The French revolution of 1789 arguably decreased the chances of any form of Parliamentary reform taking place in the period 1780-1820. The French revolution had a profound and abiding influence on the intellectual climate within Britain and on the development of British politics both inside and outside of parliament. With a revolution occurring just across the British channel, many radical groups in Britain were encouraged by the situation in neighbouring France and attempted to maintain the movement of such a revolution by bringing it to Britain. Reformers such as Charles James Fox and Richard Price hailed the outbreak of revolution in a country long regarded as the prime example of absolute monarchy. The Society for Constitutional Information was revived and one of its leading members, Henry Flood, introduced a motion for parliamentary reform into the House of Commons in March 1790. The fact that a proposed motion for reform was introduced in 1790 illustrates what an impact the French revolution had on Britain and shows that there was a realistic campaign for reform in the late 18th century. Individuals published books such as Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man, which brought elements from lower society into the forum of reform and inspired and educated many on the topic of society and how it could and should be reformed. However, the French revolution also increased the growth of a loyalist counter-revolution, which ensured that French principles would not in fact take root in British soil. Many in Britain supported the philosophical principles behind the French revolution, but the methods used to enforce these principles worried the British public and the majority of the media portrayed the actions in France as savage and horrific. The impact of the French revolution was most prominent on the aristocratic classes in Britain simply because of the way in which the French masses went about revolutionizing the country. The public executions of so called aristocrats struck fear in the hearts of those in a similar position in society within Britain and therefore the elite in society viewed any sort of revolutionary activities in Britain with discontent. The majority of those in power demonised the French revolution in the late 18th century and many called for calm in response to such a crude revolution. As William Pitt the Younger argued:
‘Would he recommend you to repair your house in the hurricane season?’
The movement for Parliamentary reform would ideally be a slow and gradual one in the eyes of those in Parliament and the French revolution was threatening this approach. This led many of the more privileged in society to express the revolutionary activities in France as a threat to the nature of the British system, a system that had protected the rights and liberties of citizens with documents like the Bill of Rights in 1689.
‘I would rather forgo for ever the advantages of reform, than risk for a moment the existence of the British constitution.’ – Pitt the Younger
Parliamentary reform was a topic which obviously brought about serious and hard fought out debates between those for and against such reforms and before the French revolution, it was a topic met with social acceptance and discussion would be tolerated. However, after the revolution in France, it no longer was a topic of discussion in terms of its influence on British politics. Reaction to the revolution made even those MP’s who were in favour of an element of reform, totally hostile to the issue. The impact of the activities in France became even more significant on the chances of parliamentary reform when Britain engaged in a 22 year was with France in 1793. Those who had previously supported the French revolution as a step forward in democracy and supported the basic fundamental ideological principles of the revolution were portrayed and labelled as traitors. If a country is at war and there are citizens supporting the enemy to which thousands of lives are being lost each year, it seems as thought they are urging for the destruction of their own country, something which was emphasised during the war-time period and led to a huge reduction in support for the French and similar reforms in Britain.
The reform movement was a fundamentally middle-class or landed group, who wanted increased political power and influence whilst their wealth was increasing. Thus, the reformers were merely pushing for reform for their own needs not the needs of the majority of the people. This deep-rooted negligence towards the poor only allowed the reform movement to fail. This is because they had no understanding for the real need for parliamentary reform and were thus alienated from the population who most wanted it. In the 1790’s, working-class support was only just beginning to be mobilized across the nation. Between 1812 and 1820 the reformers’ strength outside parliament grew, but the fundamental reason why reform was yet at the forefront of parliamentary agenda was that the working and middle classes did not unite. Conflict between manufactures and the workforce over rates of pay or working conditions were more important in the short run for those who were in favour of reforming the system. Reformers neglected the economic plight of the poor, which led to the main reason for failure on behalf of the reformists, the fact that they lacked the support of the masses. Even the leaders of the campaign for reform squabbled and fought over the proposal of suffrage, with some wanting universal manhood suffrage and others wanting household suffrage. Poor individuals were more anxious about their general living standards and because man is fundamentally selfish, the individual came first and parliamentary reform would therefore have to come in second place behind general day-to-day issues because reform was not seen as something which would dramatically change people’s lives in the short run. The developments made in the structure of the British economy, with huge industrialisation and urbanisation occurring in Britain before most other nations led to the creation of jobs which needed a form of trade union protection. It also had positive effects on the British population, as greater wealth was created and therefore, one argument which could be used for explaining why reform failed was the developments in the economy, which led to a decreased call for reform because the progress separated the needs of sections of the workforce.
Few In Parliament would accept reform which changed the very nature of the British constitution. Changes to the nature of British politics and representation were therefore envisaged as growing naturally out of a system whose glory was its flexibility and diversity. The likelihood of a dramatic and sudden change to the composition of Parliament was minute and the outcome of any single event would not be solely responsible for a change in the speed and manner in which the British system would evolve over time, in the views of those in power during the late 18th century. Reformers were proposing radical changes to the British system of government and one argument constantly used by those who wielded power was that the existing political system guaranteed a legislative dominated by educated individuals, with a sense of responsibility to the British constitution. The strength of the conservatives also contributed to the failure of early reform. They had a mass disliking to the concept of reform because their power until then had been based upon their patronage, land or aristocratic backgrounds. The removal of this power to command the lower classes was not acceptable and therefore the conservatives took a staunch view over the issue of reform.
Several trade unions organised meetings in 1795 and this method of attempting to raise public support for parliamentary reform was hijacked by several radical groups and also endeavoured to try and intimidate those in authority. This led parliament to pass acts which banned future meetings, showing that parliament did not tolerate the slightest inclinations of activities which would threatened the British system of government. The government also had the backing of a large, well-organised and disciplined army which reduced the level of activities that radicals could carry out at street level. The fact that support for reform was generally concentrated in small areas meant that there was no realistic chance of any sort of uprising occurring as in France, because there wasn’t consistent support for reform across the whole country.
The main reason why parliamentary reform failed in its objectives from 1780 to 1820 was the fact that those in parliament, who were realistically the only collective group of individuals who would bring about reform, would only legislate for its own reform under threat. The simple fact of the matter was that the different groups arguing for reform did not threaten Parliament, as they did not wield a large support base and used different methods to achieve their different goals.
