The call for parliamentary reform had been established as early as 1780, but as the movement intensified during the late 1820’s, the number of those who got involved with the movement increased and with this, the aims of groups proposing reform became increasingly revolutionary in their outlook. With growing public outcry over the issue of reform, MP’s who had previously been very anti-reform during the early periods of rebellion started to seriously consider reformist proposals. The reason for their change in views was often simply because a reform bill would satisfy public outcry and seem like the most practical thing to do at the time, in order to avoid full scale rebellion. As Cannon argues: ‘In 1820 and 1821 began that tiny shift of pebbles that anticipates the avalanche, as, one by one, members began to announce their conversion to reform’
The Tory party, which had been in government for the vast majority of the previous 50 years, were divided over the issue of parliamentary reform, as Harling illustrates. ‘The vast majority of Tories were adamantly opposed to any significant extension of political rights; they assumed that substantial parliamentary reform would subvert the political hierarchy and bring about a social revolution’. The Tory party had been upended since the severe stroke which Lord Liverpool suffered in February 1827. Replacements to fill his vacant position were either unpopular, such as Liverpool’s chosen successor Canning or unsuccessful, such as Lord Goderich. An issue which grew in importance overtime, was Catholic Emancipation and this became an issue for serious debate within the Tory party after the appointment of Canning as leader. Canning gained a reputation as a leading ‘liberal’ on the Catholic question, which alienated many Tory MP’s and increased the tensions within the party, which had escalated after the resignation of such a strong leader in Liverpool. The appointment of the Duke of Wellington as Prime Minister in January 1928 proved to be unsuccessful, as Wellington did not stimulate the Tory party, but actually worsened relations within the party due to his authoritarian nature and his aversion to reform. To illustrate the disastrous affect the Wellington administration had, one of the most senior ‘liberal Tories’ resigned from his government in May 1828. Arguably the event which totally destroyed unity in the party, was the surrendering to Roman Catholic Emancipation in 1829. Influential pressure groups such as the Catholic Association, founded by Daniel O’Connell campaigned for Catholic Emancipation and with the threat of Irish Civil War; the Tory government passed an Act of Parliament, which allowed a degree of Roman emancipation. ‘Ultra’ Tories, those who were unflinching to the ideological stance of the party, felt betrayed by the Wellington and Peel government and the Tory party slipped further into submission.
Therefore, the Whigs saw an opportunity to increase the split which was emerging within the Tory party and by introducing the Reform Act of 1832; the Tories would become a party which was unelectable because of internal divisions. The aim of the Reform Act could have been to secure a political advantage for the Whig party over the Tory party and because the Whigs had been out of power for such a long time, they were willing to try anything which would increase their chances of securing and holding onto power. In the unreformed electoral system, of the rotten boroughs, 200 belonged to the Tory party and only 70 to the Whigs. Therefore, by redistributing these highly undemocratic seats in parliament to industrial towns, the Tories would be hit worse than the Whigs. If this was an influential factor in explaining why the reform bill was introduced in 1832 and the aim was nothing to do with the growing concern within the UK over the state of parliament, then the architects of the reform bill were indeed conservative in their aims.
The economic situation within the UK was always an issue which would either aggravate or calm the calls for reform, and with wide spread harvest failure in 1828 and 1829 pushing up food prices, the demands for reform increased. This along with ever-rising unemployment figures in cities combined to cause a reason for rebellion according to William Cobbett who had defied anyone ‘to agitate a fellow on a full stomach’. The economic collapse which occurred in 1829, encouraged those in favour of change to rally around the issue of parliamentary reform and with economic conditions deteriorating, the calls for reform became even more revolutionary. ‘Hunger politics’ stimulated activists to march on the streets once again, marches which had been dealt with by the government in the past by passing repressive legislation. Acts of Parliament such as the Six Acts, which amongst other things, restricted large gatherings, increased the tax on stamps for pamphlets and allowed for a trial without jury, were introduced to quash any would-be revolutions. However, the Tory government because of the state of the party could not have adopted these methods in the late 1820’s. Therefore, although the argument that the Reform Act was passed in 1832 because of worsening economic conditions does have some basis, it can be argued that this basis only grew in importance because of the hopeless Tory party.
