Reform Act 1832

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Reform Act 1832, formally the Representation of the People Act 1832, changed who could vote for the British House of Commons. It also decided who could sit there, and where power in Parliament would fall. The Whig government of Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey, brought the measure forward. People also called it the Great Reform Act or the First Reform Act. The act defined a voter as a male person, shutting women out entirely. Before 1832, women had occasionally voted in rare, isolated cases tied to property ownership. Two companion laws, the Scottish Reform Act 1832 and the Irish Reform Act 1832, rewrote the franchise in Scotland and Ireland at the same time.

  Historians still argue over what this act actually was. Was it a genuine expansion of democracy, or a calculated concession meant to preserve aristocratic rule? To answer that, picture the system it replaced first. It was a patchwork of boroughs and patrons, barely touched in over a century, held together by custom rather than any consistent rule. What did that older system look like up close, who fought to change it, and what finally forced Parliament's hand?

• 2. A System of Its Own

  ›

  After the Acts of Union 1800 took effect on the 1st of January 1801, the unreformed House of Commons held 658 members. Of those, 513 represented England and Wales, split between two kinds of constituency: counties and boroughs. County members were meant to represent landholders; borough members were meant to represent merchants and traders.

  Counties dated back to national subdivisions carved out between the 8th and 16th centuries, older than Parliament itself. Government, courts, and the militia were all organised along the same county lines, and MPs chosen by counties were called knights of the shire. Wales elected one member per county, while England elected two. That changed in 1826, when Yorkshire's representation rose to four after the Cornish borough of Grampound was disfranchised.

  Parliamentary boroughs ranged from small hamlets to large cities, chosen haphazardly by county sheriffs as far back as the Middle Ages. Winchelsea and Dunwich were substantial settlements when first enfranchised, but both later declined while still returning two MPs each. The term for these was rotten boroughs. Tudor monarchs enfranchised 70 English boroughs; 31 of those were later disfranchised. Seventeenth century parliamentarians then re-enfranchised 15 boroughs whose representation had lapsed for centuries. Seven of those fifteen were disfranchised again by the Reform Act 1832 itself. After Newark's enfranchisement in 1661, no new boroughs were added, and only Grampound's disfranchisement in 1821 disturbed the system before 1832. Most English boroughs elected two MPs, but five, Abingdon, Banbury, Bewdley, Higham Ferrers, and Monmouth, elected only one. The City of London and the joint borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis each returned four members, while every Welsh borough returned just one.

  Two statutes from the reign of Henry VI, passed in 1430 and 1432, fixed the county franchise at ownership of freehold land worth at least forty shillings a year, the so called forty shilling freehold. That threshold was never adjusted for inflation, so the amount of land needed to qualify shrank steadily over time. By 1831, England's county electorate was estimated at somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 men nationwide. Rutland and Anglesey, the smallest counties, had fewer than 1,000 voters each, while Yorkshire, the largest, had more than 20,000. A person owning property in several constituencies could legally vote in each one, since residency was not required and polling often stretched across several days.

  Borough franchises fell into six broad types. Some gave the vote to freemen; others required payment of a municipal tax called scot and lot. Some restricted it to owners of burgage property, or to members of a closed corporation, arrangements that made a borough a reliable pocket for its patron. Others enfranchised male householders able to boil a pot on their own hearth, known as potwalloper boroughs, or simply freeholders of land.

  Westminster, the largest borough, held about 12,000 voters, while many of the smallest rotten boroughs counted fewer than 100. Old Sarum was the most notorious: its 13 burgage plots could be used to manufacture electors, and roughly half a dozen usually sufficed. Dunwich had 32 voters, Camelford had 25, and Gatton had just 7.

  Rich landowners controlled many small-electorate constituencies outright, a practice that gave these seats the name pocket boroughs. The Duke of Norfolk controlled eleven such boroughs; the Earl of Lonsdale controlled nine. Writing in 1821, Sydney Smith put it bluntly: "The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters!" T. H. B. Oldfield's Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland counted 514 members for England and Wales. Of those, about 370 were selected by nearly 180 patrons, who expected a member to vote as instructed or lose his seat at the next election.

