CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE TORIES. The Tories were dominant since 1783. They stand for: Anti-Revolutionary/Radical/Reform Patriotism (anti-French!) Law and order They believed that constitutional re4m would lead to anarchy. 1820sTory Government collapses.
The issue that brings down the Tories is CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. This is not the first time that Ireland has split/destroyed a government. Ireland is one of the most disruptive issues in 19th century politics. Background on Catholic emancipation
1800.Act of Union causes Ireland to be joined to Britain. Replaces the Irish parliament with direct representation in Westminster (100MPs, 28 Peers, 4 Bishops) and an administration in Dublin British government appointed.
Also a major redistribution of seats Pre-1800:Borough seats led to Protestant dominance in Westminster Post-1800:More county seats than borough seats: this is done to bring Ireland into line with the English system.
There are many grievances about the Act of Union:
1.The Protestants dominate the government in Dublin 2.Religious inequality ensues, as Catholics can’t sit in Parliament due to an unacceptable oath. 3.Catholics have to pay Tithes to the Church: they pay for the upkeep of the Church of Ireland.
Daniel O’Connell uses these grievances as ammo for agitation. He establishes the Catholic association in 1823, which is a well-funded pressure group that aims to put mass pressure on the government. It is the first time this succeeds. The CA is successful because:
The peak of (2) is shown in the County Clare election (1828). O’Connell is elected against Vesy Fitzgerald, a popular landowner. Wellington and Peel introduce CE in 1829 to prevent others from taking such a stand, which could lead to revolution in Ireland. CE passes through the commons, but is rejected by the Lords as it is Tory dominated (the ULTRAS extreme Tories stop it, and they never forgive Peel for doing this). They see him as a turncoat. Banking Reforms 1823->Expansion of business empires
1.Banking crisis occurs (late 1825) 80 country banks failed.
Government passes an Act limiting the future circulation of small notes, and obliging the bank of England to publish weekly statements saying how many notes in circulation.
Also: act passed to allow the Bank of England to create provincial branches. (Useful element of stability). Presence of a national bank means there is a source of strength in times of economic pressure. This occasion shows an increase in the amount of state intervention during hard times.
Years of Tory decline Feb 1827Liverpool has a stroke, which causes him to resign in Mach. Problem of succession arises:
Canning commissioned to form administration on 10th April. This caused several prompt resignations, partly because Canning was in favour of Catholic Emancipation. Under Canning: Lord LandsdowneHome Secretary Lord DudleyForeign Secretary TinneyMaster of the Mint Canning’s government managed to increase the split in the Tory ranks. The opposition (Wellington and Peel) succeeded in ruining a proposal brought 4wd to modify the Corn Law. Canning died in August 1827. King commissions Goderich to form the next government. Goderich couldn’t keep control, and so at the end of 1827, King George IV commissions Wellington to form a government. Wellington’s cabinet didn’t work well together, esp. Huskisson, who though he should have been Canning’s successor.
The County Clare Election.
Wellington appoints Vesy Fitzgerald as the President of the Board of Trade. But Fitzgerald had to win a by-election in County Clare (should be no problem as he is a good landlord, and was in favour of Catholic emancipation). However, Daniel O’Connell (Barrister) decides to oppose Fitzgerald in the by-election. He is Catholic, and wins in July 1828 after Fitzgerald withdrew. He wins with support of the Catholic Association in 1823. Priests mobilised the people to vote Catholic, and showed them to be more powerful than the landlords. In Feb. 1829, O’Connell was refused his seat in Parliament. In reaction to Catholic threats, Protestant Brunswick Clubs were set up to agitate against the Catholics.
