Historians who believe that Britain was in fact on the verge of a revolution have suggested a number of factors which serves as evidence to support their argument, that there was a threat of revolution. Economic distress, reaching a climactic outburst of violence in the Swing Riots 1830-31 is one factor which illustrates the unrest and violence apparent in working class protests, adding to a threat of revolution. Historian Eric Hobsbawm argued that the successful working class revolution in France 1830 had an influence on the growing threat of revolution in Britain, saying that political events ran parallel with those on the Continent, to the point where something not unlike a revolutionary situation might have developed in 1831-32'. This was certainly the case in the autumn of 1831 and the Days of May' 1832. In his book The Making of the English Working Class, E.P Thompson said that Britain was within an ace of revolution'. He also argued that it was by pacifying the middle class through the Reform Act only, did Britain avoid a full scale revolt.
Another factor that has arguably contributed to a growing threat of revolution was the division within the ruling classes. This was apparent in both the Whig and Tory parties. The Whigs were divided over what degree reform should extend to. The Tories had been deeply divided on the issue of Catholic emancipation, which eventually led to the split in the party and the Whigs taking office. Perhaps this division and disorder in parliament reflected the disorder outside parliament, and may even have encouraged it.
The campaign for reform among the middle and working classes was a very well organised movement. Political unions were established throughout the whole of Britain, all determined to secure reform. This movement would have included the majority of the population, and a range of effective radical tactics most of which involved violence. Widespread support for the reform campaign, led to outbreaks of rioting all over the country. Members of the Lords known for being against reform were attacked as well as Anglican bishops for their vote against the Bill. The most notorious case of violence being the Bristol riots in October 1831, with what was described as a serious breach of public order'.
There are those, however, who believe that the threat of revolution present between 1831-32 was completely exaggerated. American historian Joseph Hamburger argues that radicals such as Francis Place and Thomas Attwood created a ‘phoney' atmosphere of revolution at this time in order to prevent Wellington from forming a government and to exhort MPs to pass the Reform Bill quickly. He also argues that the strength and unity of the political unions was merely hyperbolic, and an attempt to exploit and frighten politicians. There are a number of arguments which support this view.
To begin with there is little evidence to suggest that leading radicals made any real attempts to collect arms, manipulate the armed forces or to develop a national revolutionary organisation. Secondly it is difficult to determine to what degree class collaboration extended to. E.P Thompson has said that middle class members of the political unions had two purposes: - to promote reform whilst coincidentally controlling the volume of protest and protecting society from mob rule, thereby implying that the political unions actually prevented revolution.
Thirdly there were divisions within the protest movement itself. Rivalry between various political unions existed as well as a conflict of opinion between middle class lead unions and working class lead unions. This was especially evident in London between the National Political Union (NPU), led by Place and the National Union of the Working Classes (NUWC), led by William Lovett, Henry Hetherington and John Cleave. Place called for and supported class collaboration while the NUWC used virulent class language which outraged middle class reformers'. Place did his utmost to ostracise extremists from the council of the NPU and the leaders of the NUWC branded him a traitor to his own class. Furthermore, there were divisions with the working class movement and in the NUWC. Some rejected the Bill as it offered nothing to the working class, while others, most notably radical William Cobbett, were prepared to support the Whigs' Reform as the first step to universal suffrage, taking the view that half a loaf would be better than none'.
