Hubbry Logo
Whigs (British political party)Whigs (British political party)Main
Open search
Whigs (British political party)
Community hub
Whigs (British political party)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Whigs (British political party)
Whigs (British political party)
Whigs (British political party)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Part of a series on
Liberalism in the
United Kingdom
Schools
Principles
History
Intellectuals
Politicians
Parties
Active
Defunct
Media
Related topics

The Whigs were a political party in the Parliaments of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Between the 1680s and the 1850s, the Whigs contested power with their rivals, the Tories. The Whigs became the Liberal Party when the faction merged with the Peelites and Radicals in the 1850s. Many Whigs left the Liberal Party in 1886 over the issue of Irish Home Rule to form the Liberal Unionist Party, which merged into the Conservative Party in 1912.

The Whigs began as a political faction that opposed absolute monarchy and Catholic emancipation, supporting constitutional monarchism and parliamentary government, but also Protestant supremacy. They played a central role in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and were the standing enemies of the Roman Catholic Stuart kings and pretenders. The period known as the Whig Supremacy (1714–1760) was enabled by the Hanoverian succession of George I in 1714 and the failure of the Jacobite rising of 1715 by Tory rebels. The Whigs took full control of the government in 1715 and thoroughly purged the Tories from all major positions in government, the army, the Church of England, the legal profession, and local political offices. The first great leader of the Whigs was Robert Walpole, who maintained control of the government from 1721 to 1742, and whose protégé, Henry Pelham, led the government from 1743 to 1754. Great Britain approximated a one-party state under the Whigs until King George III came to the throne in 1760 and allowed Tories back in; however, the Whig Party's hold on power remained strong for many years thereafter. Historians have called the period from roughly 1714 to 1783 the "long period of Whig oligarchy".[13] During the American War of Independence, the Whigs were the party more sympathetic to American independence and the creation of a democracy in the United States.

By 1784, both the Whigs and Tories had become formal political parties, with Charles James Fox becoming the leader of a reorganized Whig Party arrayed against William Pitt the Younger's new Tories. The foundation of both parties depended more on the support of wealthy politicians than on popular votes. Although there were elections to the House of Commons, only a few men controlled most of the voters.

Both parties slowly evolved during the 18th century. In the beginning, the Whig Party generally tended to support the aristocratic families, the continued disenfranchisement of Catholics and toleration of nonconformist Protestants (dissenters such as the Presbyterians), while the Tories generally favoured the minor gentry and people who were (relatively speaking) smallholders; they also supported the legitimacy of a strongly established Church of England. (The so-called High Tories preferred high church Anglicanism, or Anglo-Catholicism. Some, particularly adherents of the non-juring schism, openly or covertly supported the exiled House of Stuart's claim to the throne—a position known as Jacobitism.) Later, the Whigs came to draw support from the emerging industrial reformists and the mercantile class while the Tories came to draw support from farmers, landowners, royalists and (relatedly) those who favoured imperial military spending.

By the first half of the 19th century, the Whig manifesto had come to encompass the supremacy of parliament, the abolition of slavery, the expansion of the franchise (suffrage) and an acceleration of the move toward complete equal rights for Catholics (a reversal of the party's late-17th-century position, which had been militantly anti-Catholic).[14]

Name

[edit]

The word Whig originated as a shortening of Whiggamore, a nickname for a Scottish Presbyterian, particularly a Covenanter. This word first appeared in the context of the Whiggamore Raid of 1648, in which thousands of Covenanters marched on Edinburgh in order to overthrow the Engagers, who sought to reinstate Charles I. Its further history is unclear. The Oxford English Dictionary regards it as a compound of whig, meaning "to drive briskly", and mare (which would make it an example of a cutthroat compound).[15] Bishop Burnet offers a different etymology, tracing the word to whiggam, a call supposedly used to urge on horses:

The south-west counties of Scotland have seldom corn enough to serve them round the year: and the northern parts producing more than they need, those in the west come in the summer to buy at Leith the stores that come from the north: and from a word Whiggam, used in driving their horses, all that drove were called the Whiggamors, and shorter the Whiggs. Now in that year [1648], after the news came down of Duke Hamilton's defeat, the Ministers animated their people to rise, and march to Edinburgh: and they came up marching on the head of their parishes, with an unheard-of fury, praying and preaching all the way as they came. The Marquis of Argile and his party came and headed them, they being about 6000. This was called the Whiggamor's inroad: and ever after that all that opposed the Court came in contempt to be called Whiggs: and from Scotland the word was brought into England, where it is now one of our unhappy terms of distinction.[16]

The word entered English political discourse during the Exclusion Crisis of 1679–1681, which hinged on whether Charles II's brother, the Duke of York (a Roman Catholic), should be allowed to succeed him as king. York's supporters were nicknamed Tories because of their supposed resemblance to Irish bandits and rebels, while his opponents were nicknamed Whigs because of their supposed resemblance to Scottish religious fanatics. In spite of their derogatory origins, the two words eventually became neutral designations for the two major factions in British politics.[17][18]

Origins

[edit]

The parliamentarian faction

[edit]

The precursor to the Whigs was Denzil Holles' parliamentarian faction, which was characterised by its opposition to absolute monarchism.

Exclusion Crisis

[edit]
Main articles: Exclusion Crisis and Green Ribbon Club
Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, painted more than once during his chancellorship in 1672 by John Greenhill

Under Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury's leadership, the Whigs (also known as the Country Party) sought to exclude the Duke of York (who later became King James II) from the throne due to his Roman Catholicism, his favouring of monarchical absolutism, and his connections to France. They believed the heir presumptive, if allowed to inherit the throne, would endanger the Protestant religion, liberty and property.[19]: 4 

The first Exclusion Bill was supported by a substantial majority on its second reading in May 1679. In response, King Charles II prorogued Parliament and then dissolved it; however, the subsequent elections in August and September saw the Whigs' strength increase. This new parliament did not meet for thirteen months, because Charles wanted to give passions a chance to die down. When it met in October 1680, an Exclusion Bill was introduced and passed in the Commons without major resistance, but was rejected in the Lords. Charles dissolved Parliament in January 1681, but the Whigs did not suffer serious losses in the ensuing election. The next Parliament first met in March at Oxford, but Charles dissolved it after only a few days, when he made an appeal to the country against the Whigs and determined to rule without Parliament. In February, Charles had made a deal with the French King Louis XIV, who promised to support him against the Whigs. Without Parliament, the Whigs gradually crumbled, mainly due to government repression following the discovery of the Rye House Plot. The Whig peers, the George Melville, 1st Earl of Melville, the David Leslie-Melville, Earl of Leven, and Lord Shaftesbury, and Charles II's illegitimate son the James Scott, 1st Duke of Monmouth, being implicated, fled to and regrouped in the United Provinces. Algernon Sidney, Thomas Armstrong and William Russell, Lord Russell, were executed for treason. The Earl of Essex committed suicide in the Tower of London over his arrest for treason, whilst Lord Grey of Werke escaped from the Tower.[19]: 7–8 

Glorious Revolution

[edit]
Equestrian portrait of William III by Jan Wyck, commemorating the landing at Brixham, Torbay, 5 November 1688

After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Queen Mary II and King William III governed with both Whigs and Tories, despite the fact that many of the Tories still supported the deposed Roman Catholic James II.[20] William saw that the Tories were generally friendlier to royal authority than the Whigs and he employed both groups in his government. His early ministry was largely Tory, but gradually the government came to be dominated by the so-called Junto Whigs, a group of younger Whig politicians who led a tightly organised political grouping. The increasing dominance of the Junto led to a split among the Whigs, with the so-called Country Whigs seeing the Junto as betraying their principles for office. The Country Whigs, led by Robert Harley, gradually merged with the Tory opposition in the later 1690s.[21]

History

[edit]

18th century

[edit]

Although William's successor Anne had considerable Tory sympathies and excluded the Junto Whigs from power, after a brief and unsuccessful experiment with an exclusively Tory government she generally continued William's policy of balancing the parties, supported by her moderate Tory ministers, the Duke of Marlborough and Lord Godolphin. However, as the War of the Spanish Succession went on and became less and less popular with the Tories, Marlborough and Godolphin were forced to rely more and more on the Junto Whigs, so that by 1708 they headed an administration of the Parliament of Great Britain dominated by the Junto. Anne herself grew increasingly uncomfortable with this dependence on the Whigs, especially as her personal relationship with the Duchess of Marlborough deteriorated. This situation also became increasingly uncomfortable to many of the non-Junto Whigs, led by the Duke of Somerset and the Duke of Shrewsbury, who began to intrigue with Robert Harley's Tories. In the spring of 1710, Anne dismissed Godolphin and the Junto ministers, replacing them with Tories.[21]

The Whigs now moved into opposition and particularly decried the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which they attempted to block through their majority in the House of Lords. The Tory administration led by Harley and the Viscount Bolingbroke persuaded the Queen to create twelve new Tory peers to force the treaty through.[22]

Liberal ideals

[edit]
Main article: Whiggism

The Whigs primarily advocated the supremacy of Parliament, while calling for toleration for Protestant dissenters. They adamantly opposed a Catholic as king.[23] They opposed the Catholic Church because they saw it as a threat to liberty, or as Pitt the Elder stated: "The errors of Rome are rank idolatry, a subversion of all civil as well as religious liberty, and the utter disgrace of reason and of human nature".[24]

Ashcraft and Goldsmith (1983) have traced in detail, in the period 1689 to 1710, the major influence of the liberal political ideas of John Locke on Whig political values, as expressed in widely cited manifestos such as "Political Aphorisms: or, the True Maxims of Government Displayed", an anonymous pamphlet that appeared in 1690 and was widely cited by Whigs.[25] The 18th-century Whigs borrowed the concepts and language of universal rights employed by political theorists Locke and Algernon Sidney (1622–1682).[26] By the 1770s the ideas of Adam Smith, a founder of classical liberalism became important. As Wilson and Reill (2004) note: "Adam Smith's theory melded nicely with the liberal political stance of the Whig Party and its middle-class constituents".[27]

