The Great Reform Act

This was my A-level history coursework, written back in 2006 - the sources were, if I remember correctly, provided and a certain number had to be included and analysed. I've gone through and SPAG checked a little, and added in relevant outside links and pictures, but other than that it's all the work of my 17 year old self...

As Britain entered the 1830s the atmosphere was tense. Europe was growing increasingly unstable and the old order appeared to be falling; France, for example, was in the middle of a second revolution to overthrow Charles X. Once the Catholic Emancipation Act was passed in 1829 the path was clear for Parliamentary reform to become the big political issue of the day. As Lord Grey said, ‘reform is inevitable; it is the spirit of the age.’ Pressure for reform quickly began to mount, worsened by the economic depression the threat of revolution then became tangible. However revolution never came to pass, what did was the Great Reform Act of June 1832. Many historians have since hailed this Act as a glorious step forward on the road to democracy and a great victory for the middle classes. However in recent times this view, so prevalent in the first half of the 20th century, has given way to a more moderate assessment and even, in some cases, a complete denunciation.

Political pressure was the main reason why Parliamentary reform had become an issue. Reform movements had been in existence as early as the 1790s (for example the London Corresponding Society had been formed in 1792), although the issue was largely ignored during the Napoleonic wars (1795-1815) as it was seen as unpatriotic. However by 1830 it was widely felt that the issue could be ignored no longer. The main reason was that the system was simply outdated: there were 202 English boroughs returning 404 MPs to Parliament. But, as borough status had been granted in the middle ages, many were now nothing more than ‘rotten’ or ‘pocket’ boroughs. These were boroughs where the electorate was small (or, as in the case of Old Sarum, non-existent) and often open to corruption, the ‘rotten’ boroughs being particularly notorious. In some boroughs candidates bribed voters or threatened them with violence, whilst in others the choice of MP was left to the local landowner who sponsored their preferred candidate (although often enough there was no competition), a system known as ‘patronage.’ The power of patronage was such that eight Tory Lords could, between them, control 50 seats in the House of Commons. The Tories argued that this system allowed young politicians to gain experience, as had been the case with Pitt the Younger. But still people began to call for secret ballot and a redistribution of seats; there was real concern that the huge new cities such as Manchester and Liverpool had no Parliamentary representation.


In addition the lack of uniform voting qualifications in the boroughs had begun to appear old fashioned and ludicrous to the public. In some boroughs every adult male ratepayer could vote (known as ‘Scot and Lot’ boroughs), yet in others the vote was severely restricted, for example in Dulwich you had to own shares in the local salt mine. Even the county voting qualification of being a 40/- freeholder dissatisfied people; the value of money had changed to such an extent that in some areas almost anyone with land could vote. However it would be wrong to think that the right to vote was enjoyed by much of the British public - only 11% of the adult male population could vote. People began to take exception to this, which leads us to the second factor behind the significance of political pressures for reform. Since the first French revolution in 1792 there had been a phenomenal growth in the interest in radical ideas. Early reformists such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau brought the idea of democratic government to the masses. In the UK Tom Paine, whose literary style was clear enough to be understood by even the working classes, was very influential in spreading the idea that a government was not legitimate unless it had been elected, in fair elections, by the will of the people. The working classes, sections of the middle classes and radical MPs in Parliament came to support this radical view. Radical MPs began to apply pressure from within for reform and, when Tory PM Lord Wellington said that he did not believe reform was necessary, the outrage it caused forced his resignation.

The Tories were left in bad shape; they had been divided over the Catholic emancipation act and had only won the election because of patronage. In addition many Tories shared Wellington’s view: they had no desire to see any reform Act pass. If political pressures had brought Parliamentary reform to the public’s attention, economic pressures would ensure it would become one of the biggest issues of the 19th century. There are two aspects to the economic pressures. The first is that throughout the late 18th and early 19th century Britain had grown into an industrial nation, and these new industrialists wanted to secure their interests. The new industrial towns had no Parliamentary representation, yet areas that had been of medieval importance often sent many MPs to Parliament. Cornwall, for example, sent 44. The newly affluent industrialists were quick to point out that as the providers of Britain’s power and wealth they ought to have more say in the running of the country.


