No French Revolution or Napoleonic Wars-Britain more liberal in early 19th Century?

I've seen it mentioned in various places that its thought that the French Revolutions and the Napoleonic Wars, and the paranoia amongst the British ruling classes about a revolution, set back the development of British liberties by fifty years. If they're right, we might have got the 1837 Reform Act in 1807.

I did have a brief TL with an abortive American Revolution, which leads to no wars of revolution. That, combined with giving Americans the vote leads to an extension of the vote to the middle classes in the 1790s. Thats a bit mental, but what do we think?
 
I think it's highly likely this would be the case. There was something of a reform effort in the 1770s and 1780s that then died out with the French Revolution. Also, if the American colonies were still part of the Empire, that would be an additional push, as their franchise was wider than in Britain. I think reform by the early 1800s is very probable, but it would probably be in smaller stages, starting with removing the rotten boroughs.

However, in the long term, with no US and no French Republic, reform could be slower. The precedent of universal male suffrage wouldn't exist as much, and the working class would be less politically awakened. Before the French Revolution, the idea of "the public" just meant educated people, rather than all men, so extending the vote beyond that could be a long time coming.
 
The effect of the French Revolution on British reform is hard to judge. On the one hand as you say, a conservative and reactionary (later "Tory") ideology did develop in the 1790s centred around a greater reverence for the monarchy, Anglicanism and the constitutional status quo. Pitt's measures of repression and the birth of conservative loyalism at a local level did arguably deal the reform movement a blow. But on the other hand, reform had already come to a halt before the Revolution began. Pitt's efforts at piecemeal parliamentary reform failed and he resigned himself to defending existing practices. Without war, it's probable that Pitt's agenda in the 1790s is going to be about economical and financial, not parliamentary reform (i.e. resolving corrupt practices within the state, fiscal reforms, also abolition of the slave trade). Plus without the socio-economic upheaval of the Napoleonic Wars, is there really going to be the same impetus for reform which led to the 1832 Act? Also there's O'Gorman's argument that the Conservative reaction had been building up since the American War of the 1770s, which is questionable but something to consider.

Without overseas pressures, Pitt's longevity in office will probably depend on the extent to which Fox is a threat (and thus how much the King needs him as a barrier), and the extent to which he is successful in fighting "Old Corruption". If Fox stays on, I could see Pitt staying on through the 1790s, possible into the early 1800s. And I very much doubt that he's going to be able to pass any parliamentary reform in a stable political climate considering how his administration depended upon an aristocratic broadbottom base. If Fox goes, then it will probably be a grandee like Addington or Portland in charge who probably isn't going to be responsive to the most limited of reforms.

Honestly, I don't think that the absence of the French Revolution is necessarily going to lead to quicker reform. There had been calls for reform by a Country interest for the whole of the eighteeth century, so it's possible if the circumstances are right down the line, but I think it would take a large socio-economic or international crisis like OTL which you can't really predict or extrapolate from pre-1789 OTL circumstances.
 
If Fox goes, then it will probably be a grandee like Addington or Portland in charge who probably isn't going to be responsive to the most limited of reforms.

Portland tried to reform the EIC, so he's not necessarily opposed to reform. Also, corruption in the state isn't unconnected to parliamentary reform. I think that the removal of the rotten boroughs, and the provision of city constituencies, would likely happen sooner, although the expansion of the franchise to the middle class may take longer.
 
Portland tried to reform the EIC, so he's not necessarily opposed to reform. Also, corruption in the state isn't unconnected to parliamentary reform. I think that the removal of the rotten boroughs, and the provision of city constituencies, would likely happen sooner, although the expansion of the franchise to the middle class may take longer.

That's true, but whilst Pitt was receiving a lot of support for economical reform his attempt at parliamentary reform in 1785 failed by a considerable margin. And his proposals for reform were very moderate (removal of some rotten boroughs and increased county representation) compared to 1832. So whilst parliamentary reform may seem the obvious corollary to economical reform, the two causes were viewed very differently. The idea of virtual representation, the importance of "property" within political participation, the principles of the Revolution Settlement and the self-interest of aristocratic grandees still held a lot of sway. Pitt, nor any other government minister, wasn't going to waste any political capital going after a lost cause. It took enormous social and economic upheaval, the growth of public opinion as a serious influence on parliamentary politics in the 1820s, and the Whigs gaining a popular base of provincial reformers and dissenters in the country for reform to occur.
 
Top