  This system of patrons and pocket boroughs stood almost unchallenged for generations. Pressure to dismantle it had already been building since the 1790s, decades before any bill reached the floor of Parliament.

• 3. Decades of Refusal

  ›

  Support for parliamentary reform in Britain collapsed almost overnight after the French Revolution began in 1789. Many British politicians turned firmly against any major political change, fearing where reform might lead. Even so, radical groups kept organising. A circle of Whigs led by the Earl of Lauderdale and Charles Grey founded the Society of the Friends of the People in 1792, and the society counted 28 MPs among its members.

  In 1793, Grey brought the Friends of the People's petition to the House of Commons, cataloguing abuses and demanding change. He asked only for an inquiry into possible improvements, not a specific reform scheme. Parliament, still reeling from the French Revolution, rejected even that modest request by nearly 200 votes. Grey tried again in 1797 and was rebuffed by a majority of more than 150.

  The Hampden Clubs took their name from John Hampden, a Parliamentarian in the English Civil War, while the London Corresponding Society drew its ranks largely from workers and artisans. Their shared demand for universal suffrage found almost no support in Parliament. Sir Francis Burdett, chairman of the London Hampden Club, once proposed universal suffrage, equal electoral districts, and the secret ballot. Only one other MP, Lord Cochrane, supported him.

  In 1819, a large pro-reform rally gathered in Birmingham, a city with no seats of its own in the Commons. Those present elected Sir Charles Wolseley as Birmingham's self-styled "legislatorial representative." Reformers in Manchester followed suit, gathering to elect a "legislatorial attorney" of their own, drawing between 20,000 and 60,000 people depending on the estimate. When they refused to disband, the Manchester Yeomanry charged the crowd. Eighteen people were killed and several hundred injured, in what became known as the Peterloo Massacre.

  The government answered with the Six Acts, a package meant to choke off further political agitation. Under the Seditious Meetings Act, groups larger than 50 could no longer gather to discuss politics without a sheriff's or magistrate's permission. That kind of restriction would not stop reformers from returning to Parliament itself with narrower, more careful proposals the very next year.

• 4. The Slow Concessions

  ›

  In 1820, the Whig Lord John Russell proposed disfranchising the notoriously corrupt Cornish borough of Grampound, transferring its two seats to Leeds. The House of Lords agreed to disfranchise Grampound but refused to set a precedent of transferring seats directly to an industrial city. Instead, peers redirected those seats to Yorkshire, the county containing Leeds, and the bill passed in that altered form.

  In 1828, Russell tried again, proposing to abolish the corrupt boroughs of Penryn and East Retford and give their seats to Manchester and Birmingham. This time the House of Lords rejected the plan outright. In 1830, Russell proposed a similar scheme once more, to enfranchise Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham while disfranchising the next three boroughs found guilty of corruption. Parliament rejected it again.

  Support for reform then came from an unexpected direction in 1829: a reactionary faction inside the Tory party itself. The Tory government of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, drew up the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. It aimed to defuse the threat of civil strife in largely Catholic Ireland, and it repealed laws that had barred Roman Catholics from sitting in Parliament. Disenchanted ultra-Tories, alarmed for the established religion, turned toward parliamentary reform themselves. They favoured enfranchising Manchester, Leeds, and other heavily Nonconformist cities in the north of England.

  Within a year, the death of a king would turn that scattered pressure into a full parliamentary campaign.

• 5. Three Bills and a Landslide

  ›

  King George IV died on the 26th of June 1830, automatically dissolving Parliament and forcing a general election. Electoral reform, already a live issue in the outgoing Parliament, became a central campaign question. Pro-reform "political unions" sprang up nationwide, blending middle class and working class members. The most influential was the Birmingham Political Union, led by Thomas Attwood, which relied on lawful petitioning and public oratory and built strong popular support.

  Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey, became prime minister in 1830 and made parliamentary reform his first pledge in office. On the 1st of March 1831, Lord John Russell introduced the Reform Bill in the Commons on the government's behalf. The bill disfranchised 60 of the smallest boroughs and reduced the representation of 47 others. By one estimate, its expanded and standardised borough franchise would add half a million voters to the electorate.

