Did 1832 mark a watershed in British politics?

Although heralded by its creators as the final measure needed to resolve the reform question that had, to varying d

It would seem therefore that the 1832 Reform Act could have potentially been the earliest realisation of a democratic, independent parliament. However this was not the case. At the end of the first session of the newly reformed parliament, Grenville remarked that it “turn[ed] out to be very much like every other Parliament”. This is of course, hardly surprising, given Grey’s intentions of reforming on ‘a conservative principle’. The 1832 Act actually reduced the number of working-class vote, by standardising the franchise anomalies that had given working class people the vote, such as potwalloper boroughs where all who owned a house and fireplace on which to boil a pot could vote, were wiped out. Moreover those who were enfranchised came from the upper end of the growing ‘middle-classes’, the majority of whom were far from radical, being concerned with ensuring a stable economy. Even those who were of a radical nature would have found it difficult to significantly change the composition of the House of Commons. Members of Parliament did not receive salaries, and all expenses were their own. None but the wealthy could afford to stand, and to make sure of this, until 1858, it was stipulated that county members had to possess a landed estate worth more than £600.

However both those in opposition, and some of those in government, believed that, whatever its foundations, the Reform Act would seriously change the balance of power in British politics. Wellington certainly feared the radical effects of widening the franchise, fearing a middle-class oligarchy; given the sentiments of Whig Coalition MP Althorp, this is perhaps unsurprising. In 1831 Althorp wrote to the drafting committee, explaining that his decision to desist campaigning for secret ballots resulted from a belief that “with such a reform proposed, the people will soon have the power of taking what more they want”. This view would very much suggest that the Act was a watershed, dividing unreformed aristocratic government, from reformed government ruled by public opinion. There is some credit to this argument. Although contemporaries and historians alike have denounced the reforms as insubstantial, it should be remembered that there was a fifty percent increase in the number of men who had the vote. Furthermore the abolition of 56 nomination boroughs, and the removal of one of their MP’s from a further 31 small boroughs, made a significant reduced the role of patronage in Parliament. The Commons became, to some extent, a more independent body, with the limitation of both the Crown and Lord’s ability to choose representatives in Parliament. In addition the passage of the Reform Act also demonstrated the failure of the monarchy to deliver a majority in Parliament at a time of crisis – William IV was forced to rely on Grey after Wellington’s inability to form a ministry in May 1

Some topics in this essay:
Reform Act, Anna Clark, Edinburgh Magazine, MP Althorp, British Constitution, Bill June, Britain Grey, Manchester Birmingham, James Vernon, Commons Parliament, reform act, middle classes, british politics, 1832 reform, 1832 reform act, middle class, act watershed, 1832 act, public opinion, nineteenth century, lower classes, alliance middle classes, role middle classes,