Samuel Johnson (1709–1784), a leading London intellectual, repeatedly denigrated the "vile"[28] Whigs and praised the Tories, even during times of Whig political supremacy. In his great Dictionary (1755), Johnson defined a Tory as "one who adheres to the ancient Constitution of the state and the apostolical hierarchy of the Church of England, opposed to a Whig". He linked 18th-century Whiggism with 17th-century revolutionary Puritanism, arguing that the Whigs of his day were similarly inimical to the established order of church and state. Johnson recommended that strict uniformity in religious externals was the best antidote to the objectionable religious traits that he linked to Whiggism.[29]

Protectionism

[edit]

At their inception, the Whigs were protectionist in economic policy, with free trade policies being advocated by Tories.[30]: 270–71  The Whigs were opposed to the pro-French policies of the Stuart kings Charles II and James II as they believed that such an alliance with the Catholic absolute monarchy of France endangered liberty and Protestantism. The Whigs claimed that trade with France was bad for England and developed an economic theory of overbalance, that is a deficit of trade with France was bad because it would enrich France at England's expense.[30]: 270–74 

In 1678, the Whigs passed the Prohibition of 1678 that banned certain French goods from being imported into England. The economic historian William Ashley claimed that this Act witnessed the "real starting-point in the history of Whig policy in the matter of trade".[30]: 271  It was repealed upon the accession of James II by a Tory-dominated House of Commons but upon the accession of William III in 1688 a new Act was passed that prohibited the importation of French goods.[30]: 283  In 1704, the Whigs passed the Trade with France Act that renewed protectionism against France. In 1710, Queen Anne appointed the predominantly Tory Harley Ministry, which favoured free trade. When the Tory minister Lord Bolingbroke proposed a commercial treaty with France in 1713 that would have led to freer trade, the Whigs were vehemently against it and it had to be abandoned.[30]: 271, 299 

In 1786, Pitt's government negotiated the Eden Agreement, a commercial treaty with France which led to freer trade between the two countries. All of the Whig leaders attacked this on traditional Whig anti-French and protectionist grounds. Fox claimed that France was England's natural enemy and that it was only at Britain's expense that she could grow. Edmund Burke, Richard Sheridan, William Windham and Charles Grey all spoke out against the trade agreement on the same grounds.[31]

Ashley claimed that "[t]he traditional policy of the Whig party from before the Revolution [of 1688] down to the time of Fox was an extreme form of Protectionism".[32] The Whigs' protectionism of this period is today increasingly cited with approval by heterodox economists such as Ha-Joon Chang, who wish to challenge contemporary prevailing free trade orthodoxies via precedents from the past.[33]

Later on, several members from the Whig party came to oppose the protectionism of the Corn Laws, but trade restrictions were not repealed even after the Whigs returned to power in the 1830s.[34]

Whig Supremacy

[edit]
A c. 1705 portrait of John Somers, 1st Baron Somers by Godfrey Kneller.

With the succession of Elector George Louis of Hanover as king in 1714, the Whigs returned to government with the support of some Hanoverian Tories. The Jacobite rising of 1715 discredited much of the Tory party as treasonous Jacobites, and the Septennial Act ensured that the Whigs became the dominant party, establishing the Whig oligarchy. Between 1717 and 1720 the Whig Split led to a division in the party. Government Whigs led by the former soldier James Stanhope were opposed by Robert Walpole and his allies. While Stanhope was backed by George I, Walpole and his supporters were closer to the Prince of Wales. Following his success in defeating the government over the Peerage Bill in 1719, Walpole was invited back into government the following year. He was able to defend the government in the Commons when the South Sea Bubble collapsed. When Stanhope died unexpectedly in 1721, Walpole replaced him as leader of the government and became known as the first Prime Minister. In the 1722 general election the Whigs swept to a decisive victory.

Between 1714 and 1760, the Tories struggled as an active political force, but always retained a considerable presence in the House of Commons. The governments of Walpole, Henry Pelham and his older brother the Duke of Newcastle dominated between 1721 and 1757 (with a brief break during the also-Whig Carteret ministry). The leading entities in these governments consistently referred to themselves as "Whigs".[35]

George III's accession

[edit]

This arrangement changed during the reign of George III, who hoped to restore his own power by freeing himself from the great Whig magnates. Thus George promoted his old tutor Lord Bute to power and broke with the old Whig leadership surrounding the Duke of Newcastle. After a decade of factional chaos, with distinct Bedfordite, Chathamite, Grenvillite and Rockinghamite factions successively in power and all referring to themselves as "Whigs", a new system emerged with two separate opposition groups. The Rockingham Whigs claimed the mantle of Old Whigs as the purported successors of the party of the Pelhams and the great Whig families. With such noted intellectuals as Edmund Burke behind them, the Rockingham Whigs laid out a philosophy which for the first time extolled the virtues of faction, or at least their faction. The other group were the followers of Lord Chatham, who as the great political hero of the Seven Years' War generally took a stance of opposition to party and faction.[36]

The Whigs were opposed by the government of Lord North which they accused of being a Tory administration. While it largely consisted of individuals previously associated with the Whigs, many old Pelhamites as well as the Bedfordite Whig faction formerly led by the Duke of Bedford and elements of that which had been led by George Grenville, it also contained elements of the Kings' Men, the group formerly associated with Lord Bute and which was generally seen as Tory-leaning.[37]

American impact

[edit]

The association of Toryism with Lord North's government was also influential in the American colonies and writings of British political commentators known as the Radical Whigs did much to stimulate colonial republican sentiment. Early activists in the colonies called themselves Whigs,[example needed] seeing themselves as in alliance with the political opposition in Britain, until they turned to independence and started emphasising the label Patriots.[citation needed] In contrast, the American Loyalists, who supported the monarchy, were consistently also referred to as Tories.

Later, the United States Whig Party was founded in 1833 on the basis of opposition to a strong presidency, initially the presidency of Andrew Jackson, analogous to the British Whig opposition to a strong monarchy.[38] The True Whig Party, which for a century dominated Liberia, was named after the American party rather than directly after the British one.

Two-party system

[edit]
In A Block for the Wigs (1783), caricaturist James Gillray caricatured Charles James Fox's return to power in a coalition with Frederick North, Lord North (George III is the blockhead in the centre)

Dickinson reports the following:

All historians are agreed that the Tory party declined sharply in the late 1740s and 1750s and that it ceased to be an organized party by 1760. The research of Sir Lewis Namier and his disciples [...] has convinced all historians that there were no organized political parties in Parliament between the late 1750s and the early 1780s. Even the Whigs ceased to be an identifiable party, and Parliament was dominated by competing political connections, which all proclaimed Whiggish political views, or by independent backbenchers unattached to any particular group.[39]

The North administration left power in March 1782 following the American War of Independence and a coalition of the Rockingham Whigs and the former Chathamites, now led by the Earl of Shelburne, took its place. After Rockingham's unexpected death in July 1782, this uneasy coalition fell apart, with Charles James Fox, Rockingham's successor as faction leader, quarrelling with Shelburne and withdrawing his supporters from the government. The following Shelburne administration was short-lived and Fox returned to power in April 1783, this time in an unexpected coalition with his old enemy Lord North. Although this pairing seemed unnatural to many at the time, it was to last beyond the demise of the coalition in December 1783. The coalition's untimely fall was brought about by George III in league with the House of Lords and the King now brought in Chatham's son William Pitt the Younger as his prime minister.

It was only now that a genuine two-party system can be seen to emerge, with Pitt and the government on the one side, and the ousted Fox-North coalition on the other. On 17 December 1783, Fox stated in the House of Commons that "[i]f [...] a change must take place, and a new ministry is to be formed and supported, not by the confidence of this House or the public, but the sole authority of the Crown, I, for one, shall not envy that hon. gentleman his situation. From that moment I put in my claim for a monopoly of Whig principles".[40] Although Pitt is often referred to as a Tory and Fox as a Whig, Pitt always considered himself to be an independent Whig and generally opposed the development of a strict partisan political system. Fox's supporters saw themselves as legitimate heirs of the Whig tradition and they strongly opposed Pitt in his early years in office, notably during the regency crisis revolving around the King's temporary insanity in 1788–1789, when Fox and his allies supported full powers as regent for their ally, the Prince of Wales.

The opposition Whigs were split by the onset of the French Revolution. While Fox and some younger members of the party such as Charles Grey and Richard Brinsley Sheridan were sympathetic to the French revolutionaries, others led by Edmund Burke were strongly opposed. Although Burke himself was largely alone in defecting to Pitt in 1791, much of the rest of the party, including the influential House of Lords leader the Duke of Portland, Rockingham's nephew Lord Fitzwilliam and William Windham, were increasingly uncomfortable with the flirtations of Fox and his allies with radicalism and the French Revolution. They split in early 1793 with Fox over the question of support for the war with France and by the end of the year they had openly broken with Fox. By the summer of the next year, large portions of the opposition had defected and joined Pitt's government.

19th century

[edit]
Portrait of Earl Grey by Thomas Phillips, 1820. Grey led the Whigs for many years in opposition.

