The
Representation of the People Act 1832,
commonly known as the
Reform Act 1832, was an
Act of Parliament (
2 & 3 Will. IV)
that introduced wide-ranging changes to the
electoral system of the United Kingdom
. According to its preamble, the act was
designed to "take effectual Measures for correcting diverse Abuses
that have long prevailed in the Choice of Members to serve in the
Commons House of
Parliament
."
Calls for reform had been mooted long before 1832, but perennially
without success. The Act which finally succeeded was proposed by
the
Whigs led by the
Prime Minister Lord Grey.
It met with
significant opposition from the Tories, especially in the House of Lords
. Nevertheless, as a result of public
pressure, the bill was eventually passed. The Act granted seats in
the House of Commons to large cities that had sprung up during the
Industrial Revolution, and
took away seats from the "
rotten
boroughs"—those with very small populations. The Act also
increased the number of individuals entitled to
vote, increasing the size of electorate by 50–80%,
and allowing a total of one out of six adult males to vote, in a
population of some 14 million.
The full title is
An Act to amend the representation of the
people in England and Wales. Its formal short title and
citation is the Representation of the People Act 1832 (2 & 3
Wm. IV, c. 45). The Act only applied in England and Wales; separate
reform bills were passed in the same year for
Scotland and
Ireland. Other reform measures were
passed later during the nineteenth century; as a result, the Reform
Act 1832 is sometimes called the
First, or
Great Reform Act.
The unreformed House of Commons
Composition
After the
Act of Union 1800 or
sometimes Act of Union 1801 ( ) the unreformed House of Commons was
composed of 658 members, of whom 513 represented England and Wales.
There were two types of constituencies: counties and boroughs.
County members were supposed to represent landholders, while
borough members were supposed to represent the mercantile and
trading interests of the kingdom.
Counties
were historical national subdivisions established between the
eighth and sixteenth centuries. They were not merely parliamentary
constituencies; many components of the government (including
courts and the
militia)
were organized along county lines. The members of Parliament chosen
by the counties were known as
Knights of the Shire. In Wales each
county elected one member of Parliament whilst in England each
county elected two members until 1826 when Yorkshire's
representation was increased to four following the
disenfranchisement of the Cornish borough of Grampound.
Parliamentary boroughs in England ranged in size from small hamlets
to large cities. Their disproportionality was due largely to the
haphazard manner in which they were chosen. The earliest boroughs
were chosen in the Middle Ages by county sheriffs at a time when
even a village might be deemed a borough. Many of these early
boroughs, if their representation continued (which was not always
the case), failed to thrive whilst more substantial settlements,
such as Winchelsea and Dunwich, went in to decline. In later
centuries the reigning monarch decided which settlements to
enfranchise. The monarchs seem mostly to have done so capriciously,
however, often with little regard to the merits of the place they
enfranchised. Of the 70 English boroughs that the Tudor monarchs
enfranchised, 31 were later disenfranchised. Finally the
parliamentarians of the seventeenth century compounded the
illogicality of the system by re-enfranchising fifteen boroughs
whose representation had been lapsed for centuries, seven of which
were later disenfranchised by the Reform Act. After Newark was
enfranchised in 1661 no further boroughs were enfranchised and the
illogicality of the system was all but set in stone until the
Reform Act.
The greater proportion of boroughs in England
elected two members of Parliament, five boroughs however elected
only one member and the City of London
and the joint borough of Weymouth
and Melcombe Regis each elected four members. The Welsh
boroughs each returned a single member.
The franchise
Statutes passed in 1430 and 1432, during the reign of
Henry VI, standardised property
qualifications for county voters. Under these acts, all (male)
owners of
freehold property or land worth
at least forty shillings in a particular county were entitled to
vote in that county. This requirement, known as the
forty shilling freehold, was
never adjusted for
inflation; thus, the
amount of land that it was necessary for one to own in order to
vote was gradually diminished over time. Nevertheless, the vast
majority of individuals were unable to vote; the size of the
English county electorate in 1831 has been estimated at only
200,000. Furthermore, the sizes of the individual county
constituencies varied significantly.
The smallest counties,
Rutland
and Anglesey
, had fewer
than a thousand voters each, while the largest county, Yorkshire
, had more than twenty thousand. Those who
owned property in multiple constituencies could
vote multiple times; there was normally no
requirement for an individual to actually inhabit a constituency in
order to vote there.
