Why was The Great Reform Act passed in 1832 ?
Why was The Great Reform Act passed in 1832 ?
Since the Industrial Revolution the population of Britain was growing rapidly. The census figures were 12,000,000 in 1811, over 14,000,000 in 1821, 16,500,000 in 1831, and, in 1851 over 21,000,000. The causes of the massive increase were not clear to contemporaries and indeed are still in doubt. There was one definite reason for the soaring population after 1760. This was that, in comparison with the fearful infant mortality rates in earlier centuries, a much smaller proportion of children now died at birth or before they were six years old. The saving of these lives explained why, despite some decades when there was a fall in the birth rate, the population began steeply increasing. There were also fewer deaths in childhood, early youth and middle aged people, mainly because they were better fed, better clothed, more temperate in their habits than in the days of cheap gin, and less likely to catch diseases like smallpox which had been endemic in earlier times.
As well as the population rising, the growth of the towns was also quite great. This surge in the population and size of towns occurred pretty much over the whole of the United Kingdom. Liverpool had grown from 82,000 in 1801 to 202,000 in 1831, and Leeds from 53,000 in 1801 to 123,000 in 1831. Sheffield and Birmingham doubled in size during the same period; Manchester and Salford increased from 95,000 to 238,000 and Glasgow from 77,000 to 193,000. The up and rising population of these cities, including London, came largely from neighbouring counties, but there was also a movement of population from Ireland, and the mass amount of Irish immigrants entering the country. In 1835 there were 100,000 Irish living in Lancashire alone. The growth of the towns was caused because the population was growing rapidly and so there was a much bigger demand for industrial goods. This meant that there were plenty of jobs for workers in factories, so many farmers and labourers were migrating from the countryside to larger towns to get a sense of working class identity. Also, because British agriculture was becoming more efficient at this time, more food was being provided, so the labourers were not needed as much and there was space for them to migrate. Since the working class were all together in the same towns and not spread out across the country like they were before the industrial revolution they began noticing they were all united in their feeling of the current political system. This meant they was more of the chance of riots because they could plan them together and they felt they could make a change now they were all living together in the big Industrial towns. Considering this, the movement of people migrating from the agricultural farms and villages to the industrial towns and cities had an influence in the passing of the great reform act of 1832.
How could it be that the fastest growing towns of the nation such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield were not represented in Parliament? The government was able to manage the affairs of the country, but how could the government properly represent the nation in the House of Commons and the House of Lords if they did not have representatives from the leading Industrial towns? The country as a whole had a promising future because of the changes and effects of the Industrial Revolution, but until the most important industrial towns and cities were represented in Parliament, the country could not possibly move forward as a nation. The men whose untiring application and enterprise had created the country's wealth and industrial prosperity were not represented to give their significant views in the House of Commons. There was an obvious case here that there was something wrong with the country's political system and there was a desperate need for a change.
In the 18th Century, only 558 MPs were elected to the House of Commons. In most cases, two MP's represented each constituency. These constituencies or voting districts were divided into two groups: counties and boroughs. Most MPs were generally wealthy because not only did they have to have an annual income of £600 (£300 for borough MPs) but also they did not get paid a wage.
The second argument now comes suggesting that there was a definite need for a change of the current political system. This was because the boroughs had originally been towns but most of them had turned into no more than villages by 1800. So how could important industrial towns not be represented in the House of Commons, yet boroughs, no more than villages, have two representatives in Parliament? Especially when in some boroughs, where only a small number of citizens were allowed to take part in elections, MPs were elected by less than ten people.
As well as the political system being substantially incorrect it was also corrupt. Candidates would use a variety of different methods and approaches to ensure and persuade people to vote for them. Some candidates paid electors money or bribes, some bought electors gifts or offered them jobs. Other candidates would use threats. Considering that most candidates were wealthy landowners they might warn tenants that they could be evicted if they did not vote for him or for his candidate. Sometimes people such as shopkeepers, trades people, solicitors and doctors were threatened with an organised boycott of their business if they did not vote for who they were told to. Also because elections were 'open' not secret, it was possible for the wealthy people to check whether people did vote for their candidates. Constituencies that came under the control of a wealthy individual became known as 'rotten' or 'pocket' boroughs. There needed to be a change in the current political system to stop elections becoming corrupt.
