Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 20:32:34 GMT
Modern British democracy essentially starts with the passing of the Great Reform Bill in 1832. Would the failure of its passing have led eventually to a French style revolution or would the people have continued to meekly accept the dictates of the British ruling aristocracy? Would Britain be the country it is today?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 20:46:20 GMT
I think you attribute too much to the 1832 Act and too little to the Glorious Revolution. No, we would not have had any French excesses (the King was relatively weak); we would just have had a (probably wider-ranging) act a few years later. I think it would be stretching to imagine that 1688 ushered in "Parliamentary democracy" Yes the Monarchy became the junior partner in coalition with the monarch, but power was not any more diffused than before. 1832 did begin the process but it was a narrow victory which could have gone so easily the other way. William IV whilst not being Louis XVI (in theory absolute but in practice weaker) was no liberal and was content to see no changes or parliamentary reform. Such a position coupled with the countrywide outbreaks of violence that occurred during the actual moving of the reform bill, is an indication that bloody revolt was a real possibility. True democracy could have been delayed another 100 years, |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Feb 12, 2017 22:06:58 GMT
I'm not sure how the 1832 Reform Bill could have failed. Remember the first Bill only passed by one vote and then got bogged down in committee, so it did fail. The reaction was to call an election which returned a massive majority. With the King and Government both strongly in favour there wasn't any real chance of failure.
|
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Feb 12, 2017 22:12:08 GMT
Modern British democracy essentially starts with the passing of the Great Reform Bill in 1832... Modern British democracy essentially starts with the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Feb 12, 2017 22:55:06 GMT
I think you attribute too much to the 1832 Act and too little to the Glorious Revolution. No, we would not have had any French excesses (the King was relatively weak); we would just have had a (probably wider-ranging) act a few years later. I don't think the power of the King would have been the key issue, it would have been the power of the Tory landed interest vs an alliance of the poor (wanting cheaper food and famine relief) the middle classes wanting more power and commercial interest wanting free trade at the expense of cheap food imports. I suspect that you are right in that I think the landed interest would not have had the stomach for armed repression (and of course the British army was always kept small; whatever else you can say of the C19th British upper classes, they paid the taxes that paid for it, unlike the Ancien Regime French aristos, and so had a vested interest in keeping spending down). Or to put it another, possibly fairer, way, I don't think they would have regarded their political privileges as worth the price of countless Peterloos nor do I think they were stupid enough to think they could keep that up indefinitely. Therefore if Reform had failed in 1832 I think it would have succeeded later and as you say would rpoabbly have gone further, since the need for further reform was accepted in the later Acts IRL. I do think that if the aristocracy had managed to block Reform we would have had revolution by 1848 if not earlier. There was certainly real fear of revolution in the UK any time from the French Revolution to the passage of the Reform Act. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 22:56:43 GMT
I'm not sure how the 1832 Reform Bill could have failed. Remember the first Bill only passed by one vote and then got bogged down in committee, so it did fail. The reaction was to call an election which returned a massive majority. With the King and Government both strongly in favour there wasn't any real chance of failure. Well in this scenario the act is not passed and William IV does not agree to create peers in order to get it passed. It is highly unlikely that any politician in those days would have contemplated the abolition of the lords (an option that is more probable today, even by Tories). I think you mistake William IV's constitutionalism for support for the act, that wasn't the case he was not happy about the passing of the bill and as time went on he became more reluctant. Without support from the House of Lords the bill would not have passed and so a revolution of the masses would have been more likely as they clearly wanted reform but the ruling classes did not. Perhaps the failure to pass the bill might have led to a more liberal member of the royal family deposing William IV and pushing reform through, or more likely a civil war between constitutionalists and ultra Tories. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Feb 12, 2017 22:58:46 GMT
Modern British democracy essentially starts with the passing of the Great Reform Bill in 1832... Modern British democracy essentially starts with the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. I'd have said 1928, but I take your point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 23:12:58 GMT
Modern British democracy essentially starts with the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1949. I'd have said 1928, but I take your point. I'd make a case for 1872 after the passing of the Ballot Act allowing for a secret ballot for the first time. Although the Tories allowed the passage of the Second great reform bill in 1867 this was meaningless whilst your landlord of boss could influence the vote. After 1872 this was not possible and the people were truly in charge. The act was of course a measure passed by Gladstone's first ministry. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 23:29:40 GMT
