WHY WAS PARLIAMENTARY REFORM DELAYED UNTIL 1832?

'This House [the Commons] is not representative of the people of England' William Pitt

'It is also undeniable that the middle classes, who have now shown so praiseworthy an alacrity in supporting the government, are actuated by an intense and almost unanimous feeling in favour of the measure of reform.' Earl Grey

The Great Reform Act of 1832 was perhaps the first stage in a process to extend the franchise, that was to result in the universal suffrage we have in Great Britain today. It is very easy to consider this process as an inevitable consequence of the desire for democracy. In 1815 however, after the successful conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, neither the ruling elite, nor the non-enfranchised majority were clear on the limitations or method, of any future reform. This led to a division between some radicals of the period, who were divided on precisely these issues. In reality however, there were probably many reasons why reform was delayed until 1832. Events abroad; the unwillingness of the ruling elite to risk destabilising their society; and the simple political difficulty of reforming a parliament in which radicalism was not represented, were all significant. However, the threat of radicalism gradually transformed itself into a widespread radical spirit, with a genuine desire for reform through parliamentary means. This was to end with the dream of universal suffrage being realised this century, long after the demise of many of the people that ensured its final realisation.

In spite of the fierce resistance reform of parliament aroused in many of the ruling elite, there were attempts at reform in 1766. Proposals to weaken the rotten boroughs and increase the number of county members, amounted to little in the way of actual legislation, but they clearly show an understanding of the injustice of the corrupt nature of British politics in the Eighteenth century. William Pitt, in 1785, proposed to disenfranchise corrupt boroughs and increase the number of members for London and the counties. Willaim Pitt (the Younger) Began a Series of Political Reforms Before the Napoleonic WarsHowever, it has been said that the French Revolution and the outbreak of the wars with France caused Pitt to become a Tory. The principles of the French Revolution were strongly reacted against by the ruling elite, who feared a similar outcome here. The historian Eric J. Evans remarks on Lord Liverpool:

'He led a Tory government, most of whose important members had come to political maturity during the earlier phase of the French Wars, and whose guiding principle had become opposition to reform for fear of opening the way to a British revolution.'

The Napoleonic Wars also had the added disadvantage of focusing public attention away from reform. Violence by radicals, also seriously weakened the movement's credibility. However, despite this, and the continuing hostility of the ruling Tory party (and a large number of Whigs), there was a revival of political reform from 1820 onwards. In 1821 Grampound, a notorious rotten borough in Cornwall, was disenfranchised with two more members given to Yorkshire. But the limitations of such a movement were clearly shown in 1828 when a similar proposal to transfer representation of Penryn to Manchester, was defeated. Both Liverpool, and later Wellington, were stern opponents of reform and both acted to ensure it remained impossible. The fears of the ruling elite are best shown in the following passage which is taken from a parliamentary debate on the question of reform, and are the words of a Whig who became famous for reform, albeit limited:

'T.B Macauley:

I oppose Universal Suffrage, because I think it would produce a destructive revolution... We say, and we say justly, that it is not by mere numbers but by property and intelligence that the nation ought to be governed. Yet, saying this we exclude from all share in the government vast masses of property and intelligence - vast numbers of those who are most interested in preserving tranquillity, and who know best how to preserve it. We do more. We drive over to the sin of revolution those whom we shut out of power.'

It is clear that behind many of the ruling elite entrenched positions by 1832, there was perhaps a beginning to accept the logic behind enfranchising the middle-class. Nevertheless, this speech clearly shows that their general opinion of the working classes was a major obstacle to any further reform after 1832. Of course Gladstone's famous quote 'We must educate our masters' is testimony to this overriding fear of the poorer, uneducated classes having the power their numbers suggested they should wield. The above speech of T. B. Macauley is a good example of this fear as well, when he remarks: 'it is not by mere numbers but by property and intelligence that the nation ought to be governed.' His views reflect that of many other Whigs, who were later to make so much political gain out of reform. Even this party was unsure of the limits any reform should extend to. Holland in 1816 remarked, 'The nearer I look to parliamentary reform the less I own I like it'. The subsequent renewal of reform and the changing attitudes of many Whigs, was perhaps the biggest single factor that enabled the reform of parliament. The old hostility of the ruling elite was still massively over represented in the House of Commons and particularly in the Lords. The death of Lord Liverpool seemed to have removed an obstacle, but his role as Prime Minister was taken over by the epitome of anti-reform: Wellington. Despite the accession of William IV in 1830, a man known to favour reform, Wellington denied even the need for change and made it clear that he would resist all attempts at widening the suffrage. This attitude was supported largely by his own party, and continued despite the rising public agitation. A speech given by the Iron Duke on 2 November 1830, which stated clearly his position on reform, was so out of touch with public opinion that it virtually guaranteed the collapse of his government. The general election of March 1831 was another symbol of the growing movement for reform. The Whigs with their election cry of 'The Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill' won, and a majority favourable to reform returned to parliament. However, despite the majority in the commons, the final drama of the First Reform Act was to be played out in the House of Lords. Having rejected both previous attempts, the Third Reform Bill met similar resistance and it was not until the King intervened and ordered Wellington to withdraw his opposition, that the Bill could be passed. Wellington: One of the Fiercest Critics of Parliamentary ReformThe Iron Duke and a hundred supporters retired from the House and the remainder passed the Bill. The complicated and fierce opposition, the Reform Act encountered is perhaps the clearest testimony to the opposition of the ruling elite during the period 1815-1832. This opposition epitomised in the person of Wellington was only avoided by the actions of the King who used his position to ensure the passage of the Bill. This opposition had also ensured that no political change could occur before 1832.

