How great was the Great Reform Act?

by sundayinnit (student)

The effectiveness of the Great Reform Act, an act brought about in 1832 to increase the fairness and overall proportionality of the UK electoral system, can be judged on the variety of outcomes that the act produced.

O one side of the argument, it can be said that the Great Reform Act, although did make some changes to the UK electoral system, does not deserve its title of “great”, because it made sections of the working class feel betrayed by the terms of the Act, leaving them feeling that they had hardly benefited from the whole thing. They thought that the fact that they (the working classes) were forced pay a yearly rental of £10 or more in order to vote- a uniform property qualification- was contradictory to the purpose of the reform itself- it ended up excluding, rather than including certain members of society, and showed why the self-proclaimed ‘liberal’ Tories may not have been so liberal after all.

It was also mandatory for all voters to enlist in the army if they wanted to vote, something , although understandable given the time of the reform and the situation Britain was in, not very liberal and potentially very discouraging for men who felt like they wanted to vote. Not only was the voting of the working classes restricted due to the act, but a more obvious point is that not everyone could vote- women for instance were still kept out of the picture.

Although the abolition of rotten and open boroughs do obviously present clear benefits in terms of increasing proportionality and overall fairness, it is key to remember that thousands of working class people (potwallopers- men were eligible to vote if they had a fireplace big enough to hang a pot) actually lost their right to vote due to the abolition of such aspects. Open voting was also a very ‘corrupt part’ of the voting system that the act had failed to abolish, and so open voting allowed land owners and aristocrats to bully, bribe, violently persuade and intimidate people into voting for them. 31 small borough also lost 1 or 2 of their MP’s, which although helps reduce corruption and proportionality, in a way stopped certain sections of society being represented.

Another reason why it didn’t deserve to be given the name “great”, is the rural south was still over represented compared to the industrial north, as all the country towns were still relatively bigger than industrial towns, of which some didn’t gain parliamentary seats. Also another reason which takes away the ‘greatness’ from the act was that about 70 borough pocket boroughs’ remained, and this was controlled by the rich landowners.

There were however, a variety of outcomes created by the Great reform Act that were highly beneficial to the justness of the system. First of all, ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

There were however, a variety of outcomes created by the Great reform Act that were highly beneficial to the justness of the system. First of all, one of the biggest changes made was that as many as 56 rotten/pocket boroughs of fewer than 2000 votes in England were made obsolete. This reduction of the unfair boroughs meant that significant amounts of Tory voters were lost, therefore benefitting the Whigs all the more and increasing Whig popularity, this supplied Whig’s with the confidence to make more reforms, and did indeed help them properly secure power and helped them to implement vital reform to Britain in the near future.

The abolition of the rotten and pocket boroughs also improved the fairness and reduced the corruption and omnipotence of wealthy aristocrats in the areas, as well as adding a degree of proportionality to the electoral system. The Great Reform Act can also in a way be seen as being ‘great’, due to the fact that it actually helped reduce the chances of revolution at the time. Prior to the reform the middle-classes had rebelled and had threatened to not pay taxes in order to force the government into the passing of the bill. After the bill was made an act, the countryside then settled down and a revolution did not happen, therefore the Reform Act had shown great content for the population which in turn made Britain become more ‘at ease’- the threat of an uprising had been greatly reduced.

The way in which people were eligible to vote in the unreformed electoral system was unclear and on the whole inane and absurd. The fact that Scott & Lott boroughs and pot walloping was abolished is a reason why the act was so ‘great’, as the Whigs had now managed to make the necessary breakaway from the classic out-dated medieval tradition of allowing any random man passing through town with big enough room for a pot to vote.

Furthermore, there was now a uniform system of franchises which were two systems which was one for the borough and one for the country. This was a great reform because it replaced the confusing franchises’ under the old system. The electorate increased from roughly about 490,000 to 800,000, so this was a huge rise. One in even adult males now had the right to vote in England. In Scotland there was a restriction in the voting system but the number of voters rose from 4500 to 65,000, so this was a huge change and a great reform act; because the system began to be fair. 1 in 7 men could now vote, the highest number that had ever been recordded, and this symbolises a clear change for the good- that the electorate were getting involved more which helped contribute to the overall democracy of the whole system- and a fair, democratic electoral system was then greatly desired.

Also, very large constituencies such as Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield now had MP's representing them, a positive change from the past where the north of England, in which the majority of the population lived, were vastly under-represented, and so this new aspect of the reform helped to increase representation and fairness- those in the south west of England could no longer 'enjoy' being disproportionalitly represented.

To conclude, despite the Great Reform Act having some bad sides to it, such failing to deal with open boroughs, resulting in more bribery than ever, taking away the universal right for working men to vote (potwhollopers) and the government implementing a requirement to be paying a minimum yearly rental of £10 and forcing people to conscript if they wanted to vote, the advantages were clear, and somewhat necessary. The Reform Act did not completely revamp the old system- however the changes that were made were certainly significant. The reduction of rotten/pocket boroughs and the 'redistribution' of proportionality helped increase the value of the vote, and at the same time satisfied members of society who were threatening revolt- it could be said that the reform prevented revolution, and the mandatory conscription did not have such an adverse effect after all- it meant that Britain now had a strong enough army to deal with any domestic/international threats. The Reform was also beneficial to the Whigs- it allowed to them to consolidate their support, leading to the introduction of new policies following shortly after the reform.

Reform was much needed, and although the Great Reform Act of 1832 did not go all the way in completely changing the nature of the electoral system, it would be fair to say it allowed Britain to take the first big steps to breaking away from the shackles of the much out-dated, unjust old system, in which Britain had been encapsulated for so long.

Thomas Smith