In boroughs the franchise was far more varied. There were broadly
six types of parliamentary boroughs as defined by their
franchise:
- boroughs in which freemen were electors;
- boroughs in which the franchise was restricted to those paying
scot and lot, a form of municipal
taxation;
- boroughs in which only the ownership of a burgage property
qualified a person to vote;
- boroughs in which only members of the corporation were electors
(such boroughs were perhaps in every case "pocket boroughs," because council members
were usually "in the pocket" of a wealthy patron);
- boroughs in which male householders were electors (these were
usually known as "potwalloper boroughs,"
as the usual definition of a householder was a person able to boil
a pot on their own hearth);
- boroughs in which freeholders of land had the right to vote.
Some boroughs had a combination of franchises and all usually had
special rules and exceptions so much so many boroughs had a form of
franchise that was unique to themselves.
The largest borough,
Westminster, had
approximately 12,000 voters, while the smallest, usually known as
"rotten boroughs" had, in most cases, fewer than a hundred each.
The most famous rotten borough was
Old Sarum, which had
13 burgage plots that could be used to "manufacture" electors if
necessary—usually around half a dozen was thought sufficient. Other
examples include
Dunwich (32 voters),
Camelford
(25), and
Gatton
(seven).
Women's suffrage
The claim for the women's vote appears to have been first made by
Jeremy Bentham in 1817 when he
published his
Plan of Parliamentary Reform in the form of a
Catechism and was taken up by
William Thompson in 1825,
when he published, with
Anna Wheeler,
An Appeal of One Half the Human Race, Women, Against the
Pretensions of the Other Half, Men, to Retain Them in Political,
and Thence in Civil and Domestic Slavery: In Reply to Mr. Mill's
Celebrated Article on Government. In the "celebrated article
on Government",
James Mill had stated:
The passing of the Act seven years later enfranchising "male persons" was, however, a more significant event; it has been argued that it was the inclusion of the word "male", thus providing the first statutory bar to women voting, which provided a focus of attack and a source of resentment from which, in time, the women's suffrage movement grew.
Corruption
A large number of House of Commons constituencies, especially those
with small electorates, were under the control of rich landowners.
These constituencies were known as nomination boroughs or
pocket boroughs, because they were said to be
in the pockets of their patrons. Most patrons were members of the
nobility or the landed gentry who could use their local influence,
prestige, and wealth to sway the voters. This was particularly true
in rural counties, and in small boroughs situated near a large
landed estate. Some noblemen even controlled multiple
constituencies; for example, the
Duke of Norfolk
possessed eleven, while the
Earl of Lonsdale owned
nine. Writing in 1821,
Sydney Smith
proclaimed that "The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord
Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of
boroughs. They are our masters!" Dr T.H.B. Oldfield claimed in his
Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland that,
out of the 514 members representing England and Wales, about 370
were selected by nearly 180 patrons. A member who represented a
pocket borough was expected to vote as his patron ordered, lest he
lose his seat at the next election.
Voters in some constituencies were independent enough to resist
domination by powerful landlords. However, they were, in many
cases, still open to corruption. Electors were bribed individually
in some boroughs, and collectively in others. In 1771, for example,
it was revealed that eighty-one voters in
New Shoreham (who
constituted a majority of the electorate) formed a corrupt
organization that called itself the "Christian Club," and regularly
sold the borough to the highest bidder.
Especially notorious
for their corruption were the "nabobs," or individuals who had
amassed fortunes in the British colonies in Asia and the West Indies
. The nabobs, in some cases, even managed to
wrest control of boroughs from the nobility and the gentry.
Lord Chatham,
Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1760s, once commented
that "the importers of foreign gold have forced their way into
Parliament, by such a torrent of corruption as no private
hereditary fortune could resist."
Movement for reform
Early attempts at reform
During the 1640s, England endured a
civil war that pitted
King Charles I and the
Royalists against the
Parliamentarians. In 1647, different factions of
the victorious parliamentary army held a series of discussions, the
Putney Debates, on reforming the
structure of English government. The most radical elements proposed
universal manhood suffrage and the reorganization of parliamentary
constituencies. Their leader
Thomas
Rainsborough declared, "I think it's clear, that every man that
is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put
himself under that government." More conservative members
disagreed, arguing instead that only individuals who owned land in
the country should be allowed to vote. For example,
Henry Ireton stated, "no man hath a right to an
interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom
... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom." The
views of the conservative "Grandees" eventually won out.
Oliver Cromwell, who became the leader of
England after the abolition of the monarchy in 1649, refused to
adopt universal suffrage; individuals were required to own property
(real or personal) worth at least £200 in order to vote.
He did
nonetheless agree to some electoral reform; he disfranchised
several small boroughs, granted representation to large towns such
as Manchester
and Leeds
, and
increased the number of members elected by populous
counties. These reforms were all reversed, however, after
Cromwell's death and the last parliament to be elected in the
Commonwealth period in 1659 reverted to the electoral system as it
had existed under Charles I.
