Who were the Whigs, and what did they stand for?
The Whigs were pro-reformers led by Prime Minister Earl Grey who ousted the Tory government that was led by anti-reformers including Prime Minister Arthur Wellesley in 1930. The Whig Party introduced the Reform Bill of 1832 which successfully passed the House of Commons and received a Royal Assent (Ertman, 2010). The Whigs stood for reforms and public interests. The Representation of the People Act 1832 was introduced because it was backed by the public to bring reforms to the electoral system of England and Whales. Therefore, the Whigs were motivated by the principle of reform and popular voice. The harmony and unity of the Whig party was enhanced by the principle of reform. The need for reforms was already clear in England, and the Whigs just support the already existing principle. In other words, the Whigs stood for irresistible demand for representational and parliamentary reforms. They also stood for the legislation of such reforms.
The stand of the Whigs was a necessary one because it promoted their principles, which they stood for ever since they were in opposition. The main intention of the reforms was to satisfy the public interest and comply with the public opinion. The Whigs were mainly politicians who valued the opinions of the electorates, as opposed to the opponents of reforms who remained hostile to public opinion. Most of the supporters of the reforms did not agree on various elements of reform. While some of them supported some parts of the reforms, others supported other parts (Macaulay, 1832). However, as a political party, the Whig ended up harmonizing their differing opinions in order to stand for the primary principle of reforms. Instead of wasting their strengths on internal dissentions, the Whigs unanimously supported the reforms in the representative system.
What is Macaulay’s argument in favor of the Reform Bill?
Thomas Babington Macaulay supported the Reform Bill, partly because he was a Whig, and partly because he was a reformer just like any other Whig. Macaulay’s primary argument in favour of the Reform Bill was that it was a wise and noble way of solving the problems of the country, reconciling various factions of the state, and securing the public liberties of the people. According to Macaulay, reformers were rational, plain and consistent (Macaulay, 1832). The reform would lead to inclusion of more middle class in the representation without necessarily causing shock to the country’s existing institutions. Macaulay opposes universal suffrage in favour of measure of reform. According to him, this would be beneficial to the labouring class.
Macaulay argues that the middle class plays a crucial role in the England, and should therefore be included in the representation system. If the government is to make its people happy, it has to build the confidence of the middle class. The middle class should be given an organ through which they can make their sentiments known (Macaulay, 1832). The reforms would promote the constitutional rights and liberties of the middle class. Macaulay argues that the representative system of England as it is may not last for long because opposition of the government would increase and cause possible violence or even removal of the government of the day from power. He suggests that the interests and duty of the government should come first above all, and they can only be promoted by listening, seeing and understanding the public opinion. In this regard, Macaulay suggests that reforms should be made in the representative system in order to build confidence of the middle class and avoid problems of revolution and opposition in future. This can be enhanced by considering the interests and respecting the liberties of the middle class.
Do you find Macaulay’s argument convincing? Why or why not?
The speech and contributions of Macaulay to the Reform Bill are clearly weighty, and his argument is convincing. He uses succinct language to explain his reasons why he supports the Reform Bill, posing questions and challenging the opposition in a very convincing manner. He addressed the arguments of opponents, and gave counter-arguments that mainly focused on the need to respect the liberty of the people and build the confidence of the middle class in order to avoid the effects of revolutions in future. His rhetoric questions clearly showed the benefit of reforms to the government and the people it serves.
Another reason why his arguments were convincing was because he clearly explained how the government stood to benefit from the reforms. Indeed, there were public demands and the threat of revolution which would only be avoided through reforms in the parliamentary or representative reforms (Ertman, 2010). Macaulay used this argument and defended it well by explaining some of the effects of possible revolution – including violence and great rebellion. This was a convincing argument because it augmented the overwhelming pressure and the Catholic Emancipation that advocated for reforms; hence it became easier to persuade the parliament to adopt reforms.
Macaulay also used the example of well-known supporters such as Lord John Russell to support his arguments – as if he was saying, “I am not the only person who sees it in this manner, Russell also had the same argument.” For example, Macaulay used the example of the rise of the middle class as a good reason to initiate representative reforms. This was long argued by Lord John Russell who said that the middle class had great influence in their advance, with wealth, influence, knowledge and intelligence (Aidt and Franck, 2013).
References list
Aidt, T.S. and Franck, R. (2013). How to get the snowball rolling and extend the franchise: voting on the Great Reform Act of 1832. Public Choice, 155(4), 229-250.
Ertman, T. (2010). The Great Reform Act of 1832 and British Democratization. Comparative Political Studies 43(9), 1000-1022.
Macaulay, T.B. (1832). Speech on the Reform Bill of 1832. London: House of Commons.