DBWI: Reform Act 1832 passed

Really simple question what POD would lead to the Reform Act 1832(The Representation of the People Act 1832) to pass both Commons and Lords?
 
Well, it's really far fetched, but the revolutions that plagued the Britain in 19th century might have been avoided.
Who knows, maybe it still would have been Kingdom instead of Commonwealth
 
I always felt that anti-royal feelings in the 19th century up risings were very miss placed It was more the Tories + Lords that did it
 
Um, maybe if a majority of Levellers or Chartists were elected to the House of Lords? Oh wait, that's not how the Lords works.
In reality this is impossible. The purpose of the Lords is to restrain the passions of the Commons and prevent ill-considered legislation from taking effect. Changes such as those included in the Reform Act would put the United Kingdom on the road to the sort of madness that consumed Revolutionary France.
 
...Which Britain avoided for a good five minutes. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I had never heard of the proposed Reform Act before, but it basically met the demands of most of the moderate revolutionaries leading up to 1848. It's easy to forget that not everyone who supported the British Revolution was a radical Gladstonian.
 
On that note, I believe that Gladstone himself- much like Robespierre- started as a much more moderate figure. If a legitimate political pathway opened up, I can see him still rising quite far.

But not everyone would make a good peaceful reformer- I imagine we'd lose the iconic imagery of the Disraeli/Gladstone alliance. How often does a superpower's destiny get set in its course by two men's friendship?
 
I have to wonder about the consequences for the rest of the world. What happens to Germany, with Hanover remaining united with Britain? (And how long does that last, in the face of German nationalism?) And might America develop differantly without an avowedly anti-slavery power mucking all over the continent? I think reforming-monarchist Britain would have abolished slavery after not too long (some time in the 1840s?), but it would hardly have gone on the same adventures to stamp it out as the Commonwealth.

Ireland is another interesting question. How long could the Church of Ireland's supremacy last, before we see another Tithe War times-ten-to-the-twelve?
 
Last edited:
On that note, I believe that Gladstone himself- much like Robespierre- started as a much more moderate figure. If a legitimate political pathway opened up, I can see him still rising quite far.

But not everyone would make a good peaceful reformer- I imagine we'd lose the iconic imagery of the Disraeli/Gladstone alliance. How often does a superpower's destiny get set in its course by two men's friendship?

Gladstone actually started out as a fairly hardline conservative, as, indeed, did Disraeli! The growing Crisis in the 1840s radicalized them both. I can imagine them forming a powerful bloc within a still-monarchist Parliament, if reform had been enacted as early as the 30s.

We'd probably see a much more harmonious British India in this case, as well. The India Britons were in general a conservative lot, but it would be interesting to see them getting along with a reformed British monarchy, rather than engage in their violent reactionism against the Commonwealth.
 
I always felt that anti-royal feelings in the 19th century up risings were very miss placed It was more the Tories + Lords that did it

Good Briton though I am, I actually do see the theoretical merits of a powerless monarchy for some nations (contrary to popular belief in America, we don't all still live under the Triumvirate wishing death on the opressor-nations :rolleyes:); and if we went back a lot further (Stuart times, probably), Britain might have become one of them.

But really, after George III (an essentially well-meaning king who didn't understand the political realities of the age in which he lived, and then went off it, which hardly helped), George IV (urgh), and Ernest I (don't get me started), the British monarchy were for it.

Personally, I don't think even Prince William, good egg though he seems to have been, could have saved the Hanovers after the disastrous stagnation, reaction, and misrule of George IV.
 
Last edited:
Australasia would also be very different; a monarchy that was peacefully reforming wouldn't have attempted the frankly insane expansion of the transportation program in an attempt to purge the home islands of radicals.


Getting aware from the mere politics: would we have seen the same level of interest in the Babbage/Lovelace engines by a monarchy?
 

Al-Buraq

Banned
Note: " We cannot, however, go on thus beyond to-day. " Or "We can't go on like this"

Dear Sir John,
The moment it was known that Earl Grey had been sent for, the demand for gold ceased. No more placards were posted, and all seemed to be going on well at once. Proof positive this of the cool courage and admirable discipline of the people. We cannot, however, go on thus beyond to-day. If doubt remain until tomorrow, alarm will commence again, and panic will follow. No effort to stop the Duke by going for gold was made beyond a mere demonstration, and you saw the consequences. What can be done in this way has now been clearly ascertained, and if new efforts must be made, they will not be made in vain.
Lists containing the names, addresses, etc., of all persons in every part of the country likely to be useful have been made, the name of every man who has at any public meeting shown himself friendly to reform has been registered. Addresses and proclamations to the people have been sketched, and printed copies will, if need be, be sent to every such person all over the kingdom. Means have been devised to placard towns and villages, to circulate hand-bills, and to assemble the people. So many men of known character, civil and military, have entered heartily into the scheme, that their names when published will produce great effect in every desirable way. If the Duke comes into power now, we shall be unable longer to 'hold to the laws'; break them we must, be the consequences whatever they may; and we know that all must join with us to save their property, no matter what may be their private opinions. Towns will be barricaded, new municipal arrangements will be made by the inhabitants, and the first town which is barricaded shuts up all the banks. 'Go for Gold', it is said, will produce dreadful evils. We know it will, but it will prevent other evils being added to them. It will stop the Duke. Let the Duke take office as Premier, and we shall have a commotion in the nature of a civil war with money at our command. If we obtain the money, he cannot get it. If it be but once dispersed, he cannot collect it. If we have money we shall have the power to feed and lead the people, and in less than five days we shall have the soldiers with us.

Clearly any attempt to present such an outrageous prospect as the enfanchisement of the common people and a reduction of the divine arrangement that has heretofore blessed this Land would contrive a civil war that would surely strain those very common folk with whom these ruffians would make an alliance.

Place's letter to Hobhouse 1832
 
Top