Catholic Emancipation
B4 1829, Catholics were second-class citizens. Catholics didn’t receive political equality because any candidate had to take an oath that Catholics found unacceptable. RC faith seen as intolerant to other faiths, which had a authoritarian at the head of the Church who wanted unquestioned loyalty from his subjects. Problems arose in Ireland (6/7 of the population were Catholic). A Protestant minority had political power, and there were economic hardships. Concessions were made to Irish Catholics (but not English ones) in 1793 (war w./ France) to keep the peace. 1798 large-scale revolt in Ireland. This made Pitt want to unify politically England and Ireland, and then introduce Catholic emancipation. When Pitt died in 1806, the Whigs proposed this plan to the King, who dismissed them! 1812 Canning gets motion for the Commons to consider the Catholic issue passed by over 100 votes. Problems in the government: Some politicians feared for Ireland’s stability if the Catholic’s claims weren’t met. Others feared the stability of the Protestant church and the constitution if they were. 1821: Catholic Emancipation bill passes through the commons, but thrown out by the Lords. Clear that no bill will pass without royal support. Government decided to concede Catholic Emancipation. This meant that Peel had to totally change his stance, and this resulted in a by-election that he lost. CE was enacted in 1829, and Irish county franchise was raised from 40s to £10 in order to limit its effects on the Irish countryside. This annoyed more conservative Tories. Thus, Wellington loses his right-wing support. BUT some good was done by the government in this period. In 1830, a debt conversion exercise was carried out that reduced interest on loans from 4% to 3.5%. Peel also introduces the Metropolitan Police. Consequences of Emancipation:
- Encourages more kinds of parliamentary re4m.
- Showed the constitution could be amended without being weakened
- Divided Tory Party, and allowed the Whigs to take over 3 years later
- Emancipation was the first step in the development of a modern democracy in Britain.
The Fall of the Tories. Wellington wanted Huskisson &co. to return to the government. This didn’t happen, since Huskisson was accidentally killed @ opening of Manchester and Liverpool railway in September 1830. June 1830: George IV dies, and general election is called. Parliamentary re4m was wanted, although Russell’s move to do this was defeated 213 to 117 votes. This desire = stronger in July 1830, when news of revolution in France is heard. Swing riots also break out. Wellington doesn’t want parliamentary re4m, and says so in the Address to the House of Lords. This alienated the government from the people and sealed its fate. Wellington & Peel were sure that the government was doomed when an amendment that calls for an inquiry into the King’s Civil lists by a select committee is passed 233 to 204. On 16th November, it is announced that the administration is over. On this day also, William IV commissions Earl Grey (Whig) to 4m a government.
Political impacts of Catholic Emancipation
1.A large Radical presence in the House of Commons (O'Connellites). This presence means that the Irish issues are kept on the agenda in the 1830s. O'Connell has influence over the Russell governments after 1835. 2.It is a catalyst for further political change in Britain. It shows you can change the constitution without it collapsing. So the way is cleared for further constitutional reform. It makes it more difficult to defend the system based on outmoded principles. 3.It splits the Tories -it brings in 10 years of Whig rule.
