Society and Politics in Britain where There’s No Great Reform Act

[Basileus_Komnenos]

How would society and the political situation in Britain during the 19th century evolve in a situation without the Great Reform Act being passed? Would it be affected by Revolutionary movements in 1848?

How would this affect the Chartists? In otl they planned on marching in a large protest towards Parliament. They only stopped because of the rain.

 

[Born in the USSA]

Thande did something about this called The Unreformed Kingdom an a refutation of whig history by decoupling social and technological progress. It's really interesting if you haven't had a look!

 

[Born in the USSA]

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it’s that time once again, we’ve got—

What are you doing?

The whole bold text normal text thing, obviously—

Well we’re not doing that this time.

Spoilsport.

Ahem.

Foreword
As alternate historians we are used to the idea that things in history can be changed. It is easy to picture a different flag over a palace, a different head on a coin, a different name on an invention. Nonetheless even alternate historians often fall victim to the fallacy of ‘historical whiggism’—that there is an ineluctable drive for Progress that always takes one direction towards the sunlit uplands (which curiously always seems to resemble the current values in fashion in our own timeline) and while it may be delayed, it cannot be stopped. When a news story breaks of events supposedly representative of ‘backwards’ values, we bemoan the fact that this happened ‘in the twenty-first century!’—and ignore the fact that our forefathers said much the same when it happened in the twentieth, nineteenth and so on.

A fine illustration of this tendency can be seen by comparing editions of, for example, the Times Atlas of World History from different eras such as the 1970s, 1990s and today. The last page or so remain almost unchanged, making the same prediction of a world transformed by global capitalism, secularism and greater environmental awareness. Yet more pages are inserted before that with each edition, describing world-shattering changes such as the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of theocratic states and non-state actors. These changes add more and more contradiction to the final page, which is ultimately founded in futurist ‘progressive’ assumptions that predate them, until one day that conception will be thrown out altogether.

History is like evolution: it is not towards anything, but simply away from something. What path it takes is entirely up to us and the forces we set into motion. There are many things that seem ‘inevitable’ to us that would be baffling to inhabitants of other timelines—and vice versa. In our timeline there are many that see monarchism as an atavistic institution hanging on through life support in a few states, but is doomed to extinction within a generation. There are doubtless timelines out there where the same view is taken of that outdated, ridiculously flawed institution of government known as democracy, which began to be surpassed in the 1930s with its collapse in most European countries. To take another example, there were anti-vaccination campaigners 150 years ago; after the huge strides vaccination has made towards the elimination of global destructive diseases, there are still anti-vaccination campaigners today. This works both ways, too: social changes need not be required for scientific and technological breakthroughs—the Industrial Revolution was a cause of demands for such social changes, not a result of them.

History—and humanity—are not neat. Issues are rarely settled for good. Concepts cannot be deleted from our global consciousness as Orwell and his unironic imitators imagined they might. Equally, an apparently outdated practice may persist simply due to a lack of popular will to do otherwise. There are timelines where the idea of the United States still using a marginally amended version of its original 1789 constitution would be laughable, where the ancient republic of San Marino failing to join a united Italy would be absurd, where the continuing post-Cold War division of Korea would be inconsistent. Yet all of those things are true in our own timeline, and we accept them because that’s the way the world is. Nor is ‘progress’ one way even in our own timeline. Not so long ago, eugenics and Prohibition were considered progressive reforms part of the same package as votes for women, free education for all and improved sanitation. It is not always easy to predict which way the judgement of history will go.

So, how difficult is it to avert an inevitable, ineluctable tide of historical progress?

Perhaps easier than one might think...

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Thande did something about this called The Unreformed Kingdom an a refutation of whig history by decoupling social and technological progress. It's really interesting if you haven't had a look!

I mean it doesn't really answer the question though. And that tl veers into a lot of modern day stuff.

 

[NedStark]

A few notes:

- Britain in the 1830s-1840s had a very large urban population country-wide, not just in London (I understand that it reached 50% of the national population by 1848). This was very different from France, where urban population was in the minority and concentrated in Paris.

- Much of these urban population would have been denied political rights without the Great Reform Act. In France, these urban folks, generally more radical politically, led the revolution in 1848. Political radicalism was also the case for the British urbanites, especially the lower classes.

- The political environment that led to the absence of a Great Reform Act might have been very different. Catholic Emancipation might have never been passed, the extremely unpopular Six Acts and Combination Act might have stayed.

- Britain never had a large army, unlike Prussia.

