![]() It torpedoed Bell’s campaign in the May election and was the most derided petition in the London and provincial press in this first phase of the Reform Bill’s odyssey, led, since last Fall, by the new government of Charles Grey, second Earl of Grey.įor insight into the substance or progress of legislation that produced the 1832 Reform Act, the duke’s petition is insignificant. He persisted with his petition despite consistent advice from Tory leaders and agents that it was imprudent and would be a public relations disaster. With more than 2,200 signatures, it nonetheless was widely regarded as ‘the Duke’s petition.’ One of the richest magnates, Hugh Percy, third Duke of Northumberland (1785-1847), had the family name of a preeminent aristocratic house since the Norman Conquest. Two days before the dissolution of parliament on 22 April over the issue of electoral reform, Tory MP Matthew Bell presented a strident Northumberland petition against the 1831 Reform Bill. PETITION RESCIND KNIGHTHOOD GETS THOUSANDS SIGNATURES PROFESSIONALInstead, it sheds new light on the broader issue of change and continuity in public petitioning with regard to 1) the credibility of opinion represented in petitions and 2) professional management of mass petition campaigns as routine legal practice. This study of a failed petition campaign does not alter what we know about the substance or progress of legislation that became the 1832 Reform Act. The duke’s initiative received more derisive publicity than any other petition campaign in this first phase of the Reform Bill’s political odyssey. The duke’s initiative proceeded despite negative assessments by local Tory leaders, who correctly predicted the petitions would get few signatures and be a public relations disaster. The records are from the law firm that managed the campaign, underwritten by the Duke of Northumberland, one of the realms richest magnates. ![]() This case study uses unusual records with granular evidence from the professional management of a reactionary campaign for petitions against the 1831 Reform Bill. During the first five months of the new Grey administration (22 November to the 22 April 1831 dissolution), parliament received more petitions over the contentious issue of parliamentary reform than in any prior episode of mass petitioning. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |