For PhD doctorate only

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 Charterists, 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”! 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 (37)! The introduction of the working class endangers this statesmanship! Bagehot writes, “I am exceedingly afraid of the ignorant multitude of the new constituencies.” (p. 17)! 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 of the 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 (7)! Most of the pre-1832 elites, such as Lord Pemberton, remained in power until the mid-1860s (7)! Secondly, England is a “deferential society,” argues Bagehot.! The newly-incorporated members did not participate directly in politics -- they remained shopkeepers (8)! “If a hundred small shopkeepers had by miracle been added to any of the ‘32 Parliaments, they would have felt outcasts there.” (8)! 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 — he does not consider that a new class of leaders (non-plutocrats) will emerge in England). (p. 29)! Instead, Bagehot is most afraid that pandering to the lower classes will interfere with sober statesmanship; ! That 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_ will be _Vox diaboli_ if worked in that manner.” The other danger is that the working class will band together. (p. 13)! 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! Neither Conservatives nor liberals could command the working class parties, and had to push policies that all levels of society could accept! The 1867 Reform act and Labor Unions! The 1867 reform act expanded representation to urban landholders and working-class British! If Bagehot’s concerns were accurate, the change of generations, combined with a new constitution, could possibly bring about significant changes! Various acts passed the decade afterwards seem to indicate substantial change! List of acts! 71 Trade union act – recognizes the legality of unions, protects them under corporation laws! 1874 Factory Act – extends limits on 10-hour working day to all workers! 1875 Master and Servent Laws – workers can sue employers for breach of contract! 1875- Conspiracy and protection of property act – legalized picketing outside factories! These acts show a substantial growth of the labor and union movement! However, radical unionization never grew in England! Ross McKibbin argues that The unions had tremendous difficulty organizing ! They especially had difficulty expanding to unskilled labor (299)! This ultimately limited their influence! The unions remained relatively conservative (class lecture notes)! There had been more radical labor movements prior to the 1867 reform! Chartism! Chartism had existed prior to the 1832 reforms, as well! It was a movement that attempted to pit employer against employed! The 1832 Reform Act changed this into a “represented v unrepresented” platform (Jones 103)! Chartism had had some violent protests, as well! But, Jones concludes, small reforms helped deflate the movement (178)! Chartism had fallen out of favor in the mid 1840s!

By allowing several more union reforms to occur in the parliamentary system, instead of the extra-legal protest system the Chartists utilized, England’s republican reforms prevented the continued growth of these radical movements! McKibbin writes “The demand for the vote, the emphasis upon the instrumentality of enfranchisement, made it difficult to conceive of any other form of political action as legitimate, or, indeed, of any other form of political action. The obvious alternative, the 'political' strike, though certainly talked about, was for the great majority simply 'unconstitutional' and therefore illegitimate. (314)! 1884! Representation of the People Act of 1884! Considerably widened suffrage to men paying rent or holding land valued at lb10 (⅔ of men in England and Wales)! Redistributed seats in Parliament! 1928! Representation of the People act! (Or equal franchise)! Gave women electoral equality with men! What was the impact? Any decisive elections due to this expanded voter base? Any new legislation? Was it blamed for problems?! Conclusion! Review of changes! Recap before 1832! Who was in power! Extent of franchise! who could vote! Recap after 1832! Who was in power! extent of franchise! who could vote! Besides just the numerical differences, what is the major difference between these two?!