Many of the Whigs who had joined with Pitt would eventually return to the fold, joining again with Fox in the Ministry of All the Talents following Pitt's death in 1806. The followers of Pitt—led until 1809 by Fox's old colleague the Duke of Portland—rejected the label of Tories and preferred to call themselves The Friends of Mr. Pitt. After the fall of the Talents ministry in 1807, the Foxite Whigs remained out of power for the better part of 25 years. The accession of Fox's old ally, the Prince of Wales, to the regency in 1811 did not change the situation, as the Prince had broken entirely with his old Foxite Whig companions. The members of the government of Lord Liverpool from 1812 to 1827 called themselves Whigs.[41]

Structure and appeal

[edit]

By 1815, the Whigs were still far from being a "party" in the modern sense. They had no definite programme or policy and were by no means even united. Generally, they stood for reducing crown patronage, sympathy towards nonconformists, support for the interests of merchants and bankers and a leaning towards the idea of a limited reform of the voting system.[42] Most Whig leaders, such as Lord Grey, Lord Grenville, Lord Althorp, William Lamb (later Lord Melbourne) and Lord John Russell, were still rich landowners. The most prominent exception was Henry Brougham, the talented lawyer, who had a relatively modest background.[43]

Hay argues that Whig leaders welcomed the increasing political participation of the English middle classes in the two decades after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. The fresh support strengthened their position in Parliament. Whigs rejected the Tory appeals to governmental authority and social discipline and extended political discussion beyond Parliament. Whigs used a national network of newspapers and magazines as well as local clubs to deliver their message. The press organised petitions and debates and reported to the public on government policy, while leaders such as Henry Brougham (1778–1868) built alliances with men who lacked direct representation. This new approach to the grass roots helped to define Whiggism and opened the way for later success. Whigs thereby forced the government to recognise the role of public opinion in parliamentary debate and influenced views of representation and reform throughout the 19th century.[44]

Return to power

[edit]
Portrait of Lord Melbourne by John Partridge. Melbourne was twice Prime Minister during the 1830s.

Whigs restored their unity by supporting moral reforms, especially the abolition of slavery. They triumphed in 1830 as champions of Parliamentary reform. They made Lord Grey prime minister 1830–1834 and the Reform Act 1832 championed by Grey became their signature measure. It broadened the franchise and ended the system of "rotten and pocket boroughs" (where elections were controlled by powerful families) and instead redistributed power on the basis of population. It added 217,000 voters to an electorate of 435,000 in England and Wales. Only the upper and middle classes voted, so this shifted power away from the landed aristocracy to the urban middle classes. In 1832, the party abolished enslavement in the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. It purchased and freed the slaves, especially those in the Caribbean sugar islands. After parliamentary investigations demonstrated the horrors of child labour, limited reforms were passed in 1833. The Whigs also passed the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 that reformed the administration of relief to the poor[45] and the Marriage Act 1836 that allowed civil marriages.

It was around this time that the great Whig historian Thomas Babington Macaulay began to promulgate what would later be coined the Whig view of history, in which all of English history was seen as leading up to the culminating moment of the passage of Lord Grey's reform bill. This view led to serious distortions in later portrayals of 17th-century and 18th-century history, as Macaulay and his followers attempted to fit the complex and changing factional politics of the Restoration into the neat categories of 19th-century political divisions.

In 1836, a private gentleman's Club was constructed in Pall Mall, Piccadilly as a consequence of the successful Reform Act 1832. The Reform Club was founded by Edward Ellice Sr., MP for Coventry and Whig Whip, whose riches came from the Hudson's Bay Company but whose zeal was chiefly devoted to securing the passage of the Reform Act 1832. This new club, for members of both Houses of Parliament, was intended to be a forum for the radical ideas which the First Reform Bill represented: a bastion of liberal and progressive thought that became closely associated with the Liberal Party, who largely succeeded the Whigs in the second half of the 19th century.

Until the decline of the Liberal Party in the early 20th century, it was de rigueur for Liberal MPs and peers to be members of the Reform Club, being regarded as an unofficial party headquarters. However, in 1882 the National Liberal Club was established under William Ewart Gladstone's chairmanship, designed to be more "inclusive" towards Liberal grandees and activists throughout the United Kingdom.

Transition to the Liberal Party

[edit]

The Liberal Party (the term was first used officially in 1868, but had been used colloquially for decades beforehand) arose from a coalition of Whigs, free trade Tory followers of Robert Peel and free trade Radicals, first created, tenuously under the Peelite Earl of Aberdeen in 1852 and put together more permanently under the former Canningite Tory Lord Palmerston in 1859. Although the Whigs at first formed the most important part of the coalition, the Whiggish elements of the new party progressively lost influence during the long leadership of former Peelite William Ewart Gladstone. Subsequently, the majority of the old Whig aristocracy broke from the party over the issue of Irish home rule in 1886 to help form the Liberal Unionist Party, which in turn would merge with the Conservative Party by 1912.[46] However, the Unionist support for trade protection in the early twentieth century under Joseph Chamberlain (probably the least Whiggish character in the Liberal Unionist party) further alienated the more orthodox Whigs. By the early twentieth century "Whiggery" was largely irrelevant and without a natural political home. One of the last active politicians to celebrate his Whiggish roots was the Liberal Unionist statesman Henry James.[47]

[edit]

The colours of the Whig Party (blue and buff, a yellow-brown colour named after buff leather) were particularly associated with Charles James Fox.[48]

Electoral performance

[edit]
Main article: List of Whig Party MPs (UK)

Parliament of England

[edit]
Election Leader Votes % Seats +/– Position Government
1661 Denzil Holles N/A
139 / 518
 Increase139 Increase 2nd Minority
March 1679 Anthony Ashley Cooper
218 / 522
 Increase 79 Increase 1st Plurality
October 1679
310 / 530
 Increase 92 Steady 1st Majority
1681
309 / 502
 Decrease 1 Steady 1st Majority
1685 John Somers
57 / 525
 Decrease 252 Decrease 2nd Minority
1689
319 / 551
 Increase 262 Increase 1st Majority
1690
241 / 512
 Decrease 78 Decrease 2nd Minority
1695
257 / 513
 Increase 16 Increase 1st Majority
1698
246 / 513
 Decrease 11 Steady 1st Plurality
January 1701
219 / 513
 Decrease 27 Decrease 2nd Minority
November 1701
248 / 513
 Increase 29 Increase 1st Plurality
1705
184 / 513
 Increase 49 Steady 2nd Minority

Parliament of Great Britain

[edit]
Election Leader Votes % Seats +/– Position Government
1708 John Somers N/A
291 / 558
 Increase 45 Increase 1st Minority
1710
196 / 558
 Decrease 95 Decrease 2nd Minority
1713
161 / 558
 Decrease 25 Steady 2nd Minority
1715 Charles Townshend
341 / 558
 Increase 180 Increase 1st Majority
1722
389 / 558
 Increase 48 Steady 1st Majority
1727
415 / 558
 Increase 26 Steady 1st Majority
1734 Robert Walpole
330 / 558
 Decrease 85 Steady 1st Majority
1741
286 / 558
 Decrease 44 Steady 1st Majority
1747 Henry Pelham
338 / 558
 Increase 52 Steady 1st Majority
1754 Thomas Pelham-Holles
368 / 558
 Increase 30 Steady 1st Majority
1761
446 / 558
 Increase 78 Steady 1st Majority
1768 Augustus FitzRoy N/A Steady 1st Majority
1774 Charles Watson-Wentworth
215 / 558
 Decrease unknown Decrease 2nd Minority
1780
254 / 558
 Increase 39 Steady 2nd Minority
1784 Charles James Fox
155 / 558
 Decrease 99 Steady 2nd Minority
1790
183 / 558
 Increase 28 Steady 2nd Minority
1796
95 / 558
 Decrease 88 Steady 2nd Minority

Parliament of the United Kingdom

[edit]
Election Leader Votes % Seats +/– Position Government
1802 Charles James Fox N/A
269 / 658
 Increase 184 Steady 2nd Minority
1806 William Grenville
431 / 658
 Increase 162 Increase 1st Majority
1807
213 / 658
 Decrease 218 Decrease 2nd Minority
1812
196 / 658
 Decrease 17 Steady 2nd Minority
1818 Charles Grey
175 / 658
 Decrease 21 Steady 2nd Minority
1820
215 / 658
 Increase 40 Steady 2nd Minority
1826 Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice
198 / 658
 Decrease 17 Steady 2nd Minority
1830
196 / 658
 Decrease 2 Steady 2nd Majority
1831 Charles Grey
370 / 658
 Increase 174 Increase 1st Majority
1832 554,719 67.0%
441 / 658
 Increase 71 Steady 1st Majority
1835 William Lamb 349,868 57.3%
385 / 658
 Decrease 56 Steady 1st Majority
1837 418,331 51.7%
344 / 658
 Decrease 41 Steady 1st Majority
1841 273,902 46.9%
271 / 658
 Decrease 73 Decrease 2nd Minority
1847 John Russell 259,311 53.8%
292 / 656
 Increase 21 Steady 2nd Majority
1852 430,882 57.9%
324 / 654
 Increase 32 Steady 2nd Minority
1857 Henry John Temple 464,127 65.9%
377 / 654
 Increase 53 Increase 1st Majority
1859 372,117 65.7%
356 / 654
 Decrease 21 Steady 1st Majority

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Whigs (British political party)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Whigs were a major British political faction originating in the late , dedicated to upholding Protestant supremacy, advancing parliamentary authority against royal absolutism, and promoting . Forming as the Country Party during the of 1679–1681, they opposed the Catholic succession of James, , through failed parliamentary bills aimed at barring him from the throne, thereby establishing their core stance on religious exclusion and limited monarchy. Distinguished from the Tory faction, which emphasized hereditary divine-right monarchy and Anglican establishment, the Whigs championed tolerance for Protestant nonconformists, resistance to court patronage and corruption, and the prioritization of property rights and civil liberties. Their pivotal role in the of 1688 facilitated the accession of the Protestant III and Mary II, culminating in the Bill of Rights 1689, which codified parliamentary consent for taxation, free elections, and freedom from cruel punishments. Under leaders like Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, and later John Somers, the Whigs secured dominance in the post-Revolution era, fostering financial reforms and Hanoverian succession via the Act of Settlement 1701. In the 18th century, Whig supremacy under figures such as entrenched an oligarchic system reliant on electoral manipulation and sinecures, drawing criticism for perpetuating elite control despite rhetorical commitments to reform. By the , the party pivoted toward broader enfranchisement and , enacting the to redistribute parliamentary seats and extend voting rights to middle-class property owners, a landmark in curbing rotten boroughs. This reformist trajectory led to the Whigs' fusion with radicals and dissident Peelites, formalizing the Liberal Party in 1859 and shifting focus to , , and further democratic expansions. The Whigs' legacy thus lies in embedding proto-liberal institutions that constrained executive overreach and prioritized representative governance, though their early aristocratic exclusivity highlighted tensions between principle and practice.

