Editing Reform Act 1832 (section)

==Movement for reform==

===Early attempts at reform===
===After the French Revolution===
Support for parliamentary reform plummeted after the [[French Revolution]] in 1789. Many English politicians became steadfastly opposed to any major political change. Despite this reaction, several [[Radicalism (historical)|Radical Movement]] groups were established to agitate for reform. A group of Whigs led by [[James Maitland, 8th Earl of Lauderdale]], and [[Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey|Charles Grey]] founded an organisation advocating parliamentary reform in 1792. This group, known as the [[Society of the Friends of the People]], included 28 MPs.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 402.</ref> In 1793, Grey presented to the House of Commons a petition from the Friends of the People, outlining [[abuses of the system]] and demanding change. He did not propose any specific scheme of reform, but merely a motion that the House inquire into possible improvements. Parliament's reaction to the French Revolution was so negative, that even this request for an inquiry was rejected by a margin of almost 200 votes. Grey tried to raise the subject again in 1797, but the House again rebuffed him by a majority of over 150.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 404–406.</ref>

Other notable pro-reform organisations included the [[Hampden Club]]s (named after [[John Hampden]], an English politician who opposed the Crown during the English Civil War) and the [[London Corresponding Society]] (which consisted of workers and artisans). But the "Radical" reforms supported by these organisations (for example, universal suffrage) found even less support in Parliament. For example, when [[Sir Francis Burdett, 5th Baronet|Sir Francis Burdett]], chairman of the London Hampden Club, proposed a resolution in favour of universal suffrage, equally sized electoral districts, and voting by secret ballot to the House of Commons, his motion found only one other supporter ([[Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald|Lord Cochrane]]) in the entire House.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 406–407.</ref>

Despite such setbacks, popular pressure for reform remained strong. In 1819, a large pro-reform rally was held in Birmingham. Although the city was not entitled to any seats in the Commons, those gathered decided to elect [[Sir Charles Wolseley, 7th Baronet|Sir Charles Wolseley]] as Birmingham's "legislatorial representative". Following their example, reformers in Manchester held a similar meeting to elect a "legislatorial attorney". Between 20,000 and 60,000 (by different estimates) attended the event. The protesters were ordered to disband; when they did not, the Manchester Yeomanry suppressed the meeting by force. Eighteen people were killed and several hundred injured in what later became known as the [[Peterloo Massacre]]. In response, the government passed the [[Six Acts]], measures designed to quell further political agitation. In particular, the [[Seditious Meetings Act 1817|Seditious Meetings Act]] prohibited groups of more than 50 people from assembling to discuss any political subject without prior permission from the sheriff or magistrate.<ref>May (1896), vol. II, pp. 352–359.</ref>

===Reform during the 1820s===
Since the House of Commons regularly rejected direct challenges to the system of representation by large majorities, supporters of reform had to content themselves with more modest measures. The Whig [[John Russell, 1st Earl Russell|Lord John Russell]] brought forward one such measure in 1820, proposing the disfranchisement of the notoriously corrupt borough of [[Grampound (UK Parliament constituency)|Grampound]] in Cornwall. He suggested that the borough's two seats be transferred to the city of Leeds. Tories in the House of Lords agreed to the disfranchisement of the borough, but refused to accept the precedent of directly transferring its seats to an industrial city. Instead, they modified the proposal so that two further seats were given to [[Yorkshire]], the county in which Leeds is situated. In this form, the bill passed both houses and became law. In 1828, Lord John Russell suggested that Parliament repeat the idea by abolishing the corrupt boroughs of [[Penryn, Cornwall|Penryn]] and [[Retford|East Retford]], and by transferring their seats to Manchester and Birmingham. This time, however, the House of Lords rejected his proposals. In 1830, Russell proposed another, similar scheme: the enfranchisement of Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, and the disfranchisement of the next three boroughs found guilty of corruption; again, the proposal was rejected.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 408–416.</ref>

Support for reform came from an unexpected source—a reactionary faction of the Tory Party—in 1829. The Tory government under [[Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington]], responding to the danger of civil strife in largely Roman Catholic Ireland, drew up the [[Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829]]. This legislation repealed various laws that imposed political disabilities on Roman Catholics, in particular laws that prevented them from becoming members of Parliament. In response, disenchanted [[ultra-Tories]] who perceived a danger to the established religion came to favour parliamentary reform, in particular the enfranchisement of Manchester, Leeds, and other heavily [[Nonconformist (Protestantism)|Nonconformist]] cities in northern England.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 412.</ref>