Database: Pocket Boroughs: Difference between revisions
imported>Vatsa1708 New.. |
imported>Soranin mNo edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
One of the issues surrounding the [[American Revolution]] was that the colonies had no representatives - and thus no say - in [[United Kingdom|British]] Parliament. | |||
One of the issues surrounding the American Revolution was that the colonies had no representatives - and thus no say - in British Parliament. | |||
To add insult to injury, some parts of the United Kingdom that had no actual residents DID have seats in Parliament. This essentially meant landowners could give the cushy government appointments to whomever they wanted. These areas were known as "pocket boroughs" (because the landowner had them in his pocket) or "rotten boroughs" (a fun game is to guess why). | To add insult to injury, some parts of the United Kingdom that had no actual [[Civilian|residents]] DID have seats in Parliament. This essentially meant landowners could give the cushy government appointments to whomever they wanted. These areas were known as "pocket boroughs" (because the landowner had them in his pocket) or "rotten boroughs" (a fun game is to guess why). | ||
One of the worst examples was the borough of Old Sarum, which had no voters and two seats in Parliament. However, it wasn't the only one. Pocket boroughs were numerous - as of 1761 it's estimated that 250 of the 558 parliamentary boroughs were under this kind of patronage - and the problem wasn't really corrected until the late 19th century. | One of the worst examples was the borough of {{wiki|Old Sarum (UK Parliament constituency)|Old Sarum}}, which had no voters and two seats in Parliament. However, it wasn't the only one. Pocket boroughs were numerous - as of 1761 it's estimated that 250 of the 558 parliamentary boroughs were under this kind of patronage - and the problem wasn't really corrected until the late 19th century. | ||
So when the Colonists were complaining that the British Government was hopelessly corrupt? They had a point. | So when the Colonists were complaining that the British Government was hopelessly corrupt? They had a point. | ||
[[Category:Database | {{DEFAULTSORT:Pocket Boroughs}} | ||
[[Category:Database: Locations]] | |||
[[Category:Animus 3.0 database entries]] | |||
Latest revision as of 06:23, 30 October 2025
One of the issues surrounding the American Revolution was that the colonies had no representatives - and thus no say - in British Parliament.
To add insult to injury, some parts of the United Kingdom that had no actual residents DID have seats in Parliament. This essentially meant landowners could give the cushy government appointments to whomever they wanted. These areas were known as "pocket boroughs" (because the landowner had them in his pocket) or "rotten boroughs" (a fun game is to guess why).
One of the worst examples was the borough of Old Sarum, which had no voters and two seats in Parliament. However, it wasn't the only one. Pocket boroughs were numerous - as of 1761 it's estimated that 250 of the 558 parliamentary boroughs were under this kind of patronage - and the problem wasn't really corrected until the late 19th century.
So when the Colonists were complaining that the British Government was hopelessly corrupt? They had a point.