To what extent does the Reform Act of 1832 deserved to be called Great?

by peeta (student)

To what extent does the Reform Act of 1832 deserved to be called ‘Great’?

The great reform of 1832 act deserves to be called “Great” to a certain extent. The Great Reform Act encouraged structure within government and decisions were made more efficiently. For the first time in a long while, the great reform act was the closest perspective different social classes got to see how the future governing body would pursue with their decisions impacting and enabling better lives for civilians. The Great reform act also gave the new middle class a share of power and paved the way for a series of social reforms by the Whigs. So this meant that the middle class people had been recognised into the political system, however we could argue that many of the changes were short term solutions, not long term and they did not benefit the working class as the continuities that remained damaged the working class.

Some Historians argue that the Reform Act does not deserve to be called Great as there was limit change after 1832 as the Reform Act did not remove all the inequalities for example they gave the middle classes control on political system also the rural south was still over represented to industrial north, as all the country towns were relative bigger industrial towns, which some did not gain parliamentary seats as in many industrial centres, few achieved the £10 qualification, for example 5,000 people qualified to vote from 125,000 people in 1832 this shows that the Reform Act wasn’t really exceptional as the same two political parties continued to contest power. They also did not address any fundamental issues such as election; one main issue is that voting itself remained a public act and the continued absence of the secret ballot open; it was highly unprofessional as bribery and manipulation was used to control different social classes to vote for candidates running in the election. This caused much discontent amongst voters as they were lured in to voting for a candidate. There were also still significant discrepancies in the size of constituencies, out of 73 of the borough which survived the 1832 Reform Act had fewer than 500 electors and 31 possessed less than 300 this shows that only 7 % increase composition of MP’s which shows that the reform Act was not considered so ‘great’ as it did not show much change after 1832 this is because the changes made still did not change the fact that parliament and Britain itself was dominated by the aristocracy. The rich upper class people still overruled most of parliament so the changes made were not as flexible and life changing as they could have been.

This is a preview of the whole essay

However we could argue that Many historians would agree with the statement that the Reform Act was considered Great as it was the turning point in modern British political history as the changes the acts brought, in modern day, may not seem too radical yet they were the catalyst for future reforms that would benefit the people that had previously suffered in Britain. The main significance is mainly long term, yet with the introduction of reforms the Whig government began to gain confidence and authority with the reforms they were passing. Open boroughs were abolished; this meant that less working class men got the vote. In the past any working class men who were in an open borough at the time of voting were allowed to vote. This shows how the voting rules weren’t made uniform, and it seemed that the rules were made up as they went along. This was ‘great’ as it meant that the voting was to become more uniform and fair. 56 rotten and pocket boroughs were abolished which meant that more of the population were allowed to vote. Rotten borough’s was where no one could vote, the boroughs were based in the countryside due to the Industrial Revolution. Pocket boroughs were also in the countryside, however only some of the pocket borough public could vote, they would also only have one landowner. Therefore the landowner would bribe the voters into getting them to vote for him by using money. By abolishing these anomalies over 250,000 more people were allowed to vote for who they wanted. Due to this, the very rich middle class were allowed to vote, and bought greater content towards the population therefore, this change contributed to the greatness of the Great Reform Act and supports why the Act holds deserve to be called ‘Great’.

Furthermore Historians have strong evidence to support that The Reform Act was considered as Great, as they met most of the criteria that a great policy is about; as most of the people were satisfied. Another reason why the reform holds its title is that it granted some of the middle class the chance to vote for the very first time. Before the act was passed in May 1832 the middle class didn’t have the vote at all, also, it was geographically unbalanced and the country was spread unevenly. This change was important as it enabled the middle class ideas, votes and opinions that would be taken into consideration which reflected the positive development of the middle class. In addition to the above changes, the franchise was made more uniform. The franchise is a term given to those who could vote. By making the franchise more uniform (stable/unchanged), qualifications needed for becoming MP were made more rational and logical meaning that those who wanted to become MP had an increased chance of entering parliament. The more uniform franchise lead to a more efficient and fairer voting system. This change, like the others, is worthy of giving the title ‘Great’ to the Great Reform Act because it emphasises fairness and equality. Industrial towns such as Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield were given the chance to elect MP’s for the first time. This change was important as the more industrialised towns were made subject to being represented within parliament therefore getting their views across reducing the geographical imbalance. Although a few industrialised towns got MP’s, there was still a slight geographical imbalance. However, it was reduced which gave more people a voice to speak out and put their ideas across. Also, this change is important as it meant that industrial workers who were given the chance to become MP could speak out for the working classes thus making them more eligible and closer to making a change associated with working conditions. This change contributed to the greatness of the Great Reform Act, because it clearly conveys how people of various status could become part of parliament and join in with voting and electing MP’s.

In conclusion the reform deserves to be titled as ‘Great’ as it was the first major reform of Britain which consisted of many small changes of which combined together produced a greater Britain both within the short-term and long-term. The changes when combined developed equality, fairness, efficiency and rationality.

To what extent does the Reform Act of 1832 deserved to be called Great?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

To what extent was the 1832 Great Reform Act introduced due to fear of revo...

To What Extent Was The 1832 Reform Act A Turning Point?

To What Extent Did the Great Reform Act 1832 Help Establish Democratic Poli...

To what extent was the 1832 reform act the result of popular pressure