Abstract
In a famous phrase John Bright, the mid-Victorian Radical leader, said of the reform bill that ‘it was not a good bill, though it was a great bill when it passed’.1 What Bright meant was that far more important than the actual terms of the bill were the fact and the manner of its passing. The repeal of the Orders-in-Council and the winning of Catholic emancipation had demonstrated that special interests could achieve their ends by exerting extra-parliamentary pressure on the government and the House of Commons. The reform act demonstrated that the whole of the political nation, backed by the fourth estate and conducting a peaceful campaign that contained a threat within it, could do the same. New rules, so to speak, had come to be applied to the game of politics. Yet the bill itself, even though Lord Grey exaggerated when he called it ‘the most aristocratic measure that ever was proposed in Parliament’,2 wrought no immediate revolution in the conduct of electoral or parliamentary politics. The act’s chief significance was its acknowledgement of urban, middle-class status; but it did not usher in a period of middle-class political ascendancy over, nor even parity with, the landed elite.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
J. E. Thorold Rogers (ed.), Public Addresses of John Bright, M. P. (London, 1879), p. 29. Bright made the remark during a speech at Rochdale in 1864.
Readers must forgive me for losing this reference.
W. Ferguson, ‘The Reform Act (Scotland) of 1832: Intention and Effect’, Scottish Historical Review, xiv (1966), 105. The increase in the Scottish borough electorate would have been even larger were it not that, the country being poorer than England, the £10 qualification added comparatively fewer people to the electoral rolls.
C. R. Dod, Electoral Facts from 1832 to 1853 Impartially Stated (London, 1853).
Gash, Politics in the Age of Peel, pp. 438–39.
Peel to H. Hobhouse, July 1831. Peel MSS. Add.Mss. 40,402, ff.98–101.
See, for example, J. A. Phillips, ‘The Many Faces of Reform: the Reform Bill and the Electorate’, Parliamentary History, I (1982).
W. L. Guttsman, The British Political Elite (London, 1965), p. 41.
Ibid., pp. 38–39.
J. Morley, The Life of Richard Cobden (London, 1910 edition), p. 517.
Gwyn, Democracy and the Cost of Politics, p. 95.
R. J. Olney, Lincolnshire Politics, 1832–1885 (Oxford, 1973), p. 32.
D. le Marchant, Memoir of John Charles, Viscount Althorp, Third Earl Spencer (London, 1876), p. 442.
White, Radicalism and its Results, p. 8.
T. J. Nossiter, ‘Elections and Political Behaviour in County Durham and Newcastle, 1832–74’, D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1968, p. 416.
W. I. Jennings, Party Politics: II, The Growth of Parties (Cambridge, 1962), p. 93.
Nossiter, ‘Elections’, p. 25.
See D. Fraser, Urban Politics in Victorian England (London, 1976), pp. 14–16.
Ibid., passim.
Ibid., pp. 28–29.
Ibid., p. 55.
These figures are extracted from Fraser, ibid., pp. 125, 137.
R. Stewart, The Foundation of the Conservative Party, 1830–1867 (London, 1978), p. 134. Detailed accounts of Conservative electoral and parliamentary organisation may be found in Chapters 6 and 7 of the foregoing and in N. Gash, ‘The Organisation of the Conservative Party, 1832–1846. Part I: The Parliamentary Organisation. Part II: The Electoral Organisation’, Parliamentary History, I (1982) and II (1983). There are no comparable accounts of Whig/Liberal organisation.
Stewart, Conservative Party, p. 135.
J. H. Whyte, ‘Daniel O’Connell and the Repeal Party’, Irish Historical Studies, September 1959, p. 306.
A. D. Kriegel (ed.), The Holland House Diaries, 1831–1840 (London, 1977), p. 273.
Earl of Stanhope and E. Cardwell (eds), Memoirs of the Right Honourable Sir Robert Peel (London, 1858), ii, pp. 7–11.
F. Raumer, England in 1835 (London, 1836), iii, p. 316.
Ibid., i, pp. 77–78.
The best treatment of party development in these years is to be found in D. B. Close, ‘The Formation of a Two-Party Alignment in the House of Commons Between 1832 and 1841’, English Historical Review, April 1969.
Bonham to Peel, 25 November 1839. Peel MSS. Add.Mss. 40,427, ff.262–63. Bonham’s figure has been shown to be accurate by modern research (or perhaps the matter should be put the other way around). Of the 567 members who sat in the House of Commons between 1837 and 1841 only 7, by Close’s analysis of divisions, failed to align themselves firmly with one party or the other (ibid., p. 275).
D. Large, ‘The Decline of “the Party of the Crown” and the Rise of Parties in the House of Lords, 1783–1837’, English Historical Review, October 1963, p. 669.
Hansard, 3rd Series, lxxxvi, 1404.
Close, ‘Two-Party Alignment’, p. 266.
Phillips, ‘Many Faces of Reform’, p. 123.
Gash, ‘Organisation of the Conservative Party’, I, p. 137.
Copyright information
© 1989 Robert Stewart
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stewart, R. (1989). The Structure of Post-Reform Politics. In: Party and Politics, 1830–1852. British History in Perspective. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19653-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19653-1_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-43626-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-19653-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)