841, winning only 291 seats to the Conservatives’ 367, for several reasons

The Whigs had lost support under the lethargic leadership of Lord Melbourne since 1835 and the Cabinet appeared incompetent and exhausted.

They had lost their ‘reforming zeal’ of 1830-34, while popular opinion was never fully behind them (Whigs seen as responding to whichever pressure group pushed them most – e.g. Non-conformists)

Church reforms had led to divisions in the Government and the resignation of four members of the Cabinet.

41

More Conservative landed and middle-class opinion was alienated by the Whig alliance with the Irish and Radicals in 1835 and by the growing financial deficit, which reached £7 million by 1841.

Meanwhile, the Tories (increasingly known as the Conservatives), had an effective leader (Peel) who had revived and reorganized a flagging party.

Peel’s statesmanship during his 100-Day Ministry (and his Tamworth Manifesto) certainly ‘re-branded’ the party that had died under Wellington (1828-30)

his ability alone accounted for some of this resurgence, but it was his support for moderate reform that was to be important, even winning the support of some middle-class voters newly enfranchised in 1832

Nonetheless, it was not his plan to broaden Conservative support that won the day in 1841. Rather, it was the unification of old Tory support behind a now viable alternative (Peel) that would prove to be the key

While it is true that Peel won almost as many borough seats as the Whigs (not bad for ‘the Party of the Land’), it was in the counties of England and Wales that the victory was gained

59.7% of seats in England; 72.4% in Wales; 41.5% in Scotland; 41% in Ireland

124 of the 144 English counties; 13 of the 15 in Wales; 20 of the 30 in Scotland

Of the 157 boroughs won, only 44 contained more than 1000 voters, mainly small market towns, many still ‘rotten’, with no gains to be found in the newly enfranchised industrial centres of the North

In other words, the victory was based in the smaller boroughs and counties of England, the heartland of old Tory support

According to Eric Evans: ‘the Conservatives won because they had the majority support where the seats were thickest on the ground (Southern England) not where the electorates were most numerous (Industrial centres)’’

‘The Conservatives were the party of rural England and its small market towns: squirearchical, deferential, Church-loving, intolerant of any diversity of religious view, and much keener to preserve the past than look to the future’ (Evans)

In particular, the Conservatives won the support of most of the counties who believed them to be more ardent defenders of the protection of agriculture.

This was to prove ironic when, in 1846 Peel chose to repeal the Corn Laws, they ver thing all these voters had chosen Peel to defend

1841 was indeed ‘a victory for Protectionist Toryism’ (Evans) as opposed to, as some have wrongly concluded, a victory for a rebranded and much broader party based on the principles of Peelite Conservatism

42

The Great Hunger

Attempts to reach a peaceful settlement between Peel and O’Connell were interrupted by the failure of the potato harvest in 1845.

By the autumn it was clear that a disaster was on hand but Peel did little to act; he believed that the Irish were exaggerating the problem.

In the winter of 1845-6, £100,000 was spent importing maize from the USA, which was sold to the Irish. However, with no money, the poor were unable to take advantage. In any case, maize was ridiculed.

Peel attempted to tackle the famine by way of the Poor Law. Thousands of unemployed were set to work digging ditches and building road and canals.

However, as wages were paid at the end of the week, workers often died before they could buy food.

The Repeal of the Corn Laws 1846

The Corn Laws had been introduced in 1815 to protect British wheat farms from competition after the Napoleonic wars. Import of foreign wheat was banned until the price of British wheat reached 80 shillings per quarter.

The Act had little impact on bread prices but it was bitterly resented as evidence of crude aristocratic self-interest.

Opposition to the Laws was championed after 1838 by the Anti-Corn Law League of businessmen led by Richard Cobden.

Peel became convinced of the need to repeal the Acts after 1841, but moved cautiously as his party was overwhelmingly committed to their defence.

Famine in Ireland in 1845 following the failure of the potato crop encouraged Peel to repeal the Corn Laws.

The Conservative Cabinet and Party were deeply divided and a powerful opposition to Peel was led by Benjamin Disraeli.

Peel succeeded in repealing the Corn Laws in June 1846 thanks to Whig support, but two thirds of his own party rebelled against him.

