Wellington's beef
Britain emerged from the Napoleonic wars politically untroubled and democratically 'balanced'. Many years earlier, the Act of Toleration 1689 and the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1778 had instilled a degree of religious tolerance. The economy was strong and Britain controlled the world's sea lanes after Lord Nelson's famous naval victories. Thus, there was little threat of revolution in post-war Britain – making political reform a very low priority. Such a sense of well-being would probably explain why the Duke of Wellington, the conquering hero of Waterloo, considered the political system incapable of improvement.
Britain emerged from the Napoleonic wars politically untroubled and democratically 'balanced'. Many years earlier, the Act of Toleration 1689 and the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1778 had instilled a degree of religious tolerance. The economy was strong and Britain controlled the world's sea lanes after Lord Nelson's famous naval victories. Thus, there was little threat of revolution in post-war Britain '“ making political reform a very low priority. Such a sense of well-being would probably explain why the Duke of Wellington, the conquering hero of Waterloo, considered the political system incapable of improvement.
However, the situation had changed considerably by the 1830s. In the first year of that decade, there were strikes in towns and riots in the countryside. There was a downturn in the economy and growing religious unrest. Lord Grey's Whig government considered reform essential. Furthermore, the electoral franchise was a muddle and rotten boroughs prevalent '“ a single voter in the Cornish hamlet of Bossiney returned two members and the fat land-owning noblemen in the Shires elected the country members. This was a political system dominated by the aristocracy.
Backed by Lord Durham and Lord John Russell, the Whig government drafted a bill to enfranchise £10 householders in the boroughs and £50 tenants in the counties. This widening of the franchise was hoped to create a new order, a fundamental first step to true British democratisation and, most of all, a means to avoid revolution.
Lord John Russell introduced the Reform Bill in the House of Commons on 1 March 1831. However, the bill received lukewarm support '“ winning by one vote on its second reading before being defeated two months thereafter. Lord Grey was furious and called for a general election. The king dissolved parliament and the voting men of Britain went to the polls.
After a campaign of electoral reform spin, the Whigs were returned with a large majority as the voters were predominately in favour of political reform and the reintroduced Reform Bill passed unhindered through the lower House in the summer of 1831. The lords, on the other hand, were not so enthusiastic and defeated the bill in September 1831, which provoked widespread civil disorder and real fear of revolution.
A British revolution
In Bristol, 31 protesters were sentenced to death after an angry mob set fire to houses and public buildings. This was the worst civil uprising of the 19th century. Riots also broke out in many other large cities across England.
Unperturbed by previous defeat, the Whigs amended the Reform Bill and made a third legislative attempt; it successfully passed through parliament in December 1831, but, again, the lords blocked it in May 1832, resulting in more bloodshed in the streets of England.
Parliament persuaded the reluctant king to appoint more Whig peers to get the bill onto the statute books. When the Tories learned of this affront they backed down and the Reform Bill became the Great Reform Act on 7 June 1832.
No individual made such a strong case against political reform as the Duke of Wellington who attempted to subvert any attempt of emancipation. While the Iron Duke could manage an army that led Britain to victory, he could not manage overwhelming political pressure. He had been physically attacked on account of his opposition to the Reform Bill and violent rioters gathered around Apsley House (now the Wellington museum) to show their heartfelt displeasure.
On one eerie dark night during this turbulent time, it is said that the ghost of Oliver Cromwell was seen by the duke warning him to relent. Whatever caused him to eventually soften his attitude, Wellington did not take kindly to parliamentary reform being his own Waterloo, and, when condemned in the House of Lords on 7 October 1831, the Duke replied: 'I repeat, that parliamentary reform had nothing to do with my resignation. The noble earl may surmise what he pleases. I will say no more upon the subject, except again, and for the last time, to tell the House, that I did not resign on account of parliamentary reform'.