Lord Eldon, undoubtedly a Tory agreeing with the views of his party leaders (Wellington in the House of Lords and Peel in the Commons) is clearly worried about further reforms the Bill might lead to, not an unexpected reaction from a man who was influential in the passing of Pitt's repressive legislation in the 1790s. (For example the 1795 Treasonable Practices Act which outlawed, for a time, the works of Tom Paine.) Although it must be remembered that the democratic ideals of universal suffrage and annual parliaments were also completely outrageous to the majority of politicians, and to a significant proportion of the general public. The popular belief of these people is as Eldon argues, that if passed the structure of society would fall apart. This was the first version of the Bill and the public were not as demonstrative at this time as they later became. Perhaps if Eldon could have foreseen the public reaction he would have been less keen to suggest revolution would be preferable to the Reform Bill. Also it should be considered that Eldon is possibly exaggerating, relating a worst-case scenario in order to play on his colleagues’ emotions and ensure a verdict in favour of the Tories. However from what we know of Lord Eldon this is unlikely, he was a reactionary Tory and had been throughout his long political career; his fears were undoubtedly shared by many of the more conservative members of Parliament. The source is useful for showing the kinds of arguments being put forward by the opposition, and it is noteworthy that both sides of the debate are using ‘scare-tactics’ - the Tories suggesting an unstoppable wave of reform was about to be unleashed, whilst the Whigs and their supporters retaliated by suggesting that the only alternative was revolution. This clearly shows how serious the reform crisis was for such extreme views to be so prevalent.


It is unsurprising that the radicals chose to focus on the Whigs, who were more open to reform because it would be beneficial to them to break the hold of patronage. Also in the 1790s, Lord Grey, who replaced Wellington, had been heavily involved in the original reform movements. However it would be misleading to suggest the Whigs were a party of reformers. In fact the party suffered significant divisions over the issue. Many Whig backbenchers felt the Act was far too radical.


This source clearly outlines the wishes of the industrialists; they wanted to be able to vote for representatives who would protect their interests in Parliament. The Leeds Mercury, which would have been widely read by the middle and working classes, puts forward quite a radical argument. The article suggests the decency and hard working nature of the middle classes should entitle them to the vote but it also suggests that it is in fact the aristocracy who are 'lazy and indolent'. It suggests that those clinging to Parliament’s traditional structure are doing so, not out of concern for promising MPs being denied political experience or even the inability of the lower classes to make informed choices of candidates, but rather out of an unwillingness to put in the work that modern society demanded. This is reflected in the calls for ‘responsive’ government to pass legislation to improve living and working conditions - the middle classes and the Leeds Mercury wanted more from Parliament than many of the aristocratic MPs were willing to give. That the Leeds Mercury uses the phrase 'a Representative of their own choice' is revealing as it is a direct attack against those MPs who were saying that it did not matter that the system was so messy. They suggested that the variety meant everyone was represented anyway. The middle classes themselves riled against such views, they wanted nothing less than a redistribution of seats and an extension of the franchise. The source also shows what the Mercury and it’s readership thought of industry. The manufacturers are 'great', because not only are they providing employment they have also turned Britain into a powerful and prosperous nation. It is important to note that this article if from July 1830, before Wellington was forced to resign, thus giving some idea of how passionate a topic Parliamentary reform was. This pressure increased steadily as reform became tangible to those it mattered so much to.

This sentiment was deepened by the fact that the Tory government had passed the Corn Laws in 1815 to protect British farmers from foreign competition, yet no protection had been afforded the manufacturers. The growing support of the new idea of ‘free trade’ (a removal of tariff barriers which would strengthen trade relationships with other countries and so make it easier to sell British goods abroad) led industrialists to support Parliamentary reform. The Act would no doubt favour the Whigs who were fast beginning to be seen as a reform party. The second aspect is the economic depression. As Norman Gash said in his 1979 book, 'Aristocracy and People', "What precipitated parliamentary reform was the coincidence of a cabinet crisis and the severe economic depression in the country." Were it not for the growing desperation the working class might not have become involved in the reform debate. However in times of extreme poverty the masses turn to radical ideas: this can be seen in the growing membership of political unions, for example. In December 1831 the NPU (National Political Union) had only 6000 members, that number would grow to 20,000 by the end of the reform crisis. The working classes began to see Parliamentary reform as the only way to improve their position and became heavily involved, for instance at the Merthyr uprising, which was essentially a strike dressed up as a political demonstration. Panic quickly spread amongst the upper classes, unrest from the lower orders could well end in revolution and many MPs began to apply pressure to their colleagues, reasoning that reform was preferable to revolution.


