Acceso usuarios
David Zaret
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. This case study uses unusual records with granular evidence from the professional management of a reactionary campaign for petitions against the 1831 Reform Bill. The records are from the law firm that managed the campaign, underwritten by the Duke of Northumberland, one of the realms richest magnates. 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 duke’s initiative received more derisive publicity than any other petition campaign in this first phase of the Reform Bill’s political odyssey.
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. Instead, 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
