Download Chapter 20: Europe from 1815 to 1832 Nationalism Nationalism was

Chapter 20: Europe from 1815 to 1832
Nationalism
Nationalism was the single most powerful ideology of the nineteenth century. Nationalism is a
strong identification by a group of individuals with a political entity called a nation. Nationalism stresses
that citizenship in a nation-state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group or,
if the nation is multinational (as in the United States or Canada), citizenship should be the right of all the
constituent minorities. Nationalism again became an important force in European politics after the
1970s, when the Soviet Union began to crumble and the Eastern European nations [even nationalities
within Russia itself] - once dominated by the tsars and the soviets - began to demand independence.
Early nineteenth century nationalism took aim at the agreements hammered out at the Congress of
Vienna which tried to turn the political clock back to 1789, that is, before the French Revolution.
Nationalist feelings were strongest in multinational states such as the Russian and Austrian Empires.
Closely connected to nationalism was the concept of Popular Sovereignty because it demanded that
authority in government be given to the people and not to heredity princes or to an aristocracy or to the
wealthy bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, Popular Sovereignly often led to confusion or outright conflict
because ethnic minorities also wanted their share of sovereignty.
At any rate, it would be nationalist-thinking peoples and their leaders, who would create new nations in
the nineteenth century. As the nineteenth century opened, small groups of nationalist-oriented writers or
intellectuals would agitate for the creation of new nations, usually by pamphlets and newspapers. These
leaders were often historians or writers who glorified an ethnic group’s history and cultural traditions.
[Remember how Herder’s fascination with folk culture helped inspire German nationalism] Professors and
other teachers often spread nationalistic ideas and, as elementary education grew, so did conflicting
ideas about what language should be used in instruction (particularly in multinational countries). For
example, in France and Italy, official versions of the national language were imposed on local areas and
replaced local dialects. In parts of Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, nationalists attempted to resurrect
(bring back) earlier versions of language which they considered classical or purer. The goal of such
educational nationalism was to standardize language into an official National Language.
Much literary nationalism took its roots from the emergence of Print Culture (Chapter 17) in which the
number of books, magazines and pamphlets soared (grew) dramatically. This kind of nationalism was of
great importance in overcoming regional spoken dialects; moreover, in most European countries,
mastery of the standardized version of a country’s language [written and spoken!] meant almost certain
social and political advancement. The psychological effect of the growth of a uniform language was
even more powerful and dramatic because it meant that people now began to define themselves in terms
of their nation and not their local region, village or even religion.
The Meaning of Nationhood
There is no single answer to what various nationalists meant by nationhood. To many Germans and
Italians, nationhood meant a unified Italy and Germany that eliminated all the small principalities,
kingdoms and states that kept Germans and Italians divided. Other nationalists believed that every
natural group of people [i.e., ethnicity] had a kind of divine right to nationhood. Polish nationalists, for
example, suggested that, in Poland’s suffering, a future resurrection and new life (in a new and free
Poland) would emerge, just like Christ suffered and rose from the dead. But the problem all minority
nationalists faced was which ethnic groups could be considered nations. Thus, throughout the nineteenth
century (and much of the twentieth century) many ethnic groups would unsuccessfully make their case for
nationhood – a process that has speeded up with post World War II Decolonization.
1
The Six Areas of Nationalistic Unrest
Great Britain (Ireland): The English domination of Ireland began in the late twelfth-century and
continued especially with the savagery of Oliver Cromwell’s forces being the most terrible. Great
Britain brought Ireland under its direct control in 1800, abolishing the separate Irish Parliament and
allowing the Irish to elect members to the British Parliament – no Catholics, of course. Irish nationalists
(almost always Catholic), however, wanted independence – or at least a greater share of self-government
or home rule. This Irish Question would haunt Britain into and through the twentieth century.
Germany: Ever since the days of the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire, Germany was divided
among hundreds of principalities. German nationalists wanted a unified German nation. They were
dissatisfied with the multinational Austrian Empire as well as Napoleon’s Confederation of the Rhine.
These nationalists would be divided in vision: either to have a united Germany with Austria or without.
Austria: The Hapsburg Empire had struggled with competing ethnic groups for many centuries. Thus
Hungarian, Czech, Slovak, Romanian and other nationalists dreamed of their own independent nations.
Many of these dreams would come true with the empire’s dissolution in 1919.
Italy: Italy had not known national unity since the days of ancient Rome. In 1800, it was dominated by
Spain in the south, the Papal States in the middle and Austria in the north along with a number of
smaller states. Like many others, the Italian nationalists dreamed of a united Italy.
The Russian Empire: Russia was a vast empire of many peoples and ethnicities but the principal area
of unrest would be in Poland whose leaders remembered their days of independence.
The Ottoman Empire (The Balkans): As the Ottoman Empire decayed and grew weaker, the Millet
System (in which the empire’s various ethnic groups basically controlled their own local affairs) greatly
encouraged the rise of nationalism.
Liberalism
Liberalism (derived from the Latin adjective liber meaning free) is the ideology that stresses the importance of
liberty and equal rights. Liberalism grew out of the Enlightenment and the equality first stressed by early
liberals did not include those of the lower classes. The father of Liberalism is considered to be John
Locke who championed legislative government (as opposed to monarchy) because he felt that a
legislature embodied the will of the people. His Two Treatises of Government (1690) became the
foundation of liberal ideology (or belief system); for Locke maintained that in the past people had given
up their political rights to rulers to promote the common good. He stressed that although people had
granted political rights to kings and elites, the people still retained their personal rights of life, liberty
and property. Any ruler, who violated these rights, lost the right to hold his sovereignty and ought to be
deposed. Thus, rulers logically derived their power or sovereignty from the consent of those whom they
governed. If subjects withdrew their consent, they had the right to replace their rulers. Locke not only
removed the divine out of the equation of government, he also set up the justification for revolution.
In spite of the strong contrast in motivation and economics, the leaders of the American and French
Revolutions used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule and in this chapter
we shall see how, in the early nineteenth century, liberal governments were established in nations across
Europe, Latin America, and North America. It is important to understand that in the early nineteenth
century, conservatives (those who favored a social order that evolved slowly and generally favored monarchy)
saw liberals as those who challenged their own political, social or religious values. Thus liberals favored
constitutionalism (government limited by law), representative democracy, free and fair elections,
protection of human rights, capitalism with the right to own property, and freedom of religion.