Reform was wanted because it would share the places in Parliament and the House of Commons around, so the country was represented by representatives from all major towns and cities. At the current time in 1815 small boroughs were represented in Parliament, however, major industrial towns were not. The middle class wanted the pocket boroughs in which the number of representatives had been controlled by aristocratic landowners to be disenfranchised along with the rotten boroughs which had no or very small population. Also, the middle class and most of the general public wanted many more representatives in Parliament and the House of Commons on the whole, because the tiny 558 MPs that were currently being elected into the House of Commons were not matching the soaring population of around 13,000,000. If this reform was passed it would result in the transfer of the political power from the agricultural south-west to the industrial north-west and to the hard working middle-class.
The working class caused a number of protests and conflicts across the country. From 1811 to 1813 and again in 1816 there were a number of violent incidents occurring in textile areas around the country. The attacks were caused because of general unrest combined with the opposing of the new machinery supposedly threatening their jobs. These were hard years for the country as the grain shortages caused high food prices, and in 1816 a depression in industry caused unemployment and low wages. Textile workers hit out at new machinery that seemed to be threatening their jobs. Factories were ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The working class caused a number of protests and conflicts across the country. From 1811 to 1813 and again in 1816 there were a number of violent incidents occurring in textile areas around the country. The attacks were caused because of general unrest combined with the opposing of the new machinery supposedly threatening their jobs. These were hard years for the country as the grain shortages caused high food prices, and in 1816 a depression in industry caused unemployment and low wages. Textile workers hit out at new machinery that seemed to be threatening their jobs. 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. Sometimes these attacks arose from riots but others were obviously planned. Stories began spreading about there being a leader of the machine breakers, (Luddites), he was called Ned Ludd (sometimes referred to as Captain or General Ludd). Some feared he would lead a general rising and over throw the government, however, this never arose and he turned out to almost certainly be a mythical figure and there was no national organisation. Machine breaking was soon made a capital offence and troops were moved into troubled areas.
Machine breaking was also at the heart of rioting by farm workers in the southern parts of England around 1830. British farming had been depressed since 1814 and this had caused low wages and work spaces were in short supply. Where new machinery was used in the place of human labour it was bitterly resented. Riots broke out among labourers in Kent in 1830 after another harvest failed. The riots then spread through Sussex, Hampshire, Berkshire and Wiltshire. Over these counties there had been around one hundred disturbances which spread over twenty-two counties in total. As against the Luddites the government reacted very harshly against the people involved in the swing riots; nine rioters were hanged, 457 transported and over 400 imprisoned. Overall the Luddites and Swing Rioters achieved very little in the long run, only slowing down the introduction of machines in some areas and counties from the south. Their acts of vandalism were not unknown in the days before the Industrial Revolution but the main reason for these attacks had to be that the people wanted the creation of a parliament that would truly represent all the people. Their anger was increased by the fact that in the years between 1811 to 1820 wages were low and harvests were bad. In the long run the Swing rioters and the Luddites did not have a big effect on the government in persuading the passing of the great Reform Act of 1832.
