Due to previous riots and problems, like Peterloo, the Reform Act was desperately needed to rectify all the problems in the political system and there were many factors that pushed government to pass a new bill. William IV succeeded George IV who died in 1830 and due to this change of monarchy a general election took place; this therefore meant that some anti-reformers lost their seats. The Duke of Wellington’s government resigned and was replaced by a Whig administration, headed by Lord Grey, which pledged to introduce parliamentary reform. Lord Grey wanted to pass the Reform Act as growing external pressures, such as those from the Peterloo Massacre, Days of May, Swing Riots and the emergence of Political Unions motivated himself and the government to pass the Reform Act. The collapse of the Tory Party between 1827 and 1831 meant that the anti-reformists plans weakened, by the end of 1829 the Tory party had split in to three warring groups. People noticed the significance of the split of the Tories, 'Two years ago, I thought Reform of Parliament almost hopeless. I now believe it to be certain and approaching'. The Reform Act would have been passed by the Whigs due to the threat of revolution in Britain increasing evermore. The Whigs intentions when passing the Reform Act were to avert the potential prospect of revolution; therefore the new act would distract any citizens that were thinking about causing a revolution, due to the poor conditions that were present. The events at Peterloo in 1819 did not act as a pressure to spur on reform as much as the events in November 1831. The Bristol riots occurred after the House of Lords rejected the second reform bill, the riots lasted for at least three days and houses were looted and destroyed; four men were also hanged for leading the riot. The Reform Act only managed make a few amendments, as it could have possibly been rejected if it was too forceful.
It was clear that some citizens in Britain did not think that the Reform Act produced a positive effect juxtaposed to the previous system whereas others did. Many late nineteenth century historians and early twentieth century historians discussed the Reform Act and debated over the success of it. In my opinion I believe that the Reform Act most definitely made a positive impact on the current system and it also made way for other acts to be passed. J. R. M. Butler wrote in 1814 that, '...it established a precedent of permanent force for enfranchising all classes when they should reach the stage of political consciousness and social power'. It is clear that Butler considered that the Reform Act deserved the title 'great'. In 1938 E. L. Woodward noted that, 'neither side found the result as dramatic as it had expected'. A monument to Earl Grey at the head of Grey Street in Newcastle-Upon Tyne, has the inscription, ‘…the great measure of parliamentary reform was, after an arduous and protracted struggle, safely and triumphantly achieved in the year 1832’. This inscription shows that the 1832 Reform Act was highly thought of by many and so was Earl Grey. John Campbell wrote in his diary, ‘I still consider the Bill dangerously violent, but apprehend less danger from passing it than rejecting it’. John Campbell was a moderate Whig and this statement makes this even more comprehensible, as he saw the Reform Act as a means of averting revolution and riot. The Duke of Sussex shouted when in the House of Commons, ‘Thank God the deed is done at last. I care for nothing now - this is the happiest day of my life’. Thomas Creevey also noted in a letter, ‘This is the third great event of my life at which I have been present…’ It can be seen for all the statements and different people’s opinions that the 1832 Reform Act made a reasonably positive change.
The Reform Act was an optimistic change to many however; the working class were predominantly left out. Despite the fact that the working class helped to make sure that the Reform Act was passed, they still did not gain the vote. The Whigs made no attempt to deny that the £10 qualification was designed to exclude the working classes from the vote; the working class claimed that ‘the Bill is a mere trick to strengthen the towering exclusiveness of our blessed constitution’. The working class were disappointed with the current Reform Act and this lead them to demand for a further reform act in the near future.
Counties had the ‘40 shilling freeholder’ and boroughs had six main types of franchise before the 1832 Reform Act was established, which were as the following; freemen, scot and lot, burgage, corporation, potwalloper and freeholder. The Reform Act formed a standardized franchise in the boroughs, consisting of owners and occupiers of property worth £10 in annual value. Franchise in the counties was specified to £10 copyholders and £50 leaseholders, although the long-standing voting rights of 40-shilling freeholders were upheld. The Reform Act did make some changes to the electorate no matter how people claim that it was rather insignificant. Prior to the act the electorate size in counties was 201,899 after the act the electorate rose to 370,379 overall an increase of 83%. Proceeding to the act the borough electorate was 164,391 however after the number amplified to 282,398 which was a total increase of 72%. The proportion of males that were able to vote before the act was 11% but after the act the percentage rose to 18%, this is not a very large increase which makes the act seem insignificant. The composition of the House of Commons before the act was 186 seats for counties and 447 for the boroughs, this is rather one sided. After the 1832 Reform Act the distribution of seats evened out to 253 for the counties and 399 for the boroughs, this was not entirely even, but it was an observable change that would have made a difference to the political system.
Taking in to consideration the changes to the redistribution of seats after the Reform Act, it would seem that there is approximately an equal quantity of positive and negative changes. The Reform Act allowed more representation to be made available for boroughs and counties. 22 new boroughs were to gain 2 MP’s and 19 new boroughs were to gain 1 MP. The positive aspects to the Reform Act were that more representation was available in Parliament to counties and boroughs, so people would be able to get their points across much more effortlessly than before. There were less rotten boroughs, the representation was more equally spread than before and it also stopped the over representation of boroughs, which also made it easier for people’s opinions and views to be heard. A total of 145 borough seats were abolished. Many of these seats were awarded to the large towns and cities of the north and industrial areas, such as Manchester, Bradford, Sheffield, Bolton and Leeds. As a result there was an enormous enhancement in the number of urban voters. The number of county seats was enlarged, commonly these were more open seats and individual patrons or prominent landowners less possibly controlled them. However there were also some negative aspects to the Reform Act, various citizens in Britain may not have been extremely happy that some new boroughs would be created due to the Reform Act being put in place. People would loose some of the representation they once had; therefore they would not get what they desired, like they would do before the Reform Act was passed. Representation was still not adequate in some areas, yet in other areas there was too much representation, so subsequently other areas did not get the representation that they would need to have an influential role in Parliament. The counties had more MP’s than before but, despite containing more than one-half of the populations’ voters, they still had only one third of the seats in Parliament.