Following Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 the issue of
parliamentary reform lay dormant until it was revived in the 1760s
by the Whig Prime Minister
William Pitt, 1st Earl of
Chatham ("Pitt the Elder"), who called borough representation
"the rotten part of our constitution" (hence the term "rotten
borough"). Nevertheless, he did not advocate an immediate
disfranchisement of rotten boroughs. He instead proposed that a
third member be added to each county, to countervail the borough
influence. The Whigs failed to unite behind the expansion of county
representation; some objected to the idea because they felt that it
would give too much power to the aristocracy and gentry in rural
areas. Ultimately, despite Chatham's exertions, Parliament took no
action on his proposals. The cause of parliamentary reform was next
taken up by Lord Chatham's son,
William Pitt the Younger (variously
described as a Tory and as an "independent Whig"). Like his father,
he shrank from proposing the wholesale abolition of the rotten
boroughs, advocating instead an increase in county representation.
The House of Commons rejected Pitt's resolution by over 140 votes,
despite receiving petitions for reform bearing over twenty thousand
signatures. In 1783, Pitt became Prime Minister but was still
unable to achieve reform.
King George III was averse
to the idea, as were many members of Pitt's own cabinet. In 1786,
the Prime Minister proposed a reform bill, but the House of Commons
rejected it on a 174-248 vote. Pitt did not raise the issue again
for the remainder of his term.
Aftermath of the French Revolution
Support for parliamentary reform plummeted after the launch of the
French Revolution in 1789.
Reacting to the perceived excesses of the revolution, English
politicians became steadfastly opposed to any major political
change. Despite this reaction, several groups that agitated for
reform were established. A group of Whigs led by
James Maitland, 8th Earl
of Lauderdale and
Charles Grey founded an
organization to advocate for parliamentary reform in 1792. This
group, known as the
Society of the Friends of the
People, included twenty-eight members of Parliament. In 1793,
Grey presented to the House of Commons a petition from the Friends
of the People, outlining abuses of the system and demanding change.
He did not propose any specific scheme of reform, but merely a
motion that the House inquire into possible improvements.
Parliament's reaction to the French Revolution was so negative,
that even this request for an inquiry was rejected by a margin of
almost 200 votes. Grey made a second attempt to raise the subject
in 1797, but the House again rebuffed him by a majority of more
than 150.
Other notable pro-reform organizations included the
Hampden Clubs (named after
John Hampden, an English politician who opposed
the Crown during the English Civil War) and the
London Corresponding Society
(which consisted of workers and artisans). But the "radical"
reforms supported by these organizations (for example, universal
suffrage) found even less support in Parliament. For example, when
Sir Francis
Burdett, chairman of the London Hampden Club, proposed a
resolution in favour of universal suffrage, equally sized electoral
districts, and voting by secret ballot to the House of Commons, his
motion found only one other supporter (
Lord Cochrane) in
the entire House.
Despite such setbacks, popular pressure for reform remained strong.
In 1819, a large group of individuals held a pro-reform political
rally in Birmingham. Although the city was not formally entitled to
any seats in the Commons, those gathered decided to elect
Sir Charles Wolseley as
Birmingham's "legislatorial representative." Following their
example, reformers in Manchester decided to hold a similar meeting
to elect a "legislatorial attorney." A large number of individuals
(between twenty thousand and sixty thousand, according to different
estimates) attended the event, many of them bearing signs such as
"Equal Representation or Death." The protesters were ordered to
disband; when they failed to do so, armed members of the Manchester
Yeomenry suppressed the meeting by force.
Eleven people were
killed, and several hundred injured, the event later to become
known as the Peterloo
Massacre
. In response, the government passed the
Six Acts, measures that were designed to
quell further political agitation. In particular, the Seditious
Meetings Act prohibited groups of more than 50 people from
assembling to discuss any political subject without prior
permission from the sheriff or magistrate.
Reform during the 1820s
Since the House of Commons regularly rejected direct challenges to
the system of representation by large majorities, supporters of
reform had to content themselves with more modest measures.
The Whig
Lord John Russell
brought forward one such measure in 1820, proposing the
disfranchisement of the notoriously corrupt borough of Grampound
in Cornwall
. He suggested that the borough's two seats
be transferred to the city of Leeds. Tories in the House of Lords
agreed to the disfranchisement of the borough, but refused to
accept the precedent of directly transferring its seats to an
industrial city.
Instead, they modified the proposal so that
two further seats were given to Yorkshire
, the county in which Leeds is situated. In
this form, the bill passed both houses and became law.