However, in 1819 the incident known as the 'Peterloo Massacre' had a larger effect on the passing of the Reform Act . In August 1819, sixty thousand people congregated in St Peter's Fields, Manchester, to hear the most popular radical speaker of the day, Henry Hunt, make a speech on the subject of parliamentary reform. The people assembling in the fields were carrying banners with revolutionary inscriptions. There was no disorder; unfortunately, the local magistrates, who had brought special constables and detachments of the Lancashire and Cheshire militia, lost their nerve, and ordered Hunt's arrest. The soldiers who tried to reach him were pressed by the mob and drew their sabres and charged and fired upon the crowd, killing eleven people (including two women) and injuring about five hundred people. The 'Peterloo Massacre' as it came to be known, caused an immediate feeling of revulsion at all levels of society. After this incident the government passed the 'Six Acts' which generally allowed magistrates to search homes, break up meetings and convict offenders without trial. After this incident Britain certainly seemed to be on the verge of a violent revolution in 1820. The great deal of pressure put on the government because of the 'Peterloo Massacre' caused them to realise that the more repressive they were, the more it would provoke the desire for rebellion. This had a bigger influence on the Reform Act of 1832 because an unnecessary pressure was put on the government to grant the peoples' wish of a parliament that would properly represent the people.
After the 'Peterloo Massacre' the middle and working class had a number of determined spokesmen, the most eloquent of whom was undoubtedly the free-lance journalist, William Cobbett (1763-1835). Cobbett began a newspaper called the Political Register which had a circulation over Britain of above 50,000. It reached an audience far wider than its sales and was read aloud in town alehouses and country inns, where vast crowds gathered to hear the editor's impassioned pronouncements. The same crowds listened to other new journals which imitated Cobbett's lead -like Thomas Wooler's Black Dwarf and Richard Carlile's Republican. All of these papers made one straight-forward demand for a cure of the country's ills, the creation of a Parliament that would truly represent the people. In the long run people like William Cobbett in exciting the passions of the people towards reform, did harm to the cause of parliamentary reform in 1832.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809) was influential in the American and French Revolution. He was not scared to hide his political views and produced a pamphlet while in America stating why he felt the US colonies had the right to revolt against a government. In a sense his thoughts were correct that if a government imposed taxes on colonies but did not give them the right of representation in Parliament, the people had a right to protest. He also stated in the pamphlet called Common Sense that sooner or later independence from England must come, because America had lost touch with the mother country. Paine sold an astounding 500,000 copies and his influence on the Declaration of Independence of July 4th, 1776 was eminent. Another sign of his great influence was the number of loyalist reactions to Common Sense.
Paine also had a hand in the French Revolution. He published a book called Rights of Man in which he defended the French Revolution against the attacks by Edmund Burke in his book. Paine's book was more than just a defence of the French Revolution, it was an analysis of the roots of the discontentment in Europe, which he blamed on the dictatorial government. The book was banned in Britain because it opposed the monarchy and Paine could not be arrested because he was already on his way to France having been elected in the National Convention. Paine's influence in causing the Revolution in France had added to the government's distresses of the worry of a working class uprising. Paine was a widely read political thinker and made the government feel more cautious of a working class rebellion. Paine did not have a real influence in the reform of 1832, he just put the government under more pressure by adding to their problems by having a hand in the starting of the Revolution in France.
The French Revolution also had an effect on the passing of the Reform Act of 1832. It made the government fear that there could be a general uprising by the working and middle classes. Whenever there was a minor riot it would remind the orderly citizens and the government of the excesses of the French. Also in France before the Revolution the country had suffered an economical slump and this meant, like in Britain, between 1810 and 1825 there were severe agricultural problems. This was one of the causes of the French Revolution because it increased the French people's problems and made their anger stronger. This was also the case in Britain between 1810 and 1825 because there were many agricultural problems. Harvests were bad, wages were low and grain shortages caused high food prices. So this also had a hand in the passing of the Reform Act of 1832 because it created a high amount of fear in the government that there would be a revolution in Britain. Considering that in 1830 there was another revolution in Paris and the government that had denied the reforms was thrown out, this doubled the worries of the Tory government.
By 1830, the Tory party had enjoyed rule as the government party for almost two generations. Largely because of the savage measures of the 1790s and the years after the war, the Tories were regarded as men of unflinching reaction - men who as long as they remained in power would stop all hope of parliamentary reform. So naturally in November 1830 when Earl Grey, a Whig, became Prime Minister, the poor and the radical leaders sensed better times. They were right to feel this way but their struggle for reform was to be a long one.