- There were quite a lot of recessions in Britain during the 1820s-1840s. The 1840s was quite tough economically for all of Europe.

- I think it wouldn't have bode well for the Crown if no reforms were passed at all between 1832 and 1848. Revolutions is now a real possibility, if those urban folks decided to imitate their French counterparts in Paris - I can see a British Revolution and the OTL Canadian Rebellions occurring at the same time.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

- Britain in the 1830s-1840s had a very large urban population country-wide, not just in London (I understand that it reached 50% of the national population by 1848). This was very different from France, where urban population was in the minority and concentrated in Paris.

Why did Britain generally get a higher overall rate of urbanization in the 19th Century? Was it because it industrialized first, or is it because France is simply larger?

Much of these urban population would have been denied political rights without the Great Reform Act. In France, these urban folks, generally more radical politically, led the revolution in 1848. Political radicalism was also the case for the British urbanites, especially the lower classes.

True. Weren't they the backbone of the Charitist movement?

I know that a bunch of radicals planned to assassinate a bunch of Cabinet Ministers and PM Liverpool. If that succeeded, I could see the British government adopt a more reactionary tone afterwards with perhaps Wellington becoming the new PM. The fallout of this could quash all talk of reform leading to things like the Great Reform Act failing to pass. Though I wonder if this would also affect the Corn Laws being repealled.

Would this lead to a much more radical and Chartist faction emerging? In otl they did plan on marching towards Parliament and presenting their grievances. Wellington did have soldiers stationed at the ready in case things turned violent.

Revolutions is now a real possibility, if those urban folks decided to imitate their French counterparts in Paris - I can see a British Revolution

The question is would this Revolution succeed?

Do you think perhaps the Crown might be able to somehow pull off some sort of self-coup seeing as now Parliamentary system has collapsed in such a scenario? If say Queen Caroline lives longer, I could potentially see the Crown becoming unpopular and also a subject of the people's anger as well.

 

[Born in the USSA]

I mean it doesn't really answer the question though. And that tl veers into a lot of modern day stuff.

On the contrary, Catholic emancipation remained a wedge issue for longer, rotten boroughs remained on the books and inflation gradually expanded the franchise.

 

[Maeglin]

Do you think perhaps the Crown might be able to somehow pull off some sort of self-coup seeing as now Parliamentary system has collapsed in such a scenario? If say Queen Caroline lives longer, I could potentially see the Crown becoming unpopular and also a subject of the people's anger as well.

There simply isn't anyone around with both the popularity and inclination to pull off something like that. George IV and Ernest were despised, whereas William IV was popular because he was perceived as having liberal inclinations (in reality he was a moderate, but he managed to get everyone's hopes up).

I think if you can somehow get George IV to 1840 (say he decides to start dieting and exercising), bump off Victoria, and install Ernest, you have a profoundly gloomy atmosphere for the reformers. Ernest succeeding William would have been awkward, but him following George IV? It's a continuation of the conservative status quo, rather than a reversion, so I think it would be more viable. Meanwhile, OTL 1830-1832 let various genies out the bottle, which wouldn't happen here.

On the other hand, you now get a showdown in 1848...

 

[NedStark]

Why did Britain generally get a higher overall rate of urbanization in the 19th Century? Was it because it industrialized first, or is it because France is simply larger?

Industrialization was the main factor.

I think if you can somehow get George IV to 1840 (say he decides to start dieting and exercising), bump off Victoria, and install Ernest, you have a profoundly gloomy atmosphere for the reformers. Ernest succeeding William would have been awkward, but him following George IV? It's a continuation of the conservative status quo, rather than a reversion, so I think it would be more viable. Meanwhile, OTL 1830-1832 let various genies out the bottle, which wouldn't happen here.

King Ernest? Now this would be fun.

The question is would this Revolution succeed?

Even more likely than the French Revolution in 1848, and there would be no Napoleon III equivalent subversion. Compared to France, the revolutionaries in Britain would have had a much stronger power base due to demographic reasons as mentioned above: the rising urban middle-class deprived of political representation and the more radical urban working-class. Without the OTL Reform Acts, you would still have both groups on the same side.

 

[Maeglin]

Even more likely than the French Revolution in 1848, and there would be no Napoleon III equivalent subversion. Compared to France, the revolutionaries in Britain would have had a much stronger power base due to demographic reasons as mentioned above: the rising urban middle-class deprived of political representation and the more radical urban working-class. Without the OTL Reform Acts, you would still have both groups on the same side.