Only in 1846, after persuasion from Cobden and Bright, the leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League, did Peel agree to consider the repeal of the Corn Laws.

Peel resigned in an effort to avoid having to repeal the Corn Laws, but Russell, the Whig leader, would not form a ministry.

43

Peel was reappointed and went ahead with repeal, despite the opposition of many in his party. In so doing he split the Conservative Party that he had done so much to create

In fact, repeal did little to tackle the problem. There was plenty of food in Ireland but it was either being exported to England, or it was too expensive for the Irish to buy.

In any case, repeal did little to increase supplies of wheat through imports. Since 1815 the price of wheat in Britain had fallen steadily as a result of the introduction of high farming. Foreign wheat was no longer cheaper.

Peel and Russell, who succeeded as prime minister in 1846, were not prepared to give food to the poor. But Russell did offer government loans in January 1847 to pay for emergency relief.

However, in September 1847, loans were withdrawn and the Poor Law was enforced as the only way of offering relief.

In the 1847 general election, Peel’s supporters in the Conservative Party broke away and called themselves Liberal-Conservatives or Peelites.

44

Peel and Social Reform

In power, Peel was to lead the country with these new principles in mind, where public duty came before party (a party Peel viewed often with real disdain), leading to the ultimate ‘betrayal’ (Disraeli) of protectionism in favour of free trade over the Corn Laws.

The Party then brought him down in 1845-46 over the Maynooth Grant and Ireland

Robert Peel had become leader of the Tory Party in 1834 and was briefly Prime Minister from December 1834 to April 1835.

In opposition he revived and renamed the party as the ‘Conservatives’ appealing to the new middle-class electorate by promising measured reform of abuses.

Peel had successfully exploited Whig incompetence and unpopularity by winning the General Election in 1841.

Despite this success, the aristocratic elements within the party mistrusted Peel as a Northern provincial, a reformer who was unsound on traditional Tory allegiances to the land and Anglicanism.

In office, Peel’s aims were pragmatic reform to remove grievances, laissez-faire economics and honest and efficient administration.

Financial Reform

A trade recession and a collapse of business confidence led to rising unemployment in the early 1840s.

Peel hoped to revive trade by reducing protective tariffs on imports.

His first budget in 1842 reduced duties to 5% on raw materials, 12½% on semi-manufactured goods and 20% on finished articles.

A sliding scale relaxed the Corn Law and income tax of seven pence in the pound on incomes over £150 per annum helped to make up the shortfall caused by the reduction of import duties.

This second major budget of 1845 abolished virtually every import duty apart from those on corn.

To stabilise, the currency, Peel introduced the Bank Charter Act in 1844. This restricted the issue of currency to the Bank of England, which had to back all paper currency with gold apart from a £14 million ‘fiduciary’ issue backed by securities.

To curb reckless speculation, the Companies Act of 1844 obliged companies to register and publish their accounts.

45

Social Reform

The Poor Law

Agricultural labourers rioted in the 1830s, burning hay-ricks and smashing threshing machines supposedly in the name of ‘Captain Swing’.

Effigies of poor law overseers were burned, and houses of parish officials surrounded by chanting crowds.

A revolution broke out in France in 1830 and there was a real fear amongst the ruling and propertied classes that revolution would break out in Britain, too.

The 1831 general election brought the reforming Whigs to power with a large majority in the House of Commons.

In February 1832, the Whig government set up a Commission of Enquiry into the Operation of the Poor Laws.

All the data collected on the state of the poor was published in thirteen volumes of appendices to the Report of the Commission of Enquiry.

The Report was published early in 1834. The first part damned the old poor laws as being the cause of poverty; the second part contained the Commission’s recommendations.

What did the Report of the Royal Commission recommend?

All out-door relief should stop.

There should be separate workhouses for the old and infirm, children, able-bodied women and able-bodied men.

Parishes should group into unions to provide these workhouses.

A central authority should be set up to make and enforce regulations to do with the workhouse system.

The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834

How did parliament respond to the Poor Law Amendment Bill?

There was virtually no opposition to the Poor Law Amendment Bill. It passed through all its stages in the Commons and Lords, with never more than 50 votes being cast against it. It gained the royal assent in August 1834.