2
Political Goals: Working from the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers, nineteenth century liberals sought
to create political structures that would limit the arbitrary power of government against citizens, their
property and freedoms. They agreed with Locke’s contractual views and that the legitimacy of
government derived from the consent of the governed – and that included governmental ministers even
in a monarchy. In order to attain these goals, nineteenth century liberals adopted written constitutions
which made conservatives and monarchists nervous because (to them) constitutions smacked of
Napoleonic autocracy.
Like their Enlightenment forbearers, nineteenth century liberals almost always came from the educated,
relatively wealthy people who were usually associated with the professions, education, commerce and
manufacturing. Their motivation to achieve their goals was spurred on by the fact that they were
excluded from the traditional social order because they lacked social (elite) pedigree; especially after the
old order (Ancien-regime) was re-imposed after the Congress of Vienna. They believed that advancement
in society should be based on talent and achievement and, although they demanded more political
participation, they did not want full democracy. The core of what they wanted was to extend political
rights to their propertied class and, as a result, nineteenth century liberals had no intention of including
the peasant or urban working classes into benefits of their goals.
Economic Goals: It is easy to understand the economic goals of nineteenth century liberals when we
remember that they were the children of Adam Smith (the great proponent of Capitalism): the
manufacturers of Great Britain, the landed and manufacturing class of France and the growing industrial
entrepreneurs of Germany and Italy. Their goal was simple: establish free trade and abolish the
economic restraints of Mercantilism along with the regulated economies of monarchies, enlightened or
absolutist. They were opposed to established wages and laws protecting the laboring class because they
saw them as simply one more commodity that could be bought and sold.
In Great Britain, where the monarchy was already limited and most personal liberties had been secured,
liberals pushed for more representative government. In France where the Code Napoleon had secured a
modern legal system, liberals called for greater rights since the Code Napoleon had backed away from
many of the ideals of the Revolution of 1789. In Germany and Austria, liberals faced much stronger
resistance to their ideals because the old social divide continued to separate the aristocratic, land-owning
classes from the middle class commercial and industrial entrepreneurs. As a result, since most German
liberals favored a united Germany and looked to either Austria or Prussia to lead the way, they were
more tolerant of strong monarchial power than their counterparts in France and Great Britain. German
liberals believed that a united Germany would lead to a freer social and political order.
Although liberalism and nationalism were not mutually exclusive, they often did not seek the same
goals. Ethnic nationalists, when they were a majority, usually wanted their own ethnic group to
dominate others as it was with the Magyars in Hungary. Ethnic nationalists, when they were a minority,
however, struggled for political equality. But in either case, once freedom was achieved, ethnic
minorities had no intention of establishing liberal political institutions. Nevertheless nationalism and
liberalism were often compatible because representative government and liberal notions of equality
often helped nationalists seeking freedom win the support of liberals in France and Great Britain. This
compromise was adopted by many nationalists in Germany, Italy and the Austrian Empire.
The Conservative Outlook
The modern ideology of Conservatism arose as political and social theorists responded to the
challenges of the American War of Independence and the French Revolution. The word conservative
comes from the Latin conservare which means to protect or conserve. Conservatives viewed society as
an organism that changes (or ought to change) very slowly over the generations.
3
The Irish born but English political philosopher (and MP who supported the American Revolution),
Edmund Burke (1729-1797), is considered to be the Father of Conservatism. Burke believed that society
was a compact between a people’s ancestors, the present generation, and their descendents yet unborn.
Burke acknowledged the need for change, but also that change must be by consensus (wide majority
agreement). So as we learned in the last few chapters, Burke condemned the radical revolutionaries of
the French Revolution but approved of the more conservative American Revolution. And it must never
be forgotten that Burke supported the constitutional system of the British government.
Thus, nineteenth century conservatives were hostile to the French Revolution and to Napoleon. But most
nineteenth century conservatives differed from Burke’s constitutional views because nineteenth century
conservatives were of the elite classes. Thus nineteenth century Conservatism was generally an
alliance between monarchs, landed aristocrats and established churches. In earlier centuries, these
groups had competed for power but by 1815, they were allies; sometimes reluctant allies but allies
nonetheless. Churches also distrusted liberalism and both feared and hated Enlightenment ideas because
rationalism often (but not always) undermined the teachings of revealed religion.
So in spite of Burke, nineteenth century conservatives generally distrusted representative government
fearing an attack on their property and influence in society. It was the same with written constitutions
unless the conservatives could write the constitutions. Conservative aristocrats – in spite of the Congress
of Vienna – did not get the message that the new ideologies of popular sovereignty and nationalism
could not be locked away and the Ancien Régime restored. Led by Metternich and royalists, nineteenth
century Conservatives believed that they could keep their old privileges and status only by suppressing
their opponents. They could not think “outside the box!” Conservatism would eventually turn back to
Burke’s constitutional vision but as the nineteenth century unfolded and progressed most conservatives
did not understand that the day of the aristocrat [indeed monarchy itself] was dying.
It is also important to note the difference between four terms: A LIBERAL is one who takes change for
the norm and works though government or social groups to achieve change but a REVOLUTIONARY
demands immediate and often violent change in a short period. A CONSERVATIVE believes in
change which is moderated by reason, consensus and sensible thinking but a REACTIONARY believes
in no political change whatsoever.
Post Napoleonic-War Struggles
Austria: Of all the victors over Napoleon and the ideas of the French Revolution, Austria could not
make any compromises with nationalism or liberalism because both were already inspiring various
national and ethnic groups with the Austrian Empire to demand independence. They were many: Poles,
Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Italians, Croats – not forgetting the Germans who wanted unification and the
Hungarians who wanted more sovereignty. Metternich and the Austrian government understood that any
compromise or recognition of political rights for these groups would mean the probable dissolution of
the empire. So, representative government was not even considered even as a pro-forma (i.e., a formality)
option. Austria’s dilemma also meant that she had to dominate the newly created and loosely organized
German Confederation (created by the Congress of Vienna) and prevent the creation of a unified German
state or any organizing constitutions.
Prussia: In the last chapter we saw how Frederick William III (r. 1797-1840) and his Junker nobility
reluctantly allowed reform of the army and the land. But they were true reactionaries and hated reforms
but allowed them because the architects (Stein and Hardenberg) worked to keep royal authority intact.
These reforms served Prussia well and helped produce an army which helped to defeat Napoleon. After
the Congress of Vienna, Frederick William III promised to allow some form of constitutional
government. But he stalled and formally reneged (went back) on his pledge in 1817. Then, he created a
New Council of State which was more efficient – and answerable to the king alone.
