Changes and Parliamentary Reform (1780-1830)

The Context of Reform (1780-1830)

The Industrial Revolution led to significant social and economic changes, contributing to a shift in political beliefs and the demand for parliamentary reform.
Rapid urbanisation and changes to society due to industrialisation highlighted the outdated and inadequate nature of the parliamentary system.
The French Revolution of 1789 had profound impact on Britain, demonstrating the possible outcomes of popular aggression towards corruption and the establishment.

Parliament Before Reform (1780-1830)

The Parliament consisted of the House of Commons and House of Lords before 1830, with voting laws favouring the landed gentry and the wealthy.
Many members were elected from ‘rotten boroughs’ which had very small electorates. There were cases of boroughs with no inhabitants holding seats in the parliament.
Wealth was a key determinant of political influence, leading to widespread corruption and bribery.

Calls for Reform (1780-1830)

The ‘mass platform’ was used to campaign for reform. It targeted a broad audience, was accessible and employed emotive, straightforward language.
Groups like the London Corresponding Society pressed for parliamentary reform, advocating equal representation, annual parliaments, and universal male suffrage.
Political cartoons and pamphlets, seen as a form of popular literature, were useful tools in promoting the idea of reform.

Challenges to Reform (1780-1830)

Many parliamentary figures, such as the Duke of Wellington, were staunchly against the idea of reform, fearing it would lead to chaos and anarchy.
There was a deep-rooted fear of revolution among the ruling classes after the French Revolution. Changes to the parliamentary system could potentially destabilise the country.
The Peterloo Massacre in 1819 highlighted the violence and resistance to change within the establishment.

The Reform Act of 1832

The Reform Act was passed in 1832, essentially modernising the system by redistributing seats to new industrial towns and increasing the number of eligible voters.
It got rid of the most blatant anomalies such as ‘rotten boroughs’ and sought to make the political process more representative of the country’s population.
Despite its progressive nature, the Act was seen as a compromise, especially by radical reformers. It didn’t grant universal male suffrage and still excluded substantial parts of society from the political process.