The source suggests that unless the bill is passed there will be revolution. This is the first version of the bill and it shows how great the fear of revolution was that Macaulay, a Whig, was already using this argument. However it ought to be remembered that he may be exaggerating his fears in an effort to sway nervous Whigs and Tories and obtain a party victory. He said in another speech that Parliament ought to "reform that you may preserve" suggesting he understood which arguments were most likely to persuade the more reluctant members of Parliament. But, evidence suggests that Macaulay truly was interested in progressive ideas and reform. He was deeply involved in the Anti-Slavery Society and would later lend active support in the campaign for the Ten Hour Act. Macaulay felt strongly in favour of Parliamentary reform, something we know from other speeches he gave in its support, even though his own constituency was a rotten borough and if the act were passed he would be left without a seat in Parliament. Whilst showing the strength of Macaulay’s beliefs it should be considered that perhaps the call for reform was so great that politicians were willing to lose seats if it improved the overall system, certainly this must have been the case for the bill to eventually get the support of the Commons. It should also be noted that Macaulay was later to become a prominent historian who believed the 1832 Reform Act was truly great, telling Edinburgh electors in a speech in 1839 "... to the Whigs of the nineteenth century we owe it that the House of Commons has been purified."


In addition there were social pressures for reform. Industrialisation had led to the rapid growth of new towns and the population. The working class lived in squalid cramped conditions, working long hours for poor pay. The middle class had also grown in size and influence and become increasingly politically aware, they set up unions such as the BPU (Birmingham Political Union, formed in 1830 by Thomas Attwood), they also encouraged the working class to get involved. There were large numbers of the middle class who saw it as their duty to improve the working classes, educating them and so forth, this created a politically aware working class, something the government of the day greatly feared, their fears grew as the middle and working classes started to ally themselves in pursuit of reform. There was growing demand for more responsive government, traditionally governments were discouraged from interfering in individual affairs; the concept of ‘Laissez Faire’ was very popular, it suggested that if left alone problems, such as rural poverty, would rectify themselves. However people began to feel that the government should provide for the poor and improve living conditions. The act came to be seen as the first step towards it, suggesting the extent to which the masses pushed for it, whilst also giving an idea of how much the traditionally minded ruling classes resisted it.

There were clearly many pressures for reform but what were the effects of the Act? Is it valid to say that the Act was nothing more that administrative tinkering?


In direct contrast to the Tories panicked exclamations of unstoppable reform and the fall of the establishment, and to Grey’s claims that the Act would satisfy everyone and totally negate the need for further reform, Grenville offers a more realistic view of the likely outcome on the passing of the Reform Act. The reference to 'we have not gone far enough' suggests that he is a Member of Parliament and as such would understand the Act’s limitations. The public’s imaginations had indeed run riot, encouraged by information put forward by the new political movements. For example, William Cobbett in an April edition of “The Weekly Political Register” claimed a reform of Parliament would do everything from put food on the table to put an end to the workhouses. The main significance of this source is to show that everybody expected much from reform, yet it was uncertain what it would, in fact, deliver.


The Act brought about changes that were a clear improvement on the old system. Voting qualifications had been updated and made uniform. This is shown in the table below:

• Adult males owning freehold property worth at least 40 shillings (£2) per annum. 
• Adult males in possession of a copyhold worth at least £10 per annum. ii. Adult males leasing or renting land worth at least £50 per annum. 

Borough -

• Adult males owning or occupying property worth at least £10 per annum provided: A) That they had been in possession of the property for at least one year and had paid all taxes charged on that property. B) That they had not been in receipt of parish poor relief during the previous year. 
• Voters who did not qualify under i. but who had exercised a vote in a borough before 1832 retained the right to vote in that borough (unless, of course, the borough had disappeared under the Act) during their lifetimes, provided that they lived in, or within 7 miles of, the borough where they would vote.

This got rid of the confusion of the old system which Grey had claimed was 'indefensible'. These changes resulted in the franchise increasing from around 1 in 10 men to 1 in 5, a proportion which was to remain roughly the same until the second Reform Act was passed in 1867. However there were still problems: the voting qualifications meant that in areas where land value was high, such as London. the majority of land owners could vote, whilst in areas where land value was low, such as Merthyr, very few people could vote. Out of a population of 144,000 in Birmingham, for example, only 7,000 households met the £10 value needed to gain the vote. In addition tenants-at-will could now vote, but as they had no security could be evicted if they voted against the preferred candidate of their (most probably Tory) landlord; this problem was particularly evident in west Wales. The solution to this problem, secret ballot, was not introduced until 1872.

The main issue the Act had tried to tackle was the problem of the rotten and pocket boroughs. The table below goes some way to highlighting its success:

England -

• 56 borough constituencies (cited as schedule A boroughs in the Act) lost their representation entirely. 
• 30 boroughs (schedule B) lost one of their two members. 
• 22 new party boroughs (schedule C) created with two members. 
• 19 new parliamentary boroughs (schedule D) created with one member. 
• County representation increased. One county to have 6 members, 26 to have 4, 7 to have 3, 6 to retain 2, Isle of Wight to become a separate, single member constituency. 

Wales -