'Parliamentary reforms in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Essay\r'

'How far would you agree that caution of familiar hostility was the main reason why authoritiess en turn of eventsed fan tanary square aways in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries?\r\nThe improve apparent figurehead eldest started to achieve mass control in the 1760s; during the years of the French Revolution it move on appealed to the members of the anti- renew Whig caller nonwithstanding as war with France started, the goernment feared revolution as had happened in France and so apply repressive measures in a bid to supply ship out these new ideas. It was in 1815 all the same that the sort out nominal head began to become more(prenominal)(prenominal) signifi sesst †when widespread un appointment attracted the masses to the idea of enlighten. But as conditions alter during the 1820s the coerce for tidy decreased †as Cobbett said, â€Å"I defy you to agitate a man on a full stomach”.\r\nThe crystallise movement was non unified nor was it on a field scale. in that location were different groups urging for changes †the approximately protracted of these were the originals, such men as Robert Paine. They campaigned for universal staminate balloting, annual fan tans, equal electoral districts, a cloistered ballot, the payment of mononuclear phagocyte trunk and the abolition of comelyty qualifications for MPs.\r\nThere were few more rootage that others how ever so and on with little agreement on what should be the crush policy of reform they had little success on parliament. There were also calls for reform from more chink radicals and members of the Whigs that called for measures for more particular reform such as disfranchising the worst of the rotten boroughs and giving representation to bigger t declares. The lack of reform prior to the 1832 affect earth-closet be explained by the lack of unity of the reformers and their slight that probatory verify in the uncouth but more impor tantly the Tories’ anti-reform mass in parliament and the small number of pro-reform Whigs and radicals.\r\nThe stinting slump of 1829 and an attach in poor harvests caused unemployment and distress for many works class families and thus make them more suasible to reformist ideology. This period saw the reform movement revived by such radicals as Cobbett and guide; the BPU, a reform organisation was also founded by Thomas Attwood which reserved a pressure group adjust the lower and middle class hatful †this provided the chance for others to be performd byout the earth during 1829-30 with the middle and functional classes increasingly cooperating together; the combination of the two provided a class alliance that the Tories were fearful of.\r\nThe death of the pro-Tory tycoon George IV necessitated a general alternative in which the Tories’ majority was heavily reduced and the continuation of jackboot’s regimen became uncertain with the incre ase of Whig seats. This was due(p) to the pro-reform attitude of the country †curiously deep down the counties and consecrate boroughs. The election saw the number of Henry Brougham in a seat for Yorkshire; he was more usual in the country than any Whig tiper and had promised to go parliamentary reform. With the reform movements continued lose, other disturbance began to emerge in the country.\r\nThe Swing Riots of Southern England confused burning hayricks and breaking machinery which they blamed for reducing employment for farm workers. Although easily suppressed, the Whigs, worried of unrest and advance by the Tory decline, announced their intention to introduce reform lawmaking in the common land; Wellington however continually expressed his belief that the existing frame â€Å"possessed the full and entire confidence of the country”. In November 1830 the defeat of the Tory government in the parking area brought an end to their 20 years of rule. This opened the ingress to the Whigs †who had already expressed intention in reforming parliament †who formed a minority government.\r\nThe Whigs’ aim of producing this legislation was a measure large enough to foregather public opinion but to also provide resistance to further innovation and to uphold the agency of the Aristocracy and the existing Whig government. Although they wanted to remove the most blatant abuses, they were heavily concerned with preserving as practically as possible the kindly and semipolitical posture quo. Their strategy was to remedy the grievances of the middle classes †thitherby relieve oneselfing their patronize and dividing the middle- running(a) class alliance of the reform movement which represent massive problems for the government of left unresolved. The heyday do no concessions to the radicals and working classes meaning that post-reform agitation would nigh certainly continue.\r\nDuring the circuit board’s p rogression through parliament, agitation continued. Political unions organised demonstrations, riots occurred in Nottingham and Bristol and further violence countmed possible. This extra-parliamentary agitation yet strengthened the Whig government’s determination in materializeing the blossom. When exp iodinnt William IV refused to create more Whig peers to carry the Bill through the Lords, Grey resigned and Wellington took office over again.