OCR Specification focus:
‘reasons for parliamentary reform 1828–1830; extent of popular discontent 1830–1832’
Between 1828 and 1832, rising social, political and economic pressures created strong momentum for reform, with widespread discontent fuelling demands for parliamentary change.
Background to Reform Pressures
In the late 1820s, the British parliamentary system was increasingly criticised as outdated and unrepresentative. Many constituencies, particularly the so-called “rotten boroughs”, had very few voters yet still returned Members of Parliament. Meanwhile, emerging industrial towns like Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds had no direct representation, despite their economic importance.
A historical map of England and Wales before the 1832 Reform Act, illustrating the imbalance of representation between industrial centres and over-represented small boroughs. Source
Reasons for Parliamentary Reform 1828–1830
Economic and Social Change
Rapid industrialisation and urbanisation transformed Britain’s social landscape:
Industrial towns had growing populations yet no MPs.
Agricultural constituencies with tiny electorates, such as Old Sarum, retained influence.
The middle class, especially industrial and commercial leaders, demanded recognition within the political system.
Rotten Boroughs: Constituencies with very small electorates, often controlled by a single patron, which returned Members of Parliament out of proportion to their size.
Political Influence of the Middle Class
The 1820s witnessed the growing confidence of a wealthy, educated middle class:
They opposed aristocratic political dominance.
They pressed for reform that would extend voting rights to property-owning men, not universal suffrage but a wider franchise.
Their increasing organisation through petitions and political unions put pressure on governments to act.
Catholic Emancipation and Political Consequences
The passing of Catholic Emancipation in 1829 exposed divisions within the Tory party:
Many saw this as a betrayal by Wellington’s government.
The crisis weakened the Tories, undermining their unity and providing reformers with an opportunity to push further changes.
Political Unrest and Radical Influence
The radical tradition from the 1790s continued into this period:
Radical journalists like William Cobbett spread reformist messages.
Political unions, such as the Birmingham Political Union led by Thomas Attwood, demanded change through coordinated agitation.
Extent of Popular Discontent 1830–1832
Agricultural Distress and Swing Riots
Economic hardship in rural Britain sparked serious unrest:
The Swing Riots of 1830 were a wave of rural disturbances where labourers protested against low wages and mechanisation.
Rioters attacked threshing machines and demanded higher pay, showing deep discontent in the countryside.
This violence reinforced elite fears of disorder if reform was denied.
Swing Riots: A series of rural uprisings in 1830, named after the mythical “Captain Swing,” characterised by machine-breaking, arson, and wage protests.
Urban Discontent
Urban centres were also marked by unrest:
High unemployment and food price fluctuations led to demonstrations.
Crowds frequently demanded parliamentary reform, seeing it as the route to fairer policies.
The lack of representation for large towns was increasingly resented.
Influence of the French Revolution of 1830
Events in Europe shaped British politics:
The July Revolution in France, which overthrew the Bourbon monarchy, emboldened reformers in Britain.
It heightened fears among the elite of a similar uprising if reform was not granted.
Political Mobilisation and Public Pressure
Reformers organised mass demonstrations and rallies to keep pressure on Parliament:
The Birmingham Political Union mobilised both middle-class and working-class support.
The use of petitions and public meetings gave reform a national voice.
Reform became a unifying cause for varied social groups, though with different ultimate aims.
Violence and Government Anxiety
The years 1830–1832 were marked by episodes of unrest:
Riots erupted in Bristol in 1831 following the rejection of the Reform Bill in the Lords.
Nottingham Castle was burned by protestors in the same period.
A dramatic engraving of Nottingham Castle on fire in 1831. The destruction followed unrest over the Reform Bill, vividly illustrating how protest escalated into acts of violence. Source
Such violence convinced many politicians that limited reform was preferable to revolution.
The Reform Crisis
The Reform Bill introduced in 1831 by Lord John Russell faced fierce resistance in the House of Lords:
Repeated defeats in the Lords caused widespread protests.
Reformers threatened a general strike and national upheaval if the Bill was not passed.
By 1832, political elites accepted that reform was necessary to preserve stability.
Role of Political Leaders
Earl Grey, leader of the Whig government, steered reform through Parliament.
The eventual 1832 Reform Act was shaped by compromise but passed due to the intensity of popular discontent and the fear of wider revolution.
Key Themes for Study
Reform was driven by both structural grievances (rotten boroughs, lack of representation for industrial towns) and immediate pressures (riots, economic hardship).
Middle-class political assertiveness combined with working-class unrest created a broad reform coalition.
Government fear of disorder played a crucial role in persuading reluctant elites to grant reform.
Popular discontent between 1830 and 1832 was not uniform but widespread enough to become politically decisive.
FAQ
Newspapers and pamphlets spread reformist ideas widely. Radical journalists such as William Cobbett used publications like the Political Register to criticise corruption and argue for change.
The relatively cheap "two-penny press" made political debate more accessible, encouraging broader participation among both middle-class and working-class readers. This helped fuel momentum for reform outside Parliament.
The BPU, founded by Thomas Attwood in 1830, united middle-class and working-class interests in a powerful alliance.
Its strength lay in:
Large public demonstrations that were peaceful but impressive in scale.
Emphasis on economic grievances such as taxation and representation for industrial towns.
Ability to coordinate pressure nationally, setting a model for later political organisation.
Petitions were a crucial tool of political pressure, providing a formal, legal way for citizens to voice demands.
They often contained tens of thousands of signatures, which MPs found difficult to ignore. Reform petitions demonstrated widespread support for change and helped reformers argue that Parliament must respond to popular opinion.
The government reacted with a mix of repression and harsh punishment:
Over 1,000 people were put on trial.
Around 500 were transported to Australia.
Several dozen were executed.
Such severity revealed elite fear of disorder, but it also convinced many leaders that systemic reform would be safer than relying solely on repression.
The scale and violence of the Bristol Riots shocked the political establishment. Protestors controlled parts of the city for several days, causing widespread destruction.
This highlighted the depth of anger at the rejection of the Reform Bill and demonstrated how resistance to reform could spark near-insurrection. It became a turning point in persuading elites that some degree of parliamentary change was unavoidable.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Identify two reasons why the system of parliamentary representation was criticised in the years 1828–1830.
Mark Scheme:
1 mark for each valid reason identified (maximum 2 marks).
Possible correct answers include:Existence of rotten boroughs with very few voters still returning MPs.
Lack of representation for large industrial towns such as Manchester or Birmingham.
Over-representation of agricultural constituencies compared to urban areas.
Political dominance of aristocratic patrons over constituencies.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain how popular discontent in the years 1830–1832 increased pressure for parliamentary reform.
Mark Scheme:
Level 1 (1–2 marks): Simple description of unrest with little or no explanation of its impact on reform pressure.
Example: “There were riots in the countryside called the Swing Riots.”
Level 2 (3–4 marks): Describes examples of unrest and begins to link these to the government’s concerns about reform.
Example: “The Swing Riots in 1830 showed rural anger over wages and machinery, making the government worried about disorder.”
Level 3 (5–6 marks): Clear explanation of how different aspects of discontent raised pressure for reform, showing awareness of both urban and rural contexts.
Example: “The Swing Riots of 1830 highlighted rural unrest, while urban demonstrations and the riots in Bristol and Nottingham in 1831 showed the threat of widespread disorder. These convinced politicians that reform was necessary to avoid revolution.”