4
Southern German States: After the Congress of Vienna, three southern German states, Bavaria,
Baden and Württemberg, issued constitutions but none of them recognized popular sovereignty. Many
students, inspired by liberalism, the reforms of Stein and Hardenberg and veterans of the struggles
against Napoleon, continued to dream of a united Germany. They formed Burschenschaften (student
associations) which laid foundations for a change in loyalty from the old provinces to a united German
State. In 1817, one of these associations celebrated the Wartburg Festival (near the castle where Martin
Luther had translated the New Testament into German) on the fourth anniversary of the Battle of Leipzig
(which forced Napoleon’s abdication and drove him into his first exile on Elba) and the tercentenary (three
hundredth anniversary) of Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses. Although the festival was peaceful, its militant
nature and the public burning of reactionary books made many German rulers uneasy because of these
nationalistic undertones.
The Carlsbad Decrees: In 1819, another incident alarmed the reactionary (ultra-conservative) German
rulers. A student and radical member of a Burschenschaften, Karl Sand, assassinated a conservative
dramatist August von Kotzebue, who had ridiculed the Burschenschaften. Sand was tried, publically
executed and became a nationalist hero and martyr. This incident so frightened Metternich that he was
able to persuade many German states to issue the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819, which dissolved the
Burschenschaften, cracked down against the liberal press, and seriously restricted academic freedom in
many states of the German Confederation. The next year, the German Confederation passed the Final
Act which limited the subjects that could be discussed in constitutional assemblies.
Great Britain
After the Congress of Vienna, Great Britain experienced two years of bad harvests and high
unemployment due to sailors and soldiers returning from war, along with out-of-work industrial
workers. Moreover the Tories were in power and their Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool, (Britain’s longest
serving P M from 1812 to 1827) became known for his repressive measures to maintain and steer the
country through the radicalism and unrest that followed. Liverpool and the Tories sought to protect the
interests of the wealthy and landed classes.
In 1815, Parliament passed a Corn Law (remember that in Oxford English, corn means all grains) to
maintain high prices for domestic grain by levying import duties on foreign grain. The next year,
Parliament abolished the income tax that only the wealthy paid and replaced it with an excise (sales) tax
on consumer goods paid by both the wealthy and the poor. These laws showed that the British ruling
class had abandoned their role as paternalistic protectors of the poor and the taxpaying class was no
better in that they wanted the repeal of the Poor Law which provided relief to the poor and jobless.
The result was that the poor and unemployed (or lower social orders) began to lose confidence in the
government and demand political change. Mass meetings demanding reform in Parliament became
common place. Republican clubs were organized to coordinate these demands and radical newspapers
like William Cobbett’s Political Registrar led the attack. The government regarded Cobbett and other
radicals (such as Major John Cartwright and Henry Hunt) as demagogues (leaders who make use of popular
prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power) who were seducing (leading astray by
persuasion and false promises) the lower classes away for their loyalty to their natural leaders. After an
unruly meeting at Spa Fields in London, the government became alarmed - remembering well the sansculottes who freely killed aristocrats in the French Revolution, and passed the Coercion Acts of 1817
which temporarily suspended writs of habeas corpus (i.e. government officers must have proof before an
arrest) and extended existing laws against seditious gatherings.
5
Peterloo and the Six Acts
1818 was a better year mostly because improved harvests brought political calm but by 1819 the lower
classes were again impatient and demanding reform. In the industrial north, well-organized meetings
called for reform and culminated on August 16th at Saint Peter’s Fields in the city of Manchester. As the
meeting was about to begin, a magistrate ordered the militia to disperse the crowd. The result was
pandemonium and the deaths of at least eleven people with many more wounded. The event came to be
called the Peterloo Massacre, which was a sarcastic pun of Wellington’s victory over Napoleon at
Waterloo. Even though the tragedy was the result of incompetent local officials, the Liverpool
government felt they must defend the officials; and take harsh measures to act once and for all against
the radicals.
So in December 1819 (ironically a few months after the Carlsbad Decrees), the Liverpool government dominated by the Tories over the opposition of the Whigs - passed a series of laws called the Six Acts
which were intended to give public officials more power to restrain radical leaders from agitating
(stirring up) the lower classes. The six acts were:
1. The Training Prevention Act, which made any person attending a meeting for the purpose of
receiving training or drill in weapons liable to arrest.
2. The Seizure of Arms Act, which gave local magistrates the powers to search any private
property for weapons and seize them and arrest the owners.
3. The Misdemeanors Act, which attempted to increase the speed of the administration of justice
by reducing the opportunities for bail and allowing for speedier court processing.
4. The Seditious Meetings Prevention Act, which forbade large meetings of fifty or more unless
properly authorized by local magistrates.
5. The Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act, which toughened existing laws for more punitive
sentences for the authors of such writings.
6. The Newspaper and Stamp Duties Act, which extended and increased taxes to cover those
publications which had escaped duty by publishing opinion and not news. Publishers also were
required to post a bond for their behavior
Cato Street Conspiracy: Two months after the passage of the Six Acts, the Cato Street Conspiracy
was uncovered. Led by a mentally unstable man, Arthur Thistlewood, a group of extreme radicals
plotted to blow up the entire British cabinet. The plot was discovered, the leaders arrested, tried and five
executed. Although the plot had little chance of success, it nevertheless helped to discredit the reform
movement in Great Britain. It is also important to note that because of continuing Whig opposition, as
well as a calmer political climate in Europe, the Six Acts were eventually dropped. Perhaps the one most
dangerous to liberty, the Seditious Meetings Prevention Act, was outright repealed in 1824.
Bourbon Restoration in France
After Napoleon’s first abdication, Bourbon rule was restored to France in the person of the younger
brother of Louis XVI, who took the name Louis XVIII (the infant son of Louis XVI who died mysteriously
was counted XVII). Louis XVIII had become a political realist in his exile and realized that he could not
turn back the clock and agreed to become a monarch but under a constitution, called the Charter of
1814. The Charter provided for a hereditary monarchy and bicameral (two house) legislature. The
monarch appointed the upper house, the Chamber of Peers, modeled after the British House of Lords.
The lower house or Chamber of Deputies was elected by men of property.
6
The Charter guaranteed most of the rights enumerated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and
Citizen of 1789. The Roman Catholic Church was declared the official religion but religious toleration
was also proclaimed. Perhaps most importantly for the thousands of French people who had profited
from the revolution, the Charter promised not to challenge the property rights of the current landowners.
