Page 35 - History 2020

What was the significance of the 1832 Reform Act?

When it was all over, Wellington said, “The government of England is destroyed.” On
the other hand, Russell remarked that a great many people now seemed to have
discovered they were for the Bill all along; “people find out now they have been
reformers but never thought of it”. The reactionary Tories had been routed. The
urban middle classes had been enfranchised. The Whigs won a whopping majority at
the first election of the new system, 441 to 175. But the Act did not transform the
voting system or British politics. The size of the electorate rose from 515,000 to
812,000. The new voters tended to vote for the same kind of Whig or Tory who had

filled parliament before the Act. Thomas Atwood became an MP for one of
Birmingham’s new parliamentary seats, but was not a success; his public-meeting-
style speeches were too long for the Commons and his ideas on currency reform too
boring. In one way the Act made voting less democratic. Some boroughs, by an oddly
democratic historic anomaly, had had large electorates before 1832 because they
allowed lower-middle and upper-working class people to vote, but when the Act
standardized the qualification these people actually had their right to vote to taken

away! Also, voting was not made secret, leaving it open to both bribery and
intimidation (opponents of secret voting argued that it would allow corrupt voters to
take bribes from both sides! Bizarrely when the Secret Ballot Act was passed in 1872
this proved correct!) After 1832, the radicals continued to be politically marginalized.
The main players in the crisis did better; six went on to become Prime Ministers: the
Duke of Wellington (once more), Sir Robert Peel, Lord Melbourne, Lord Russell, Lord
Palmerston and Lord Derby. The world still seemed safe for the ruling elite.

The Act is often portrayed as the first step to Britain a parliamentary democracy.
There are however a number of problems with this. First, if this is true, then there
was a long wait between steps. The next reform of parliament was in 1867, then
1884, then 1918. The passing of the Reform Act is also portrayed as an example of
the wisdom of the ruling classes, who knew just when to concede to remain in place.
This does not sit well with the genuine fears and uncertainty expressed on all sides

during the crisis. Not does it explain the stubbornness of Wellington who point-blank
refused to budge an inch. Though a legendary figure after defeating Napoleon at
Waterloo, Wellington played a limited role in 1832; he was a hesitant public speaker,
rather deaf and more accustomed to giving orders that debating. King William IV,
stout, red faced, sharing with Prince Philip a naval background, bluff good humour
and a penchant for dubious, even filthy, jokes, comes out better, sticking to his
pledges to support Grey, though even he wobbled at the end. This was blamed on
Queen Adelaide – “Queen Addle-head” the public called her - who was much less
favourable to reform, having felt uncomfortably close to Revolutionary France as a