British parliamentary reform was mostly achieved through popular pressure rather than the actions of politicians. How valid is this view in the context of the years 1830-1918.
Parliament is constantly changing within democratic Britain with some of its biggest changes happening between 1830 – 1918. There is debate as to whether reform was largely due to the popular pressure from the people or down to the actions of politicians. Historians are aware from sources at the time there that popular pressure was a major factor when it came creating parliamentary reform. Some sources explicitly express the amount of people attending some events. I shall firstly consider the role of popular pressure as it was indeed the most prevalent.
Popular pressure was initially applied after 1815 when reform clubs proliferated and labouring families attended gigantic reform meetings. This popular pressure increased at certain times so that changes came rapidly after a slow build-up of pressure. Politicians might try to unite different groups or split their opponents using parliamentary reform issues when opportunities or crises developed to reduce popular pressure. They did this in order to support groups that liked their ideas and to reduce the influence of the opposition groups. The two were important in gaining both reform acts however popular pressure seems more important than political manoeuvring. While popular pressure declined with greater prosperity in the mid-1820s, it had intensified again by 1830 when the poor harvest of 1829 increased food prices and unemployment apparently rose; reform petitions then gained unprecedented numbers of signatures. Furthermore, pressure for reform became most intense once a Whig government had introduced a parliamentary reform bill (a proposal for a law), but it had built up previously and was not just a response to initiatives from leading politicians.On the other hand politicians manoeuvred with and against each other as shown with the disintegration of the Tory leadership who supported the old system in the late 1820s. There was a strong religious side to Tory politics. This already seems decisive and would lead to great political change. The Tory party, which had provided the main resistance to reform, was crumbling as Wellington upset both moderates and extremists in the party. Lacking adequate support by the end of 1830, he had to resign and was replaced by the Whig leader, Lord Grey, who formed a government from not only the Whigs but also from radicals, moderate Tories and ultras. This was a very important cause of the 1st Reform Act. The extent of the pressure and circumstances changed rapidly about 1830 however popular pressure was more important.
One such source taken from the times newspaper in May 1832 wrote an article documenting the day of the reform act. The article describes a mass amount of people in attendance stating their “must have been upwards of 200,000 present”. This article tries to emphasis the sheer amount of public support and even goes on to add “in a short time the numbers were still further increased by the arrival of the political unions”. This source seems to suggest that it was largely popular pressure that was leading to this first reform act. The sources tries to capture that the townspeople were very for reform and “loudly cheered as each company entered Birmingham”. Following the newspaper article there was also a letter sent from Reverend R L Freer to the Duke of wellington. This letter was also referring to the day of the reform act, but has quite an opposite view from the article in the times. This letter from Freer discusses similarly the amount of people that attended the reform act. “ The first point of which I have to assure your Grace is that boasted meeting of the political unions on this day week , and which has been cried up as consisting of 200,000 persons, never accounted to more than a quarter of that number”. This extract from the letter appears to go directly against what was said in the Times newspaper. The Times believed their to be “upwards of 200,00” while the letter from Freer stated there was about ‘30,000”. This being a personal letter to the Duke of Wellington is seems unlikely that Freer would lie but there is also the possibility that Freer was trying to deceive the Duke about the amount of people in attendance. He tone of letter genuinely seems that Freer believes there is nothing to work about ang goes on to say “ Another fact is Birmingham is far from being radical, the majority of respectable persons being decidedly conservators”. This seems to indicate that Freer has no real concern about Birmingham becoming radical. This then appears to suggest that the numbers put out by the times may have been exaggerated.
Following the first reform act came the Chartist movement which first emerged in 1836 and increased in activity up to 1848. Chartism was very much a movement for people of the working class and aimed to grant them political rights. Chartism had six main aims which they campaigned for. Firstly Chartists wanted a vote for all men aged twenty one who were not being punished for a crime and who were mentally stable. Chartists also wanted to introduce the the secret ballot, this was to protect the voter and allow to vote freely. Chartists also wanted payment of MPs so they would be able to take time away from their occupations to represent the nation. Annual parliamentary elections and electoral districts of becoming equal size were also things that Chartists were campaigning for. Chartism is a prime example of popular pressure as it was a movement which had had gained a large following in the hope of achieving parliamentary reform. In total the movement put forward three petitions in 1839, 1842 and 1848. Each petition as rejected but it was said the final petition of 1848 was said to have had six million signatures. Whether this number is correct or exaggerated is unimportant because we cannot deny that by late 1840s Chartism had grown in size and popularity. When it came to delivering the petition there was supposed to be a mass meeting on Kennington Common in London. Parliament expected a large turnout so sent 8,000 soldiers to try and control the situation. They were greeted with only 20,000 Chartists as many did not attend due the rain that day. This was regarded as a massive failure and the petition getting rejected led to the downfall of Chartism. Although the Chartist movement came to an end without achieving any of their aims they did successfully build pressure and create unrest. Going forward to the later reforms acts of 1867 and 1884 many chartist ideas were included which creates the impression that the movement influenced later change. Thus making it more successful than it appeared.
With regards to the 2nd Reform Act, there were big extensions of the vote, in particular it gave the vote to large numbers of town workers. There is disagreement among historians about whether the 1867 act was due to politician’s manoeuvres or popular pressure, but there was great growth in local party political activity and fierce controversy later developed about whether women should have the vote. The game plans of political leaders using parliamentary reform as a way to outsmart their rivals e.g. several MPs used the disturbances as an argument for agreeing reform before pressure increased. On the other hand, popular pressure was quite important to the 2nd Reform Act as the Reform League and the Reform Union, both founded in 1864, demanded change, but the agitation mainly developed after leading politicians took up the issue in 1866, and there was little violence compared to the tumultuous riots of the early nineteenth century. Even so, there were disturbances at Hyde Park in July 1866, crowds of over 100,000 were reported at some northern meetings and the agitation must have awakened memories of earlier unrest.
The second reform act had given the vote to certain householders that were living in boroughs but appeared to ignore the people living in the counties. This first took place because there was an idea that people residing in towns had far better knowledge about government and as a result would be able to make better decisions when voting. Following 1872 Gladstone made it clear public ally that the difference between voting in the counties and in the boroughs should not continue. The third reform act was very much down to the actions of politicians rather than popular pressure. The change to rural voting happened because of a government decision and not because the agricultural labourers necessarily wanted it. Gladstone was not at all concerned as to whether they wanted the vote and simply said “ the state wants it for them”. The second reform act allowed householders and £10 lodgers in boroughs to vote. The third reform act simply extended this to the people living in the counties. The electorate had now increased from 3.5 million up to around 5.5 million. This was a 60% increase in voters but still many people were still unable to vote following this reform act. Non householders and people who have not been living in there house for a year still could not vote, and the biggest group of them all women. Women still could not vote at this point despite an amendment being put forward which was later rejected by the House of Commons.
1918 was the year of the fourth reform act, the reform act that finally gave the vote to some women after years of campaigning. The suffragette movement had built up substantial following before the war began in 1914. When war broke out the suffragettes decided to end their campaign of violence and support the war. Suffragist leaders worked to recruit women to fill jobs that had been vacated by men after being deployed. 1916 led to an issue for the government as a general election was emerging. Following the current terms of the third reform act soldiers would not have been allowed to vote as they were not regarded as householders or lodgers. This was a serious issue and parliament knew they would have to adress, so they set up a committee which consisted of all parties in the lords and the commons in the hope of seeking a solution.