In 1828, Lord John
Russell suggested that Parliament repeat the idea by abolishing the
corrupt boroughs of Penryn
and East
Retford
, and by transferring their seats to Manchester and
Birmingham. This time, however, the House of Lords rejected
his proposals. In 1830, Russell proposed another, similar scheme:
the enfranchisement of Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, and the
disfranchisement of the next three boroughs found guilty of
corruption; again, the proposal was rejected.
Support for reform came from an unexpected source—a faction of the
Tory Party—in 1829. The Tory government under
Arthur Wellesley, 1st
Duke of Wellington, responding to the danger of civil strife in
largely
Roman Catholic Ireland,
drew up the
Catholic Relief Act
1829. This legislation repealed various laws that imposed
political disabilities on Roman Catholics, in particular laws that
prevented them from becoming members of Parliament. In response,
disenchanted Tories who perceived a danger to the established
religion came to favour parliamentary reform, in particular the
enfranchisement of Manchester, Leeds, and other heavily Protestant
cities in northern England.
Passage of the Reform Act
First Reform Bill
The death of
King George
IV on 26 June 1830 caused Parliament to be dissolved, and a
general
election held. Electoral reform, which had been frequently
discussed during the preceding parliamentary session, became a
major campaign issue. Across the country, several pro-reform
"political unions" were formed, made up of both middle and working
class individuals. The most influential of these associations was
the
Birmingham Political
Union, led by
Thomas Attwood.
These groups confined themselves to lawful, non-violent means of
supporting reform, such as petitioning and public oratory, and
achieved a great level of public support.
Nonetheless, the Tories won a majority in the election. But the
party was divided, and support for the Prime Minister (
Arthur Wellesley, 1st
Duke of Wellington) was weak. When the Opposition raised the
issue of reform during one of the first debates of the year, the
Duke made a controversial statement defending the merits of the
existing system of government, speaking in the formal "third-party"
language of the time:
The Prime Minister's absolutist views proved extremely unpopular,
even within his own party. Less than two weeks after Wellington
made the above remarks, he was forced to resign following an
adverse vote in the House of Commons on a
confidence motion. Sydney Smith
wrote, "Never was any administration so completely and so suddenly
destroyed; and, I believe, entirely by the Duke's declaration,
made, I suspect, in perfect ignorance of the state of public
feeling and opinion." Wellington was replaced by the Whig reformer
Charles Grey, who had by
this time succeeded to the title of Earl Grey.
Lord Grey's first announcement as Prime Minister was a pledge to
carry out parliamentary reform. On 1 March 1831, Lord John Russell
brought forward the Reform Bill in the House of Commons on the
government's behalf. The bill disfranchised sixty of the smallest
boroughs, and reduced the representation of forty-seven others.
Some of the seats were completely abolished, while others were
redistributed to the London suburbs, to large cities, to the
counties, and to Scotland and Ireland. Furthermore, the bill
standardized and expanded the borough franchise, increasing the
size of the electorate (according to one estimate) by half a
million voters.
On 22 March, the vote on the
second reading attracted 608 members
(including the non-voting Speaker), more than any previous
division. (The previous record was 530 members.) Despite such a
large attendance, the second reading was approved by only one vote.
But further progress for the Reform Bill proved difficult. During
the committee stage,
Isaac Gascoyne
proposed a motion objecting to the provisions of the bill that
reduced the total number of seats in the House of Commons. The
motion was carried, contrary to the government's wishes, by nine
votes. Thereafter, the ministry lost a vote on a procedural motion
by twenty-two votes. As these divisions indicated that Parliament
was in fact averse to the Reform Bill, the ministry decided to
request a dissolution and to take their appeal to the people.
Second Reform Bill
The political and popular pressure for reform had grown so great
that pro-reform Whigs won an overwhelming House of Commons majority
in the
general
elections of 1831. The Whig party won almost all constituencies
with genuine electorates, leaving the Tories with little more than
the rotten boroughs. The Reform Bill was again brought before the
House of Commons, which agreed to the second reading by a large
majority in July. During the committee stage, opponents of the bill
slowed its progress through tedious discussions of its details, but
it was finally passed in September, by a margin of more than a
hundred votes.
The bill was then sent up to the House of Lords, a majority of
whose members were known to be hostile to it. Due to the decisive
verdict of the electorate in favour of the Whigs at the previous
election, some speculated that opponents of reform would abstain
from voting, instead of openly defying the public will. Indeed,
when the House voted on the second reading of bill after a
memorable series of debates, a large number of Tory peers refrained
from voting. However, the
Lords
Spiritual mustered in unusually large numbers; of the
twenty-two that were present, twenty-one voted against the bill.