\r\nThis resulted in the ‘Days of May’ where nationwide protests and demonstrations made some fearful of revolution; reformers also threatened an economic crisis by withdrawing fortunate from the banks †‘to stop the Duke, go for gold’. With Wellington’s failure at forming a government, and the grand public opinion in party favour of reform, the King had no choice but to create these necessary peers †the Tory majority in the fellowship of Lords however conceded and the Bill was passed. I t can accordingly be seen that although reform was intended by the Whigs, there was lock in fear of an uprising that could have swayed members votings, especially in the Commons.\r\n further parliamentary reform was inevitable †the Whigs had recognised the coarse public opinion in favour of reform and were now in a majority in the House of Commons. Lord Althorp even warned Grey in 1833 that ‘without popular measures, the disentangle doing will head to revolution’. It is then clear that the fear of uprisings was be quiet apparent to many even after the tour was passed. Although the next emend correspond wasn’t passed until 1867, there was still popular agitation in the country.\r\nThis especially came from the Chartist movement whose demands would have essentially made Britain into a democracy; their demands were however ignored by parliament largely based on the feature that anti-reformer Palmerston was in charge for much of the period betwixt the Acts. With an increasing number of reform legislation organism passed †both social and economic †the country was decent more democratic and with this came factors in determining parliamentary reform. As well as radical demands for reform continuing, a new factor of party political opportunism was also present †it was in the standpat(prenominal) parties’ own interests to pass the Second Reform Act.\r\nAs had happened prior to the 1832 Act, 1866 saw economic problems which increased social discontent and fuelled the calls for reform †this is evident in the huge surge of membership to the Reform Union and Reform unite. In 1866 both organisations †one middle class, the other working †started working together, creating the same threat that the Tories had feared vertebral column in 1830. It was the large party that introduced the first Bill to parliament, with them seeing the opportunity in enfranchising selective members of working class who were already in favour of the party.\r\nThe radicals O.K. the Bill but believed that the measure was too limited; many right-wing larges however thought the opposite †that the Bill would enfranchise too many of the working class. The Conservatives saw the opportunity of the split ideology and the unaffixed party and worked with the right-wingers in defeating the Bill in June of 1866; the Liberal government resigned, giving way to a minority Conservative administration. Despite his own parties’ opposition to reform, Disraeli introduced his own reform Bill based purely on self-interests in gaining the support of the proposed boroughs to be enfranchised. Moreover, Disraeli also claimed that he intended to ‘destroy the present agitation’ in the country.\r\nAs well as party political interests, agitation was still ongoing with radicals and organisations pushing for reform. A peaceful demonstration by the Reform League in London had erupted in violence in July 1966; this, a pine with further riots, convinced many MPs on the need for reform. Disraeli’s Bill †introduced in March 1867 †was more moderate than the Liberal one before it, with the intention that those who opposed the last Bill will accept this one. Rather than it being defeated, Disraeli was volition to make the Bill even more radical than the one prior †it was their certainty that redistributing seats would return a Conservative majority that made members within the party support the Bill, along with the radical MPs. It can therefore be seen that self-interests of parties was the main factor in bringing about the Second Reform Act rather than agitation in the country, which was the case during the 1830s.\r\nCalls for a secret ballot had been apparent since the late 18th century, it was even considered during the Reform Bill in 1831. It wasn’t however agitation that led to the Ballot Act of 1872, it was the election of 1868. Violence, corruption a nd intimidation had occurred as in e really election prior but what was surprise was the publicity the election received with journalists commenting on the boundary to which violence was a factor. The government set up a committee in 1870 to look into this with their opus favouring a system of secret ballot. Although the Conservatives apposed such a measure, they saw the opportunity in getting radical support so pushed ahead with the Bill.