Those who were against the bill argued that the poor had a right to relief and that the bill would rob the poor and enrich the landowner.

46

It was claimed that centralisation would not enable local responses to local need, and that the opportunities for patronage would be greatly increased.

What were the main terms of the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act?

The purpose of the Act was to make the administration of poor relief cost effective and efficient.

To these ends, the Act stated that:

A central authority, consisting of three Commissioners and a number of assistant commissioners, was to be set up to supervise and regulate the administration of the Poor Law Amendment Act.

Parishes were to be grouped into Poor Law unions and each union was to build a workhouse or convert one from existing buildings.

Life for the paupers in the workhouses was to be less eligible (worse) than that of the lowest paid labourer outside the workhouse.

Out-door relief for the able-bodied poor was to be discouraged but was NOT abolished.

BUT, the details of the reform programme were not laid down by parliament. They were left to be worked out by the three Commissioners.

How was the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 implemented?

What was the Poor Law Commission?

The Poor Law Commission, set up by the Poor Law Amendment Act, worked from Somerset House in London.

There were three Poor Law Commissioners: Thomas Frankland Lewis, George Nicholls and John Shaw Lefevre.

Edwin Chadwick, bitterly disappointed at not being made a Commissioner, was the Secretary to the Commission. The number of assistant commissioners varied, but there were usually around 9.

What powers did the Commission have?

The Commission was independent of Parliament. It had no voice in Parliament, and no seat in the Cabinet

The Commission had been set up by Parliament and so was in a strong constitutional position.

However, it had no direct way of forcing people to accept its decisions. At most, its officials could make life very difficult for uncooperative parishes.

What priorities did the Commission have in implementing the Poor Law Amendment Act?

The Commission had two main priorities: To encourage the able-bodied poor to move to areas where there was work.

47

To protect rate-payers from sudden and unexpected demands on their funds from a mobile work force.

How did the Commission believe it could meet the first priority?

By setting up a string of workhouses that offered relief to the able-bodied poor on the less eligibility principle. This would drive those who weren’t desperate for relief to move to areas of high unemployment to seek work.

How did the Commission believe it could meet the second priority?

By applying the Settlement Laws so strictly that all those seeking relief would be returned to their home parishes. This would spread the burden of poor relief fairly.

How successfully did the Commission meet its first priority?

The Commission’s first priority could only be met if it assumed out-door relief would end. Otherwise, the able-bodied poor would simply stay put.

Amalgamating parishes and building union workhouses took time, so quick results were not possible.

In the late 1830s, the Commission ordered Poor Law Unions in the rural south to stop giving out-door relief to the able bodied poor.

The Outdoor Labour Test Order (1842) allowed Unions, where a workhouse had not yet been built, to require paupers to work in labour yards before they could receive relief.

The General Outdoor Relief Prohibitory Order (1844) applied to all Unions and forbade outdoor relief to the able-bodied poor.

Outdoor relief continued to be the most common form of relief given by Poor Law Unions. In the 1850s, over 700,000 paupers from a total of 100,000 were receiving outdoor relief.

By 1871, when the full programme of workhouse building was complete, only 1 in 6 Poor Law Unions were operating under the 1844 Act.

This first priority of the Commission was not met, mainly because of the continuation of out-door relief.

How successfully did the Commission meet its second priority?

It was necessary to apply the Settlement Laws strictly if the cost of maintaining paupers was to be shared fairly between the Unions.

In 1840 alone, 40,000 paupers were taken back to their parish of settlement.

48

Whilst this may have spread the cost of relief more fairly, it was costly in terms of transport and human suffering.

Before the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, many parishes paid relief to those paupers for whom they were responsible but who lived elsewhere in the country.

They continued to do this after 1834, and did not insist that the paupers were brought back to their settlement parish. Over 80,000 paupers were still receiving relief in this way as late as 1846.

This second priority of the Commission was not met, mainly because of the refusal of many parishes to insist on the strict application of the Settlement Laws

Two important priorities of the Poor Law Commission were not met in the years immediately after the Poor Law Amendment Act.

That in 1847 the Poor Law Commission was replaced by the Poor Law Board

Several Cabinet Ministers sat on the Board and the Chairman was an MP. Thus, the administration of poor relief was firmly tied in to the government and to parliament.

