Страница 60 из 87
Politically, what did this all mean? Not that much, but it did mean the Tory stranglehold on Scotland was broken. In the election after 1832, the Whigs won 43 seats in Scotland, and the Tories only 10. Everywhere, there were rejoicings, but the potential for disillusionment remained.
Parliament was still dominated by the landed elite with 342 MPs the sons of peers, baronets or near-relatives of peers. Seventy-one of the seats in Parliament and most of the seats in the Cabinet had been cornered by the landed classes. Moreover, once in power, the Whigs lost interest in further reform, seeing 1832 as a once-and-for-all change. Working-class radicals who had felt betrayed were left with a sense of bitterness, particularly as the reformed Parliament proved itself to be no more interested in addressing social grievances than old corruption. Radical MPs elected in Glasgow opposed the introduction of factory legislation aimed at lowering the working hours of women and children. The hated New Poor Law of 1834 in England was also introduced by the new Parliament.
Many of the abuses of the old system remained: there were no secret ballots and no payment for MPs, to name but a few. Rich men could still buy their way to seats in the Commons.
So, there is little greatness to be found in the allegedly ‘Great’ Reform Act of 1832. However, if you think of it as a begi
ing that contained the promise of future reform, then perhaps you can use the termgreat
in a qualified way. The door that had been effectively closed for centuries was now in the process of being wedged open. In the face of popular protest, Parliament was forced to reform itself. Might it not be placed in that position again? However, the next time the push would come not from the middle classes but from the workers.