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 .

1. 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,

2. 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)!

3. 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

4. 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

5. (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

6. 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?!