The Commissioners began implementing the Poor Law Amendment Act in the rural south of England in 1835. This was where most of the evidence had come from that supported the Report of the Poor Law Commission.

In 1835, employment prospects were good and relatively few people were afraid of pauperism.

Opposition was sporadic: there were some riots and outbreaks of disorder, where local magistrates and clergy joined with some of the poor to protest against the removal of paupers to remote workhouses and the harsh regime there.

Some local officials did all they could to ignore the Act and continued to give outdoor relief whenever possible.

What was opposition like in industrial areas?

The Commissioners began implementing the Poor Law Amendment Act in the industrial north in 1837.

In 1837, a trade depression was beginning in industrial Lancashire and West Yorkshire. Employment prospects were poor.

Many places had adapted their poor relief provision to cope with cyclical unemployment.

The people who administered poor relief resented interference from the Commissioners in London.

They believed that the Commissioners based their understanding of poor relief on the rural south and had little knowledge or understanding of the problems of the industrial north.

49

In the north, with cyclical unemployment, short time working and sporadic lay-offs, most poor people needed relief for short periods, not removal of whole families to distant workhouses.

Anti-Poor Law associations developed. They organised protests, demonstrations and riots, some of which were spontaneous.

In other urban areas, such as the northeast and the midlands, there were few problems.

How successful was opposition to the Poor Law Amendment Act?

In some areas, opposition was successful for a long time. In Todmorden (West Yorkshire) for example, opposition was so strong that the Poor Law Amendment Act was not implemented until 1877.

Anti-Poor Law Associations, strong in the 1830s and early 1840s, which were combinations of paternalistic Tories, radicals and the poor, collapsed in the mid 1840s.

Many people who still opposed the Act turned to Chartism.

Opposition was thus short-lived. It was mostly unorganised and had no chance of success.

The absence of violent protest did not mean that everyone accepted the Poor Law Amendment Act.

Many Boards of Guardians adapted or ignored directives from the Poor Law Commission and implemented poor relief in their regions according to local need.

Out-door relief remained the most common methods of relieving poverty

Industrial Reforms

Economic depression led to social agitation by a number of popular movements in the 1840s. Peel’s social reforms were intended to appease discontent and reconcile the working classes to aristocratic government.

The Mines Act of 1842 banned the employment of women and boys under ten and set up an inspectorate to enforce the new regulations.

Peel did not agree to the demands of some reformers for a ten-hour maximum working day for men.

His Factory Act of 1844 limited the working day for women to 12 hours and for children from eight to thirteen to six-and-a-half hours, together with three hours for education. Dangerous machinery had to be fenced.

The Railways Act of 1844 fixed the cost to third-class passengers to one penny per mile.

Town councils were empowered to build public baths and washhouses and charge no more than a penny for their use.

A Commission of Enquiry into Public Health was set up.

50

Ireland

Peel had already earned hatred from many ultra-protestant Conservatives for his so-called ‘betrayal’ in 1829 when, as Home Secretary, he had introduced Catholic emancipation, but he continued to advocate a conciliatory policy towards Roman Catholics in Ireland.

The Repeal of the Corn Laws 1846

The Corn Laws had been introduced in 1815 to protect British wheat farms from competition after the Napoleonic wars. Import of foreign wheat was banned until the price of British wheat reached 80 shillings per quarter.

The Act had little impact on bread prices but it was bitterly resented as evidence of crude aristocratic self-interest.

Opposition to the Laws was championed after 1838 by the Anti-Corn Law League of businessmen led by Richard Cobden.

Peel became convinced of the need to repeal the Acts after 1841, but moved cautiously as his party was overwhelmingly committed to their defence.

Famine in Ireland in 1845 following the failure of the potato crop encouraged Peel to repeal the Corn Laws.

The Conservative Cabinet and Party were deeply divided and a powerful opposition to Peel was led by Benjamin Disraeli.

Peel succeeded in repealing the Corn Laws in June 1846 thanks to Whig support, but two thirds of his own party rebelled against him.

Maintaining British rule in Ireland

Ireland and Britain had been united by the Act of Union in 1800. Ireland was governed by a Viceroy with the aid of Chief Secretary for Ireland.

