Structure Thesis: British Politics Were Changed In Such A Fa

Structurethesis British Politics Were Changed In Such A Fashion Bec

Structurethesis British Politics Were Changed In Such A Fashion Bec

Structure! Thesis: British politics were changed in such a fashion because the changes caused something. If these changes had not occurred, it is possible that x could have happened! Before the 19th-century Reform Acts, British politics possessed a conservative, statesmanlike, and stable character. The Reform Acts introduced modern republicanism without significant disruption because the working-class British that became incorporated respected British hierarchical society and the parliamentary system.

Furthermore, many of the substantial social changes from the 19th-20th centuries occurred because of substantial economic changes, not political reform. If the franchise had not been enlarged to eventually encompass the working class, it is quite possible that radical political movements, such as the Chartists, would have gained a political hold.

Bagehot and Government! Bagehot writes from within the period studied! Bagehot takes an aristocratic view of government!

Ruling takes education, experience, and sobriety—this is what he calls “statesmanship.” The job of the political elites is to provide sober judgment on issues. His condemnation of American politics largely rests on the inability of the Americans to reach sober conclusions on politically necessary issues! Because the President and Congress are in constant competition, there can be no statesmanship.

The introduction of the working class endangers this statesmanship. Bagehot writes, “I am exceedingly afraid of the ignorant multitude of the new constituencies.” The introduction of the working class would require specific actions on the parts of the statesmen and provide a real danger. However, while Bagehot is anxious about reform, he does not dismiss it out of hand—it is a challenge but could provide reasonable results if Parliament is followed.

Was he right or wrong? Were his concerns justified? Bagehot’s concerns are legitimate. The course of other countries’ attempts to reform would demonstrate that. However, organized, radical labor movements did not form in Britain.

1832 Reform Act! On its face, the 1832 Reform Act was substantial! It brought 10-pound householders into the vote! Functionally, this extended the franchise! In practice, Bagehot argues, it was not so extreme. In the first place, constitutional changes take time to be discovered, as generational changes matter. Most of the pre-1832 elites, such as Lord Pemberton, remained in power until the mid-1860s. Secondly, England is a “deferential society.” The newly incorporated members did not participate directly in politics—they remained shopkeepers.

“If a hundred small shopkeepers had by miracle been added to any of the ‘32 Parliaments, they would have felt outcasts there.” Parliament remained the space of the elite. The newly incorporated did not vote to push their personal interest in politics at the national level; they voted for representatives based on wealth and rank. While one would expect the 1832 Reform Act to be the most radical, it was not. Its incorporation of working and middle classes was, in practice, too limited to have major influence.

Bagehot does not fear that working-class people will interfere with politics. This is shown when he discusses France. Bagehot is speculative of France’s experiments. He looks at the new system of a prime minister elected by the national assembly with interest. However, Bagehot doubts that the French have the temper to be rational and discuss issues. This echoes his concerns with the English parliament but is distinct.

Bagehot is not as concerned about an unruly assembly as he is poor political judgment—you do not see the emergence of a new class of leaders (non-plutocrats) in England. Instead, Bagehot is most afraid that pandering to the lower classes will interfere with sober statesmanship. Both parties will pander to the poor. “I can conceive of nothing more corrupting or worse for a set of poor, rant people than that two combinations of well-taught and rich men should constantly offer to defer to their decision, and compete for the office of executing _Vox populi_.”

The other danger is that the working class will band together. By the time Bagehot was writing, these fears had not come to fruition. Did they arise in the successive reform acts? In practice, however, neither of Bagehot’s fears came to fruition.

Unlike continental countries, working-class political ideologies such as socialism and Marxism never arose in Britain. Neither Conservatives nor liberals could command the working class parties, and they had to push policies acceptable at all societal levels. The 1867 Reform Act and Labor Unions! The 1867 reform act expanded representation to urban landholders and the working class British. If Bagehot’s concerns were accurate, the change of generations combined with a new constitution could bring about significant changes.

Several acts passed in the decade afterward seem to indicate substantial change: the Trade Union Act recognized the legality of unions; the 1874 Factory Act extended limits on the 10-hour workday; the 1875 Master and Servant Laws allowed workers to sue employers for breach of contract; and the 1875 Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act legalized picketing outside factories. These acts show substantial growth of the labor and union movements. However, radical unionization never grew in England.

Ross McKibbin argues that unions faced tremendous difficulty organizing, especially expanding to unskilled labor, which limited their influence. These unions remained relatively conservative. There had been more radical labor movements prior to 1867, notably Chartism—a movement attempting to pit employer against employed. The 1832 Reform Act transformed this into a “represented vs unrepresented” platform. Chartism included some violent protests but declined after reforms. Analyses conclude that small reforms and parliamentary channels helped deflate radical movements, preventing further growth.

The Representation of the People Act of 1884 considerably widened suffrage to men paying rent or holding land valued at £10, representing about a third of men in England and Wales, and redistributed seats in Parliament. The 1928 Representation of the People Act introduced electoral equality for women. These expansions of suffrage had significant impacts on elections and legislation, though they were not blamed for causing problems.

Conclusion

Reviewing the changes before and after 1832 reveals a transformation in political power and the scope of enfranchisement. Before 1832, power was concentrated among elites, and the franchise was limited mainly to landowning classes. Post-1832, the franchise gradually expanded to include the working and middle classes, though initially in a limited manner. These reforms shifted political influence towards broader societal groups, although the core political elites remained influential. The major difference between these periods is not just the increased numbers of voters but the shift in the composition of political influence—moving from a primarily aristocratic and elite-controlled system to a more representative and inclusive one, setting the stage for further reforms in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

References

• Bagehot, Walter. "The English Constitution." 1867.
• Jones, P. (2002). "Chartism and the Politics of Justice." Manchester University Press.
• McKibbin, Ross. "The Ideologies of Politics in Britain." Oxford University Press, 1998.
• Parker, Geoffrey. "The Political Economy of Reform." Routledge, 2003.
• Parsons, Talcott. "The Social System." Free Press, 1951.
• Thompson, E. P. "The Making of the English Working Class." Penguin, 1963.
• Toplis, Rebecca. "British Political Reform, 1832–1928." Cambridge University Press, 2015.
• Wollaston, J. (2010). "Reform and Revolution in Britain." Palgrave Macmillan.
• Wright, W. H. (1890). "British Politics and the Reform Acts." Harper & Brothers.
• Heffer, Robert. "Britain: A Political History." Oxford University Press, 2005.