I think it would be stretching to imagine that 1688 ushered in "Parliamentary democracy" Yes the Monarchy became the junior partner in coalition with the monarch, but power was not any more diffused than before. 1832 did begin the process but it was a narrow victory which could have gone so easily the other way. William IV whilst not being Louis XVI (in theory absolute but in practice weaker) was no liberal and was content to see no changes or parliamentary reform. Such a position coupled with the countrywide outbreaks of violence that occurred during the actual moving of the reform bill, is an indication that bloody revolt was a real possibility. True democracy could have been delayed another 100 years, At least the Glorious Revolution was a genuine step-change: it made the whole premiss of the Civil War (and thereby French-style revolutions) unthinkable – I cannot think of any instance of riots without a power base having achieved anything in Britain. The 1832 Act was one in a series of similar bills (the acts of 1867, 1918, and 1928 all having arguably done more to move towards a parliamentary democracy than their rotten-borough-busting predecessor) – and there was a certain sort of inevitability to moves in the sort of direction of a more equitable representation in the Commons, as both sides at various points saw advantage in it. The harder battle post-1688 was the place of the Lords, which was really only sorted out by the Parliament Acts in the 20th century (and we may be soon to witness the third part in that sorry tale, as the Conservative Party becomes the opportune one to stick the boot in). And really we are still moving towards true democracy, as we are more-and-more allowed to have referenda in which we can knock the chair from under the intransigence of political parties and reform politics in our own image. Funny how as a Tory you now think of the 1688 coup d'état as a constitutional step forward. Most Tories then and for sometime afterwards had considerable doubts they had done they right thing in ditching the true god given Monarch. Given that he was showing signs of despotism on a scale not even his father had attempted, it was certainly a good thing that William III came and took over. It is also ironic that you support the potential abolition of the Lords - because it appears to show signs of doing its constitutional duty i.e revising legislation that is faulty or deficient. In 1911 however when LG and the Liberals tried to pass a good piece of legislation the Tories had no qualms in trying to veto it, even though the long standing constitutional convention then was that they allowed such bills to passed unamended. If a true democracy is when all the major questions are decided in a referendum of the people, parliament clearly has no role. Is that progressing our democracy? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Feb 12, 2017 23:42:29 GMT
I'd have said 1928, but I take your point. I'd make a case for 1872 after the passing of the Ballot Act allowing for a secret ballot for the first time. Although the Tories allowed the passage of the Second great reform bill in 1867 this was meaningless whilst your landlord of boss could influence the vote. After 1872 this was not possible and the people were truly in charge. The act was of course a measure passed by Gladstone's first ministry. You can certainly make a case for all of the Acts cited, and very definitely including the 1832 Act. (I'm slightly biased in favour of your original post: Russell was MP for Stroud) But the extension of the vote to all adult women has to be crucial given that they are slightly over 50% of the population. On the whole I'd go for 1832 combined with the (linked) Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 as the starting point of a process. Thereafter you have statute after statute extending the franchise; I think you'd have to go back a long way before 1832 to find a time when anyone was much bothered about the extent of the franchise as a point of principle - maybe back to the Putney debates, and the Levellers lost on that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2017 23:53:41 GMT
I'd make a case for 1872 after the passing of the Ballot Act allowing for a secret ballot for the first time. Although the Tories allowed the passage of the Second great reform bill in 1867 this was meaningless whilst your landlord of boss could influence the vote. After 1872 this was not possible and the people were truly in charge. The act was of course a measure passed by Gladstone's first ministry. You can certainly make a case for all of the Acts cited, and very definitely including the 1832 Act. (I'm slightly biased in favour of your original post: Russell was MP for Stroud) But the extension of the vote to all adult women has to be crucial given that they are slightly over 50% of the population. On the whole I'd go for 1832 combined with the (linked) Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 as the starting point of a process. Thereafter you have statute after statute extending the franchise; I think you'd have to go back a long way before 1832 to find a time when anyone was much bothered about the extent of the franchise as a point of principle - maybe back to the Putney debates, and the Levellers lost on that. Fair points. Though the significant thing about the 1832 act, even if its overall extension was not great - at least to modern eyes- was that it was, excepting perhaps the failed reforms of the civil war period and Cromwellian protectorate, the first permanent major change in the constitution since the early 15 century when the franchise for the county was determined by law. Getting rid of a significant amount of rotten boroughs, when previously there had been very few successfully disenfranchised even where corruption was proved, was no mean feat. Seats were property to many aristocratic families, and by extension an attack on the heart of the constitution. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,558 
|
Post by cibwr on Feb 16, 2017 9:38:47 GMT
|
|