Irish grievances

Irish electors sent MPs to Westminster. However, since Catholics were not allowed sit in the House of Commons, only Irish Protestants could be elected.

Most landowners in Ireland were absentee Irish or English Protestants. Irish tenant farmers had little or no security and were often forced to pay high rents. Most produce was exported to England.

Conditions in the west of Ireland were very poor and many Irish depended on potatoes for their livelihood.

Ireland was being used by the English government as a source of food; there was little attempt to provide capital for development.

51

In 1838, the English Poor Law was applied to Ireland. It was completely unsuitable. The very large numbers of rural poor could not be accommodated in Union Workhouses.

In 1845-6, hundreds of thousands of Irish attempted to obtain indoor relief because their own conditions were markedly worse than those offered ‘indoors’.

Reforms

In 1833, The Irish ‘Cess’, the equivalent of tithes, was abolished by the Irish Church Temporaities Act along with ten Irish bishoprics

In 1843, O’Connell planned a major campaign to repeal the Act of Union. But, his attempts at further reforms were frustrated by the emergence of Young Ireland, which was far more radical and by the onset of the Great Hunger.

Young Ireland

The leaders were predominantly intellectuals and journalists. These men had seen nationalist movements such as Young Italy at work in Europe but had not seen the terror and aftermath of rebellion in Ireland.

They thought in terms of an independent Irish nation, rather than in terms of Irishmen. They stressed Irish culture and the differences between England and Ireland in race, religion, language and outlook.

Their journal, The Nation preached hatred of the English. They made it impossible for the British government to cure Irish discontent by kindness.

Disputes between O'Connell and Young Ireland began over the character of repeal agitation. O'Connell thought that Peel would give way before civil war broke out.

In October 1843 O'Connell had called a mass meeting at Clontarf. Peel's government banned the meeting and O'Connell complied with the law but was arrested anyway.

He was found guilty of many charges by a packed jury and was sentenced to one year in prison and a fine of £2,000.

The verdict was quashed on an appeal to the House of Lords, but O'Connell was broken as a political power in Ireland.

Peel’s Reforms

Peel reacted to events in Ireland by passing an Arms Act, drafting troops into Ireland and saying that he intended to put down rebellion and would never consider repeal of the Act of Union.

In 1843, the Devon Commission was set up 'to inquire into the state of the law and practice in respect of the occupation of land in Ireland'. Its report in 1845 advised giving as much patronage as possible to Catholics.

52

The government passed a Charitable Bequests Act to help the endowment of the Catholic Church and increased the Maynooth grant to £26,000 per annum in 1845 in attempt to conciliate the Catholic clergy, most of whom supported the Repeal Association.

The Great Hunger

Attempts to reach a peaceful settlement between Peel and O’Connell were interrupted by the failure of the potato harvest in 1845.

By the autumn it was clear that a disaster was on hand but Peel did little to act; he believed that the Irish were exaggerating the problem.

In the winter of 1845-6, £100,000 was spent importing maize from the USA, which was sold to the Irish. However, with no money, the poor were unable to take advantage. In any case, maize was ridiculed.

Peel attempted to tackle the famine by way of the Poor Law. Thousands of unemployed were set to work digging ditches and building road and canals.

However, as wages were paid at the end of the week, workers often died before they could buy food.

The Repeal of the Corn Laws 1846

The Corn Laws had been introduced in 1815 to protect British wheat farms from competition after the Napoleonic wars. Import of foreign wheat was banned until the price of British wheat reached 80 shillings per quarter.

The Act had little impact on bread prices but it was bitterly resented as evidence of crude aristocratic self-interest.

Opposition to the Laws was championed after 1838 by the Anti-Corn Law League of businessmen led by Richard Cobden.

Peel became convinced of the need to repeal the Acts after 1841, but moved cautiously as his party was overwhelmingly committed to their defence.

Famine in Ireland in 1845 following the failure of the potato crop encouraged Peel to repeal the Corn Laws.

The Conservative Cabinet and Party were deeply divided and a powerful opposition to Peel was led by Benjamin Disraeli.

Peel succeeded in repealing the Corn Laws in June 1846 thanks to Whig support, but two thirds of his own party rebelled against him.

