Another fault of the system was its concept of constituencies and boroughs. From constituencies two MP’s could be sent to Parliament. Here the vote was given to those who owned more than 40 shillings worth of land but the value of property differed across the country. Boroughs were towns that had, at some point been granted a Royal Charter. Both the number of MP’s returned to Parliament and voting often depended on local custom. Some had been prosperous medieval towns but were almost completely depopulated but despite this up to four MP’s could be sent to Parliament from each area. These, as a result, became know as ‘rotten boroughs’ because they were giving a true representation of the people of England. It was the large, industrial towns that needed this number of MP’s in parliament but these often went totally unrepresented.
In addition to this the actual elections were also false. Two thirds of elections were uncontested because people could not afford to stand against the successful candidate. The election process was not conducted on a single day but held over a number of weeks. The result might not be know for 2 months. There was no voting in secrecy. Voting took place on a platform amid an atmosphere of drunkenness and sometimes violent intimidation. Corruption was rife in terms of treating, cooping and the hiring of lambs. It is therefore reasonable that people called for reform in 1832.
The 1832 Reform Act was seen at the time to be a solution to an ongoing problem highlighted by popular unrest. It attempted to correct the failings of ‘Old Corruption’ whilst ensuring the elites in society retained their grip on power. The Act consisted of two essential elements, the redistribution of seats and the remodelling and systemising of the franchise. The Act released 143 seats that were redistributed accordingly - 62 seats to English counties, 22 new two-member boroughs, 19 new single member boroughs, 8 new seats in Scotland, 5 new seats in Wales and 5 new seats in Ireland.
In the boroughs there was an introduction of the #10 householder franchise. Every male aged over 21 who occupied property with an annual value of over #10 was entitled to vote so long as he had been living in the property for at least one year, paid taxes on the property and had not received any poor relief during the previous years. Any man who had been entitled to vote before 1832 retained the right to vote if he lived within 7 miles of the borough in which he voted. Borough voters were no longer allowed to vote in the county elections. In the counties franchise changed very little. Those owning land or property worth 40 shillings could vote. It also extended to #10 copy holders and leaseholders of long residence and any tenant who rented property worth at least #50 per year.
The Bill was accepted by the Commons but stopped by the House of Lords. This obviously made the public angry as their views were being ignored. There were demonstrations and riots in London, Birmingham, Bristol and other large towns. Buildings were set on fire and angry crowds paraded the streets canting the slogan, “The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill!”. The King, worried at the reaction of the ‘mob’ created Peers to sit in the House of Lords so that the passage of the Bill would be assured. The Act was passed by a small majority of 84.
In the short term, the 1832 Reform Act did not institute a dangerously democratic political structure. The number of voters doubled and approximately 717,000 people could vote. Those 717,000 consisted of 18% of the male population of England which meant that there was a 6% increase. It brought some of the upper middle class into order but till all interests and classes were not represented in Parliament. More people had the right to vote but they came from a more limited sector of society. With so many people till excluded from franchise, there began a realisation that the points of view of the people were not being recognised.
So why was such a fuss made about this Act if it didn’t change an awful lot? The Reform Act of 1832 had been the initial break with tradition. Before this event nobody had realistically contested the supremacy of the Upper Classes or tried to bridge gaps in the order of society. From now on it would be difficult to resist the demands for change and the extension of the vote to a greater number of people.