Consequently, the bill failed by a margin of forty-one votes.
Once the Lords rejected the Reform Bill, public violence ensued.
That very
evening, riots broke out in Derby
, where the
mob attacked the city jail and set several prisoners free.
At
Nottingham
, rioters set fire to Nottingham Castle
(the home of the Duke of Newcastle) and attacked
Wollaton
Hall
(the estate of Lord Middleton). The most significant
disturbances occurred at Bristol
, where rioters took control for three days.
The mob broke into prisons and destroyed several buildings,
including the palace of the
Bishop of
Bristol, the mansion of the
Lord Mayor of Bristol, and several
private homes.
Other places that saw violence included
Dorset
, Leicestershire
, and Somerset
.
In the meantime, the political unions, which had hitherto been
separate groups united only by a common goal, decided to band
together to form the National Political Union. Perceiving this
group as a threat, the government issued a proclamation pursuant to
the
Corresponding
Societies Act 1799 declaring such an association
"unconstitutional and illegal," and commanding all loyal subjects
to refrain joining it. The leaders of the National Political Union
ignored the proclamation, but the leaders of the influential
Birmingham branch decided to co-operate with government wishes by
discouraging activities on a national level.
Third Reform Bill
After the Reform Bill was rejected in the Lords, the House of
Commons immediately passed a
motion
of confidence affirming their support for Lord Grey's
administration. Because parliamentary rules prohibited the
introduction of the same bill twice during the same session, the
ministry advised the King to
prorogue
Parliament. As soon as the new session began in December 1831, the
Third Reform Bill was brought forward. The bill was in a few
respects different from its predecessors; it no longer proposed a
reduction in the total membership of the House of Commons, and it
reflected data collected during the census that had just been
completed. The new version passed in the House of Commons by even
larger majorities in March 1832; it was once again sent up to the
House of Lords.
Realising that another rejection would be politically unfeasible,
opponents of reform decided to use amendments to change the bill's
essential character. Their reliance on this tactic became obvious
during the committee stage, when they voted to delay consideration
of the clauses of the bill that disfranchised the rotten boroughs.
The ministers believed that they were left with only one
alternative: to create a large number of new peerages, thereby
swamping the House of Lords with pro-reform members. But the
prerogative of creating peerages belonged to the King,
William IV, who recoiled
from taking so harsh a step. When the King rejected the unanimous
advice of the cabinet, Lord Grey resigned, and the Crown called
upon the Duke of Wellington to form a new government.
The ensuing period, known as the "
Days of
May", created so great a level of political agitation that some
feared revolution. Several protesters encouraged a refusal to pay
taxes and a
run on the banks. They
encouraged people to "Stop the Duke, go for gold", i.e. take money
out of the banks, and £1½ million in gold was withdrawn from the
Bank of England. The National Political Union and other
organizations sent petitions to the House of Commons demanding that
they
withhold supply (cut off funding
to the government) until the House of Lords acquiesced. Some
demonstrations called for the abolition of the nobility, and even
of the monarchy. In these circumstances, the Duke of Wellington had
great difficulty in finding support for his premiership, despite
promises of moderate reform. He was unable to form a government,
leaving King William IV with no choice but to recall Lord Grey to
office. At length, the King consented to swamp the House of Lords
with Whigs. However, without the knowledge of his ministers, he
circulated a letter among the Tory peers, encouraging them to
desist from further opposition, and warning them of the
consequences of failing to do so. Threatened with such a fate,
opposition peers ultimately relented. By abstaining from further
votes, they allowed the legislation to pass the House of Lords, and
prevented the Crown and cabinet from resorting to the creation of
new peers. The bill finally received the
Royal Assent on 7 June 1832, thereby becoming
law.
Results
Provisions
The Reform Act's chief objective was the reduction of the number of
nomination boroughs. Two hundred and three boroughs existed in
England before the Act. The fifty-six least consequential of these
boroughs, as measured by their housing stock and tax assessments,
were completely abolished. The next thirty least consequential
boroughs each lost one of their two members of parliament. In
addition Weymouth and Melcombe Regis' entitlement to four members
was reduced to two members.
In total therefore the Act's disfranchised
143 borough seats in England (one of the boroughs to be completely
abolished, Higham
Ferrers
, had only a single representative). In their
place the Act created 135 new seats for England and Wales.
Twenty-six English counties were divided into two divisions with
each division being represented by two members. Eight English
counties and three Welsh counties each received an additional
representative and Yorkshire, which was represented by four MPs
before the Act was given an extra two MPs (so that each of its
three
ridings was represented by
two MPs). Twenty-two large towns were given the privilege of
electing two representatives, and another twenty-one towns (two
being in Wales) were given the privilege of electing a single
representative. Thus the Act's enfranchising clauses created 65 new
county seats and 65 new borough seats in England and Wales with the
total number of members representing England falling by seventeen
and the number representing Wales rising by four.
