Guise, whose landed estates in Gloucestershire reputedly yielded £7,000 per annum,
He presented Gloucestershire petitions in favour of agricultural protection, 22 Feb., and voted against the corn bill, 2 Apr. 1827.
The duke of Wellington’s ministry of course listed Guise among their ‘foes’, and he duly voted against them in the crucial civil list division, 15 Nov. 1830. He presented numerous anti-slavery petitions in November and December 1830 and others for repeal of the assessed taxes, 9 Feb., and reform or abolition of tithes, 9 Feb., 2, 16 Mar. 1831. He voiced his ‘strongest objections’ to the vestries bill, 28 Feb. He presented several petitions in favour of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, 19, 23 Mar., divided for the second reading, 22 Mar., expressed confidence that it would ‘remedy great evils without creating any new mischief’, 24 Mar., and voted against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr. 1831. At the ensuing dissolution a requisition was organized in Gloucestershire pledging support for Guise and another reformer, Henry Reynolds Moreton, and they were returned unopposed after Somerset retired. Guise declared that the reform bill ‘may already be regarded as carried’, condemned the rotten boroughs as ‘unconstitutional and pernicious’, argued that reform was needed in order to relieve the burden of taxation and concluded that the bill would ‘not only contribute to the happiness and prosperity of the people, but strengthen the hands of ministers and secure the stability of the throne’.
He said he was not opposed to the Dean Forest bill, 27 June 1831, but observed that ‘as the tumults which lately took place ... are a great deal connected with the boundaries of the forest, and with the imaginary rights of the people’, it was desirable to revive the local courts in that district. He divided for the second reading of the reintroduced reform bill, 6 July, and generally supported its details, though he voted for Lord Chandos’s amendment to enfranchise £50 tenants-at-will, 18 Aug. In a letter to a local supporter, 25 Aug., he added:
I am very apprehensive that ... giving the 40s. freeholders in towns a right to vote for the county will in various counties entirely overturn the agricultural interest ... I therefore supported Col. Davies’s motion to prevent the 40s. freeholders in borough[s] ... from voting for counties, but to grant them a right for voting for the town in which their property is situated ... Unfortunately Webb [Member for Gloucester] and self were in a minority last night upon that point, which I think is very injurious to the landed interest. I think it also very unfair as those towns will not only send representatives for the commercial and manufacturing interest, but will also have a great preponderating interest in returning Members for those counties ... which I have mentioned.
Glos. RO, Clifford mss D149/52, Guise to Clifford, 25 Aug. 1831.
He divided for the bill’s passage, 21 Sept., and Lord Ebrington’s confidence motion, 10 Oct. He arrived late for the county meeting to petition the Lords for reform, 28 Sept., but made a brief speech denying that the country had become apathetic on the subject. At a subsequent dinner in Cheltenham he declared that while the bill was ‘not ... entirely without defects’, these were ‘very trifling’.