The cry for votes grew louder and louder and in spite of Acts of Parliament men held public meetings, published pamphlets, and wrote violent articles in newspapers. The big industrial towns insisted that the 'pocket' boroughs must go and the vacant seats in the House of Commons allotted to them. So on 22nd September 1831, the House of Commons passed the Whig Reform Bill. However, the Tories still dominated the House of Lords, and after a long debate the bill was defeated. When people heard the news, riots took place in several British towns. Earl Grey, in an attempt to get a reform passed, warned King William IV that unless the government made changes to the way the House of Commons was elected, Britain faced the grave danger of revolution. So again in 1832 Grey tried putting the bill through the House of Lords but again it was dismissed. Lord Grey now appealed to William IV for help. Although William IV did not agree with parliamentary reform, he feared the possibility of revolution. He therefore agreed to Grey's request to create a large number of new Whig peers. When the reform bill was put through the House of Lords for the third time, William IV threatened the Tory peers that they would be fired if they did not vote for reform. When the House of Lords heard the news, they agreed to pass the Reform Bill. The Whigs coming to power in government had a large effect on the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 because the new government was for parliamentary reform.
William IV had a very important effect in the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. He was arguably the most important reason for the passing of the Reform Bill. William IV, brother of George IV, began his short reign in 1830. The reform of Parliament had by now become the burning issue. Extreme Tories, led by the Duke of Wellington, stood fast against it. Reform groups in Parliament, including the moderate Tories, drew together and supported Earl Grey, the Whig leader. Wellington's government fell and the Whigs came into power. However, William IV had a vital role in the passing of the Reform Bill. Considering the House of Lords was full of anti-reformers, if he had not threatened to replace them with Whig peers the reform would have never been passed and the most likely outcome would have been a revolution.
In Horsham reform came as a relief in 1832. The townspeople were indeed glad that the Reform Bill was passed, and celebrated with a march round the town followed by a dinner in the park with 3,000 sitting down to cold beef. Under the terms of the Bill, Horsham lost one member, the franchise was extended to every householder of £10 annual value, and the boundaries of the constituency were extended to include the whole parish rather than just the borough, so that 257 voters were now concerned and not just the burgesses, although still over half the householders of Horsham were ineligible to vote. Before the Reform Bill of 1832 Horsham was the centre of some violent riots. In November 1830 a mob of between 1,000 and 2,000 marched on Horsham, evidently well organised and determined to get their demands of a minimum 2s. 6d. day wage and reduction of rent and tithes (the wages had dropped because of the depression in 1816). A letter from the High Sheriff to the Home Office gives one version of what occurred, and a lady writing to a friend in London gave another. The Sheriff said that the complaints of the mob were attended to, thought reasonable, and the meeting dispersed quickly and quietly. The unknown lady gives an entirely different account, in which she states that the mob forced the worthies to come to the parish church. Where; 'Mr Hurst held out so long that it was feared blood would be shed, the doors were shut until the demands were granted, no lights were allowed and the iron railings that surrounded the monuments were torn up'. The result of the meeting was an agreement by the vicar to reduce tithes by 10 per cent and by the magistrates that wages should be a minimum of 2s. 6d. per day.
In Horsham the magistrates were powerless to resist the labourers' increasing demands, but the cost of living went up and up. Rents rose as much as 90 per cent and distress was such that some farmers paid no rent at all. The poor rates were of course greatly increased, and there was much unemployment and decline in cattle rearing and crop growing. In the 1830s there were several wet seasons, causing the loss of sheep as well as crops. To crown it all, taxation to pay for the war had grown alarmingly, there were taxes on salt, soap, candles, leather, malt, sugar and tea which just about included everything necessary for a working man. In Horsham in between 1780 and 1830 the cost of living had rose by 500 per cent. With all these troubles in the south of England, providing troops was becoming a problem to keep order. Cavalry from Dorchester and 100 infantry from Portsmouth were ordered to Horsham to avoid more riots and to retain order.