Only in 1846, after persuasion from Cobden and Bright, the leaders of the Anti-Corn Law League, did Peel agree to consider the repeal of the Corn Laws.

53

Peel resigned in an effort to avoid having to repeal the Corn Laws, but Russell, the Whig leader, would not form a ministry.

Peel was reappointed and went ahead with repeal, despite the opposition of many in his party. In so doing he split the Conservative Party that he had done so much to create

In fact, repeal did little to tackle the problem. There was plenty of food in Ireland but it was either being exported to England, or it was too expensive for the Irish to buy.

In any case, repeal did little to increase supplies of wheat through imports. Since 1815 the price of wheat in Britain had fallen steadily as a result of the introduction of high farming. Foreign wheat was no longer cheaper.

Peel and Russell, who succeeded as prime minister in 1846, were not prepared to give food to the poor. But Russell did offer government loans in January 1847 to pay for emergency relief.

However, in September 1847, loans were withdrawn and the Poor Law was enforced as the only way of offering relief.

In the 1847 general election, Peel’s supporters in the Conservative Party broke away and called themselves Liberal-Conservatives or Peelites.

54

Peel and Pressure Groups

Trade Unionism

In 1824, the Combination Acts were repealed. The Acts had been passed during the French Revolutionary War and prohibited ‘combinations’ of workers (and employers) in order to change wages or working conditions.

Francis Place led a campaign to persuade the government that such laws simply drove ‘combinations’ underground and therefore made them more dangerous.

There was no sudden outburst of unionism but in 1829, John Doherty formed the 'Grand General Union of All the Operative Spinners of the United Kingdom' but this soon collapsed.

In 1832 the Operative Builder’s Union was formed in Huddersfield and the Potters' Union and the Clothiers' Union were formed. By 1833, it has been estimated that the total union membership was 800,000.

The GNCTU

The 'Grand National Consolidated Trades Union', which was formed by Robert Owen in February 1834 and aimed to unite every trade into one union. The GNCTU claimed a membership of 500,000 but the paying membership was a lot less.

Owen called for a General Strike in 1834 and even tried to introduce his own currency so that strikers could buy food. He proclaimed a ‘sacred month’ but the strike soon collapsed and with it the GNCTU.

The government and employers attacked unionism with the Document, which workers had to sign and promise not to join a union if they wanted work.

Owen’s plans were too grandiose and his members too poor and poorly organised to for a protracted struggle. Chartism seemed to offer a more viable alternative.

The Tolpuddle Martyrs

Six men from Tolpuddle in Dorset founded the Friendly Society of Agricultural Labourers to protest against the gradual lowering of wages in the 1830s.

They refused to work for less than 10 shillings a week, although by this time wages had been reduced to seven shillings a week and were due to be further reduced to six shillings.

The society, led by George Loveless, a Methodist local preacher, met in the house of Thomas Standfield.

55

In 1834 James Frampton, a local landowner, wrote to the Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne, to complain about the union, They were charged under the Illegal Oaths Act of 1797, which was designed to tackle a mutiny in the navy.

They became popular heroes and all, except James Hammett, were released in 1836, with the support of Lord John Russell, who had recently become Home Secretary.

Four of the six returned to the UK, disembarking at Plymouth, a popular stopping point for transportation ships. A plaque next to the Mayflower Steps in Plymouth's historic Barbican area commemorates this.

The causes and aims of Chartism

What was Chartism? It was many different things to many different people. This is why there are so many issues of controversy associated with its history.

It was a mass movement that comprised mostly of a working class membership in the 1830s and 1840s and was united on the basis of its demand for the People’s Charter.

It was a movement that was disunited – there were different leaders with differing ideas in different parts of the country.

It was a movement that harked back to the political demands that had been made by radicals since before the French Revolution.

It was a movement that tended to gain its greatest support during periods of economic crisis and that lost support during the better years. It therefore came to be interpreted as a political movement with economic causes.

It was a movement that used both peaceful tactics (petitions, mass meetings, demonstrations) and one that also engaged in violence (Newport Rising).

It was a movement that faced governments that were unsympathetic to its aims and that were willing to use all their powers to maintain law and order and their own authority.

It was a movement that was highly controversial, both at the time and in the ways in which it has been interpreted by successive generations of historians.

