• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Interpreting the 1832 Reform Act, its origins and effects, has generated continuing debate among historians

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Interpreting the 1832 Reform Act, its origins and effects, has generated continuing debate among historians Dr Michael Turner. University of Sunderland Summary: The Great Reform Act, a product of in tense debate, has produced an equally diverse debate among historians. One element of the controversy centres on the origins of the Act. How far was it designed to stave off a popular revolution, and how far to preserve the influence of the landed gentry or to buy off opposition by timely concessions? Or did the policy-makers not have time to formulate precise aims? The effects of the legislation are equally controversial. Did governments become more popular and more responsive to national issues? How did voting behaviour change? The answers historians have found tend to reflect the particular constituencies they have studied. Diversity rather than uniformity characterises both the motives for the Act and its historical effects. The 1832 Reform Act continues to arouse a great deal of controversy among historians. Older accounts by Trevelyan (1920), Christie (1927) and Butler (1914) treat reform as a timely concession to popular pressure and a Whig party manoeuvre designed to weaken the Tories. But since the 1960s there have been many alternative interpretations, and as we enter the new century it seems appropriate to draw together and reexamine these differing opinions about a topic which continues to fascinate teachers and students of nineteenth-century British history. Concession or cure? According to Moore (1966 and 1974), the Reform Act was not a concession but a cure, designed to revive electoral deference. Reform was meant to reorganise the electoral system, concludes Moore, so that there would be no power for the unpropertied, a clearer distinction between county and borough constituencies, an exclusion of middle-class influence from the counties, and - with more seats for the counties - a reinforcement of landed influence. ...read more.

Middle

After 1832 Peel demonstrated that he was reconciled to institutional reform, and he saw clearly that the Reform Act made the influence of electors much more significant than it had formerly been. To Phillips (1980), the expansion of the electorate is a clear indication that reform was a concession, intended to appease the nation and satisfy a growing desire for inclusion in the political process. Political activity had mushroomed since the 1780s, and the reform of 1832 'created a voting public corresponding reasonably well, proportionately, to that segment of the population apparently meriting inclusion among the electorate as a result of several decades of sustained political participation'. Phillips presents a coherent argument, though it is easy to confuse effects with intentions. In a detailed examination of parliamentary boroughs, Phillips (1992) has shown that the Reform Act significantly altered voting behaviour in some locations, but that the nature of change varied from place to place. Phillips argues that after 1832 voting became clearly and consistently partisan (partly an unintended consequence of voter registration). Voter turnout increased (it was already high in many places). Religious affiliation had more influence over voting choices than social class, as had been the case before 1832, and national issues rapidly came to dominate elections. Some electoral corruption continued, though it was 'politically irrelevant' and rarely determined voting choices and election results. Another element of continuity, therefore, was the considerable freedom of choice enjoyed by voters. These findings are useful because they indicate that elections were already politicised and participatory before 1832, and that the Reform Act furthered political commitment in a manner that would not otherwise have been possible. Indeed, reform made previous changes irreversible. ...read more.

Conclusion

Another important point is that there was less violence in May 1832 than in October 1831. Contemporaries noted this, and some feared a sinister plot, assuming that radicals were so well-disciplined they could hold themselves back in readiness for a popular outbreak at some later time. Place allowed this idea to spread. Again, perception mattered more than reality. Place advised his allies not to hold meetings in case these revealed that the popular movement was more divided than was generally supposed. Whig MPs and peers made much of the danger of unrest when addressing Parliament, as did Grey and the King in their correspondence. Though some feigned alarm only to persuade opponents of reform to give way, others genuinely feared revolution. The fear was expressed often enough, and not only in public arenas. Private letters and records include such expressions, and perhaps these reveal what people were really thinking at the time. For Grey and his colleagues, and for the King, one of the most disturbing aspects of the reform struggle was the manner in which popular pressure became focused with the rise of political unions. The fact that these bodies had such authority, and yet for so long were answerable only to themselves, was a new and alarming development. Grey repeatedly emphasised that the only way to take the wind from their sails was to carry the reform bill, and Lopatin (1991) and Ferguson (1960) have argued that there would have been no reform without them. Words and concepts to note: 'Hegemonic paternalism': a form of control by the 'natural leaders' of society; those who owned the land, that amounted to domination. Instrumentality: purpose served. Pollbooks: the records kept by returning officers of those who voted in particular constituencies. 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level British History: Monarchy & Politics essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Do you agree with the view that the 1832 reform act was a conservative ...

    I take this to mean that as a very strong opponent of universal suffrage even he's see's that this act is best to prevent just that becoming reality in way of a revolution. This fits in perfectly with the title of conservative measure with limited effects.

  2. Peer reviewed

    Do you agree with the view that the main reason for the emergence of ...

    3 star(s)

    Finally Looking at source 6 I can see that it was published in 1994 by people,power and politics. It was written from Robert Ellis. The writer would have read many sources therefore they make have a biased opinion. Also all information may not be known.

  1. Why was the reform act of 1832 passed?

    problem the actual number of MP's in comparison to electorate size meant that some areas were under and some far too over represented, meaning that people were still not having an accurate say in the running of their country. As a general rule the southern agricultural counties were over represented

  2. To what extent was the 1832 reform act the result of popular pressure

    such as the economy, industrialisation, social change and new ideas must also be considered, as without these factors, popular pressure may not have been as great. The revival of reform was partly in response to the state of the economy.

  1. Do you agree with the contemporary view that the Reform Act of 1832 was ...

    duties on imported raw materials, such as cotton, being an example.1 This group by no means supported the idea of universal male suffrage; they simply wanted their own interests to be represented fairly in Parliament. As Moore highlights, they simply wished to reflect the changes in economic power into the

  2. Assess the success of Peel

    admittance of Irish men into Ireland's police force,13 the Irish were not satisfied with the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act. This is because the Act was an empty victory since it had taken away the voting rights of the 40 shilling freeholders, and therefore during Peel's ministry Irish affairs came to

  1. women in 1960s

    Margaret Herbison resigned in a protest against the cuts. It took the strike of the Ford's sewing machinists, combined with the threat of Labour women MP's voting against the government, to enable Barbara Castle to insist in 1968 that equal pay should be phased in through incomes legislation.

  2. Why was The Great Reform Act passed in 1832 ?

    Factories were also targeted along with workshops. Machinery was vandalised or burnt and even some employers were threatened and some even killed. The attacks were started by workers in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire but machine breaking later spread to workers in Lancashire, Cheshire and the Yorkshire area, where hand-loom weavers attacked the new steam powered looms and their owners.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work