How the it splits the Tories. Liverpool dies in 1827 -Liverpool has held together a party of diverse interests since 1812. His death unleashes these divisions (one of which is the Catholic emancipation). Three 15 year ministries follow:
Canning Goderick Wellington
Canning is the natural successor to Liverpool, but in favour of CE. (in 1812 he introduced a Bill in favour of it that the urged the Commons to discuss this). Canning’s advent splits the party, and half the Cabinet, including Wellington and peel, leaves. Canning then brings six Whigs into his Cabinet. (this shows the fluidity of political allegiances). Canning dies in August 1827, but the rift is already opened, and O'Connell is determined to press through C E. Why do the Tories oppose Catholic Emancipation? The constitution includes parliament in its present form and the established Church. A key element of the unreformed system is the Anglican ascendancy: thus the Church and State are seen to be inseparable. Therefore, no precedent of reform could be allowed. But the Anglican ascendancy is already under attack: Test and corporations Act repealed in 1828 (by Russell who is a Whig). This act had meant that nonconformists couldn't hold high office. This is repealed, and so nonconformists can have political rights. This precedent is important, as it is unfair to give non- can form of spirits, but not Catholics. So: Wellington and Peel lose the support of the Canningites over seat distribution. In 1830, Wellington sets himself totally against Parliamentary reform in an attempt to win back the support of the ULTRAS. But it’s too late… Catholic Emancipation and the Fall of the Tories (see sources sheet in folder) Source A What reasons does Peel provide for refusing to serve under Canning as Prime Minister? One of the main reasons that Peel provides concerns the issue of Catholic Emancipation: he states that he has "taken a very active and prominent part in opposition" to this issue. Therefore, he is uncertain that Canning is going to agree with this line that he supports. He mentions that he thinks that the "sanguine hopes of the Roman Catholics will be excited", and also thinks that the change in government may well allow Catholic Emancipation. Indeed, he is worried that the difference in ideas between Canning and Lord Liverpool is so great. He states this at the end of the source: "the transfer of the influence of Prime Minister … is the transfer … from the most powerful opponent to the most powerful advocate of the Roman Catholic claims. Is this an adequate explanation? One way in which this could be seen as an adequate explanation concerns Peel’s credibility. If he was to serve in a government that was pro-Catholic Emancipation, then it would look like that he had changed his values to suit himself, and therefore this would not bode well with his supporters, both in the party and in the general public: Peel would end up being branded a turncoat by the rest of his party. Indeed, it would also be in the interest in a government that approved Catholic Emancipation not to have someone against the issue in it, as this may split the cabinet on many other issues, and would also give the impression that all the politicians in it would change their views as and when it suited them. What evidence might you provide to confirm his view of Canning as "the most powerful advocate of the Roman Catholic claims"? One of the most important pieces of evidence to justify this claim concerns a motion pushed through the House of Commons by Canning in 1812 that urges the government to discuss the issue of Catholic Emancipation. This motion is passed by over 100 votes, and this therefore highlights the great effort that must have been undertaken by Canning in order to pass it. Another piece of evidence shows that, with hindsight, Peel was right about Canning’s alignment on the issue. The fact that Canning wants Catholic Emancipation passed after the County Clare election, when O’Connell, a Catholic, is elected. This ultimately shows that Peel was right in his estimate of Canning. Source B What were the Test and Corporation Acts, and why were some opposed to their repeal? The Test and Corporation Acts essentially meant that nonconformists couldn’t hold high office in the government. People were opposed to its repeal for numerous reasons, one of which being that it was unfair to give the nonconformists (such as the Methodists) political rights, but not the Catholics. In this respect, it was feared that it might lead to many uprisings, especially in Ireland, where a majority of Catholics were governed by a minority of Protestants. Source C What reasons does Peel provide for the concession of Catholic Emancipation? Peel believes that, by conceding Catholic Emancipation, it will lessen the danger of a revolution (most probably on the part of the Catholic). Therefore, it is in the state’s best "spiritual and temporal" interests for this to be conceded. Peel also states that he thinks that the present situation (i.e. one in which the Catholics have few political rights) cannot be advantageously maintained). Do you think his explanation is adequate? I think that Peel’s reasoning in his decision is mostly adequate. This is especially true of the fact that, by conceding Catholic Emancipation, one would be lessening the chances of a revolution. The chance of a revolution in Ireland greatly increased after the election of Daniel