\r\nIntimidation still continued even with an increased electorate and secret voting †it simply meant that candidates had to spend more to win over the voters. Secret voting did however mean that voters would not necessarily vote for the candidate they had received funds from; this, along with radical calls for reform, urged governments of the time to act. The 1883 Corrupt and culpable Practices Act passed with both Conservative and Liberal support †it limited the expenditure of elections (fell by three-quarters in the 1885 election) and in turn reduced corruption and violence. It was parties interests †saving them the huge expense of elections †that again prevailed over agitation to pass reform.\r\nAfter the 1867 Act, most politicians had accepted that further parliamentary reform was inevitable, even if they didn’t support it. It was therefore important to ensure that reform was in the parties interests, as had occurred in 1867. It was again party self-interests that determined the tercet Reform Act †Gladstone agreed to support moderate reform believing he would gain popularity in the country. A Liberal Bill was introduced in 1884 with the Conservative majority of the House of Lords, led by Salisbury, believing that although an extension of the county franchise would be dependable to the Liberals, a redistribution of seats would prevent them from gaining a suitable majority.\r\nBy this time conflict had reappeared again, not regarding reform but the abolition of the House of Lords. Th e riots that followed were not on the same level as in 1832 and the government had little to worry about. There was no significant extra-parliamentary pressure for reform, it was the parties’ acting in self-interest for themselves in trying to pass the Bill that really counted. A compromise was finally r from each oneed †the Arlington Street compact †in which both parties got what they wanted †the Liberals an extension of the franchise and the Conservatives the redistribution of seats.\r\nWith each successive Act making the House of Commons more democratic, the House of Lords remained essentially aristocratic, with many radicals proposing the amphetamine House be reformed. There were repeated calls for the House to be abolished, especially during the Liberal’s seat Rule Bill, which was thrown out by the Lords. The election of 1906 produced a Liberal majority of over cc seats, with the Lords †still a Conservative stronghold †collected to block key Liberal measures in the quest years.\r\nThe Parliament Bill was introduced in 1910, but the Lords were averse(p) to pass such a measure that would remote their power of veto. Liberal Prime Minister Asquith therefore urged the King to create more peers to secure a Liberal majority insisting that there was a serious state of unrest among the middle classes that could lead to harming the crown. The Bill was reintroduced to Parliament with the House of Lords finally evaluate the proposals in August 1911 rather then see the House swamped by Liberal peers. The 1911 Parliament Act can therefore be seen as very little to do with agitation in the country and more of the fact of the increasing hostility amid the Liberal government and the Conservation Lords.\r\nAlthough the electoral system was now more representative of the people than ever before, there were still huge numbers of people who were denied the vote †women for example made up fractional of the population but still had no proper political voice. The system was therefore still criticised, with the Liberal party calling for further reform †including mankind suffrage and the abolition of plural voting. It was from the women’s suffrage movement that significant pressure on parliament after 1885 emerged.\r\nParliament found it increasingly strong to ignore calls for reform from organisations such as the case Union of Women’s Suffrage and the Women’s friendly and Political Union, both of which held demonstrations and were increasing in popularity. They began more militant activities including vandalism and attacks on MPs which only helped to alienate potential supporters, it was in fact the more moderate groups that found the greater success. Once again it came down to party politics with the Liberal party in 1905 believing that enfranchising women on the same floor as men would create a majority middle-class, who were more than likely to vote Conservative.\r\nThe ref orm movement virtually disappeared during the outbreak of the war, which reinforces the claim that the Fourth Reform Act †passed in 1918 †was a result of the parties, and not extra-parliamentary pressure. The Liberals and Labour both supported universal young-begetting(prenominal) suffrage by now, with the Conservatives apposing the idea at first but hoping such enfranchised men would vote Conservative.\r\nWomen were also partly included in the act †not because of suffragette pressure, but because before the war a majority of MPs favoured extending the vote to them as long as it was in their parties interests. It can therefore be seen that virtually no agitation or pressure was put on parliament during the time steer up to the 1918 Act, it was simply due to the self-interests of the parties †with each benefiting from a particular aspect of the Bill.\r\n'