In addition, because the representation in parliament was not modernised to match the rapid urbanisation of Britain there was an imbalance in constituencies across Britain. People like John Wade (Radical Journalist) were discontent with the idea of rotten boroughs such as Old Sarum which had representation in parliament even though there were a total of a mere seven voters, whilst Birmingham with one hundred and eighty two thousand people did not have a direct representation in parliament. This showed many people at the time that unimportant seats were represented and the most important places were not given representation in parliament which frustrated those who wanted a say in how the country was ran. Radicals wanted a system where seats were distributed evenly Britain.
Further more, a point which all radicals agreed on was that the political system was corrupt. Radicals criticised aristocrats’ electoral patronage. This is when people who worked under their landowner felt it was their duty to vote for the person they worked for as they gave them a place of work. This consequently meant that they had too much influence over constituencies and over the House of Commons. This meant that the house had little to do with the people of Britain, Wade called it a “mere organ of the Aristocracy” and many others shared the very same view. Further more, when voting was occurring during an election it was done publicly this meant that bribery and threatening of votes was common place. Cooping (kidnapping of a rivals supporter) was even going on at the time so that someone could win an election. Many saw this as simply as a corrupt and unfair system which did not have the interests of many people in the country. As a result, radicals wanted a fairer political system which focused on genuine ability and acceptance from the public in order to have a seat in parliament.
Although it was true that some people wanted change, others were content with the system and how it was working in 1815. Some thought it worked well due to progress, prosperity and victory in wars. They thought that this was all due to the aristocracy being best suited and qualified for the rule of the nation. Furthermore, technically one could argue that all parts of society were represented in the commons by “virtual representation” by their particular MP in their borough or county. Therefore it was clear that those who were benefiting were the rich landowners whose liberty was protected and safe under the system at the time of 1815 and any change could have a damaging effect on their lives. Consequently, a change could be for the worse for those concerned in allowing the radicals a say in reforming parliament.
What is more, many conservative people believed that a reform was too hazardous and could have made the country unstable. An example of reform in parliament occurred in the French Revolution of 1792 where there was a promise of “liberty, equality and fraternity” but the great idea deteriorated to a “reign of terror”. Therefore, many feared the same thing might happen to Britain as people who have never had past experience in running a country take control and have a say. Their inexperience could have possible destroyed a powerful country. Edmund Burke was one influential conservative writer who was favoured among the propertied classes who said that the constitution has “existed time out of mind [and]…long flourished under it”. He among many others believed that it if it was working why was there a need to tamper with the political system? The view of the landowning elite was that a change in the political landscape could possible change the shape of society forever where their quality of life is degenerated in favour of the ranks below them. This was something which they feared greatly.
Finally, some politicians argued that not everyone in society could conceivably be content with the political system; it was a simple fact of life that certain people would be despondent with how the country was administrated. However, some factors which seemed unfair were in fact benefiting the nation in the end. For those who rejected the influence of the aristocrats they might be surprised to understand that they were there to prevent conflict between the lords and commons. As well as rotten boroughs allowing the influence of some excellent MP’s such as Elder Pitt who supervised the expansion of the British empire in the eighteenth century. For this reason it can be argued that the system was working fine just it simply did not suite the lower ranks of society because they sought after a larger say in the running of the country.
In conclusion, after analysing the radical and conservative views of the subject it is indeed true that the unreformed electoral system was in desperate need of reform. It is correct to believe that the system of 1815 does have some admirable points, in theory, such as the representation of all aspects of society through “virtual representation”. However, for the main reason of being unrepresentative and corrupt there needed to be a change in the system so that British politics could develop and mature into a system which allowed the best qualified people to become MP’s rather than someone coming into power based on wealth who may not be taking a part in the job for the right reasons which was to facilitate Britain.