The Establishment would need to drive a wedge between the middle and lower classes, but I don't think any of them would have had the intelligence to pull something like that off. It's not as if potential wedges didn't exist. I mean, one thing the Whig Factory Owners did after 1832 was cut back on Poor Law provision, because they wanted the poor to move out of the countryside. Meanwhile, you had a section of the Establishment pushing Reform as a means of combating Catholic Emancipation - harnessing the power of England's Protestant majority.

 

[NedStark]

The Establishment would need to drive a wedge between the middle and lower classes, but I don't think any of them would have had the intelligence to pull something like that off. It's not as if potential wedges didn't exist. I mean, one thing the Whig Factory Owners did after 1832 was cut back on Poor Law provision, because they wanted the poor to move out of the countryside. Meanwhile, you had a section of the Establishment pushing Reform as a means of combating Catholic Emancipation - harnessing the power of England's Protestant majority.

That's why they did what they supposed to do IOTL, and *in time*, unlike their French counterpart.

Without timely concessions, IMO, there would be a revolution several years ahead of 1848, and worse, it could occur at the same time as the OTL Canadian Rebellion.

 

[funnyhat]

Even more likely than the French Revolution in 1848, and there would be no Napoleon III equivalent subversion. Compared to France, the revolutionaries in Britain would have had a much stronger power base due to demographic reasons as mentioned above: the rising urban middle-class deprived of political representation and the more radical urban working-class. Without the OTL Reform Acts, you would still have both groups on the same side.

Revolutions are not just about demography or class though. France had a revolution in recent memory (1830) and the legitimacy of Louis-Philippe was always in question by some. That Paris was the overwhelming center of power worked to the advantage of the revolutionary movement, as all of its organization took place there, and once it had control of the city, Louis-Philippe recognized that his cause was lost.

If this UK revolutionary movement has multiple centers of power, that makes coordination more complicated. Ultimately it probably comes down to control of London.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

rotten boroughs remained on the books and inflation gradually expanded the franchise.

This issue seems to parallel the issue in the Restored Bourbon Monarchy where suffrage was restricted to little over a hundred thousand people.

I think if you can somehow get George IV to 1840 (say he decides to start dieting and exercising), bump off Victoria, and install Ernest, you have a profoundly gloomy atmosphere for the reformers

I’m actually thinking of writing a TL where Victoria is taken out of her horrid family home away from the abuse of Conroy and her mother and instead raised by William or something like that.

but I don't think any of them would have had the intelligence to pull something like that off.

What about Wellington?

I was thinking say Britain goes reactionary after a successful Cato Street affair plot leading to the government being cripppled. The King is freaked out and Wellington is appointed PM acting like a pseudo Metternich and quashing any potential threat of revolutionary activity.

If this UK revolutionary movement has multiple centers of power, that makes coordination more complicated. Ultimately it probably comes down to control of London.

That’s what actually would have doomed the Decemberists in Russsia had the ones in St. Petersburg actually been competent. The revolt in modern Ukraine was more radical and had different objectives .

 

[NedStark]

What about Wellington?

I was thinking say Britain goes reactionary after a successful Cato Street affair plot leading to the government being cripppled. The King is freaked out and Wellington is appointed PM acting like a pseudo Metternich and quashing any potential threat of revolutionary activity.

He was referring to splitting the middle-class and working-class. Wellington was too inflexibly reactionary - so yeah, he would have been a Metternich rather than a Disraeli.

If this UK revolutionary movement has multiple centers of power, that makes coordination more complicated. Ultimately it probably comes down to control of London.

On the other hand, the small British Army would be completely overwhelmed if all major cities revolt.

Revolutions are not just about demography or class though

Demographic and class still played a very important role. The vast majority of Louis Bonaparte's support and votes came from the more conservative rural France, which was well, still the majority of France, in 1848.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

On the other hand, the small British Army would be completely overwhelmed if all major cities revolt.

I don’t realistically think that all major cities would revolt tbh, though some prominent ones probably would.

When do you imagine such an event taking place? The 1830’s or possibly the 1840’s? I was thinking that instead of the July Revolution, these uprising in Britain could be the inspiration for other similar types of revolts and movements within the continent.

How do you imagine that British government would react to such a series of event? Could there be a civil war, or just an eventual, but gradual move by the government to put it down once it gets its bearings together?

The vast majority of Louis Bonaparte's support and votes came from the more conservative rural France, which was well, still the majority of France, in 1848.

He also had support among the elites and the urban poor as well. Some of his earlier writings and his open sympathies towards the plight of the working class did make him appeal to them.

