History AS: To what extent was the 1830 electoral system in need of reform?

There were many abuses within the old electoral system and in addition a large cross-section of society was demanding its reform. These calls for change not only came from the industrialists and working classes but also from within Parliament, in particular from the Earl Grey's Whigs. Even though the Great Reform Act of 1832 delivered little in the form of change, it met the public's demands and possibly prevented further unrest or Parliamentary upheaval that had gripped Europe in the 1830s and 1840s. Therefore reform was necessary not because it solved all the issues surrounding the franchise but because it strengthened the position of Parliament and the electoral system as a whole.

One reason for reform was the rise of the middle classes; the Government could not possibly keep out the most important members of society from the decision-making process within Britain. The middle classes wanted to be able to influence events within the House of Commons to enhance their interests and that of the industrialists. This group was hugely important for the nation since it employed a large amount of workers and was a powerful member of Britain's economy especially in an increasingly industrial society. This is shown by their capability of forcing Parliament's hand as they threatened a run on the banks, with help from Francis Place in May 1832, stopping Wellington's Ministry from succeeding against reform. This highlights their economic and political prowess since they could effectively bring the country to its knees and Parliament could do nothing about it.

            Moreover both the Government and them wanted stability. The middle classes needed it for trade and the vast majority of the middle classes owned property therefore they had a vested interest in the maintenance of law and order. The Government wanted stability since they were tied strongly to aristocracy and in addition a lack of stability undermines their authority as a Government. The middle-classes were starting to turn against the Government allying themselves with the radical movement and the working classes forming for example the Birmingham Political Union  under Thomas Attwood in January 1830. The combination of the strength of the middle classes and the radical ideology could have been a potent mix especially when the middle classes had control over the economy. Therefore it is not only necessary but also sensible to reform as it would actually preserve the system in the long-run since it would bring the middle classes and closer to the Government and away from radical ideology.

            Therefore the electoral system very much needed reforming to appease the middle-classes and in particular the industrialists so that they would then support the system promoting stability and this in turn would strengthen the long-term position of the constitution and Parliament. It was also needed to show that Parliament and Britain was keeping up with the changing times and therefore would be seen as modern on the international scene which would be beneficial for international relations and trade.

There was a lot of violent unrest during the period leading up to the Great Reform Act, passed on the 7th June 1832, which called for Parliament to pass the Reform Bill. There was violent rioting in places like London and Bristol, in addition there were monster meetings in Birmingham reaching sizes of 150,000 people. Even though they were not violent in tone they had the potential to be a massive law and order threat for the Government which would undermine its authority.

            Moreover there were also political unions set up, which represented mostly the working classes, in Manchester in November 1830 by Archibald Prentice for instance. Some of these groups saw reform as a way of repealing the Corn Laws of 1815 which had elevated the price of bread artificially increasing the cost of living. They believed if electoral change was achieved the interests of the workers would be favoured instead of those of the landowners. These political unions provided a platform for normal people to voice their concerns and made the reform movement even more potent as controversial ideas could be disseminated more easily radicalising the population further. Moreover these unions brought the middle classes closer to the radical message which was dangerous for the Government as seen above. Therefore it could be argued that the violence combined with the political unions increased the need for electoral reform as law and order needed to be restored to maintain confidence in and authority of the Government and to prevent the radicalisation of the vitally important middle classes.

            However this movement never really posed a threat for the Government since the political unions condemned the violent actions of the rioters and even threatened to organise militia to protect property. This shows that the movement was split and had very different objectives. Moreover the Government told the unions not to set up these militia and they obeyed which shows that the unions still respected authority so there was no real threat to law and order whatsoever. In addition, the political unions also were not on the same page as well, with the Manchester Union disagreeing with the BPU's Thomas Attwood's economic views. Some were more radical than others and some represented both interests of the middle and working classes that often differed especially over manhood suffrage and democracy. Therefore there was no need to reform the electoral system as a response to the political movements because they never posed a threat for the Government since they respected its authority.

            Even though some these events occurred after 1830 the argument is the same since there had been unrest in the 1790s and 1810s calling for reform anyway. Moreover nothing had changed in the electoral system until the Great Reform Act therefore the electoral system was the same between 1830 and 1832.

            Although the movements highlighted the flaws in the system, for example safeguarding the landed interest, combined with a large popular call for reform, there was no need to change the electoral system, The radicals had no way of forcing the Government to alter the electoral system especially when they respected its authority and judgement.

The first major calls for reform came from within Parliament and from the Whigs in particular. The Whigs had formed a ministry for the first time in about 50 years and they were the party of reform. Earl Grey, Prime Minister, wanted to change the system to remove its worst abuses.

            The system was out-dated with many parliamentary boroughs practically uninhabited having no economic importance since the 12th and 13th centuries, for instance, most of the borough of Dunwich had eroded away into the sea leaving only 44 houses by 1831 whereas large cities such as Birmingham (population of 144,000) and Manchester (182,000) did not even have one MP between them which shows the total lack of representation of the middle-classes that were mostly in the cities. This idea is put into stark relief when one considers boroughs like Old Sarum which had about 5 electors for every MP. There was clearly a need for redistribution and a redrawing of political map since it was out-dated, irrational and simply unfair. These ideas and the ideology of the Whigs meant that the electoral system of 1830 was in dire need of reform.

However, not all the abuses of the system were removed in the Great Reform Act of 1832, many pocket boroughs still existed and power was still firmly in the hands of the aristocracy not the middle classes. Yet the Whigs and the population as a whole were very content with the changes that had taken place even though in retrospect they appear limited.

            Nevertheless this does not mean that reform was not needed, it was just a question of which parts of the electoral system needed change. Parliament and the most of the population still wanted to keep the quirkiness of the electoral system and pocket boroughs were seen as part of that. Many remained since pocket boroughs were seen as good way of ensuring young, intelligent and promising people could get into Parliament via the help of a patron. This was a sensible argument as Pitt, Peel and Gladstone all got into Parliament through patrons and pocket boroughs and proved to be brilliant statesmen. Therefore there was definitely a need for change in the distribution of seats to help to bring some uniformity into the area of representation but there was not a need for a complete overhaul of the electoral system.

In conclusion, the violence and uprisings in the name of reform had no bearing on the need for reform, in many ways they delayed it as natural supporters of reform were alienated forcing them against it. There were a lot of inconsistencies within the electoral system that were not at all in the interests of the population as a whole, for example the under-representation of large industrial centres and over-representation of insignificant communities. These abuses needed to be removed and repaired, or in other words, the electoral system of 1830 needed reform, to acknowledge the importance of the middle-classes which in turn would strengthen the position of the Parliament and the electoral system in the long-term. This change would ensure the survival of the system in the future so reform would conserve. Therefore the electoral system needed to be reformed to such an extent to content the middle classes and to remove the most apparent abuses but not to eliminate the uniqueness of the British electoral system.