With the alliance between the middle and the lower classes between 1830 and 1831 allowing for reform to become a topic of even greater importance, those in parliament had to take note of the demand for parliamentary reform. As Early Grey told the King’s private secretary ‘It is undeniable…that the middle classes…are activated by an intense and almost unanimous feeling in favour of the measure of reform’. The formation of the Birmingham Political Union (BPU) by Thomas Attwood, a banker, in December 1929 illustrated how the middle and working classes joined together for a common cause. Attwood realised that if the middle and working classes united, they would provide a much stronger foundation basis for reform. As John Lambton, Earl Grey’s son-in-law argued ‘the middle classes of the population, the very sinews of the population, are eager and desirous of Reform’. The middle class families could provide the money needed to launch campaigns as well as increasing the respectability of the issue of reform. Before 1830, the working classes had been the only real section of society calling for political reform, but now with a large number of middle class citizens from urban industrial areas calling for representation, action would have to be taken by those in power. This adds to the weight to the claim that the architects of the bill were conservative in their aims because MP’s did not want the middle classes to revolt against the political culture in the UK and by compromising over certain aspects of reform; the middle classes would no longer take an active interest in reforming parliament. It could be argued that the restriction of adult males having to own or occupy property worth at least £10 per annum was a ploy by those in parliament to reduce pressures from the middle classes. Although the middle and working classes had started to pull together in their struggle for reform, MP’s believed that the two sections of society still wanted reform for different reasons. Therefore, if they could introduce a reform bill, which satisfied the requests of the middle classes, it would leave only the working classes calling for reform, which they had been doing for over 40 years to no avail.
Another issue which would have had to be considered, was the passing of any reform bill through the House of Lords. The Lords rejected a reform bill in October 1831, which resulted in widespread riots in large towns such as Nottingham and Bristol. These riots combined with the ‘Swing Riots’ in 1830, led the Whigs to argue that a reform bill was vital in order to avoid a revolution, on the basis of the activities in these large towns. The problem of passing the bill through the House of Lords could also add weight to the claim that the architects of the bill were conservative in their aims because a radical bill would stand no chance of passing through the Lords and therefore a more conservative Act would have to be established to pass through the Upper Chamber. The death of George IV in June 1830, a staunch anti-reformist, resulted in William IV taking the throne. William IV was far less politically experienced than George IV and this would have allowed for the Whigs to press for more radical reformist actions. As any bill has to receive royal approval, a revolutionary bill to reform parliament would not have been approved by King George IV. Once William IV came to the throne, there was a chance that a more reformist bill could be passed. However, this did not occur as only 55 boroughs with less than 1,000 inhabitants were disenfranchised and lost both their MP’s and 33 boroughs with less than 3,000 inhabitants lost one of their MP’s. Ireland gained only 5 extra seats, Scotland 8 and Wales 4, showing that areas of the UK were still very much underrepresented. The Reform Act did not achieve a secret ballot, shorter terms in parliament, constituencies of the same size, payment of MP’s or even universal manhood suffrage. Therefore, undoubtedly the architects of the Reform Act were conservative in their aims. Although there was an element of improvement in the UK political system, with a 50% increase of those eligible to vote and seats redistributed to large industrial towns in the Midlands and the NORTH! of the country, those who had campaigned for parliamentary reform felt let down and disgusted by the lack of proposals within the Reform Act. The Reform Act certainly did not result in any form of democracy and the fact that there continued to be riots and widespread agitation over the issue of reform after the passing of the bill, shows that the British public, especially the working classes, were unhappy with the Act because the architects were indeed conservative in their aims.