Honestly the Louis-Napoleon of 1848-1853 really played his cards right so well that he almost seems like a different person when it came to the end of the Second Empire. Had his health problems not gotten the better of he probably could have held the throne and avoided the Franco Prussian War entirely.

 

[NedStark]

When do you imagine such an event taking place? The 1830’s or possibly the 1840’s? I was thinking that instead of the July Revolution, these uprising in Britain could be the inspiration for other similar types of revolts and movements within the continent.

Yes, either of them. The July Revolution would have still independently occurred, though. However, unlike the French one, this British revolution would likely aim at declaring a republic, and in case it succeeds the impact would have been huge since the Channel would have prevented other European states from reimposing a monarchy.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

this British revolution would likely aim at declaring a republic, and in case it succeeds the impact would have been huge since the Channel would have prevented other European states from reimposing a monarchy.

I find it hard to believe that they would just jump straight to declaring a Republic just like that.

Not even the French Revolutionaries went that far despite France being the birthplace of the Revolution. Everyone still had memories of the failures of the First Republic. It was only later as the Revolutionaries became more radicalized that this was more accepted, and even then they voted in one of the most prominent monarchical claimants as "Prince-President." The writing was obviously on the wall at that point as to where the French government was going to go.

How do you imagine such a revolt taking place?
I'm thinking after years of Wellingon's harsh crackdown and repression, the Chartists are more numerous and more radicalized I guess. I'm thinking that the march on Parliament in 1848 takes place and it spirals into a violent clash between Metternich's troops and the demonstrators turning into a full riot.

How do you imagine such a revolution progressing? How do you think such a movement would affect the British Empire as a whole?
Would Ireland declare independence?

Would the government flee to Canada?

 

[Socrates]

The Brits were on the verge of revolution in our timeline from the ongoing lack of reform. Read about the Days of May and Peterloo. Any further delay would guarantee revolution IMO.

 

[NedStark]

It was only later as the Revolutionaries became more radicalized that this was more accepted, and even then they voted in one of the most prominent monarchical claimants as "Prince-President." The writing was obviously on the wall at that point as to where the French government was going to go.

Who had a Bonaparte last name. Even then, Napoleon III was very close to be banned from running IOTL (the Thouret Amendment which could have easily been passed at the time it was introduced).

find it hard to believe that they would just jump straight to declaring a Republic just like that

Not after decades of repression starting from the end of Napoleonic Wars. Since Britain already had its own July Revolution in 1688, this revolution very likely would have been republican.

How do you imagine such a revolution progressing? How do you think such a movement would affect the British Empire as a whole?

IMO the revolution would go the way of OTL France (sans the Napoleon III thing) with a capitalist republic established and the Empire would not have been affected.

Not even the French Revolutionaries went that far despite France being the birthplace of the Revolution. Everyone still had memories of the failures of the First Republic

And then there is the American Republic.

 

[raharris1973]

Compared to France, the revolutionaries in Britain would have had a much stronger power base due to demographic reasons as mentioned above: the rising urban middle-class deprived of political representation and the more radical urban working-class. Without the OTL Reform Acts, you would still have both groups on the same side.

On the same side against the old order, but then the middle class and working class could keep their knives out against each other, with the country-folk as a third force trying to live in peace/restore normal life with middle class ruled cities, and perhaps old order elements aligning with the working class, thinking they can manipulate them to unseat the bourgeois and restore their own mastery?

Not even the French Revolutionaries went that far despite France being the birthplace of the Revolution. Everyone still had memories of the failures of the First Republic. It was only later as the Revolutionaries became more radicalized that this was more accepted, and even then they voted in one of the most prominent monarchical claimants as "Prince-President."

When was the "Prince-President" title used?

Yes, either of them. The July Revolution would have still independently occurred, though. However, unlike the French one, this British revolution would likely aim at declaring a republic, and in case it succeeds the impact would have been huge since the Channel would have prevented other European states from reimposing a monarchy.

How do you imagine such a revolution progressing? How do you think such a movement would affect the British Empire as a whole?
Would Ireland declare independence?

How would you see the ideologies and party politics of a revolutionary British Republic evolve? Or even a new revolutionary parliamentary order under a "Crowned Republic" with a powerless monarchy and an abolished House of Lords?

What would be the outlook for maintaining subsequent regular peaceful transfers of power, as opposed to periods of dictatorship, "protectorates" or strong-man or strong-committee rule? Would post-revolutionary Britain end up evolving any forms of mass politics involving vanguard parties like Communism, Fascism, or INGSOC?