Riassunto esame Letteratura Inglese, prof. Villa, libro consigliato The Silver Fork Novel, Copeland

Slide 1_history: Political parties

Tories

Tories > Originally the term comes from the Irish language. It was a negative term, and in the 17th century to be called “Tories” it was an insult. At the time, England was ruled by puritans and Cromwell, the leader, decided to go and quash the Irish rebellion. So, Tories were the Irish who resisted Cromwell. They became outlaws, subsisting by plundering and killing the English settlers and soldiers. They were supporters rather of the monarchy, of the Stuart, than of the puritans; they were Royalists.

Having to choose between the King, Charles I friend of the Catholics, and the puritans, the Irish (that were Catholics), chose the King. The idea of being a Tory was associated to be loyal to the Stuarts and the King. From 1689 the term has a more general use and became associated to one of the two great parliamentary and political parties in England. The parties sprang from the 17th century Royalists or Cavaliers.

Tories features

• They were loyal to Monarchy.
• They became supporters of the Church of England.
• Hostile to reform, traditionalists.
• “Patriots”, they didn't like cosmopolitanism.
• Connected to the landed interests, and they were supporter of the Corn Laws.
• In the course of the time, the term was connected to people who were generally hostile to Catholic emancipation and to reform.
• The supporters were small gentry, small owner of lands.

Since 1832, there is no a “Tory” party, but a Conservative Party which is also define as Tories; even today the Conservative Party in British politics and its members call themselves Tories, even if are very different in politic from the Tories of the past.

Whigs

Whigs > Used to mean peasant, cattle driver; yokel, clown – negative, insult. Originally, they were Protestants and they were the enemies of the Stuarts and their supporters (The Royalists). It became the label for the party which supported the idea of constitutional monarch (supremacy of parliament over monarchs; the monarch who has to negotiate, his polity with the nation and their representatives of the parliament).

Whig features

• They were enemies of absolute monarchy; they supported the position of James II and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 à they will be the supporters of the Hanoverian succession; enemies of the Stuart Kings (who were Catholic).
• Originally Puritans (Presbyterian in Scotland, the original), in fact they tended to be more toleration with nonconformist protestants (those who didn't accept the Church of England).
• Cosmopolitan: interested in what was going on outside England.
• For free trade.
• In the 1820 were in favour of Catholic emancipation.
• More open to innovation, in fact they subscribe important progressive programme as abolition of slavery and parliamentary reform.
• Their supporters were Great aristocratic families, big landowners; interested in the emerging industrial and wealthy merchant.

There are no Whigs in England nowadays. The Whigs were partly joined the liberal party, (which became the antagonist of the conservative party) and in part joined the Tories (that were all very rich and plenty in commons).

Radicals

Radicals > Is a more general term. Generally speaking radicals were someone who advocates thorough or far-reaching political or social reform. Someone who represents or supports an extreme section of a party. They were associated with the extreme wig of the Liberal Party which called for a reform of the social and parliamentary system in the late 18th and early 19th century. They were the most progressive wing of the party.

Young Bulwer and Disraeli: - Bulwer was close to the Whigs part, a young radical; - Disraeli was a Tory but also, radical. He tried to make a name as a radical independent candidate and he didn't manage to be elected so eventually he joined the Tory conservative party.

Prime Ministers

• Lord Liverpool 1812-1827 Tory.
• George Canning 1827 Tory.
• Viscount Goderich, 1827-28 Tory.
• Duke of Wellington, 1828-1830 Tory.
• Earl Grey, 1830-1834 Whig.
• Lord Melbourne, 1834 Whig.
• Duke of Wellington, 1834 Tory.
• Robert Peel, 1834-35 Tory.
• Lord Melbourne, 1835-1841 Whig.

From the 1812 to the 1830 the Prime Minister was a member of the Tory (indeed the Tory party had started much earlier, in 1780).

The fact of being in power meant to have the possibility to help your friends and family. This system was called “patronage” and it was a system that allowed the ruling party to allocate posts, pensions, business. In the early 19th what they really wanted was to have economic power over the nation.

The Radical part of the Nation was the true enemy of the government. There were those who didn't feel they were represented by the current political system. The Tories tended to conserve the nation at it was, because it was an advantage. It was so crucial from 1830-1834 because someone else represented different interested and he was also able to reach the post of Prime Minister and therefore to encourage a new legislation.

The Liberal awakening

The Liberal Awakening (Elie Halevy, 1923). From the 1820 to 1830 we can talk about the “Liberal Awakening”, very slowly, out of the very conservative Tory Britain, came out a new Nation throw little or big reforms. The first target of the reformers was about the political system: who could vote and who was allowed to be voted. This implicated religion and politics. Britain has got and still has the strong connection between the state and the Church of England.