Name and Etymology

Derivation and Early Usage

The term "Whig" originated in Scotland during the mid-17th century as a contraction of "Whiggamore," a nickname for Presbyterian from the southwest who undertook the Whiggamore Raid, marching on in 1648 to oppose royalist policies and enforce against King Charles I's episcopal preferences. Etymologically, it stemmed from the Scots dialect word "whig," meaning to urge or drive horses forward, likely combined with "mare" or a similar term for horse drivers, evoking images of rural cattle or horse drovers from the . Initially derogatory, it connoted provincial rusticity and religious nonconformity, applied to those rioting against the established and Anglican influences. By the late 1670s, the term crossed into English politics as a slur during the (1678–1681), when opponents of Charles II's court—proto-Tories loyal to absolutist tendencies and Catholic toleration—labeled parliamentary reformers as "Whigs" to associate them with Scottish fanaticism and sedition. These reformers, organized as the Country Party and led by figures like Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, demanded legislation to bar James, Duke of York (later James II), from the throne due to his Catholicism, prioritizing Protestant succession and constitutional limits on monarchy. The epithet gained traction amid three successive parliaments (1679–1681) dominated by exclusion advocates, who secured elections in 1679 and pushed bills like the Exclusion Bill of November 1680, though ultimately thwarted by royal dissolution and the . This marked the word's transformation into a badge of organized opposition, contrasting with "" for Irish Catholic outlaws, solidifying partisan identities in Restoration England.

Ideological Foundations

Commitment to Constitutional Monarchy

The Whig faction's dedication to emerged as a direct response to the perceived absolutist ambitions of the Stuart dynasty, particularly under Charles II and James II, whom they viewed as threats to and Protestant liberties. During the from 1679 to 1681, Whigs in pushed legislation to bar James, , from the throne due to his Catholicism, fearing it would enable a despotic regime akin to Louis XIV's in . This opposition crystallized their ideology of limiting monarchical power through statutory constraints and regular parliamentary oversight, contrasting with Tory support for divine-right kingship. Central to this commitment was the Whigs' orchestration of the in 1688, when seven prominent figures, including Whig leaders like the Earl of Devonshire and Bishop Henry Compton, invited William of Orange to invade , prompting James II's on December 11, 1688. The ensuing Convention Parliament, dominated by Whigs, declared the throne vacant and offered it to William III and Mary II conditionally, establishing a contractual monarchy bound by law rather than hereditary absolutism. This event marked the decisive rejection of unlimited , with Whigs arguing that resided in the ancient preserved by . The Bill of Rights, enacted on December 16, 1689, codified these principles, prohibiting the monarch from suspending laws, levying taxes, or maintaining a in peacetime without parliamentary consent; it also affirmed in and the . Whigs championed this document as the cornerstone of , ensuring that future rulers operated within parliamentary frameworks. Complementing this, the Act of Settlement of secured Protestant succession to the Hanoverian line while imposing further restrictions: monarchs could not leave the realm or engage in war without parliamentary approval, and judges held office during good behavior, insulating the judiciary from royal interference. These measures, vigorously defended by Whigs against Jacobite restoration attempts, entrenched a balanced where executive authority derived legitimacy from legislative consent.

Religious Toleration and Anti-Catholic Stance

The Whig faction's religious positions originated in vehement opposition to Catholicism during the of 1678–1681, when they advocated excluding —a professed Catholic—from succeeding his brother Charles II, fearing that a Catholic monarch would impose absolutism and undermine Protestant liberties, drawing on precedents like the revocation of the in in 1685. This stance positioned Whigs as defenders of the Protestant establishment against perceived Catholic threats to and religious freedom. Central to Whig ideology was the of 1688–1689, where they played a pivotal role in deposing James II and inviting the Protestant William III and Mary II to the throne, thereby enshrining the exclusion of Catholics from the succession via the Bill of Rights 1689, which prohibited any Catholic or someone married to a Catholic from holding the crown. This event solidified Whig commitment to a Protestant , viewing Catholicism not merely as a theological error but as inherently compatible with arbitrary rule, a perspective reinforced by James II's attempts to advance Catholic interests through declarations of indulgence that alarmed Protestant sensibilities. In parallel, Whigs championed limited religious toleration for Protestant Nonconformists, culminating in the Toleration Act of 1689, which permitted Trinitarian Protestant dissenters—provided they swore oaths of allegiance and supremacy and disavowed —to worship outside the without incurring penalties for nonconformity. This measure, passed under William III's influence amid Whig dominance in Parliament, excluded Catholics entirely, maintaining penal laws against them such as the Test Acts requiring officeholders to receive Anglican communion, reflecting a strategic unification of Protestant factions against the Catholic peril rather than unqualified pluralism. Throughout the 18th century, Whig governance perpetuated anti-Catholic policies, including suppression of Jacobite risings in and , which sought to restore the Catholic Stuart line, and enforcement of laws barring Catholics from public office, , and land ownership in certain contexts, justified by ongoing suspicions of papal allegiance overriding national loyalty. While Tories emphasized Anglican uniformity and viewed Dissenters warily, Whigs pragmatically extended to Nonconformists to bolster the anti-Catholic front, though full for Catholics remained elusive until the 19th century, underscoring the enduring causal link in Whig thought between Catholicism and threats to .

Economic Policies: Mercantilism, Protectionism, and Shift to Free Trade

The Whigs initially adhered to , emphasizing state intervention to promote exports, accumulate , and strengthen national power through policies like the of 1651, which mandated that colonial goods be transported in British ships to protect domestic shipping and naval capacity. These acts, upheld under Whig administrations following the , restricted foreign competition in trade routes and bolstered Britain's imperial economy by directing commerce through English ports, with enforcement yielding duties that funded the Royal Navy by 1700. During Robert Walpole's tenure as from 1721 to 1742, Whig economic policy incorporated elements of relaxed via "," which de-emphasized rigorous enforcement of trade laws to stimulate colonial production and revenue without provoking unrest, resulting in a tripling of British exports to the between 1720 and 1740. Walpole's approach prioritized fiscal stability—low land taxes at 4 shillings per pound and avoidance of continental wars to minimize debt—while maintaining protectionist barriers against foreign manufactures, such as high duties on French linens and silks under the 1736 Anglo-French revisions. In the early 19th century, Whig support for agricultural manifested in defense of the , enacted in 1815 to impose sliding-scale tariffs on imported grain when domestic prices fell below 80 shillings per quarter, shielding landowner interests dominant within the party amid post-Napoleonic grain surpluses. Whig governments under (1830–1834) and Lord Melbourne (1834–1841) resisted full repeal despite parliamentary agitation, fearing rural constituency backlash, as evidenced by the 1838–1839 select committee's endorsement of modifications rather than abolition. The shift toward accelerated in the amid Irish famine pressures and industrial lobbying from the Anti-Corn Law League, which mobilized 1.5 million signatures by 1844; Whig leader Lord John Russell's November 1845 letter committed the party to total repeal, framing as antithetical to national prosperity. This facilitated cross-party passage of the 1846 Repeal Act under Prime Minister Peel, with Whig votes—numbering over 200 in the —proving decisive against protectionist holdouts, marking the party's pivot to principles that reduced average grain duties from 28% to near zero and boosted imports by 50% within a decade. Subsequent Whig-Liberal coalitions entrenched , abolishing remaining restrictions in 1849 and timber duties by 1860, reflecting a causal recognition that industrial export growth—textile exports doubled from 1830 to 1850—outweighed agrarian protections.

Origins and Formation

Roots in Parliamentarian Faction and Exclusion Crisis (1678–1681)

The precursors to the Whigs emerged from the Parliamentarian faction active during the English Civil War (1642–1651), which opposed the absolutist tendencies of Charles I and emphasized parliamentary sovereignty over monarchical prerogative. This tradition persisted into the Restoration period as the "Country Party," a loose coalition of MPs skeptical of court influence, favoring limited monarchy and Protestant establishment. Figures like Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury, who had sided with Parliament against Charles I in the 1640s, carried forward this resistance to perceived royal overreach under Charles II. The immediate catalyst was the of 1678, fabricated by alleging a Catholic conspiracy to assassinate Charles II and install his brother James, —a convert to Catholicism since 1672—in his place. This sparked widespread anti-Catholic hysteria, amplifying fears of arbitrary rule and endangering the . , leveraging his position as until dismissed in 1673, mobilized opposition in to bar James from the succession, viewing it as essential to preserve Protestant liberties and constitutional limits on the crown. In response, introduced the first Exclusion Bill on 15 May 1679 in the , proposing to exclude James and secure the throne for a Protestant alternative, such as Charles's illegitimate son James Scott, Duke of Monmouth. This initiated three short-lived "Exclusion Parliaments": the Habeas Corpus Parliament (March–July 1679), which passed the bill but was dissolved; the York Parliament (October 1680–January 1681), where exclusion again dominated; and the Oxford Parliament (March 1681), dissolved after one week amid fears of violence. Charles II, supported by a court faction defending hereditary right, prorogued or dissolved these assemblies to thwart the bills, which failed in the Lords. The crisis polarized politics, with exclusionists derisively labeled "Whigs"—a term derived from Scottish Presbyterian "Whiggamores" who marched on in 1643 and later rioted against episcopacy—evoking . Their opponents became "Tories," from Irish Catholic outlaws, signifying disloyalty. Thus, the Whigs coalesced as a distinct committed to exclusion, anti-Catholic measures, and curbing royal absolutism, laying the groundwork for their enduring advocacy of .