As representation was a major flaw in the existing system many people were relying on the 1832 Reform Act to make a substantial change to the representation that their country received. Scotland and Ireland suffered an exceptional amount from a lack of under representation. In Scotland the main designers of the Reform Act were Francis Jeffery and Henry Cockburn. There used to be a very restricted electorate and as little as 4500 people were allowed to vote, but after the Reform Act the number of people that had the right to vote soared up to 65,000. Scotland gained 8 seats in Parliament. This was a total increase of 1500%. The Scottish franchise after the 1832 Reform Act was much less generous compared to the rest of Britain, only those who owned a property valued at around £100 could vote. Subsequently this excluded most of the Scottish population. After the 1832 Reform Act there was not much of a substantial change in the way that the counties were represented and the counties still elected one member, however places like Clackmannanshire and Kinross-shire became a single constituency. The representation increased from 15 to 23. Ireland gained 5 seats. One man in every eight now had the right to vote. The legislation in 1832 to some extent changed a few boundaries of borough constituencies. More significantly it conferred a second seat on the Boroughs of Belfast, County Antrim; Galway Borough, County Galway; Limerick City, County Limerick and Waterford, County Waterford as well as Dublin University. The total number of seats in Ireland was therefore increased to 105. The 1832 Reform Act left the Irish county electorate much the same, but some new qualifications added to the electorate. From 1832 the qualifications were £10 freeholders, leaseholders for life and copyholders of estates of £10, leaseholders for at least 60 years and the assignees of the same or leaseholders for at least 14 years of £20 estates. The Irish boroughs were given a more uniform franchise. In addition to those who qualified under the previous rules, all occupiers of property worth at least £10 and resident freemen by birth or servitude became electors. The freemen were members of trade guilds, either because they had inherited membership or because they had served an apprenticeship to become members.
Prior to the 1832 Reform Act there was a lack of a secret ballot, this therefore meant that the people who were registered to vote were unable to vote in a confidential and secret manner. Due to this current rule, landowners were able to bribe and blackmail their tenants in to voting for them in the election, by threatening them with homelessness if they did not abide with their wishes. Subsequently when it came to voting people would not necessarily vote for the person they wished to represent them as they were in fear of becoming homeless. After the 1832 Reform Act there was still a lack of secret ballot and in some cases there was more corruption than there used to be before the Reform Act. One of the government’s objectives was to make sure that the cost of elections would decline, conversely this was not accomplished and the cost of the elections continued to still be very expensive. Consequently with the property qualification and the lack of pay for MP’s, it continued to limit who might possibly become an MP as those who were moderately wealthy or could obtain financial backing from patrons could only put themselves forward. After the 1832 Reform Act it was unmistakably noticeable that there were still some defects in the political system. There were still things that needed perfecting and the chartists demanded that the franchise should be widened so that more people could obtain the vote in a fair and uncorrupted way. The chartists demanded that there should be a universal suffrage for all men over the age of 21, equal sized electoral districts, voting via secret ballot should be established to make sure that the voting system was less corrupt, cease the property qualification for Parliament, introduce a wage for members of parliament and annual elections at parliament.
In conclusion it seems quite evident that the 1832 Reform Act made a substantial change to the political system, some of this consequently was also a positive change, like the redistribution of seats and representation some of the changes however did not make a positive change to the system, like the secret ballot and the fact that the working class were left out predominantly, therefore leading people to complain about the act. The Act changed the redistribution of seats, for the positive. There were also some things that were left unchanged like the secret ballot and such. As to how far the Reform Act was successful in rectifying the defects in the political system, I think that it changed them more for the positive and made a good standing ground for the further acts to come. Overall in my opinion I believe that the 1832 Reform Act was most defiantly a step in the right direction and was a stepping stone to allow more acts to be passed in the future. The act allowed more people to get their point across and permit Britain to run much more smoothly.
WORD COUNT: 2744
Bibliography
Behagg C – Labour and Reform: Working Class Movements, 1815 – 1914 (Hodder Murray, 1991)
Dinwiddy J R – From Luddism to the First Reform Act (Blackwell, 1986)
Evans E – The Birth of Modern Britain 1780 – 1914 (Longman
Evans E J – The Great Reform Act of 1832, Second Edition (Routledge, 1994)
Evers C and Welbourne D – Britain, 1783 – 1851: From Disaster to Triumph? (Hodder Murray, 2003)
Gash N, Aristocracy and People: Britain, 1815-1865 (New History of England)
Murphy D, Staton R et al – Britain, 1783 -1918 (Collins Educational, Flagship History, 2003)
Pearce R and Stearn R – Government and Reform, 1815 – 1914, Second Edition, Chapters 1-4 (Hodder Murray, Access to History, 2000)
Scott-Baumann M – Reforming Britain, 1815-50 (Hodder Murray, Access to History, 2006)
Evers and Welbourne ‘From Disaster To Triumph’ Page 129
Sir Robert Heron, A Whig Backbencher
National Union Of The Working Class
Evers and Welbourne ‘From Disaster To Triumph’ Page 133
Michael Scott-Baumann ‘Reforming Britain 1815-1850’ Page 78