The parties wanted to capture votes from new electors and this resulted in the creation of local party structure. Local activists could identify and target potential voters. Although women were still unable to vote their work in constituencies and in helping to influence families was a new source of support. Both major parties began establishing local clubs and organizations. The Liberal founded Working Men’s Clubs and the Conservatives the constitutional Clubs (Working-class orientated) and Conservative Associations. These groups helped educate new voters and socialize them as well.
So to sum up, the impact of the 1867 and 1884-85 was great in terms of numbers of voters, although this was still only 40% of men who were eligible to vote. It also meant that the distribution of M.P.s was somewhat more representative. It changed the system from one which was aristocratic to one which was at least partially democratic. After the Third Reform Act the working-classes formed the majority of the electorate and some constituencies were represented by working-class M.P.s like Henry Broadhurst, a stone-mason and Trade Union Official. It also had an impact on the parties themselves as there needed to be a local party structure to keep tabs on the electorate and to encourage them to vote. In addition as more people became politicised they wanted to play a greater role in their communities, both at local and national levels. The new distribution of seats meant that constituencies were often grouped by class; middle-class suburbs, working-class inner city areas and landed-class counties. By creating a framework for a class based political system the Third Reform Act took a large step towards a greater democracy.
Q. What arguments were used, in the years 1867-84 by those who supported parliamentary reform?
With the passing of the Second Reform Act in 1867 some people felt that their aim to establish political democracy was beginning to become a reality. For others it was seen as a stage in the establishment of a new economic order of society.
This Act, in some ways more radical than either the Liberals or the Conservatives originally intended, marked a development in the British parliamentary system. Those who, during the period up to 1884 supported reform, concentrated on pushing at the boundaries of the reforms. They wanted to eliminate corruption and to control electoral expenses. They argued that the corruption brought the whole process into disrepute. Although all parties were eager to exploit all avenues to ensure success at the polls, when a select committee revealed the extent of bribery and corruption involved in the 1868 election, many Liberals began to argue that a ballot was the one practical solution which might be used. Although the introduction of the secret ballot did not achieve all its supporters wished it had been one of the Chartist’s demands.
A further argument was that supported by Gladstone who, acting on the recommendations of a Royal Commission set up to look into corrupt and illegal practices, decided that criminalizing bribery, impersonation, treating and false expense returns would be another step towards greater democracy, as would limiting the amounts that candidates could spend on elections.
The Radicals were also aware of the contradictions between the franchise in the boroughs and in the counties that had been heightened by the 1867 Reform Act. In parliament Joseph Chamberlain berated those who thought that gibing the franchise to agricultural workers would destroy agricultural interests. He claimed that when the vote was extended to some factory workers manufacturers did not object. He said:-
“They thought and quite rightly- that the interests of themselves
and their workpeople were identical, and they rejoiced that their
workpeople were to be permitted to exercise their Constitutional
rights.”*
The Liberals proposed to correct the anomalies and although by and large the House of Commons supported the change, the House of Lords sought to kill off the reform. This obstructive attitude provoked Radical agitation and resulted in the beginnings of a conflict between the Peers and the people. Even the Queen tried to get the Lords to take a more conciliatory attitude. The Radicals used the slogan about the Upper Chamber ‘Mend them or end them!’- showing a desire to get rid of the Lords and Joseph Chamberlain expressed his contempt for Lord Salisbury, who was responsible for the impasse, by saying:-
“Lord Salisbury constitutes himself the spokesman of a class- of
a class to which he himself belongs, who toil not neither do they
spin.”**
The coming of democracy in Britain was a slow process. Most M.P.s saw no ideological reason to extend the franchise, but once reform started, political one-upmanship determined that both parties should be seen to be supporting some kind of reform. Those who argued in favour of reform had to convince a sufficient number of M.P.s to adapt their ideas and commit themselves to extending the franchise and broadening the power base. As skilled workers became politicitized there was a meeting of minds between middle and working class radicals to achieve a greater democracy.