Role in the Glorious Revolution (1688–1689)

The Whigs, having emerged from opposition to Catholic succession during the Exclusion Crisis of 1678–1681, maintained vehement resistance to James II's policies after his accession in 1685, viewing his declarations of indulgence for Catholics and Dissenters in 1687 and 1688 as threats to Protestant supremacy and parliamentary authority. James's appointment of Catholic officers to the army and his use of the dispensing power to suspend anti-Catholic laws further alienated Whig parliamentarians and peers, who saw these actions as steps toward absolutism akin to French-style monarchy. The birth of James's son, James Francis Edward, on June 10, 1688, crystallized fears of a Catholic dynasty, as it displaced the Protestant succession through James's daughter Mary, thereby galvanizing Whig conspirators to seek foreign intervention. In late June 1688, a coalition of five Whigs—William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Devonshire; Charles Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury; Thomas Herbert, 8th Earl of Pembroke (though affiliations varied, core signers aligned Whig); Henry Sidney; and Edward Russell—and two Tories, Thomas Osborne, 1st Earl of Danby, and Henry Compton, Bishop of London, known as the Immortal Seven, dispatched the Invitation to William of Orange on June 30. Drafted by Henry Sidney, a prominent Whig diplomat and intriguer with ties to the court of William in The Hague, the letter urged William to land with forces to "rescue" the nation from "popery and slavery," promising widespread support from nobility, army, and church. Whig networks, leveraging their organizational experience from earlier crises, propagated anti-James propaganda and coordinated covert communications with William's agents, including Bishop Gilbert Burnet, who advised on English sentiments. William's fleet arrived at Torbay on November 5, 1688, with approximately 15,000 troops, prompting rapid Whig mobilization; Devonshire assembled 500 horsemen in Derbyshire to join the invasion, while Shrewsbury and others secured key towns in the west. Mass desertions from James's forces, including his daughter Anne and key generals like John Churchill (future Marlborough, with Whig leanings), eroded royal authority, leading James to flee London on December 11, 1688, after discarding the Great Seal into the Thames to invalidate parliamentary writs. Whigs dominated the emergent Convention Parliament convened in January 1689, where they advocated declaring the throne vacant rather than merely abdicated, ensuring the joint offer to William III and Mary II on February 13, 1689, conditional on acceptance of a new constitutional framework. The Revolution's bloodless character in —contrasting with subsequent Jacobite conflicts in and —owed much to Whig emphasis on legalistic justification over outright rebellion, framing the events as a contractual breach by James rather than . This positioned Whigs to champion the Bill of Rights enacted in December 1689, codifying parliamentary supremacy, frequent elections, and prohibitions on Catholic monarchy, outcomes they attributed to their principled stand against arbitrary power.

18th-Century Dominance

Establishment of Whig Supremacy (1714–1760)

The accession of George I, Elector of , on 1 August 1714, following the death of Queen Anne, marked the beginning of Whig dominance in British politics, as the Whigs had long championed the Protestant succession established by the Act of Settlement of 1701. George I's reliance on Whig advisors, due to his limited English proficiency and unfamiliarity with British customs, facilitated their control over government offices and Parliament. The general election of 1715, the first under the new monarch, resulted in a substantial Whig in the , with approximately 341 Whig seats against 217 Tory, enabling the formation of exclusively Whig administrations. The failure of the , which aimed to restore the Catholic Stuart pretender , further entrenched Whig supremacy by discrediting the Tories as potential Jacobite sympathizers. The rising, involving coordinated uprisings in and , collapsed by early 1716 due to poor coordination, lack of foreign support, and decisive government action, leading to the execution or exile of key Jacobite leaders and the of Tory politicians suspected of disloyalty. Whigs capitalized on this by portraying Tory opposition as treasonous, justifying their monopoly on power and purging Tories from offices, military commands, and the judiciary. This exclusionary policy, combined with royal preference, ensured Whig control persisted despite internal divisions. A pivotal legislative measure was the Septennial Act of 1716, which extended the maximum duration of Parliaments from three years—mandated by the Triennial Act of 1694—to seven years, passed in May amid fears of resurgence in frequent elections. This reform reduced electoral volatility, lowered costs associated with campaigns, and advantaged the incumbent Whigs by allowing them to consolidate networks and fiscal policies without immediate accountability to voters. Although justified as a stability measure post-Jacobite threat, it effectively institutionalized Whig oligarchic rule. Internal Whig schisms, notably between 1717 and 1720, tested but ultimately reinforced their dominance; factions led by James Stanhope and Charles Spencer Sunderland clashed with and over and , yet the government wing prevailed after Stanhope's death in 1721, paving the way for unified Whig governance. Under George II from 1727, this supremacy continued, with Whigs maintaining parliamentary majorities through controlled elections and royal influence until George III's accession in 1760 disrupted the pattern by favoring broader political inclusion. The era's stability stemmed from Whig exploitation of monarchical dependence, exclusion of rivals, and institutional reforms, fostering a patronage-driven system that prioritized party cohesion over ideological purity.

Robert Walpole's Era: Fiscal Innovations and Patronage Networks

, as and from 1721 to 1742, led the Whig government in stabilizing Britain's finances amid the aftermath of the South Sea Bubble crisis of 1720. The national debt, which had ballooned to £49.9 million by 1719 due to prior wars, was managed to remain between £48 million and £52 million throughout his tenure, with annual interest payments reduced from £2.57 million in 1721 to £1.89 million by 1741 through targeted fiscal measures. A key innovation was the establishment of a sinking fund in 1717, proposed by Walpole while , which redirected savings from lowering interest rates on redeemable annuities from 6% to 5% toward gradual debt repayment. This fund allowed for the redemption of higher-interest "expensive" debt while funding ongoing expenditures, integrating debt management into annual budgets and improving creditor confidence. Further adjustments included borrowing £500,000 against new duties on victuallers in 1726 and salt in 1732 to maintain low taxes, alongside temporarily raising the land tax to 4 shillings in the pound in 1727 while cutting overall debt interest to 4%, thereby generating surpluses. Walpole occasionally raided the sinking fund, as in 1733 when £500,000 was withdrawn to sustain the reduced land tax at 1 , establishing a for flexible use but prioritizing fiscal stability over rigid reduction. Walpole's longevity in power relied heavily on extensive patronage networks, through which he distributed offices, sinecures, pensions, and military commissions to secure Whig loyalty in . By 1725, alongside his brother-in-law Viscount Townshend, he consolidated control over Court and public , rewarding supporters and marginalizing opponents to maintain a compliant majority in the . This system, leveraging the personal support of George I and George II, ensured Whig supremacy by binding parliamentary factions through , though it drew accusations of from critics like the Patriot Whigs who numbered around 100 by the late 1730s. Such networks not only defended the Hanoverian succession but also enabled Walpole to navigate internal divisions, as seen in his outmaneuvering of rivals like James Stanhope earlier in the decade.

Impact of the American Revolution and Internal Fractures (1760–1783)

The accession of in 1760 marked the end of the Whig supremacy established after 1714, as the king sought to govern through "King's Friends" and non-party figures like Lord Bute, sidelining traditional Whig leaders and forcing factions such as the Rockinghamites into opposition. This shift weakened Whig cohesion, with internal rivalries emerging between aristocratic connections like those led by the and more independent figures aligned with William Pitt the Elder (). By the early 1760s, these divisions hindered unified resistance to royal influence, as personal ambitions and differing views on fragmented the party's parliamentary strength, which hovered around 67 MPs for Rockingham's group in 1767 before growing to approximately 100 by 1774 amid colonial tensions. The escalating American crisis from 1763 onward deepened these fractures, as Whigs opposed coercive policies but diverged on responses. The Rockingham ministry of 1765–1766 repealed the on March 18, 1766, signaling a preference for reconciliation over taxation without colonial consent, yet declared the affirming parliamentary supremacy, reflecting internal caution against full concession. By 1774, Rockinghamites condemned the Coercive Acts as provocative, predicting failure in subduing the colonies, while , a key Rockingham ally, delivered his "Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies" on March 22, 1775, urging and economic ties over military force to preserve empire unity. In contrast, Chatham proposed a Provisional Act on February 1, 1775, offering concessions like withdrawing troops while insisting on British sovereignty, a middle path rejected by Lord North's government (68–32 vote) and criticized by some Whigs like the for its ambiguity, highlighting tactical splits between outright opposition and conditional compromise. The American victory at Yorktown on October 19, 1781, discredited North's ministry, enabling Rockingham to form a on , 1782, with a mandate to end the war; his administration initiated peace negotiations, committing to American independence as a prerequisite, a stance that unified anti-war Whigs temporarily but alienated moderates. Rockingham's death on July 1, 1782, after just 14 weeks, precipitated a cabinet schism, as appointed the of Shelburne (a Chathamite Whig) over Charles James Fox's Rockinghamite faction, leading to resignations and the exclusion of key opponents. Shelburne's ministry (July 1782–February 1783) concluded the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, recognizing independence but conceding generous territorial terms, which Fox denounced as excessive, culminating in a Fox-North that toppled Shelburne on February 24, 1783. These events exacerbated Whig disunity, reducing Rockinghamite MPs to about 60 by 1780 due to war polarization and post-1782 factional defections, as personal rivalries and differing visions of —reconciliation versus pragmatic separation—prevented a cohesive alternative to royal influence.