Since Napoleon had restored much aristocratic property, Louis XVIII hoped reconcile those who had
been ardent revolutionaries.
Ultraroyalism: Louis XVIII’s spirit of compromise, however, did not sit well with the elites who had
suffered during the revolution. They found a champion in the king’s younger brother, Charles, the
Count of Artois who had been the most active of the Émigrés during the Revolution. These angry
Ultraroyalists sought revenge. Within months of Waterloo, ultraroyalist factions in the south and west
of France carried out the White Terror against former revolutionaries and supporters of Napoleon. The
king was helpless to stop the massacres. Similar ultraroyalist sentiment was also found in the House of
Deputies. In the elections of 1816, when the Ultraroyalists gained a majority in the House of Deputies,
Louis dissolved the chamber. A second election produced a more moderate chamber and several years of
give and take followed with the king making mild accommodations to the liberals.
In February of 1820, Charles Ferdinand d'Artois, Duke of Berri, the son of Charles, Count of Artois,
was assassinated and, even though the assassin had acted alone, the Ultraroyalists convinced the king
that the murder was the result of his government’s cooperation with liberal politicians. And so the king
responded with harsh measures. New electoral laws gave wealthy electors two votes. Press censorship
was imposed and those suspected of dangerous political activity were arrested. In 1821, the Roman
Catholic Church was given control of all secondary education.
Thus by the early 1820s, constitutionalism had been worn away and liberals driven out of politics. The
Count of Artois and his followers sensed victory when Louis XVIII died in 1824 because Charles now
became King Charles X. However his ultraroyalist policies would lead to another French Revolution in
1830.
The Congress System
At the Congress of Vienna, the victors and soon France had agreed to consult with each other on matters
affecting Europe as a whole. This was done through a series of congresses but soon became informal
consultations between nations. This new arrangement was known as The Concert of Europe. Its goal
was to prevent one nation from taking major international action without working with the other nations
– in other words, to preserve the Balance of Power! The Concert continued to function until the third
quarter of the century when the unification of Germany and nationalist agitation weakened the congress
system.
In the years immediately following the Congress of Vienna, the congresses operated particularly well. In
1818, the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle, the four victorious nations (The Quadruple Alliance) agreed to
remove their troops from France, which had paid its reparations, and readmitted to good standing among
the Concert of Europe making the Quadruple Alliance the Quintuple Alliance. The greatest friction
during this early period came about when Tsar Alexander I suggested that the Quadruple Alliance agree
to uphold the existing boundary lines drawn by the Congress of Vienna. The British foreign secretary,
Lord Castlereagh, rejected the proposal and maintained that the Quadruple Alliance had been intended
only to prevent future French aggression – and now France was a member of the alliance.
7
The Spanish Revolution of 1820
When Ferdinand VII was restored to the Spanish throne in 1814, he pledged to govern Spain by a
written constitution. But once in power, he ignored his promise, dissolved the Spanish parliament (or
Cortés) and ruled as an autocrat. In 1820, army officers, about to be sent to Spain’s colonies in order to
suppress Creole rebellions, themselves rebelled against the king. So Ferdinand again pledged to rule by
a written constitution. He barely kept his throne and groveled before the revolutionary officers. At least
for a while, the revolution had succeeded. In the same year, however, a revolution broke out in Naples
and the King of the Two Sicilies quickly accepted a constitution. There were other revolts in Italy but
none were successful.
These events horrified and frightened Metternich especially since Austria hoped to dominate Italy in
order to provide a buffer against the possible spread of revolution in southern Europe. The members of
the Quadruple Alliance were divided as what to do. Austria wanted to directly intervene but Great
Britain opposed any intervention in either Italy or Spain. So Metternich met with Prussia and Russia
(with unofficial French and British delegates) at the Congress of Troppau in late 1820 where the Protocol
of Troppau was issued. The protocol (declaration) asserted that stable governments might intervene to
restore order in countries undergoing revolutions. But the Congress, especially Alexander I, stopped
short of authorizing direct Austrian intervention. The necessary authorization was obtained in 1821 at
the Congress of Laibach and Austrian troops quickly attacked Naples and restored the king and his
absolutist government.
The Congress of Verona
In late 1822, the five members of the Quintuple Alliance (Great Britain, France, Prussia, Austria and Russia)
met in Verona in northern Italy. It would be the last meeting of the alliance members (but not the end of
the congress system) and its primary purpose was to resolve the situation in Spain. Again, Great Britain
balked at intervention in Spain. Castlereagh had committed suicide just before the conference began and
Britain was now represented by its new foreign minister, George Canning (1770-1827), who was even
less sympathetic to Metternich’s goals and effectively withdrew Great Britain from continental affairs.
Austria, Prussia and Russia, however, agreed to support a French military intervention in Spain which
took place in 1823, suppressing the rebellion and restoring Ferdinand to power.
It is important to note that something new happened in international European politics during the French
intervention and that was that the French did not use its intervention in Spain to expand its influence or
take territory from Spain. This was the point of the congress system that came out of the Congress of
Vienna: namely, to restore or preserve conservative regimes and not to conquer new territory. This new
international restraint through formal and informal discussion prevented war among the great powers
until the middle of the century and averted a general war until the Great War of 1914.
The Congress of Verona and the Spanish intervention also split Great Britain from the continental
powers. George Canning was far more interested in British commerce than Castlereagh had been and so
Britain sought to stop the spread of European reactionary politics in the Spanish colonies of the new
world who were fighting their wars of independence. Canning’s goal was the break Spain’s old trading
monopoly with its colonies and open Latin America to British trade. To that end, Canning supported the
Monroe Doctrine of 1823 by which American President James Monroe prohibited further colonization
and intervention by European powers in the Americas. Great Britain would gain no new territory but her
commercial interests would dominate Latin America throughout the rest of the century. It has been said
that Canning finally won the War of Jenkins’ Ear, the underlying cause of which was Great Britain’s
determination to break Spain’s economic monopoly over her colonies.
8
Revolts in the Balkans
The Greek Revolution of 1821
The Greek War of Independence was a successful war of independence waged by the Greek
revolutionaries between 1821 and 1832. Following the fall of the Constantinople in 1453, most of
Greece came under Ottoman rule. During this time, there were frequent revolts by Greeks attempting to
gain independence, usually with brutal Turkish reprisals. In 1814, a secret organization called the Filiki
Eteria was founded to liberate the Greeks. A series of revolts broke out in 1821and the Greeks won
much territory and even built a navy which hindered the Ottomans from sending reinforcements. By
1825 however, the Ottomans, with aid and troops from Muhammad Ali of Egypt, gained the upper
hand and retook much of the Greek mainland. But then, after much deliberation, Russia, Great Britain
and France, decided that military intervention was in their best interest. They sent ships and in 1827
destroyed an Ottoman-Egyptian fleet at the Battle of Navarino. Then French troops landed on the
mainland and by 1828 had liberated most of central Greece.