The reform bill of 1832 provided the redistribution of parliamentary seats that the general public were crying out for. It virtually tripled the electorate and redistributed nearly a 1/4 (quarter) of the seats in the House of Commons mainly from the agricultural south west to the big industrial towns of the north west. It disenfranchised 56 boroughs, among them the so called rotten boroughs which had little or a very small population and pocket boroughs where the number of representatives had been controlled by aristocratic land owners. The parliamentary representation of other boroughs was ended, while that of a number of large towns generally increased. Some large towns such as Manchester, Birmingham and four districts in London were given two representatives each. The representation of Ireland and Scotland was also increased. The bill also meant more than 250,000 adult males were added to the electoral rolls, but overall only 20% of people now had the vote in England, 12% in Scotland and 5% in Ireland. On the whole the reform bill of 1832 resulted in the transfer of political power from the land owning aristocrats to the middle class and the bending of the House of Lords to the popular will. The general purposes of the reform act of 1832 and such acts were the achievement of a more representative government and the democratisation of the electoral process. Another aim was the elimination of corrupt electoral practices such as bribery.
To some the reform bill of 1832 came as a disappointment to some people as they expected and wanted much more. Considering the population across England was 16,500,000 only 20 per cent of the people could vote. This was appallingly low and needed to be changed. Also there were still far few seats in the House of Commons to reflect the increasing population. There also needed to be a change there. On the whole though, the general population particularly the working class and middle class were very pleased with the reform bill of 1832.
There are some very important reasons for the passing of the reform act of 1832, some reasons are more important than others and had a bigger effect on the passing of the reform act than others. One reason for the passing of the reform act was the working class protest. The Luddites and Swing rioters caused a lot of damage around the country by vandalising many new pieces of machinery and letting the government know about their political feelings. In the long run however, the Luddites and the Swing rioters achieved very little apart from postponing the arrival of machinery in some southern counties. They did show the government that they were not happy with the way they were running the country and increased their fears that there could be a rebellion. This, linked together with the influence of the French Revolution caused a bigger effect on the passing of the reform act because while the government saw that the French rioters had caused a revolution, when they looked at their own country and saw the rioters here they could have feared more the eventuality of a revolution.
Another reason for the passing of the reform act was the 'Peterloo Massacre'. However this is ironic because the pressure caused here by the incident was caused entirely by the government and not the working class. The 'Peterloo Massacre' as it came to be known occurred when 60,000 people gathered in St Peter's fields to hear the most popular radical speaker of the day Henry Hunt speak on the subject of parliamentary reform. There was no disorder however, unfortunately the local magistrates lost their nerve and ordered Hunt's arrest. The special constables and detachments from Cheshire and Lancashire militia were pressed by the mob in their attempts to reach Hunt, so drew their sabres and charged the crowd thus killing 11 people and injuring over 500. This incident was caused entirely by the governments' mistake and created a feeling of revulsion at all levels of society and there was great fear that a violent revolution could erupt in 1820. This incident had some effect on the passing of the reform act because linked together with the governments' fear that the French Revolution would encourage the riotous working class to revolt, it created an uncertain atmosphere, increasing pressure on the government to change the political system whilst at growing fear of a revolution.
Another reason for the passing of the reform act of 1832 was the influence of the French Revolution. Whenever there was a minor riot the orderly members of the public and the government would be reminded of the excesses of the French. It made the government fear more that there would be a general up rising. The French Revolution had quite a big influence in the passing of the reform act because it contributed with other reasons for the passing of the reform and increased the governments' fear. This is because in 1815 the French Revolution influenced a number of orators and pamphleteers who attacked the current political system. As well as influencing the middle and working class protest it increased the governments' fear that the working class protest would turn into a revolution. If the French Revolution had not happened there would have probably not been a working class protest because the working class would have remained feeling that they could not make a difference and they would not have rioted. The French Revolution inspired the working class that they can force changes on the political system thus causing them to riot.