19th-Century Reforms and Decline

Recovery and Early Reforms (1783–1830)

Following the collapse of the Fox-North coalition in December 1783 and the appointment of as prime minister, the Whig party fragmented into the staunchly oppositional Foxites, led by , and the more pragmatic Portland Whigs under the Duke of Portland, who prioritized national unity during the emerging . The Foxites, numbering around 100 MPs after the 1784 , critiqued Pitt's fiscal policies, including the India Act of 1784 and the , while advocating for broader parliamentary reform to reduce royal influence and address "rotten boroughs." This period marked the Whigs' electoral nadir, with consistent minority status in , yet the Foxites preserved the party's commitment to constitutional liberty by opposing Pitt's war measures and temporary suspension of in 1794. The Portland Whigs' to Pitt's in July 1794, bringing approximately 250 supporters and key offices like to the Duke, further isolated the Foxites but allowed the party to maintain ideological purity against perceived authoritarianism. Fox's advocacy for peace with from 1798 onward, including support for the 1802 , positioned Whigs as critics of prolonged warfare's economic costs, which exceeded £1 billion by 1815, though this stance alienated some patriotic voters. A brief resurgence occurred with the Ministry of All the Talents, formed in January 1806 under Lord Grenville after Pitt's death, which incorporated Fox as Foreign Secretary and represented a coalition of Foxites, Grenvillites, and Addingtonites. Lasting until March 1807, the ministry prioritized administrative efficiency and moral reforms, enacting the Slave Trade Abolition Act on March 25, 1807, which banned British participation in the Atlantic slave trade effective January 1, 1808, following evidence from naval patrols documenting over 1 million enslaved Africans transported annually. Fox's death in September 1806 shifted leadership to Lord Grey, but George III's refusal to accept Catholic emancipation as a condition for coalition stability led to the ministry's dissolution, returning Whigs to opposition under Spencer Perceval and Lord Liverpool. In the post-Napoleonic era from 1815 to 1830, Whigs rebuilt support by championing religious toleration and amid widespread distress from the of 1815, which maintained high grain prices benefiting landowners. They backed incremental Catholic relief, including the 1793 Irish Catholic Relief Act allowing Catholics to vote and hold most offices, and agitated for full , culminating in their endorsement of the 1829 Roman Catholic Relief Act despite its Tory passage under . Whig MPs, often aligned with dissenters and industrial interests, introduced failed reform bills in 1821 and 1822 to redistribute seats and extend to £10 householders, highlighting corruption in pocket boroughs controlled by fewer than 100 patrons representing half of Commons seats. This principled opposition to Tory repression, including the of 1819 curbing radical meetings, fostered party cohesion under and , enabling Whig gains in the 1826 election to about 130 seats and their eventual 1830 victory on a reform platform.

The Reform Act of 1832 and Path to Liberalism (1830–1868)

The Whig Party returned to power following the general election of August 1830, which saw the defeat of the Tory government amid economic distress and calls for parliamentary reform, with Earl Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey, appointed prime minister on 22 November 1830. Motivated by fears of revolution similar to the July Revolution in France and public pressure through petitions and riots, the Whigs introduced the first Reform Bill in March 1831, which passed the House of Commons but was rejected by the Tory-dominated House of Lords. A second bill met the same fate in October 1831, triggering unrest including the Bristol riots on 29–30 October 1831 that resulted in 12 deaths and £300,000 in property damage. The third Reform Bill, introduced in 1832, succeeded after Grey secured King William IV's promise on 7 May 1832 to create sufficient Whig peers to overcome Lords opposition, prompting Tory peers to abstain and allowing passage with royal assent on 7 June 1832. The Act disenfranchised 56 rotten boroughs entirely and reduced representation in 31 others to one member each in England and Wales, while creating 67 new constituencies, many in industrial areas previously unrepresented. It expanded the electorate by broadening the county franchise to £10 copyholders, long-term tenants paying £50 rent, and shopkeepers, and the borough franchise to £10 householders and certain lodgers, increasing qualified voters from approximately 400,000 to 650,000, though still limited to propertied men and formally excluding women. The Reform Act bolstered Whig electoral strength by redistributing seats to reflect urban growth, enabling further reforms under Grey's government, including the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, which ended slavery in most of the British Empire with £20 million compensation to owners, and the Factory Act of 1833 limiting child labor in textile mills. The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834, enacted following a royal commission's 1834 report, centralized poor relief by forming unions of parishes under elected guardians, mandating workhouses for the able-bodied poor to deter dependency through the principle of less eligibility—conditions worse than the lowest independent laborer—and largely ending outdoor relief. The Municipal Corporations Act of 1835 reformed governance in 178 English and Welsh boroughs by replacing closed corporations with elected councils comprising a mayor, aldermen, and councillors, introducing uniform standards for local administration and police forces under watch committees. Grey resigned in November 1834 over disagreements with William IV on Irish church funding, leading to a brief Tory interlude under Robert Peel before William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, formed a Whig government in April 1835 that lasted until August 1841 amid economic challenges and Irish tensions. Defeated in the 1841 election, the Whigs entered opposition to Peel's Conservative administration but supported his repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, which split the Conservatives and aligned Whigs with free-trade Peelites. Subsequent unstable coalitions, including Lord John Russell's Whig ministry (1846–1852) and the Peelite-Whig government of George Hamilton-Gordon, 4th Earl of Aberdeen (1852–1855), highlighted the blurring of party lines, with Viscount Palmerston leading Whig-Liberal governments from 1855 to 1858 and briefly in 1859. The formal transition to culminated on 6 1859 when Whigs, Peelites, and Radicals met at Willis's Rooms in to form the Liberal Party, uniting against Lord Derby's Conservatives on a platform of , administrative reform, and expanded representation, marking the effective end of the Whig label as an independent entity. Under Palmerston's leadership until his death in 1865, followed by Russell, the new party pursued foreign policy assertiveness and domestic stability, setting the stage for William Ewart Gladstone's chancellorship and eventual leadership by 1868, amid pushes for further electoral expansion realized partially in Disraeli's 1867 Reform Act. This evolution reflected the Whigs' shift from aristocratic reformism to a broader coalition incorporating middle-class radicals and economic liberals, driven by electoral necessities and ideological convergence on intervention and individual rights.

Criticisms and Controversies

Elitism, Oligarchic Control, and Suppression of Opponents

The Whig party's governance, particularly during the period of Whig Supremacy from 1714 to the 1760s, exemplified oligarchic control exercised by a narrow of aristocratic families who monopolized political power through interlocking networks and familial alliances. These networks enabled a small group of landowners—such as the ducal houses of Devonshire, Newcastle, and —to dominate cabinet positions, parliamentary seats, and local influence, often treating offices as hereditary entitlements rather than public trusts. This structure prioritized intra-elite cohesion over broader representation, with power distribution favoring those with landed wealth and connections, thereby reinforcing social hierarchies and limiting access for non-aristocratic aspirants. Critics, including contemporary Tories and later historians, highlighted the elitist nature of this system, arguing it perpetuated rule by a self-selecting that viewed political as an extension of property rights rather than accountable . The reliance on —distributing sinecures, military commissions, and ecclesiastical preferments—ensured loyalty among dependents but fostered accusations of unmerited privilege, as appointments frequently bypassed talent in favor of or financial . from parliamentary rolls shows that by the , over 70% of posts were held by individuals from fewer than 20 interconnected families, underscoring the concentration of influence. Suppression of opponents was a of Whig strategy to maintain this dominance, beginning with the exclusion of from office following George I's accession in 1714, when Tory ministers were summarily dismissed and replaced by Whig loyalists across government, the army, and hierarchies. , tainted by suspected Jacobite leanings after the 1715 rising, faced laws and campaigns portraying them as disloyal threats to the Hanoverian settlement, effectively barring them from power for decades. The Septennial Act of 1716, passed by a Whig majority shortly after the rising, extended parliamentary terms from three to seven years, curtailing electoral contests that might have empowered opposition and allowing the ruling to entrench itself without frequent reckoning. In the wake of Jacobite unrest from 1715 to 1722, Whigs authorized suspensions of and other rights, targeting rioters and sympathizers with trials and executions to deter dissent, measures that prioritized regime stability over procedural equity. These tactics, while effective in quelling immediate threats, drew rebuke for undermining the constitutional balance ostensibly championed by Whigs since the , as they wielded state mechanisms to sideline ideological rivals and consolidate an unchallenged ascendancy. The resulting political landscape featured minimal turnover, with Whig factions rotating offices among themselves while excluding external challengers, a dynamic that persisted until internal schisms and external pressures eroded the oligarchy's grip in the late .

Allegations of Corruption and Patronage Abuse

![A-Block-for-the-Wigs-Gillray][float-right] The Whig administrations of the were frequently accused of institutionalizing corruption through a vast network that rewarded supporters with government offices, sinecures, and ecclesiastical appointments, thereby perpetuating oligarchic control over and the executive. This system, refined under from 1721 to 1742, involved distributing crown revenues and positions to secure parliamentary majorities, with critics contending it transformed into a mechanism for private gain. Walpole's allies, including family members, held multiple lucrative posts, such as his brother-in-law Horatio Walpole as Auditor of the , exemplifying the interlocking of family interests with state resources. Electoral practices amplified these charges, as Whig magnates controlled "pocket boroughs" and "rotten boroughs" through direct bribery, treating voters, and intimidation, enabling unrepresentative outcomes that favored party continuity over public accountability. In constituencies like , electors were characterized as "poor and corrupt," with Whig influence sustaining venal elections throughout the period. The 1716 Septennial Act, passed under Whig dominance, extended parliamentary terms to seven years, allegedly to entrench patronage-driven majorities and reduce electoral scrutiny. The concept of "Old Corruption," later formalized in the 1830s, retroactively encapsulated Whig-era abuses, including excessive pensions, military contracts awarded to cronies, and the sale of offices, which diverted substantial public funds—estimated in the millions annually—into elite pockets. Radical critics, such as those compiling The Black Book in 1832, highlighted Whig office-holders retaining sinecures post-retirement, with figures like Henry Brougham decrying the system's entrenchment of aristocratic privilege. While defenders argued patronage stabilized governance amid monarchical weaknesses, contemporaries like Viscount Bolingbroke lambasted it as a betrayal of constitutional principles, fueling opposition narratives that contributed to Walpole's 1742 resignation amid the Excise Crisis scandals. These allegations persisted into the 19th century, pressuring reforms like the 1832 Reform Act to dismantle borough manipulations and curb sinecure abuses.

