The second urge to parliamentary reform was economic change. Britain's
leading commercial and industrial centers were becoming more and more under-represented in parliament and so voters became angry and opposed to the system.
This view was shared with many other voters who felt that as well as giving
county voters more rights, major towns should also be represented better where industry was growing day by day.
The third reason was more ideological and it was to do with the situation
in France. 1789 saw the outbreak of revolution and the redefining of the
relationship between the individual and the state. This meant that the authority
of governments over its people depended upon a contract between the two which meant that the people had to give up certain rights of independent action and initiative, and in return, the government could grant security and a framework of laws to protect the people.
Between 1770 and 1830, the Tories dominated Parliament and they were extremely opposed to reform and increasing the numbers of voters. However, 1830 became a turning point as Earl Grey, a Whig became Prime Minister, finally dislodging the Tory government. Earl Grey, unlike the Tory Prime Ministers that had been in government since 1770, was in favour of reform and he tried to introduce proposals to get rid of some rotten boroughs. Grey also sympathized with the growing industry and set out to give growing towns such as Manchester, Leeds and Bradford representation in the House of Commons. To do so, he needed the help of William IV.
In April 1831, Grey asked permission from William IV to dissolve Parliament so that the Whigs could secure a larger majority and in turn, pass through the reforms they wanted. William agreed to the proposal which set the ball rolling for the reforms.
It was after Lord Grey’s election victory that he tried again for parliamentary reform. However, on the 22nd September 1831, it was the Tories who dominated the House of Lords and after a long session of scrutinizing the bill in the Lords, it was scrapped.
This led to outrage amongst the Whigs and many riots occurred throughout cities in Britain showing just how much the reform bill was approved. Grey did not give up, instead he pressed on with the help of Henry Brougham, a Whig-peer and the two men met with William IV and requested permission to create a large number of Whig-peers so a majority could be met. This failed however and Grey and his government stepped down as a result.
William then asked the Duke of Wellington to form a new Tory Government to fill the power vacuum left by the Whigs. The Tories refused which led to William IV having no choice but to agree to create more Whig-peers which in turn, passed the bill.
However, not everyone was happy with the bill, especially those who believed that the vote would be extended to all men. Instead, it was restricted to men who occupied homes with an annual value of £10 resulting in only one in five adult males receiving the right to vote.
This might not have come as such a shock however as Grey told the Lords in 1831 that ‘The principle of my reform is, to prevent the necessity for revolution…there is no one more dedicated against annual parliaments, universal suffrage, and the ballot than I am’ . Grey recognized the necessity for ‘moderate reform’, which would ensure a situation unlike that of the in France. This speech can be seen to undermine the bill however as it seems that Grey is setting up the nation for universal suffrage, whereas the results are far from it. It is possible that Grey was simply anxious about his government’s position and he saw this as the only way to extract votes from a very volatile audience.
However, the bill did double the amount of voters in England which can be seen as a positive effect but this fraction was no way near as what it should or could have been. This indeed takes some of the hype out of the bill but the Whigs’ position was clear and they certainly had no intention of taking away the continuance and control of government by men of property. Grey publicly stated that he would not abandon the principles of aristocratic government so the bill was probably not as shocking or disappointing as you would think after analyzing Grey’s and the Whigs’ position.
Amongst radicals, the reform was seen to be pointless and ineffective. George Eliot wrote’ The Reform Bill is a trick - it's nothing but swearing in special constables to keep the aristocrats safe in their monopoly.’
While this may be true, the Whigs had to uphold certain traditions of government as well as pleasing the lower classes. That is why perhaps the bill seems to take the ‘middle-line’.
In essence, the bill served its main purpose, a view shared by many of the time. It gave the rights of property a new lease of life, under existing management and it secured political stability in the 1830s and 1840s. These revolutions in Europe depended on the extent of middle class leadership and as the middle class in Britain had been hitched to the higher echelons of political leadership, Britain was essentially safe. Were power to have solely stayed in the hands of aristocrats, Britain would have surely seen a revolution so the reform act did serve one very positive purpose.
But perhaps the Great Reform Act was indeed great. Robert Peel, a Conservative at the time feared the bill would lead to more dramatic changes and he was right. It was impossible that the Reform of 1832 would be the ‘final solution of a great constitutional question’. The act was seen as a ‘stepping stone’ for other reforms which finally awarded the working class with the vote and in effect, allowed the social classes to co-operate and collaborate. And that is what the act prevented, the ‘crude supersession of one ruling class by another’, surely a good thing.
Despites its imperfections, its flaws and its lack of rights for the lower class, the Great Reform Act of 1832 set Britain on the right path to non-violent change, a precedent surely more appealing than a violent revolution. Therefore, the reform should certainly be valued as a positive start for constitutional change in the 1800’s.