There was a range of factors that fed into the emergence of Chartism, frequently overlapping and intertwining. Some are classified as political and others as economic. Some of these divisions are not clear-cut.

Economic origins of Chartism

The emergence of Chartism has often been identified with the dislocation and standard of living issues that were caused by the onset of industrialisation in the second half of the eighteenth century.

Joseph Rayner Stephens’ famous reference that ‘universal suffrage is a knife and fork question’ indicates the importance of this interpretation, even at the time.

56

Such an interpretation has found support from Rostow’s ‘social tension chart’ that appears to demonstrate the link between the periods of greatest Chartist activity and the worse excesses of economic depression.

There were many aspects to industrialisation that caused distress and suffering to different elements of the working class.

There were those skilled workers who either found themselves in competition with more modern forms of production or found their skills were entirely redundant in the new industrial world.

There were those who were now employed in the factories and found themselves subjected to the discipline of the clock and the associated poor standards that employment in the factories brought.

The rapid growth of population, accompanied by the movement from the countryside to the town led to the development of poor quality housing and poor standards of living. It also reinforced the sense of alienation from traditional forms of organisation.

Economic growth was subjected to cyclical variations, so that periods of high unemployment and low wages occurred contributing to even greater distress for the dislocated working class.

On occasions, prices rose to levels that put even greater pressures on low wages.

Economic dislocation was not only confined to industrial areas in the 1830s. The harvest failure of 1829, combined with the introduction of threshing machinery triggered the Swing Riots.

This was a spontaneous response that included burning barns and hayricks, destroying the new machinery and attacking Poor Law officials.

Although there does appear to be some validity in an interpretation of Chartism that identifies the significance of economic hardship, it would be too simplistic to argue that solely economic factors can be used to explain both the advent of Chartism and its decline after 1848.

Economic hardship does provide the context out of which Chartism arose in the 1830s and 1840s.

The standard interpretation of the origins of Chartism that prevailed until the 1950s was that it was an economic movement with a political programme.

Political origins

The six points of the People’s Charter were drawn up by the London Working Men’s Association and published in 1838. These points were:

Universal manhood suffrage (the vote for all men over 21) Equal electoral districts (each constituency to have approximately the same number of voters) Abolition of the property qualification (potential MPs should no longer be required to derive an

income from property to stand for election) Payment of MPs Secret ballot

57

Annual elections

It has long been pointed out that the six points made demands for changes to the political system. It is therefore important to understand the nature of that system in the early nineteenth century.

What tactics were used by the Chartists?

The tactics used by the Chartists drew on the radical traditions of their predecessors.

The Chartists engaged in practices that mobilised mass support:

Processions that displayed banners and flags and led to mass meetings at the end.

Mass meetings that were addressed by speakers who often spoke eloquently of the oppression of the masses by the state and of the need for them to take up arms to preserve their freedoms and liberties.

Drilling with arms and pikes on the moors outside the new industrial towns of the north. This was seen as the exercise of a fundamental right by free-born Englishmen.

All of these activities involved the collection of signatures for the mass petitions that were designed to demonstrate the extent of support for political reform.

In the event of the failure of these activities to exert influence on the government, there were a range of ‘ulterior measures’ available. These included:

Exclusive dealing (only purchasing goods from those shopkeepers who were known to be sympathetic to Chartism).

Refusing to buy goods that were known to be heavily taxed, thereby depriving the Treasury of part of its tax revenue. The only problem with this strategy was that Chartists were also depriving themselves of tobacco and spirits!

The ‘Sacred Month’ – a month long General Strike. This was proposed in 1839 but abandoned because it was seen as being unrealistic.

Armed rising, as took place in Newport in 1839.

Together, these activities were intended to bring pressure to bear on government and make the case for political reform irresistible.

Opposition to Chartism and the role of the state

There is a range of factors that can be used to explain the failure of Chartism to implement the six points of the People’s Charter within its own lifetime.

You may wish to divide these factors up into those over which the Chartists had no control and those which they could have influenced. This will help you to consider whether Chartism was doomed to fail.

58

As with so many aspects of Chartism, there is considerable disagreement about the significance of the factors that can be used to explain Chartist failure.