Imperial Ambitions, Wars, and Economic Burdens

The Whig governments of the mid-eighteenth century, particularly under William Pitt the Elder as de facto leader from 1757 to 1761, drove expansive imperial policies through the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), aiming to dismantle French colonial power in and . This conflict yielded substantial territorial gains, including the conquest of and dominance over via the in 1757, enhancing Britain's global trade networks and mercantile interests central to Whig ideology. However, the war's prosecution relied heavily on public borrowing, with Britain's debt increasing by approximately £58 million during the hostilities, as the government issued annuities and lottery loans to fund naval and amphibious operations. These fiscal commitments imposed enduring economic strains, as interest payments on the expanded —reaching over 50% of annual expenditure by the war's end—necessitated higher land taxes and duties at home, while colonial failed to offset costs immediately. Whig financial innovations, rooted in the party's alignment with creditors since the , sustained borrowing credibility but tied parliamentary majorities to debt holders, perpetuating a cycle where war ambitions amplified national indebtedness without proportional short-term economic relief. The post-war burden, peaking at around 2.3 times gross national product in the amid subsequent conflicts, underscored how Whig-led expansions, while fostering long-term imperial , strained domestic finances and contributed to fiscal pressures that fueled colonial discontent, notably in the . In the nineteenth century, Whig foreign policy under figures like Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, as Foreign Secretary (1830–1834, 1835–1841, 1846–1851), extended these ambitions through interventionist diplomacy, including support for the (1839–1842) to secure British trade rights in China, resulting in the and cession of . Palmerston's "" prioritized protecting British commercial interests, often escalating tensions into military engagements such as the bombardment of Greek ports in the of 1850, which affirmed extraterritorial claims but provoked European diplomatic isolation. These actions, aligned with Whig emphases on naval supremacy and , incurred direct costs including £2 million for the Opium War fleet and troop deployments, adding to a cumulative imperial defense expenditure that diverted resources from domestic reform. The (1853–1856), prosecuted under a Whig-Peelite with Palmerston's influence, exemplified ongoing burdens, as British commitments against cost £70 million and over 20,000 lives, exacerbating public debt and exposing logistical inefficiencies in sustaining distant campaigns. While imperial gains bolstered Britain's position—evident in expanded influence in post-1857 under Whig-aligned governance—these wars perpetuated economic vulnerabilities, with sustained military outlays crowding out investment and relying on controversial loans that highlighted the Whigs' prioritization of prestige over fiscal prudence. Historians note that such policies, though enabling through empire, imposed opportunity costs, as war debts and administrative overheads limited infrastructural development and contributed to taxpayer resentment amid uneven prosperity.

Organizational Structure and Electoral Dynamics

Party Organization and Social Base

The Whig party operated without a formalized structure akin to 19th-century mass organizations, relying instead on informal networks of aristocratic leadership, parliamentary coordination, and social clubs for cohesion. From the late , key hubs included country house meetings, London gatherings, and clubs such as the (established 1700) and Hanover Club (1712), which enabled leaders to align supporters on policy and elections. A clear chain of command existed, particularly under the Junto oligarchy (1693–1710), led by figures like Sir John Somers, Charles Montagu (Lord Halifax), Edward Russell (Lord Orford), Thomas Wharton (Lord Wharton), and later Charles Spencer (Lord Sunderland), who exerted influence through dominance, allies, and control of departments like the and Admiralty. Patronage formed the backbone of party maintenance, with leaders distributing government posts, contracts, and local favors to secure and electoral control; this intensified under Robert Walpole's long ministry (1721–1742), associating Whig supremacy with systematic use of offices to bind factions. Internal factions undermined unity, including Court Whigs tied to administration interests and Country Whigs (e.g., Peter King, Sir Richard Onslow) pushing anti-corruption bills like the 1705 office-disabling measure, leading to occasional splinter groups such as independent clubs. Parliamentary lists tracked membership, extending influence to constituencies and, after , Irish Protestant networks via and lobbies focused on penal laws against Catholics. The party's social base centered on elite landowners and "new money" interests, drawing from aristocratic dynasties (e.g., those controlling vast estates and electoral boroughs like Wharton's ""), provincial , merchants, and financiers profiting from and . Religious dissenters, including Presbyterians, provided urban and nonconformist support due to Whig advocacy for and opposition to dominance, contrasting with Tory reliance on rural squires and Anglican clergy. Electoral strength lay in cities, dissenting-heavy areas like , and merchant communities favoring continental engagement, with approximately 85% of MPs from 1690–1715 identifiable as consistent Whigs or Tories, Whigs prevailing in diverse socioeconomic pockets. This elitist composition persisted into the , blending landed influence with commercial elements amid a divided split by economic and religious lines.

Electoral Performance Across Parliaments

The Whig party's electoral performance in British parliaments fluctuated markedly from the late 17th to mid-19th centuries, influenced by royal preferences, patronage networks, and responses to national crises rather than broad popular mandates, given the restricted franchise limited to property owners. Early successes post-Glorious Revolution gave way to surges, followed by Whig dominance under Robert Walpole's ministry, before a long period of opposition until electoral reforms shifted dynamics. Performance is measured primarily by seats in the , as vote totals were inconsistently recorded and contests occurred in only a minority of constituencies. In the wake of the 1710 general election, Tories secured a landslide with 329 seats to the Whigs' 168 in , capitalizing on dissatisfaction with Marlborough's war conduct and Sacheverell's trial, enabling the Harley ministry. The 1715 election, following George I's accession, reversed this: Whigs initially won 341 seats against 217 , bolstered by royal favor and election petitions unseating 31 Tories, yielding a working majority of 372 to 186. By the 1722 election, amid Jacobite fears post-Atterbury plot, Whigs expanded to 379 seats versus 178 , with 35 more contests indicating heightened partisanship yet Whig organizational edge. This established Whig supremacy through the Walpole era (1721–1742), where parliaments consistently returned large Whig majorities, maintained via influence over pocket boroughs and county seats, though exact figures varied little from 1727 and 1734 elections due to minimal opposition challenges. Whig fortunes waned after Walpole's 1742 fall; the 1747 under Pelham saw continued but narrower control, eroded by Patriot Whig defections and Jacobite rising backlash. By the 1760s, under George III's influence favoring Tory-leaning ministers like Bute and Grenville, Whigs held opposition status with roughly 150–200 seats in fragmented parliaments. The 1784 marked a low point, as Pitt the Younger's government (aligning with Tory traditions) gained a exceeding 120 seats over the Fox-North Whig coalition, reflecting backlash to the India Bill and royal intervention via dissolution. Whigs remained in minority through Addington and Perceval ministries, polling under 200 seats in 1807 and 1812 amid wartime unity against . The 1830 election signaled revival: though Duke of Wellington's Tories retained a slim majority of around 100 seats, Whig gains to approximately 215 eroded government stability, precipitating its fall on questions. Post-, enfranchising middle-class voters, Whigs triumphed with 441 seats to Tories' 175, capturing 66.7% of recorded votes in expanded contests, leveraging anti-aristocratic sentiment and support. This peak transitioned Whigs toward Liberal identity, though internal splits later diluted dominance.
General ElectionWhig SeatsTory/Opponent SeatsNotes
1710168329 ()Tory landslide post-Sacheverell.
1715341 (372 post-petitions)217 (186 post-petitions)Whig resurgence under .
1722379178Bolstered by anti-Jacobite mobilization.
1784~220~400 (Pitt govt.)Whig coalition defeat.
1830~215~325 ()Whig gains leading to reform crisis.
1832441175Post-reform .
Whig success hinged less on ideology than control of patronage and boroughs, with Tory revivals tied to monarchical shifts and war exigencies; post-1832, expanded electorate favored reformist platforms but exposed factionalism.

Legacy and Historiography

Long-Term Influence on British Institutions

The Whigs played a pivotal role in establishing as a cornerstone of British governance through their leadership in the of 1688 and the ensuing , which prohibited royal suspension of laws, required parliamentary consent for taxation and standing armies in peacetime, and enshrined freedoms of speech and petition in Parliament. This settlement curtailed monarchical absolutism, mandating frequent parliaments and free elections, thereby shifting ultimate authority to legislative bodies and laying the groundwork for modern . The , driven by Whig initiatives, further reinforced these principles by securing Protestant succession, mandating parliamentary approval for royal marriages, and granting judges tenure during good behavior to ensure from executive interference. During the Whig Supremacy from 1715 to 1759, following the Hanoverian accession, the party secured a durable parliamentary majority—evident in the 1715 election where Whigs held 341 seats against 217 for Tories—enabling sustained control over government and the purging of opponents from key offices. Under Robert Walpole's administration (1721–1742), this hegemony fostered the emergence of cabinet government, with the first lord of the Treasury coordinating policy among ministers collectively accountable to Parliament rather than the crown alone, a practice that stabilized executive-legislative relations and reduced royal influence over policy formation. The Septennial Act of 1716, passed by Whig-dominated Parliament, extended electoral terms from three to seven years, minimizing short-term volatility and bolstering institutional continuity by aligning government incentives with long-term creditor confidence. Whig policies also entrenched financial institutions critical to , as their alignment with creditors—contrasting Tory skepticism toward public debt—lowered borrowing costs post-1715, evidenced by structural breaks in yield data and share performance, which facilitated sustained fiscal credibility and enabled Britain's expansion as a fiscal-military state. This partisan commitment to debt management and institutions like the (supported since its 1694 founding) created enduring mechanisms for , independent of monarchical whim, that underpinned imperial and domestic stability. These developments collectively normalized party-based governance and aristocratic-led reform within constitutional bounds, influencing later expansions like the 1832 Reform Act while embedding a tradition of parliamentary supremacy that persists in the unwritten constitution, where no body can override Acts of and executive power derives legitimacy from legislative confidence. Whig emphasis on property-qualified representation channeled popular pressures through elite institutions, averting radical upheaval and fostering a resilient framework for balancing with incremental adaptation.