Since the Tudors and the reformation till the break with Henry VIII in Britain people who didn't declare, swear their loyal to the Church were considered “cittadini di serie B”. The Test Acts was the law which required that to be a full citizen you have to swear loyalty to the Church. Even if they were elected as Member of Parliament, they couldn't take up their function, because the first thing to do when someone was elected was to swear loyalty to the Church, the Queen/King.

They couldn't have any public employment, they couldn't get the University degrees at Oxford and Cambridge, because were very linked to theological subjects. Methodist, Protestant, Presbyterian never accepted the Church of England. In the course of the process of liberal awakening, things started to change and in 1828 the Test Acts was repealed the one that concerned protestant non-conformists. This wasn't very controversial at the time. In 1829, in a moment of bitter controversy, the Act conserving the Catholics, was repealed which allowed them to go to University, to be elected into Parliament... This were issues sponsored by Whig part of the establishment because they were liberally oriented. People should be free to sign what they want and this shouldn't affect their status as citizens.

This was the subject of an important debate that prepared the way to the Reform Act Parliament.

The Radicals - were also people who weren't represented by that party, because the radicalism, starting from the end of 18th century, was associated with sympathy with the American Revolution, French Revolution (in 1790 the young Coleridge). Parts of the Radicals were the so-called Jacobine intellectuals who were in favour of a new electoral system and against Corn Laws. They were also associated with the utilitarian philosophy. Disraeli was against utilitarianism, while Bowler sympathetic.

The '20 were years of a slow liberal awakening, there were symptom of change, which in term of legislation were marked by the abolition of the Test Acts (law that prescribed that everyone had to swear an interest to the Church of England). The beginning of a more liberal attitude.

The situation before 1832

Who could vote before 1832?

• Only few people — 15% of the male population.
• Only people who own a certain amount of land.

The consequences were that the agrarian interests, the interests of the land-owner were over-represented. This became a problem in the course of the late 18th — early 19th century when other became prominent in the Nation.

This voting regarding the House of Commons; the House of Lords was made up by hereditary peers, aristocrats or bishop nominated by the crown. So the agrarian interest was even more represented than in the House of Commons.

Additionally there was a problem with the electoral system that hand't been change for many years; the so called rotten boroughs and pocket boroughs vs new towns. Certain areas of the country, which had lost their population, still were having representative in Parliament, while new towns and places were without a representation.

The rotten boroughs > Were places who used to be important centres in the previous century, but that had gradually lost their importance. They had very few inhabitants and were generally controlled by one o two big land-owners, who determined who was going to be elected. There was no secret ballot: people who wanted to vote, go in front of a jury and declare who wanted to vote. So there was a lot of bribery and bullying.

The pocket boroughs > Certain areas were belonged to one single land-owner, and he practically nominates his own representative.

Reform Bill 1832

The need for change was recognised by many, not all. The more controversial political point was the Parliamentary reform, a very troubled process. It would be also known as (First) Reform Bill or (First) Reform Act of the 1832 (First: distinguished from the later Act of Parliament). Difference between Bill and Act: the bill is a proposal and if Parliament approves it, it becomes an Act.

In those years Britain came as close to Revolution as since puritan revolution (17th century). The 1830 was a hot year for Revolution because there were several minor on the continent (in Belgium, Poland, Italy, France).

Those who were in favour of Reform, while those against the Reform thought that allowing it would be the beginning of the end.

When (in 1840) King George IV died, it is a use that (when a King dies) Parliament is dissolved and there is a General election. In that General Election the issue of a Parliamentary Reform was one of the crucial.

The Tories still got a tiny majority, and they were divided, not all together. The Prime Minister Wellington has to resign against Reform. So the King nominated as Prime Minister a Whig, Earl Grey. He announces that he would try to have a rich agreement.

There was a very strong popular support for the reform, but old system was against and Reform Bill lacks support. Grey asks the king to dissolve the Parliament again, to have a new election and stronger majority in the House of Commons.

This time the Whig had a large majority Reform Bill passed by House of Commons but again it was rejected by the Lords.

Eventually Grey managed to solve the situation and threatened the Lords. He persuaded them to vote. He made a new version of the Bill and in March 1832 the reform was approved. Lords were still hostile, but eventually they had to relent.

Consequences

• Some rotten boroughs and some pocket boroughs were abolished, but not all.
• Some lost one of their seats.
• The right to vote was extended.
• Some new towns (those which had grown in the last 50 years, were not represented) got some sort of representation.
• The principle that the franchise was extended, was based on money.
• The old system became a bit more codify, and they got the registration of voters, while before it used to be more informal, more based on tradition.

Estimate: before the Reform Acts 400100 English man who could vote; after 600500.

One important consequence of these was that there was a sort of split in the nation, between the working classes and the solid middle class. The split even in the same middle class will in time give rise to the Chartism movement. All those who didn't get to vote, from 1842 would start fight for their right (the Chartism movement started in 1847).