The Greek War of Independence roused Europe. They considered the Ancient Greeks the forbearers of
European culture. European liberals, frustrated at their lack of political progress, hoped to see the
formation of a New Greek democracy. Lord Byron, the British Romantic poet, went to Greece, fought
with the rebels and died of Cholera. Philhellenic (pro-Greek) societies sprang up all over Europe and saw
Greek independence as retribution for Asian and Islamic despotism. The major powers were more
cynical, as they all had an interest in the Balkans.
Their interest was spurred by what came to be called the Eastern Question, that is, what should
European powers do about the Ottoman inability to change and grow technologically? Russia
particularly wanted to conquer Constantinople and the Balkan portion of the empire to add to her own
empire. Austria also coveted Balkan territory. Britain and France opposed these expansions and were
concerned about their commercial interests. The bottom line was that the European powers – even after
the Greek Revolution - helped prop up the Ottomans. Nevertheless, the big three (Russia, Britain and
France) saw that an independent Greece would be to their advantage.
In 1827, the three powers signed the Treaty of London which demanded that the Ottoman Turks
recognize Greek independence which was the basis of their sending their ships and troops to intervene.
The next year Russia invaded what is now Romania and by the Treaty of Adrianople (1829) forced the
Ottomans to recognize their territorial acquisitions. The treaty also forced the Ottomans to recognize the
authority of the Big Three to decide the fate of Greece. Finally in 1830, a second Treaty of London
declared Greece an independent kingdom and two years later the son of the king of Bavaria, Otto I (r.
1832-1862), was elected king of the Hellenes.
Serbian Independence
1830 also saw Serbian Independence. The Serbs were a Slavic people who had, like the Greeks, chafed
under Ottoman conquest. Since the late eighteenth century, Serbia had agitated for independence and
received support from Russia during the Napoleonic Wars. Between 1804 and 1813, the Serbian patriot,
Kara George, led a guerrilla war, the First Serbian Uprising, but failed to win Serbian freedom. Then
in 1815, Miloš Obrenovitch (1780-1860) led the Second Serbian Uprising. By 1817 the Turks defeated
his army, but not before he negotiated greater autonomy for most of Serbia with himself as the de facto
leader. In 1830, the Ottomans granted Serbia independence and by the later 1830s, Serbia had won full
diplomatic recognition.
9
Miloš Obrenovitch, now the Serbian hereditary prince, kept pressuring the Ottomans to include more
Serbian areas into the new Serbia – and he had much success. Serbia faced obstacles however; among
them were stabilizing the government; pressuring Austria to free Serbians in the Austrian Empire; and
the status of Muslim minorities. In 1856, Serbia came under the protection of the great powers but
Russia, Slavic herself, would continue to see herself as Serbia’s special protector, a relationship that
would continue until the Great War of 1914.
The Haitian Revolution
The only successful slave revolt in history took place on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola in the
aftermath of the French Revolution. In the 18th century Hispaniola was divided into a Spanish colony of
Santo Domingo and a French colony, Saint-Dominique. The island was one of the richest colonies in
all the Caribbean: its sugar, coffee and cotton accounted for almost one third of France’s foreign trade.
In 1789, Saint- Dominique was inhabited by 40,000 white settlers, 30,000 Gens de Couleur (free people
of color who usually toiled their own small farms, sometimes with a few slaves) and some 500,000 black
slaves who worked under brutal conditions on white run plantations. In marginal areas, there were also
large numbers of maroons.
During the American War for Independence, the French sent about 800 Gens de Couleur to fight in
North America. When they returned they brought back Enlightenment ideas such as equality and
contractual government. When the French Revolution broke out, the whites wanted independence from
France and the Gens de Couleur wanted political equality with the white settlers. So, the white settlers
began to govern themselves but refused to include the Gens de Couleur. By 1791, civil war broke out
between the two groups.
The conflict took an unexpected and violent turn of events when a Voodoo priest, Boukman, organized
a slave revolt. In August 1791, he led some 12,000 slaves on a rampage killing white settlers, burning
their homes and destroying their plantations. Within weeks the slave army grew to 100,000 and maroons
joined the fighting. French, British and Spanish troops tried to restore order. Boukman was killed, but
the slaves eventually overcame the whites, the Gens de Couleur and the foreign armies; and their
successes were due to the leadership of Toussaint Louverture (1744-1803).
Toussaint Louverture was the son of slaves who learned to read and write from a Catholic priest.
Because of his education he became a domestic servant and rose to the position of a livestock manger on
a plantation. When the slave revolt broke out he helped his masters escape, then he joined the rebels. A
skilled organizer, he built a strong, disciplined army. He fought well and played politics with the
Europeans well. By 1797, he controlled most of Saint-Domingue.
Then Napoleon sent 20,000 soldiers to quell the rebellion. Louverture was captured in died of
maltreatment in a French jail. Back in Saint-Dominique, however, yellow fever broke out and ravaged
the French Army, so that Louverture’s lieutenants, especially Jean-Jacques Dessalines (1785-1806), were
able to drive the French off the island. In 1803, the former slaves declared independence and 1804
became the Republic of Haiti. After the United States, Haiti was the second republic in the Americas.
Independence in Latin America
We have seen different kinds of revolutions. We have seen revolutions of the mind: Enlightenment,
Liberalism, and even Conservatism .We have seen women struggle for sexual equality. We have seen
political revolution in Great Britain and the British North American colonies as the middle class
demanded a larger share of government. We have seen the revolutions of social restructuring in the
bloody French and Haitian Revolutions. We have seen the emergence of nationalism and wars for
independence in Greece and Serbia. Now in Latin America we will study another kind of revolution, a
revolution of the creoles by the creoles for the creoles.
10
In 1800, there were three broad classes of people in the Iberian colonies: first, there were about 30,000
Peninsulares (colonial officials born in Spain or Portugal); second, there were about 3.5 million Creoles,
(Europeans born in the New World, who were growing in wealth and power); and finally there were about 10
million of the less privileged classes: slaves, indigenous peoples, Mestizos (native American and
European) and mulattos (African and European). We have already noted that, of these lower groups, the
Mestizos would grow in number and wealth and slowly integrate into Creole society.