The Act also extended the franchise. In county constituencies in
addition to forty shilling freeholders franchise rights were
extended to owners of land in
copyhold
worth £10 (£7,948.71 in 2007) and holders of long-term leases (more
than sixty years) on land worth £10 and holders of medium-term
leases (between twenty and sixty years) on land worth £50 and to
tenants-at-will paying an annual
rent of £50. In borough constituencies all male householders living
in properties worth at least ten pounds a year were given the right
to vote - a measure which introduced to all boroughs a standardized
form of franchise for the first time. Existing borough electors
retained a lifetime right to vote, however they qualified, provided
they were resident in the boroughs in which they were electors. In
those boroughs which had freemen electors voting rights were to be
enjoyed by future freemen as well provided their freeman-ship was
acquired through birth or apprenticeship and they too were
resident.
The Act also introduced a system of
voter registration, to be administered by
the
overseers of the poor in
every parish and township. It instituted a system of special courts
to review disputes relating to voter qualifications. It also
authorized the use of multiple polling places within the same
constituency, and limited the duration of polling to two days.
(Formerly, polls could remain open for up to forty days.)
The Reform Act did not affect constituencies in Scotland or
Ireland. However, reforms in those parts of the United Kingdom were
carried out by the
Scottish
Reform Act and the
Irish
Reform Act. Scotland received eight additional seats, and
Ireland received five thus keeping the number of seats in the House
of Commons the same number as it was before the Act. While no
constituencies were disfranchised in either of these countries,
voter qualifications were standardised and the size of the
electorate was expanded in both.
Effects
Although it did disenfranchise several
rotten boroughs, the Reform Act did not
address all the anomalies in the electoral system.
A few small boroughs,
such as Totnes
in Devon
and Midhurst
in Sussex, were spared. However, though pocket boroughs were
largely swept away, bribery of the voters remained a problem. As
Sir
Thomas Erskine May observed,
"it was too soon evident, that as more votes had been created, more
votes were to be sold." The magnitude of the unreformed electorate
is difficult to accurately determine. There was a lack of voter
registration, and many boroughs were rarely contested. It is
estimated that before the passage of the Act, 400,000 were entitled
to vote in 1831, and that after passage, 650,000 Englishmen
possessed the franchise, meaning that the Reform Act enlarged the
electorate by more than 60%. The vast majority of the population
remained voteless which included, of course, the whole of the
female population—indeed by specifying that only "male persons"
were to enjoy the franchise rights it introduced, the Act thereby
introduced the first legislative bar to women voting.
Most of the
pocket boroughs abolished
by the Reform Act belonged to the Tory Party. These losses were
somewhat offset by extending the right to vote to tenants-at-will
paying an annual rent of £50. This clause, proposed by the Tory
Marquess of Chandos, was adopted in the House of Commons
despite opposition from the Government. The tenants-at-will
enfranchised by the Chandos clause typically voted in accordance
with the wishes of their landlords, who in turn normally supported
the Tory party. This concession, together with the Whig Party's
internal divisions and the difficulties faced by the nation's
economy, allowed the Tories under
Sir Robert
Peel to make gains in the elections of
1835 and
1837, and to retake
the House of Commons in
1841.
The Reform Act also did very little to appease the working class
due to the fact that the voter had to have property worth £10. This
split the Working Class/Middle Class alliance as it appeased the
middle class due to the fact they could afford the required
property. This lack of representation for the working class led to
the
Chartist Movement that sprung from the
reform act.
The Reform Act undoubtedly strengthened the House of Commons by
reducing the number of nomination boroughs controlled by peers, but
the Lords nonetheless remained powerful. Some aristocrats
complained that, in the future, the government could compel them to
pass a bill, simply by threatening to swamp the upper House by
creating new peerages. The Duke of Wellington lamented: "If such
projects can be carried into execution by a minister of the Crown
with impunity, there is no doubt that the constitution of this
House, and of this country, is at an end. [...] [T]here is
absolutely an end put to the power and objects of deliberation in
this House, and an end to all just and proper means of decision."
But the subsequent history of Parliament indicates that the
influence of the Lords was largely undiminished. They compelled the
Commons to accept significant amendments to the
Municipal Reform Bill in
1835, forced compromises on
Jewish emancipation, and
resisted several other bills despite public opinion to the
contrary.