Abolition of slavery

The abolition of slavery was one of the major progressive that passed by Parliament in the wake of the Reform Acts.

In the late 18th century started agitation against slavery and slave trade.

In 1807 slave-trade, which had been one of the sources of the British Wealth, was declared outlaw.

The abolition of slave trade on the paper, doesn't mean that slave trade stops, so in 1811 many Brits were still trading slave so there was the development of a British legislation, the Slave Trade Felony Act, that made the slave trading a crime.

Even if the slave trade gradually disappeared, slavery was practice in the colony. The owner of the plantation had put lot of money in buying slaves, and they were not happy to let them all free.

There was quite a battle to reach the point, so in the 1823 a new Anti-Slavery Society was born (William Wilberforce, one of the main campaigner).

In the 1830 there was also a slave revolt in Jamaica, which was why Parliament decided that something had to be done. So in 1833 the slavery abolition act was passed.

Consequences

Slaves under 6 years were declared free, while older slaves were turned into “apprentices” and their full liberation was postponed to 1838 and 1840 — a compromise solution. Eventually all slave-owners were compensated by the State.

Poor Laws

The third aspect of legislation which was modified in the awake ot the Reform Bill of 1832 were the “Poor Laws”. The question of poverty is a problem that almost all human societies have to pass (there were baggers in the Middle Ages...) and in particular there are moment in history where poverty and mendacity it becomes more visible. Poverty is a sad spectacle, something that is not nice to see, so the reaction to poverty was to hide it.

One other common reaction to poverty is the attempt to discriminate those who are generally poor and really need and deserve to help and those who could provide for themselves but are lazy. Who are those who deserve to help and those whose not?

When the law tries to incorporate this way of thinking, then we enter another sphere, a more problematic area of politics, of legislation, because in this way a community ends up by intruding into the lifestyles of individuals, trying to decide what is a generally poor, what sort of lifestyle they must be had to qualified them poor. So some mainstream ideals been used to shape the life of certain group (biopolitics).

They harked back to Medieval England and were codified during the reign of Elizabeth Old Poor Laws, a parish-based system. The idea was that everyone should be helped by his own parish where they resided, or where they were born/had family connections.

In the course of the 18th century, some towns (as Bristol) had already built workhouses, which were sort of prisons, were they housed both the poor and petty criminals.

The very hot problem at the time was that at the beginning of the 19th: the end of the wars with France should have been a moment of relaxation, but it wasn't because the agrarian interest manage to keep the price of corn high, artificially with the Cron Laws. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars, in 1850 lots of mobilised soldiers (who have no longer anything to do with wars), go back to Britain. Unemployment rose dramatically especially in the metropolis (as London). This situation of course also rose other element, as crime, prostitution... Such problems, were not so much a concern of the upper-classes, because the really rich didn't notice those things, they lived in their own palaces, country-houses, and they hardly meet common people.

These problems allowed the middle-classes, the people who lived in the cities who might be accosted by baggers, who might have to deal with all sort petty crime, which is associated poverty.

These field a very heated social debate. New charitable institutions were founded and parliamentary commitments were established to investigate this social problem. This was extremely expansive and where people who were afraid that giving money to the poor it would discourage them from looking for a job — concern of the middle-classes.

In these years — in which there was no law about it — more workhouses were built, where the poor would be helped, but in a way that it would discourage them to be poor.

Were they really poor, or they just pretending in order to leave of other people work? Were they honest or dishonest? The honest British middle-classes of the time, were honestly asking that question. How to be generous, without encouraging them misbehaviour of the poor.

Question of poverty and how middle-classes reacted to this. Poverty is a problem which is frequent in many human societies, but there are times when it becomes more visible and more disturbed.

Poverty and social unrest increased with the end of the wars with France/Corn Laws. On the one hand the troops who have fought abroad, came back England and flooded the market of labour (unemployment rose dramatically, especially in the town like London). And also, in order to keep the price of corn artificially high, some laws were passed (Corn Laws) which established that there were very heavy duties on corn imported from abroad. This was meant to make the land owners happy (because the price of their corn was still been as high as in time of war).

This produce a negative impact on the population, which was already suffering from these altered general conditions and also to accept that the ruling class was so blatantly helping the class that didn't actually need been helped. In the same years there were an awareness of the problem of poverty, that the lower orders of society were discontented; an awareness that providing for all these poor was expensive and there was also the idea that giving them money, would discourage them from working and also would interfere with “free market” of labour (the idea that people should be any state, any government intervention on wages? And therefore poor people should accept to work for the minimum wage available, instead of perhaps preferring to be helped by the parish or the State).

For all these reasons, more workhouses were built and in 1832, a Royal Commission was established to investigate the problem of the Old Poor Laws (1830 years o