It was the Creoles who had benefited the most during the eighteenth century, establishing businesses and
plantations. This Creole elite was composed of merchants, landowners and professionals. Like the
British colonists in North America, they not only resented their inability to share in the governing of the
colonies but also heavy Spanish taxation. Creole merchants wanted to trade freely with Europe and the
Americas so that they would benefit, not the Spanish. They too were affected by Enlightenment
thinking, more along American lines rather than French. They wanted to displace the Peninsulares but
unlike the Americans, had no intention of sharing new freedoms with lesser classes. So between 1810
and 1825, it was the Creoles who led movements that brought independence to the Iberian colonies and
established themselves as Euro-American Elites or the dominant people in their societies.
It was Napoleon’s occupation of Spain and Portugal and his establishment of liberal monarchies, which
created the first blow to Spanish royal authority in the Iberian colonies. The Creole elite feared a liberal
Napoleonic monarchy would try to impose liberal reforms in Mexico. So between 1808 and 1810,
Creoles set up juntas (or political committees) that claimed the right to govern their own lands. Some
hypocritically claimed authority in the name of the king but after the juntas were established, the
authority of the Peninsulares evaporated and Spain never again effectively reestablished its authority in
the New World.
In New Spain which stretched from California to Central America, a local governing junta was
organized in 1808. But before any serious actions were taken by the junta, a serious revolt was led by a
Mexican Creole priest, Miguel de Hidalgo (1753-1811), who rallied indigenous peoples and mestizos
against the Spanish. He also terrified the Creoles when he called for a revolutionary-government, which
would redistribute wealth, give equality to the peasants, and return the land stolen from the indigenous
peoples. Creole forces soon captured and executed Hidalgo in 1811. He was succeeded by a Mestizo
priest, Jose Pavon (1765-1815) who was far more radical and extended the rebellion until 1815 when he
was captured and executed.
These rebellions which demanded social reform united all conservative political groups in Mexico, both
Creole and Spanish. They were terrified that any social reform would diminish their privileges. So in
1821, both groups rallied behind a royalist general, Augustin de Iturbide, (1783-1824), who pushed out
the Spanish and proclaimed himself Emperor of Mexico. He was a poor administrator, however, and was
deposed in 1824 by his fellow Creoles, who proclaimed a Mexican Republic. Two years later, the
southern regions of Mexico declared their independence and formed a Central American Federation
which lasted until 1838, when it split into the independent countries of Guatemala, El Salvador,
Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica.
In South America the leader of the Creole revolutionaries was Simon Bolivar (1783-1830). Bolivar was
born in Caracas in modern Venezuela and was a fervent republican steeped in the Enlightenment.
Inspired by George Washington, he began the rebellion against Spain in 1811. Like Washington’s
campaigns, the early days of the rebellion were difficult with many setbacks. But in 1819, he assembled
an army that surprised and crushed the Spanish army in Colombia and quickly freed what is today
Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.
11
He then coordinated his efforts with the Creole leaders Jose de San Martin (1778-1850) in Argentina and
Bernardo O’Higgins (1778-1842) in Chile. By 1824, Creole armies had rid South America of Spanish
forces. Bolivar’s goal was to create a confederation like the United States and in the 1820s Venezuela,
Colombia and Ecuador formed a federation called Gran Colombia, but it soon began to unravel.
Bolivar was disgusted and declared South America ungovernable. He sadly died of Tuberculosis on his
way to self-imposed exile in Europe.
Independence came to Brazil at the same time but in a different manner. When Napoleon occupied
Portugal, the royal court fled to Brazil and ruled there. When they were able to return to Portugal in
1821, the king (John VI) left his son Pedro to rule in Brazil. The next year Pedro heeded the demands of
the creoles for independence and agreed to their demands. He refused his father’s command to return to
Portugal and became Emperor Pedro I of Brazil (r. 1822-1834).
It is crucial to remember that, in spite of Independence, the Creole elites did nothing to grant political
rights to their social inferiors. When the Peninsulares returned to Europe, Latin American society
remained as rigid and stratified as ever. The new Creole states were essentially conservative: they did
not abolish slavery; they supported the Roman Catholic Church and they took privilege for themselves
at the expense of the lower classes.
Challenges to the Conservative Order in Europe
In the early 1820s, the conservative order had been generally successful is resisting liberalism. The
Greek, Serbian and Latin American revolutions had not occurred in the center of the European affairs
and in many ways had conservative elements, such as Creole domination in the Americas and the
establishment of a monarchy under a German prince in Greece. But in the second half of the 1820s,
liberal and nationalist challenges grew stronger culminating in the Revolutions of 1830 on the continent
and the passage of the Great Reform Bill in Great Britain in 1832.
Nicholas I of Russia
In 1825, Alexander I, who had first experimented with Enlightenment ideals but later suppressed both
liberalism and nationalism, died under mysterious circumstances. [Some historians maintain that he faked
his death and became a wandering holy man in Siberia named Feodor Kuzmich] Many of his officers had
learned Enlightenment ideas during the wars. Most were well aware of how backward Russia was:
intellectually, economically and technologically; and developed reformist sympathies. There were many
groups but they all wanted an end to serfdom and the establishment of representative government and
even constitutional monarchy. They all agreed that Russia’s government had to embrace change.
Alexander died childless, so the succession passed to his next brother, the grand duke Constantine, who
was commander of Russian forces in Poland. But Constantine had annulled his first marriage in 1820,
married a Polish countess and secretly renounced his claim to the throne. So simultaneously, the third
son, Grand Duke Nicholas had Constantine proclaimed emperor in St. Petersburg, while in Warsaw
Constantine formally abdicated the throne. In the confusion that followed some junior army officers in
the Moscow regiment refused to swear loyalty to Nicholas and called for both a constitution and
Constantine as tsar. The date was December 26th and so this rebellion came to be called the Decembrist
Revolt. When attempts to settle the standoff failed, Nicholas ordered loyal cavalry and artillery units to
disperse the rebels and sixty people were killed in the fighting. Nicholas personally conducted an
investigation and five of the plotters were executed with more than a hundred more exiled to Siberia.
The Decembrists were the first to lead a rebellion for political goals in modern Russian history and they
became martyrs for the cause of constitutional government in Russia.