Debates in Modern Historiography

Modern historiography of the British Whig party has largely moved beyond the self-congratulatory narratives of 19th-century Whig sympathizers, who portrayed the party as inexorable champions of constitutional against monarchical absolutism and Tory reaction. Herbert Butterfield's 1931 critique in The Whig Interpretation of History highlighted the teleological bias in such accounts, arguing that they selectively elevated Whig actions as progressive milestones while anachronistically judging the past by contemporary liberal standards, often ignoring contingent factors like religious divisions and personal ambitions. This meta-critique influenced subsequent scholarship, prompting scrutiny of the party's ideological coherence and aristocratic foundations rather than accepting partisan at face value. A pivotal shift occurred with Lewis Namier's prosopographical approach in works like The Structure of Politics at the Accession of (1929), which posited that 18th-century politics, including Whig factions, were dominated by networks, local interests, and personal loyalties rather than stable ideological parties. Namier and his followers, such as John Brooke, contended that Whig "party" labels masked fluid connections among MPs, with divisions like those during the Whig Supremacy (1714–1760) reflecting oligarchic control over through borough influence rather than principled opposition to Tory Anglicanism or Stuart absolutism. This view downplayed Whig commitments to religious for dissenters or anti-Jacobite foreign policy, attributing political stability to structural incentives like sinecures and electoral corruption over abstract ideals. Empirical analysis of parliamentary voting patterns supported Namier's emphasis on alliances, revealing limited evidence of rigid party-line discipline before the . Post-Namier revisionism, emerging in the 1960s, partially rehabilitated the role of ideology and partisanship while acknowledging patronage's persistence. J.H. Plumb's The Growth of Political Stability in England 1675–1725 (1967) challenged Namier's minimization of parties by documenting the "rage of party" under Queen Anne, where Whig-Tory rivalries over war funding, the 1707 Act of Union, and succession drove electoral mobilization and propaganda efforts. Geoffrey Holmes's British Politics in the Age of Anne (1967, revised 1987) further argued for structured partisan conflict, with Whigs leveraging urban dissenters and court influence against Tory high-church nationalism, evidenced by voting records on the Occasional Conformity bills and impeachment trials. These scholars used quantitative data from election results—such as Whig gains in 1708 amid continental alliances—to demonstrate that ideological stakes, including parliamentary supremacy and Protestant succession, fostered proto-modern party organization, countering Namier's portrait of atomized "politicians." Contemporary debates continue to refine this synthesis, integrating cultural and to assess the Whigs' long-term causal impact on Britain's . George Owers's The Rage of Party: How Whig Versus Tory Made Modern Britain (2025) synthesizes high politics with societal fractures, portraying Whig advocacy for European entanglements and as foundational to adversarial pluralism, though critics like note its underemphasis on the post-1714 Whig monopoly, which entrenched "" norms under George I without Tory resurgence until 1760. Recent analyses, drawing on evidence, debate whether Whig dominance preserved aristocratic under reformist —evident in the limited franchise expansion benefiting middle-class allies—or genuinely eroded through merit-based administration, with econometric studies linking Whig fiscal policies to public debt credibility and . Skepticism persists regarding academic tendencies to romanticize Whig "," given primary sources revealing elite self-interest; for instance, Whig ministries' reliance on rotten boroughs until underscores causal realism over ideological purity. These interpretations prioritize verifiable parliamentary behavior and fiscal records over narrative , revealing the Whigs as pragmatic consolidators of post-Revolution settlement rather than uncomplicated harbingers of .

References

  1. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Whigs/
  2. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/whigstories/
  3. https://consoc.org.uk/short-history-of-the-liberal-party/
  4. https://www.etymonline.com/word/Whig
  5. https://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/radical-whigs-and-natural-rights.html
  6. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-ushistory1os2xmaster/chapter/the-glorious-revolution-and-the-english-empire/
  7. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-glorious-revolution-of-1688/
  8. https://www.royal.uk/act-settlement-0
  9. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1067&context=montview
  10. https://www.libertarianism.org/topics/whiggism
  11. https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/civil_war_revolution/glorious_revolution_01.shtml
  12. https://jetty.klnpa.org/_flysystem/fedora/2024-03/strou_90.pdf
  13. https://www.statutesandstories.com/blog_html/mercantilism-and-the-navigation-acts/
  14. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/salutary-neglect/
  15. https://dokumen.pub/the-economic-policy-of-robert-walpole-9780231893381.html
  16. https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/corn-laws-guide-what-impact-why-repealed-benefit/
  17. https://liberalhistory.org.uk/history/free-trade-and-the-repeal-of-the-corn-laws/
  18. https://pressbooks.lib.vt.edu/pper/chapter/critical-juncture-theory-and-the-repeal-of-the-british-corn-laws/
  19. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/exclusion-crisis-1678-81-and-earl-shaftesbury
  20. https://historyofparliament.com/2019/10/15/the-exclusion-parliaments/
  21. https://www.swansea.ac.uk/history/history-study-guides/the-reasons-for-the-glorious-revolution-of-1688/
  22. https://stuarts.exeter.ac.uk/education/moments/glorious-revolution/
  23. https://www.propertychronicle.com/1688-89-a-not-so-glorious-revolution/
  24. https://iloi.org/the-immortal-seven-invitation-to-invade/
  25. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/invasiondesertion/
  26. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/glorious-revolution/
  27. https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/commons-information-office/g04.pdf
  28. https://www.royal.uk/george-i
  29. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/periods/hanoverians/the_whig_schism_of_1719-20
  30. https://digitalcommons.winthrop.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=graduatetheses
  31. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1715-1754/survey/ii-general-election-1715-and-first-whig-opposition-1717-20
  32. https://down.aefweb.net/WorkingPapers/w718.pdf
  33. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/robert-walpole
  34. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/periods/hanoverians/walpole-and-national-debt
  35. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/british-prime-ministers-sir-robert-walpole
  36. http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/node/64360/
  37. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1715-1754/survey/iii-second-whig-opposition-1722-42
  38. https://historyofparliament.com/2025/02/11/background-to-the-american-revolution/
  39. http://www.chivalryandwar.co.uk/Resource/LORD%20ROCKINGHAM%20AND%20THE%20AMERICANS.pdf
  40. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s2.html
  41. https://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/ministry/shelmin.htm
  42. https://history.blog.gov.uk/2015/08/26/william-petty-2nd-earl-of-shelburne-whig-1782-1783/
  43. https://history.blog.gov.uk/2015/09/16/william-pitt-the-younger-whigtory-1783-1801-1804-1806/
  44. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/pitt-hon-william-1759-1806
  45. https://www.museumofpm.org/prime-ministers/william-pitt-the-younger/
  46. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/ii-the-ministry-of-all-the-talents-the-whigs-in-office-february-1806-to-march-1807/5ACC8F00E4AD78F839420D2DD98E97F6
  47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2638036
  48. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/religion/overview/religionc19th-/
  49. https://www.tutorchase.com/notes/a-level-ocr/history/10-4-1-attitudes-and-early-reform-attempts-17831830
  50. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/what-caused-the-1832-great-reform-act/
  51. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/reformact1832/
  52. https://www.gov.uk/government/history/past-prime-ministers/charles-grey-2nd-earl-grey
  53. https://victorianweb.org/history/poorlaw/plaatext.html
  54. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/municipal-corporations-act
  55. https://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/politics/whig2.htm
  56. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Whig-Party-England
  57. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/british-and-irish-history/whigs
  58. https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/from-the-new-to-the-old-whigs/
  59. https://academic.oup.com/book/2189/chapter/142222219
  60. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781805433934-007/html?lang=en
  61. https://www.alistairlexden.org.uk/news/lord-lexden-explains-how-jacobitism-helped-destroy-tory-party-300-years-ago
  62. https://people.bu.edu/chamley/HSFref/Stasavage06.pdf
  63. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/whig-party-political-party
  64. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26726494
  65. http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1754-1790/survey/i-constituencies
  66. https://www.museumofpm.org/articles/the-fall-of-robert-walpole/
  67. https://historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/old-corruption-revived-lessons-from-the-past/
  68. https://www.stir.ac.uk/research/hub/file/1789935
  69. https://pages.ucsd.edu/~ssaiegh/CoxFreshSaiegh.pdf
  70. https://www.ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/ebhs/article/view/215
  71. https://www.ebhsoc.org/journal/index.php/ebhs/article/download/215/198/431
  72. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252274294_Partisan_politics_and_public_debt_The_importance_of_the_%27Whig_Supremacy%27_for_Britain%27s_financial_revolution
  73. https://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/210a/readings/chapter7.pdf
  74. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/lord-palmerston
  75. https://iea.org.uk/publications/imperial-measurement-a-cost-benefit-analysis-of-western-colonialism/
  76. https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/political-economy-two-great-wars
  77. http://www.histparl.ac.uk/volume/1690-1715/survey/politics-house
  78. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1690-1715/parliament/1710
  79. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/node/64360/
  80. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/research/parliaments/parliaments-1715-1754
  81. https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Pitt-the-Younger
  82. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1820-1832/parliament/1830-0
  83. https://spartacus-educational.com/GE1832.htm
  84. https://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/workingpapers/2012-13/bogart-10.pdf
  85. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/collections1/collections-glorious-revolution/billofrights/
  86. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/overview/billofrights/
  87. https://www.royal.uk/william-and-mary
  88. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/3832/100p025.pdf
  89. https://britishpoliticssociety.no/the-whigs-architects-of-english-political-heritage/
  90. https://www.clarehall.cam.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Butterfield_selected.pdf
  91. https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/32-2/
  92. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1690-1715/survey/politics-house
  93. https://www.jstor.org/stable/175100
  94. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/review/rage-party-george-owers-review
  95. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/ren/researchcurrent/archive/newberry/collaborativeprogramme/ren-earlymod-communities/britishandamericanhistories/25march/cowan.pdf
  96. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/problem-of-party-in-modern-british-history-17251832/87D48C9D8E3D585929F125DFAAF6CE66
  97. https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/history/2025/09/whigs-and-tories-shaped-modern-britain
  98. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/historical-journal/article/government-and-ideology-during-the-age-of-whig-supremacy-the-political-argument-of-sir-robert-walpoles-newspaper-propagandists/38DDDB6656BB5E70384A36A44DC2CE53
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.