The Defeat of Parliamentary Reforms

There are many reasons why parliamentary reforms were thwarted in the 1780s. Firstly, political self-interest had a big part to play. The status quo, such as it was, ensured predominantly Tory landowners continued to hold power over ‘rotten’ boroughs. Disenfranchising them would put a big dent in the power landowners, and the Tories, had over the Commons.

It is also true to say that the King would have seen his power diminish if these reforms were passed, as he had control over about 30 MPs, under the existing system. As he was uniquely positioned to reward his supporters with titles and ranks, passing any legislation without the monarch’s support would’ve been difficult.

There were also some landowning Tories who genuinely believed the lower classes didn’t have the skills or experiences required to influence policy. They argued that the upper class could represent the interests of society without the need for reform, and defended ‘rotten’ boroughs as a means for young politicians to gain providence.

But it wasn’t only Tory MPs who felt this way. Much of the general public wanted to keep things as they were too - particularly those living outside of London. Generally, the public of the time were reactionary, and held conservative, often prejudicial views. Additionally, much of the public were fierce monarchists, with John Nichols notably commenting that King George III was regarded by many as “The Father of the People.”

But ultimately, the main reason the reforms failed was simply a lack of consensus, both in and out of parliament, regarding how necessary they actually were. On top of that, some proposals were far more radical than others, resulting in a split between moderates and radicals, which ultimately saw any proposals rejected.