12
Nicholas was neither ignorant nor a bigot but he became a reactionary symbol in Russia. Under
Nicholas, the government exercised censorship and other controls over education and public life in order
to keep autocracy safe. But, tragically for Russia, Nicholas kept Russia agricultural and did not
industrialize – especially at a time when Western Europe was experiencing dramatic industrial and
technological growth. In place of reform, Nicolas and his advisors embraced a program called Official
Nationality that urged Russians to form their national identity around the Orthodox Church, the
absolute authority of the tsar and the glorification of the Russian nationality. Hence the slogan that came
to be associated with Nicholas: Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationalism.
The Polish Revolt
Nicholas’ autocracy was also apparent in his treatment of the Poles. Most of Poland which had been
partitioned in the late eighteenth century remained under Russian control but was, by the Congress of
Vienna, granted a constitutional government with its own diet. Both Alexander and Nicholas delegated
their brother Constantine to run Poland’s government. It was not a happy relationship and Polish
nationalists agitated for freedom. Then in late 1830, a small insurrection of soldiers and students broke
out in rioting in Warsaw and the rebellion spread throughout the country. The diet deposed Nicholas as
king of Poland. Nicholas immediately invaded Poland, suppressed the revolt and issued the Organic
Statute which proclaimed Poland an integral part of the Russian Empire. Although the Statute
guaranteed Polish liberties, the Russians ignored them and Nicholas made Russia the Gendarme of
Europe, ready to supply troops to suppress liberal or nationalist movements.
Revolution in France
The Polish revolt in late 1830 took its genesis from what happened in France six months earlier. As we
just saw, when Louis XVIII died in 1824, he was succeeded by his brother (the youngest brother of the
beheaded Louis XVI), Charles X. Louis had been willing to rule as a constitutional monarch but Charles
believed in the Divine Right of Kings.
Charles X was a reactionary or extreme ultraconservative, that is, he – embittered by the events of the
French Revolution – wanted no change socially or politically. Charles and his supporters, who were
called Ultraroyalists (which means more royal than the king), wanted a full restoration of the Ancien
Régime and opposed all forms of constitutional government.
Charles’ first action was to have the Chamber of Deputies compensate (indemnify) the aristocrats who
had lost land during the French Revolution. He did this by lowering the interest rates on government
bonds which meant bondholders got less interest and the government kept more money which Charles
used to pay an annual payments to survivors of those who had lost property. The bondholders felt
cheated and bitterly resented the king’s action. Charles also restored the Law of Primogeniture
whereby the oldest son of an aristocrat inherited the family domains. Finally, Charles supported the
Catholic Church by enacting a law that made sacrilege (gross irreverence or desecration of a sacred object)
subject to imprisonment or even death. Needless to say, all these actions infuriated the liberals.
In the elections of 1827, the liberals gained enough seats that the king was forced to compromise. He
was forced to appoint fewer conservative cabinet ministers, his ministers were forced to ease their
dominance over education and laws against the press were softened. But the liberals were not satisfied
because they wanted a truly constitutional government. Then in 1829, the king replaced his moderate
ministers with an ultraroyalist cabinet headed by the Prince de Polignac (1780-1847). The liberals – in
desperation – began to consider revolution and openly negotiated with the more liberal Orléans branch
of the Royal Family.
13
In July 1830, the king called for new elections and the liberals won an even larger majority than in 1827.
Instead of accepting the new Chamber of Deputies, Charles and his ultraroyalist ministers decided to
seize power. In June/July, Polignac had sent an expedition to capture the port of Algiers in North Africa
which was infested with pirates. With the news of the victory creating a nationalistic euphoria, Charles
issued the Four Ordinances on July 25th which was in effect a royal coup d’ état. The Four Ordinances
restricted freedom of the press, dissolved the recently elected Chamber of Deputies, limited the
franchise (right to vote) to the wealthiest people and called for new elections.
The Four Ordinances provoked the Revolution of 1830 as the people rose up in rebellion. Liberal
newspapers called for a rejection of Charles and his actions. The workers of Paris – having suffered
from an economic downturn since 1827 – set up barricades in the streets. The king called in the army
and in the fighting that followed 1,800 people were killed and the army was unable to gain control of
Paris. So on August 2nd, Charles X abdicated and went into exile in England. The Chamber of Deputies
named a new ministry composed of constitutional monarchists. They first offered a dictatorship to the
aging hero of the Revolution, the Marquis de Lafayette, but he declined and supported bid of the Duke
of Orleans who became Louis Philippe who replaced Charles X as king.
It is important to understand that the liberals who turned their back on the House of Bourbon, drove
Charles X into exile and called his cousin Louis Philippe to be their king did not want another French
Republic like one created by the Revolution of 1789. They wanted no sans-culottes or Jacobean
violence. They knew that if Charles X had had sufficient troops, he might have prevailed.
This second French Revolution or the July Revolution (as it came to be called) transformed France from
a constitutional monarchy based on heredity right to a constitutional monarchy based on popular
sovereignty. The revolution succeeded because two groups – the hard pressed workers and the
prosperous middle class – needed each other but it would not be very long before they discovered that
they had fundamentally different goals. The poor wanted job protection and better wages while the
middle classes wanted to keep their wealth and privileges.
The Citizen King
Louis Philippe recognized that France had changed much so he styled himself “King of the French” not
“King of France.” The Tricolor replaced the Fleur-de-lis of the Bourbons. Louis called himself the
Citizen King and so for Louis the constitution was a right of the people not a concession of the king
to the people. Under Louis, the Catholic religion became the religion of the majority, not the state
religion and his government was decidedly anticlerical. Censorship was abolished. The franchise was
widened. The king worked with the House of Deputies; he did not dictate to them. The July Revolution
was conservative but even though hereditary peerage was abolished, the influence of the aristocracy and
wealthy continued. And sadly, Louis could not control corruption as the rich got richer and the poor got
poorer. The results increased social stresses which would cause Louis to lose his throne in 1848.
In June 1832, an uprising took place in Paris during the funeral of Jean Maximilien Lamarque, one of
Napoleon’s popular generals. This June Rebellion was antimonarchist in nature and led mostly by
students and working people. Government troops were called in, 800 people were killed and the
rebellion was crushed. (This is the rebellion that Victor Hugo described in his novel Les Misérables.) One other
interesting note was the France kept control of Algiers and slowly continued to occupy Algeria for the
sake of French merchants and soldiers who quickly replaced the Ottoman administration – and then
penetrated deeper south into Africa where the Ottomans had never gone. Many French would soon
regard Algeria – in spite of its hugely non-French and Muslim population – as an integral part of France.