O’Connell at the County Clare by-election, as it was feared that many more Catholics would stand for Parliament, but not actually take up their seats because of an oath that Catholics found unacceptable to swear by. If this was to happen, the government would be greatly weakened, as there would be few MPs representing areas in Ireland that were able to be present in the Commons. This threat of revolution would also have been fuelled by the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, as this repeal gave the nonconformist groups (such as the Methodists) political rights, but not the Catholics. This may have given Catholic leaders the perfect reason to stage a revolution. Therefore, I think that Peel’s explanation is adequate, because it would not be in the state’s best "spiritual and temporal" interests if a revolution was to break out. The concession of Catholic Emancipation earned Peel undying hostility from a large proportion of Tory backbenchers. Did he deserve it? One reason why Peel did deserve this hostility concerns the fact that he changed his views from being totally against Catholic Emancipation, to being adamant that it is conceded. This would not have gone down well with the Tory backbenchers, as it showed that Peel changed his ideals for his own political gain. This is especially true of a group of extreme right-wing Tories, called the Ultras, who branded Peel as a "turncoat" after this issue, and didn’t support him for the rest of his time in office. It could be argued, however, that Peel did not deserve this hostility, as he believed that he was acting in the state’s best interests. It is unlikely that a man who disliked the idea of Catholic Emancipation is going to concede it unless there is good reason to do so. In this case, Peel thinks it necessary to concede in order to prevent a revolution in Ireland, and to stop the disruption of Parliament by those who follow O’Connell’s example in the County Clare election. Peel obviously saw the issue of conceding Catholic Emancipation as the lesser of two evils, in that he could either concede (preventing a probable revolution from taking place), or he could repress the issue (and face a revolution in Ireland). Therefore, it can be argued that the hostility that Peel received is unfounded, as if he were to stick with his word and not concede Catholic Emancipation, then the consequences for the state and Parliament may well have been disastrous. That said, Peel may have conceded Catholic Emancipation for the good of his party. For if a revolution was to break out in Ireland, this would seriously damage his popularity, both in the Tory party and in the general public. Hence, a motive for conceding Catholic Emancipation could have been to increase his time in office. In conclusion, I think that, for the most part, Peel did not deserve the undying hostility that he earned from a large proportion of Tory backbenchers, as he was doing something that he was against doing in order to preserve the country from the threat of revolution. Forces for reform (1829-1832) Evans Chapter 22 pp204-211 McCord Chapter 4 pp127-134 Resurgence of Discontentment/Radicalism. November 183016 counties affected by disturbances in rural Southern England. (These were traditional protest as opposed to revolutionary dangers) Discontentment because:
- Rising population, but no rise in employment levels
- People wanted higher wages (probable cause of unrest in 1830-31) and better Poor Law payments
- 1829 harvest was poor
- 1830 had high bread prices
- By the end of 1830, Melbourne (in the Home Office) had arrested nearly 2,000 men and women. To avoid leniency, judiciary committees were dispatched to troublesome areas. 250 death sentences were issued, of which 19 were carried out.
April 1931: National Union of the Working Classes was formed to get complete male suffrage October 1931Rioting in a number of towns over the Parliamentary Re4m bill. Esp. Bristol (100 arrests, 31 death sentences, 4 executions) Significance of middle-class support for radical agenda. Whig Slogan"Peace, Retrenchment and Reform" Jan 1830: In Birmingham, a General Political Union between the Lower and the Middle classes of the People was formed by Attwood, who wanted currency re4m because of the deflation going on. Other unions were formed in places such as Leeds (3 org’s: one for workers, one for middle classes, and one to bridge the gap). Results of Clubs like these:
- Attracted lots of people to political rallies
- Showed Westminster that the Middle Classes would support re4m.
Main significance of this support:
Politicians believed that the Middle Classes were "the real and efficient mass of public opinion without whom the power of the gentry is nothing" (Grey). So, if the middle classes wanted re4m, they could take the whole country with them!
Weaknesses of Tories
- Wellington expected to gain seats by deploying government patronage
- This wouldn’t work, as governments found it hard to rely on influence.
- Peel & Wellington wanted to win back the radicals in the party they lost over Catholic Emancipation, so they set themselves against re4m. (Bad move: polarises parliamentary opinion).
Nature of Grey’s government 1830+ Considered as a Whig ministry, but:
- It contained Huskissonites (Goderich, Palmerston, Grant)
- It contained an Ultra-Tory (Richmond)
- These ends of the political spectrum were linked by a realisation that reform HAS to happen.
Home |