External factors

A key factor in the failure of the Chartists was the response of the government. For historians whose focus lies with class-based explanations of Chartism, the power of the state is the most significant factor in explaining Chartist failure. There were many aspects to this response.

In the 1840s, Peel’s government introduced legislation that was less oppressive e.g. the 1842 Mines Act, the 1844 Factory Act and the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws.

This was followed by the Ten Hours Act in 1847, changes to the Poor Law in 1847 and the Public Health Act of 1848 by Lord John Russell’s government.

Such legislation undermined the Chartist claim that access to the political system was necessary in order to improve social conditions.

Governments were prepared to deny the demands of the Chartists – all three petitions were rejected because the consequences of acceptance were more feared than the consequences of rejection.

The main avenue open to government to maintain law and order in 1839 was the army. It was fortunate that in charge of the army in the North was General Sir Charles Napier.

He was sympathetic to the plight of the working class, but he made clear to the Chartists his intention to use force against them if necessary.

The movement of troops around the country to potential hotspots was aided by the use of the new rail system.

As a result of the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act and the 1839 Rural Police Act, increasing numbers of areas had acquired police forces to maintain law and order by the time of the 1842 and 1848 petitions. In 1848 London was able to raise a Special Constables force of 170,000 men.

The government was prepared to arrest Chartists: for example, in 1839, 543 Chartist were imprisoned. It was however reluctant to create martyrs – hence the commutation of the death penalty on the leaders of the Newport Rising.

It also wished to avoid the sort of confrontation that might lead to a repetition of Peterloo. These actions limited the likely level of confrontation and reduced the risks of revolution.

A key factor in the failure of the Chartists was the response of the government.

For historians whose focus lies with class-based explanations of Chartism, the power of the state is the most significant factor in explaining Chartist failure. And they argue that the state was indeed a powerful force. There were many aspects to this response.

59

In the 1840s, Peel’s government introduced legislation that was less oppressive e.g. the 1842 Mines Act, the 1844 Factory Act and the 1846 Repeal of the Corn Laws.

This was followed by the Ten Hours Act in 1847, changes to the Poor Law in 1847 and the Public Health Act of 1848 by Lord John Russell’s government.

Such legislation undermined the Chartist claim that access to the political system was necessary in order to improve social conditions.

Governments were prepared to deny the demands of the Chartists – all three petitions were rejected because the consequences of acceptance were more feared than the consequences of rejection.

The main avenue open to government to maintain law and order in 1839 was the army. It was fortunate that in charge of the army in the North was General Sir Charles Napier.

He was sympathetic to the plight of the working class, but he made clear to the Chartists his intention to use force against them if necessary.

The movement of troops around the country to potential hotspots was aided by the use of the new rail system.

As a result of the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act and the 1839 Rural Police Act, increasing numbers of areas had acquired police forces to maintain law and order by the time of the 1842 and 1848 petitions. In 1848 London was able to raise a Special Constables force of 170,000 men.

The government was prepared to arrest Chartists: for example, in 1839, 543 Chartist were imprisoned. It was however reluctant to create martyrs – hence the commutation of the death penalty on the leaders of the Newport Rising.

It also wished to avoid the sort of confrontation that might lead to a repetition of Peterloo. These actions limited the likely level of confrontation and reduced the risks of revolution.

One other external factor played its part, and that was the lack of middle class support. While the working class had helped the middle class to gain the vote in 1832, the middle class, now part of the establishment, saw no need to return the favour. They were also too busy fighting their own battle over the abolition of the Corn Laws

Internal factors

Was it a ‘knife and fork question’ or was it a political one? A classic historical debate exists as to what Chartism was really about, and this highlights one of the key reasons why it ultimately failed in its lifetime.

It was a disunited ‘organisation’, with many of its leaders, let alone the rank and file, joining for different reasons.

The starkest divide existed between those who saw Chartism in purely political terms, and those who saw it as a social movement (Christian Chartism, the Land Plan, education)

60

In turn the methods used to attain these varied aims were themselves disunited. The classic example is of Physical Force (O’Connor) versus Moral Force (Lovett)

Other divisions existed on a regional level, as different Chartists around the country hoped for solutions to their particular problems.

Perhaps most importantly of all, Chartism was a predominantly northern venture and this made it fundamentally weak where it really mattered, London.

61