14
Belgium becomes Independent
The July Revolution also had repercussions in nearby Belgium. In Chapter 12, we saw that in 1579 the
Dutch by the Treaty of Utrecht declared independence from Spain but by the Treaty of Arras the
same year the southern provinces, basically modern Belgium, remained under Spanish rule. In 1713,
Belgium was transferred to the Austrian Habsburgs after the War of the Spanish Succession and thus
Belgium was called the Austrian Netherlands from 1713 to 1794. During the Napoleonic era, Belgium
was absorbed into France and in 1815 - by the terms of the Congress of Vienna – Belgium was merged
into the Kingdom of Holland. But the two countries had different languages, customs and religions – and
the Belgian nobility never accepted their absorption into the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
On August 25, 1830, riots broke out in Brussels after the performance of La Muette de Portici (The
Dumb [mute] Girl of Portici), an opera about a rebellion in Naples against Spanish rule. The municipal
authorities of Brussels and the bourgeoisie formed a provisional national government. The Dutch first
thought that the rebellion would die down and promised a general amnesty but when compromise failed,
King William I of Holland (remember William III who became King of England was Stadholder, not king)
invaded Belgium. By November, the Dutch were defeated and a Belgian national congress wrote a
liberal constitution which was issued in 1831. Although the major powers of Europe saw the Belgian
revolution as upsetting the agreements of the Congress of Vienna, they were either unable or not
inclined to aid the Dutch.
Russia was preoccupied with the Polish revolt; Prussia and other German states were dealing with lesser
uprisings and the Austrians had their hands full putting down revolts in Italy. Louis Philippe wanted an
independent Belgium in hopes that he could dominate it while Britain was not opposed to an
independent Belgium, as long as it was free of foreign domination. So at the 1830 London Conference,
Lord Palmerston (1784-1865), the British Foreign Minister, persuaded representatives of the major
powers to recognize Belgium as a neutral state. In July, 1831, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg Gotha
(he was related to the English royal family and married to the daughter of Louis Philippe) became Leopold I,
King of the Belgians. It is important to understand that all the major powers guaranteed Belgian
neutrality by an 1839 London Treaty – an treaty that would help to precipitate World War I in 1914.
The Great Reform Bill in Great Britain
The year 1830 also began a period of reform in Great Britain. The son of George III, George IV (r.
1820-1830) died that year and was succeeded by his brother William IV (1830-1837) and that required the
calling of Parliamentary elections which produced a Parliament that debated the first major bill to
reform Parliament. But the passage of the Great Reform Bill in 1832 was not a result of events on the
continent but of events unique to Great Britain. The spirit of compromise necessary to reform Parliament
rested on several factors.
First, the commercial and industrial classes were larger in Great Britain than on the continent. No
government could ignore their interests without harming British prosperity.
Second, Britain’s liberal Whig aristocrats, who regarded themselves as the protectors of constitutional
liberty, had long favored moderate reforms that would make radical or revolutionary methods
unnecessary.
Third, British law, tradition and public opinion were strongly favorable to the concept of civil liberty.
This was seen as early as 1820, when Lord Liverpool after the passage of the notorious Six Acts,
wisely reformed his cabinet with men, who, although conservative, still believed it was necessary to
adapt to changing social and economic conditions.
15
Events in Ireland also played a role in the passage of an important reform bill for Ireland and ultimately
the Great Reform Bill. England was determined to keep control in Ireland and its relationship to Ireland
can be compared to that of Russia to Poland or Austria to many of its national minorities. In 1800, afraid
of a rebellion like the one of 1798 or that Napoleon might use Ireland as a base from which to attack
Great Britain, William Pitt the Younger got Parliament to pass the Act of Union between Ireland
and England. Ireland now sent one hundred members to the House of Commons but they could only be
Protestants from an overwhelmingly Catholic Ireland.
During the 1820s, Daniel O’Connell (1775-1847) organized Irish nationalists into the Catholic
Association to agitate for Catholic emancipation (i.e., reducing and removing many of the restrictions on
Irish Catholics such as free exercise of their religion, holding public office or serving in the army). In 1828, he
secured his own election to Parliament where he could not, of course, take his seat. The Duke of
Wellington (the victor of Waterloo and now Prime Minister) was caught in a dilemma. If O’Connell were
seated, it might lead to Ireland electing larger and larger numbers of Catholic members; but if he were
not seated, civil war might erupt in Ireland. So in 1829, Wellington and Sir Robert Peel persuaded
Parliament to pass the Catholic Emancipation Act so that Roman Catholics could now become
members of Parliament. Along with the repeal of similar restrictions against Protestant Nonconformists,
the Anglican monopoly controlling Parliament ended.
The irony was that the Catholic Emancipation Act was a liberal bill passed by Parliament for a
conservative reason: to keep control of Ireland. And it was not as liberal as might be thought. The act
allowed only the wealthier Irish to vote. It also had repercussions in London because it alienated many
of Wellington’s Anglican Tory supporters in the House of Commons. So when the elections of 1830
took place upon the accession of William IV, many supporters of Parliamentary reform were re-elected
and even many Tories supported reform measures because they thought only a thoroughly corrupt
Parliament could have passed the Catholic Emancipation Act. As a result the Tories were badly divided,
Wellington was given the unflattering title of the “Iron Duke”, his government collapsed and William IV
turned to the leader of the Whigs, Earl Grey (1764-1845) to form a government. The Whigs then
presented a reform bill that had two broad goals.
The first was to replace “rotten boroughs” (or boroughs [voting districts] that had few voters) with newly
created boroughs that redistributed representation in Parliament to major population centers or
manufacturing districts.
The second was to increase the number of voters in England and Wales by about fifty percent by
lessening the qualifications for voting. At first, the House of Lord refused but the king intervened and
appointed enough new Lords so that the Reform Bill passed in both houses.
The bottom line was that the Great Reform Bill of 1832 allowed well-to-do men of the middle class
to vote. But still only a small percentage of males could vote and Britain was still a long way from
democracy as we understand it. Moreover, women were not given franchise and some members of the
working class actually lost their right to vote because certain old franchise rights were abolished. On the
positive side, however, new urban boroughs were created and given a voice in the House of Commons;
on the negative side, the middle class did not gain ground because for every new urban electoral district
created, a new rural district was created which the aristocracy dominated. Although it was far from
perfect, the Great Reform Bill laid the groundwork for further reforms and expanding the franchise to
even more potential voters.
16