Further reform
During the ensuing years, Parliament adopted several minor
electoral reforms. Acts of Parliament passed in 1835 and 1836
increased the number of polling places in each constituency, and
reduced polling to a single day. Parliament also passed several
laws aimed at combatting corruption, including the
Corrupt Practices Act 1854, but
these measures proved largely ineffectual. Neither party strove for
any major reforms; leading statesmen from both the Whig and the
Tory parties regarded the Reform Act as a final settlement.
There was considerable public agitation for further expansion of
the electorate. In particular, the
Chartist
movement, which demanded universal manhood suffrage, equally
sized electoral districts, and voting by secret ballot, gained
widespread following. But the Tories were united against further
reform, and the Liberal Party (successor to the Whigs) did not seek
a general revision of the electoral system until 1852. The 1850s
saw Lord John Russell introduce a number of reform bills to correct
the defects that the first act had left unaddressed. However, no
proposal was successful until 1867, when Parliament adopted the
Second Reform Act.
Assessment
Several historians credit the Reform Act 1832 with cementing the
rise of modern democracy in Britain.
G. M.
Trevelyan hails 1832 as the
watershed moment at which "'the sovereignty of the people' had been
established in fact, if not in law."
Sir Erskine May notes
that "[the] reformed Parliament was, unquestionably, more liberal
and progressive in its policy than the Parliaments of old; more
vigorous and active; more susceptible to the influence of public
opinion; and more secure in the confidence of the people," but
admitted that "grave defects still remained to be considered."
Other historians have taken a far less laudatory view, arguing that
genuine democracy began to arise only with the
Second Reform Act in 1867, or perhaps even
later.
Norman Gash states that "it would
be wrong to assume that the political scene in the succeeding
generation differed essentially from that of the preceding one."
E. A.
Smith proposes, in a similar vein, that
"when the dust had settled, the political landscape looked much as
it had done before.
See also
References
Footnotes
- The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1832 (2 & 3
Wm. IV, c. 65) and Representation of the People (Ireland) Act 1832
(2 & 3 Wm. IV, c. 88 ).
- Blackstone (1765), pp. 154-155.
- Blackstone (1765), p. 110
- Parliamentary Representation of English Boroughs in the Middle
Ages by May McKisack 1932.
- The Elizabethan House of Commons - J E. Neale 1949 pages 133 -
134. Grampound was one of the 31 boroughs disenfranchised but was
disenfranchised prior to the Reform Act in 1821.
- The slight qualification has to be made in view of Grampound's
disenfranchisement in 1821.
- Abingdon, Banbury, Bewdley, Higham Ferrers and Monmouth.
- Blackstone (1765), pp. 166-167.
- Phillips and Wetherell (1995), p. 413.
- Thorne (1986), vol. II, pp. 331, 435, 480.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 321-322.
- Thorne (1986), vol. II, p. 266.
- Thorne (1986), vol. II, pp. 50, 369, 380.
- London: R. Hunter.
- London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green.
- Rover (1967), p. 3. The rejection of the claims of certain
women to be placed on the electoral roll was subsequently
confirmed, in spite of the Interpretation Act 1850 (13
& 14 Vict. c. 21) which specified that the masculine gender
should include the feminine unless otherwise provided, in
Chorlton v. Lings [1868] 4CP 374. In the case of
Regina v. Harrald [1872] 7QB 361 it was ruled that married
women, otherwise qualified, could not vote in municipal elections.
This decision made it clear that married women would be excluded
from the operation of any Act enfranchising women for the
parliamentary vote, unless special provision to the contrary was
made.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 333.
- Holland and Austin (1855), vol. II, pp. 214-215.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 361-362.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 340.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 335.
- Pringle and Taylor (1840), vol. III, p. 405.
- Cannon (1973), cap. 1.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 394.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 397.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 400-401.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 402.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 404-406.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 406-407.
- May (1896), vol. II, pp. 352-359.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 408-416.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 412.
- May (1896), vol. II, p. 384.
- Hansard's Debates, 3rd Series, Volume I, p. 52.
- 15 November 1830
- Holland and Austin (1855), vol. II, p. 313.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 421-422.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 422-423.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 423-424.
- Rudé (1967), pp. 97-98.
- May (1896), vol. II, pp. 389-390.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 452.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 312.
- May (1896), vol. II, pp. 390-391.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 312-313.
- Including Monmouth, considered part of Wales under sections 1,
20 and 269 of the Local Government Act 1972 (cap.
70). The Interpretation Act 1978 (cap. 30)
provides that prior to 1 April 1974, "a reference to England
includes Berwick-upon-Tweed and Monmouthshire."
- Wales did not lose any of its existing borough representatives
because with the exception of Beaumaris and Montgomery these
members represented groups of towns rather than an individual town.
