However, despite the great influence popular pressure had between 1830 and 1832 on politicians to reform; the impact of various other long-term factors 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. The economic recession during the late 1820s had clear political implications for the towns, as an aristocratic government now seemed out of touch with the needs of Britain’s new industrial economy. The economic problems were increasingly seen as in need of a political solution, and the 1829-30 slump put more emphasis on the need for ordinary people to become more involved with politics.
The unions, triggered by the economic slump, saw mass cooperation between the middle and working classes, which was greatly feared by the Tories. Common distresses drew the two sectors of society together in what they thought should replace the current parliamentary system; the working classes were suffering greatly from unemployment, a fall in wages and high bread prices, and the middle classes similarly experienced losses, failures and anxiety for the future of their businesses. Soldiers returning from the Napoleonic wars, along with munitions factories and the like found themselves at this time surplus to requirement. Similarly, this created a mass of discontented people, susceptible to radical political speakers and consequently causing an impetus for reform.
Another particularly valid argument is that the 1832 Reform Act was the result of the vast social change Britain saw from the middle of the eighteenth century onwards. The industrialisation of Britain began to produce social unrest; which appeared to undermine the unresponsive political system. The system, created in the pre-industrial age, no longer fairly represented the distribution of population in a rapidly changing, urban society. Vast numbers of people had migrated to the expanding cities, predominantly in the north, and there was a general growth in the country’s overall population. Industrialisation dramatically increased wealth, thus leading to the growth of the middle classes. The growth of the middle classes meant there were more people with more money, and the middle classes felt as their input into the country’s economy was increasing, they should have more of a say in governmental and political affairs. From the late 18th century onwards the middle classes became increasingly aware that the old political system, dominated by landed aristocratic interests, was desperately in need of reform. Similarly, the working classes also became more politically aware, and both groups felt that as they were contributing more to the wealth of the country, reform should take place so they were better represented. However, the consequences of both of these groups becoming more aware of the inherent unfairness of the unreformed system leads us back to the argument that the 1832 reform was the result of popular pressure.
During the first three decades of the nineteenth century, there was also a vast amount of social change within the political sphere. Eric Evans argues it was the collapse of the Tory party in 1830 which enabled the Whigs to revive and thus begin to bring about reform as the Tories had consistently refused to extend the vote. The death of Lord Liverpool in 1827 also seemed to open up the possibility of change, as he had been an arch opponent of reform. The death of George IV, also had important political repercussions and was one of the factors contributing to parliamentary reform. His death marked the end of the reign of a man passionately devoted to the Tories and a staunch opponent of electoral reform. This meant that in 1830, parliament was dissolved and a general election held, of which the results further weakened the Tories. This consequently led to a revival in the fortunes of the Whigs; who were much more enthusiastic about the idea of cautious reform. The Whig party believed any change to the existing political system had to be done to preserve its key features, rather than destroy it, as was argued in the ‘Reform, that you may preserve’ speech made by Thomas Macaulay.
To a certain extent, the 1832 reform was the result of the political self-interest of the Whig party. It is arguable that the Whigs wanted to extend the franchise to the middle classes in order to protect reform. By extending the vote to this particular social group, the Whigs could consequently create an alliance with them, therefore protecting themselves in parliament and earning the votes in return as gratitude.
Changing ideas also triggered the urge to reform the pre-1832 political system. A notable radical from this time was the Utilitariansit philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Bentham argued parliament should be efficient and of benefit not just to small numbers but to as many people as possible, and therefore as the unreformed system clearly left large numbers of people unsatisfied, it should be reformed. A group called the Radicals called for the most extensive reforms. Despite government persecution radical publications, most notably the works of Thomas Paine (Rights of Man) were widely distributed and spread the reform movement even further.
It is argued by many that the ideological pressure on the government was particularly powerful, most notably the Enlightenment movement. Several other outstanding individuals, such as William Cobbett and Henry Hunt also a achieved a large following
Without the amount of popular pressure that took place prior to the 1832 reforms, political reform may have taken much longer to be put in place. However, although popular pressure was an important factor, if Britain had not been in the process of industrialisation, there would not have been nearly as much of a call for reform. The state of the economy simply did not fit with the aristocratic political system, therefore it could be argued that social change and the changing state of the economy was the most important factor in why reform came about. However, it is on the other hand arguable, that due to the fact that the popular pressure almost resulted in revolution, it frightened politicians into reforming. Without popular pressure, therefore, reform may have been much later and a much slower process.