One of the problems with the reform movement throughout this 'heroic age of popular radicalism' was a division between those who wanted to use violence to achieve social justice, and those who wanted to reform parliament, so as to keep order in Britain. The threat of violence was probably counterproductive for the radical movement as a whole, and certainly there was a degree of hostility between the advocates of both factions. Richard Carlile was a stern believer in violence:

'The People have now no recourse left but to arm themselves, immediately for the recovery of their rights.'

However, increasingly, although not entirely, the parliamentary method became more acceptable. Samuel Bamford is clear for the reason:

'At this time the writings of William Cobbett suddenly became of great authority... Their influence was speedily visible; he directed his readers to the true cause of their sufferings- misgovernment; and to its proper corrective - parliamentary reform; riots soon became scarce...'

Of course this was not entirely true, and it is worth noting that events after the above reference (which refers to 1816), included the Spa Fields riot, the attack on the Regent and the Derbyshire insurrection which all followed within three years of the above passage. Violence tarnished the justice for reform. Even petitions that were signed by tens of thousands, somehow lost their moral justification when they were backed up with a warning of violence. However, for those arguing the use of parliament as the means for social justice, it was very difficult to convince people, that an unreformed body of ruling elite, in which the working class were totally unrepresented, would bring in legislation to hand over their power to the predominantly illiterate poor. Of course even this did not transpire in 1832. The continuing violence of some radicals also led to stricter government controls such as the Six Acts which greatly hindered the wider movement for reform. The cause for parliamentary change was also limited by the effect the violence had on the middle class. Disturbed by the lack of respect for property many middling radicals began to search for a separate agreement away from universal suffrage, and towards a limited agreement, which the 1832 Reform Act seemed the final, perfect answer. Violence simply seemed to confirm to the ruling elite, that the working classes were a barbarian rabble that, if left to rule government would cause anarchy and disorder. However, when the massive spectacle of public opinion was used in the form of peaceful marches and petitions the government could not, in spite of their assurances, ignore it. Robert Peel, a firm anti-reformer, nevertheless remarked:

'Do not you think that the tone of England,- of that great compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy and newspaper paragraphs, which is called public opinion is more liberal, to use an odious but intelligible phrase, than the policy of the government.'

When political unions began to form and take more direct action, the consequences were unfavourable, as shown by a landowner:

'Besides the usual machinery of petitions, permanent political associations had already begun to be formed in different parts of the country... Their objects were, to push on political changes to any extent, by any means; to insist on whatever they chose to demand, as a right which could not be refused without a crime... The great object of all their deliberations was to excite incurable enmity in the middling and lower classes against those who stood above them in the order of society.'

Violent radicalism was a major obstacle in preventing reform throughout the period, but it should not be overestimated. The movement for political change was never going to succeed with the use of force, although it seemed to some as the only answer. The government, with a loyal and trained military, would always triumph over a people who were banned from arming or drilling.

So in conclusion there were several reasons for the delay in parliamentary reform until 1832. Firstly, foreign events such as the wars with France focused attention away from domestic reform, and the principles of the French Revolution ensured a resolution on the part of the ruling elite to prevent such an outcome here. The transition of Pitt, who had proposed reform before the revolutionary wars, to an anti-reformist would appear to signify a wider change in the ruling Tory Party. The unrepresentation of the poor in the House of Commons was a major disadvantage and led many radicals to see the only way to change an unsympathetic, and totally biased parliament was the removal of the entire system. This divided the radical movement and severely weakened any attempt for universal suffrage. It was the violence and more importantly middle class reactions against it, that helped lead to the Reform Act only including the enfranchisement of a very small proportion of society. In truth however, universal suffrage would have been practically impossible in 1832, due to the difficulties, reservations, and outright hostility of the ruling elite. Parliament, and more importantly the richer elements of society had to grow accustomed to the idea of democracy for all, a process that was to end with the final granting of the suffrage for women earlier this century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clive Behagg, Working Class Movements 1815-1914, Hodder & Stoughton, 1991

John Belchem, Popular Radicalism in the Nineteenth-Century Britain, Macmillan, 1996

Eric J. Evans, Britain Before the Reform Act: Politics and Society 1815-1832, Longman, 1989

Robert Pearce and Roger Stearn, Government and Reform 1815-1918, Hodder & Stoughton, 1994

E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, Gollancz, 1963

Glyn Williams and John Ramsden, Ruling Britannia: A Political History of Britain 1688-1988, Longman, 1990

Click To Return To British History Homepage

Return to my Homepage