The French Revolution (as I mentioned above) influenced a number of determined spokesmen to protest for the working class and the middle class. The most eloquent of whom was undoubtedly the free-lance journalist, William Cobbett. Cobbett began a newspaper called the Political Register which had a circulation over Britain of above 50,000, but reached an audience far wider than its sales. Other new journals which imitated Cobbett's lead -like Thomas Wooler's Black Dwarf and Richard Carlile's Republican were also published. All of these papers made one straight-forward demand for a cure for the country's ills, and the creation of a Parliament that would truly represent the people. In the long run people like William Cobbett in exciting the passions of the people towards reform, did harm to the cause of parliamentary reform in 1832. They had a definite influence in the passing of the reform act of 1832.
Thomas Paine had a lesser influence in the passing of the reform act of 1832. His thoughts on the political structures of countries were published in many pamphlets thus having an influence on the French and American Revolutions. However, he did not have such a big influence in England because his pamphlets were banned as they opposed the monarchy. He did still have a small influence because some people in the country had heard or even read his beliefs on other country's political systems. His books inspired the working and middle class that they have the right vote so triggered the working class protest of the Luddites and the Swing Rioters.
Another reason for the passing of the great reform act of 1832 was the Whigs coming to power. This was one of the most important reasons because if the Tories were to stay in power they opposed the idea of reform. The change in government made the population feel there was a much larger opportunity for reform. The Whig leader Earl Grey was particularly aware of the growing industrial towns and that they were still not represented in the House of Commons. With the Whigs in power there was still a major problem facing reform and to get reform the bill had to be passed through the then Tory majority House of Lords. Now if William IV had not intervened and threatened the Tory peers that they would lose their jobs to be replaced by Whig peers if they did not vote for reform, the reform would have never been passed. The Whigs coming to power was still an important factor in the passing of the great reform act. If the Whigs and Earl Grey had not come into power the most likely outcome would have been a revolution because as long as the Tories remained in power there was never a chance of reform.
William IV played possibly the most important part in the passing of the great reform act. His intervention in the House of Lords resulted in the reform bill being granted. Although William IV had virtually no political judgement he feared greatly the chance of a revolution. He knew he would be removed from the throne if he turned down the reform ideas. So he agreed to help the Prime Minister, Earl Grey, in getting the reform bill passed through the Tory traditionalists seated in the House of Lords. If William IV had not been the King at the time and had not been able to help the Whigs get the reform act passed the most likely outcome would have been a revolution.
The most important reason for the reform act being passed in 1832 was a combination of two significant factors. The Whigs coming to power in government and the intervention in the House of Lords by the new king, William IV. When the Whigs came to power there was an excitement among the working and middle class of the chance of reform. Their excitement was correct because on the 22nd September 1831, the House of Commons passed the Whig Reform Bill. However, the Tory traditionalists, dominated the House of Lords and there was not a hope that the reform would be passed. Sure enough the reform was rejected so Earl Grey, the Prime Minister appealed to the new king for help. Earl Grey explained to the King that unless the government made changes to the current political system relating to how the House of Commons was elected Britain would be in danger of a violent revolution. Although William IV did not totally agree with the idea of parliamentary reform he feared greatly the idea of a revolution, so he agreed to help. William IV threatened the Tory peers in the House of Lords that they would be replaced by Whig peers unless they passed the reform bill. When the Tory peers heard the news they passed the reform bill. These two factors had the most important influence in the passing of the bill because if the Whigs had never come to power the Tories would have always rejected the idea of reform. Also if William IV had not agreed to help the Whigs get the reform passed, it would have constantly been rejected in the House of Lords.
The Great Reform Act of 1832 signalled a change in the way the House of Commons was represented. It redistributed nearly a quarter of the seats in the House of Commons from the agricultural south west to the big industrial towns in northern England. More importantly it disenfranchised 56 boroughs with little or no population.