To enable Wales to retain all of its existing borough seats the Act
therefore simply increased, where necessary, the number of towns in
these groupings and created entirely new groupings for Beaumaris
and Montgomery.
- Immediately after 1832, more than a third of borough
electors—over one hundred thousand—were "ancient right" electors,
the greater proportion being freemen. Mortality inevitably caused
them to become a dwindling part of the electorate and by 1898
apparently only one ancient right "potwalloper" remained a
registered elector.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 433.
- Phillips and Wetherell (1995), pp. 413-414.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 428.
- Hansard's Debates, 3rd Series, Vol XII, p. 995.
- May (1896), vol. I, pp. 316-317.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 449.
- Trevelyan (1922), p. 242.
- May (1896), vol. I, p. 431.
- Gash (1952), p. xii.
- Smith (1992), p. 141.
Bibliography
- Blackstone, Sir William.
(1765-1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
- Gash, Norman. (1952). Politics
in the Age of Peel: A Study in the Technique of Parliamentary
Representation, 1830-1850. London: Longmans, Green, and
Co.
- Lady Holland and Sarah Austin. (1855). A Memoir of the
Reverend Sydney Smith by his daughter, Lady Holland, with a
Selection from his Letters edited by Mrs Sarah Austin. 2 vols.
London: Brown, Green, and Longmans.
- Marcus, Jane (ed.). (2001). Women's Source Library Vol.VIII: Suffrage and
the Pankhursts. London: Routledge.
- May, Sir Thomas
Erskine. (1896). The Constitutional History of England
Since the Accession of George the Third: 1760-1860. 3 vols.
London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
- Napier, Macvey (ed.). (1824).
Supplement to Encyclopædia Britannica
(4th, 5th & 6th eds.). London: Archibald Constable & Co.
- Phillips, John A., and Charles Wetherell. (1995). The Great
Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England.
The American Historical Review, vol. 100, pp.
411–436.
- Pringle, John H., and William S. Taylor, eds. (1838-1840). 4
vols. Correspondence of William Pitt, Earl of Chatham.
London.
- Rover, Constance. (1967). Women's Suffrage and Party
Politcs in Britain, 1866–1914. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
- Rudé, George. (1967). English Rural and Urban Disturbances on
the Eve of the First Reform Bill, 1830-1831. Past and
Present, no. 37, pp. 87–102.
- Smith, E. A. (1992). Reform or Revolution? A Diary
of Reform in England, 1830-2. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Alan
Sutton.
- Thorne, R. G. (1986). The House of Commons: 1790-1820.
London: Secker and Warburg.
- Trevelyan, G. M. (1922). British History in the Nineteenth
Century and After (1782-1901). London: Longmans, Green, and
Co.
Further reading
- Brock, Michael. (1973). The Great Reform Act. London:
Hutchinson Press.
- Butler, J. R. M. (1914). The Passing of the Great Reform
Bill. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
- Cannon, John. (1973). Parliamentary Reform 1640-1832.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Christie, Ian R. (1962). Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform: The
Parliamentary Reform Movement in British Politics, 1760-1785.
New York: St. Martin's Press.
- Evans, Eric J. (1983). The Great Reform Act of 1832.
London: Methuen and Co.
- Foot, Paul (2005). The Vote: How It Was Won and How It Was
Undermined. London: Viking.
- Mandler, Peter. (1990). Aristocratic Government in the Age
of Reform: Whigs and Liberals, 1830-1852. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
- Newbould, Ian. (1990). Whiggery and Reform, 1830-1841: The
Politics of Government. London: Macmillan.
- O'Gorman, Frank. (1989). Voters, Patrons, and Parties: The
Unreformed Electoral System of Hanoverian England, 1734-1832.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Phillips, John A. (1982). Electoral Behaviour in Unreformed
England: Plumpers, Splitters, and Straights. Princeton: Princeton
University Press
.
- Trevelyan, G. M. (1920). Lord Grey of the Reform Bill:
Being the Life of Charles, Second Earl Grey. London: Longmans,
Green, and Co.
- Veitch, George Stead. (1913). The Genesis of Parliamentary
Reform. London: Constable and Co.
- Warham, Dror. (1995). Imagining the Middle Class: The
Political Representation of Class in Britain, c.
1780-1840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- White, R. J. (1957). From Waterloo to Peterloo.
London: Heinemann and Co.
- Wicks, Elizabeth (2006). The Evolution of a Constitution:
Eight Key Moments in British Constitutional History. Oxford:
Hart Pub., pp. 65–82.
- Woodward, Sir E. Llewellyn. (1962). The Age of Reform,
1815-1870. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
External links