  On the 22nd of March, the second reading drew a record 608 members, including the non-voting Speaker, well above the previous record of 530. It passed by a single vote. During the committee stage, a motion by Isaac Gascoyne objecting to the bill's cut in total Commons seats carried against the government by 8 votes. The ministry then lost a separate procedural vote by 22 votes and chose to seek a dissolution instead of pressing on.

  The 1831 general election handed pro-reform Whigs as close to a landslide as the unreformed system could produce. Whig candidates won nearly every seat with a genuine contest, leaving Tories clustered in the rotten boroughs. The Commons approved the bill's second reading by a large majority in July. Opponents dragged out the committee stage with lengthy debate, but the bill finally passed in September 1831 by more than 100 votes.

  Of the 22 bishops present when the Lords voted in October 1831-21 voted against the bill, which then failed by 41 votes. Many Tory peers had chosen to abstain rather than defy the public mood, but the Lords Spiritual turned out in unusually large numbers instead. Riots broke out in Derby that same evening, where a mob stormed the city jail and freed prisoners. In Nottingham, rioters burned Nottingham Castle, the Duke of Newcastle's home, and attacked Wollaton Hall, the estate of Lord Middleton. The worst violence hit Bristol, where a mob controlled the city for three days. They broke into prisons and destroyed the Bishop's palace, the Lord Mayor's mansion, and private homes. Further disorder spread through Dorset, Leicestershire, and Somerset.

  The scattered political unions then merged into the National Political Union. The government, already wary of revolution after the riots, declared the new body "unconstitutional and illegal" under the Corresponding Societies Act 1799. The Union defied the proclamation, though Birmingham's influential branch chose to cooperate by discouraging national-level activity. Parliament could not reintroduce the same bill twice in one session, so the ministry turned to the new king, William IV, with a different request entirely.

• 6. Days of May

  ›

  William IV agreed to prorogue Parliament, and the Third Reform Bill went forward as soon as the new session opened in December 1831. Unlike its predecessors, this version no longer cut the total membership of the Commons, and it reflected data from a census just completed. It passed the Commons by even larger majorities in March 1832 and returned to the House of Lords.

  One amendment in the Lords delayed the clauses disfranchising the rotten boroughs, a tactic opponents used instead of risking outright rejection again. Grey's ministers concluded that only one path remained: flooding the Lords with newly created peerages to force the bill through. King William, appalled by so drastic a step, rejected the unanimous advice of his own cabinet. Grey resigned, and the king invited the Duke of Wellington to form a new government instead.

  What followed became known as the "Days of May," a wave of large pro-reform demonstrations led by the political unions. A minority of protesters called for abolishing the nobility; the most radical wanted the monarchy gone entirely. The protests stayed peaceful, but their sheer scale unsettled Parliament, especially with the July Revolution in France still fresh in memory. The Queen reportedly believed "an English revolution was rapidly approaching, and that her own fate was to be that of Marie Antoinette." Whig MP Edward Littleton wrote that the nation was "in a state little short of insurrection." Thomas Attwood, leader of the National Political Union, boasted that "the nation could be mobilized in an hour."

  Signs across London read: "Stop the Duke; go for gold!" as protesters pushed tax resistance and a run on the banks. £1.8 million was withdrawn from the Bank of England in the first days of the run, roughly a quarter of the £7 million the bank held. The National Political Union and other groups petitioned the Commons to withhold funding from the government until the Lords passed the bill.

  Wellington, a long-time opponent of reform, could not assemble a Commons majority even while offering a modest reform package of his own. King William recalled Grey as prime minister and agreed to create enough Whig peers to force the bill through the Lords. Wellington then circulated a letter among fellow Tory peers, urging them to step back from opposition and warning of the consequences of continuing. Enough peers relented and abstained, letting the bill pass without the Crown ever needing to appoint new peers. The Reform Act received royal assent on the 7th of June 1832.

  Behind that single date lay a much longer document, one that was about to redraw England's 203 boroughs from the ground up.

• 7. What the Act Changed

  ›

  England had 203 boroughs before the Reform Act took effect. The 56 smallest, ranked by their housing stock and tax assessments, were abolished outright. The next 30 smallest each lost one of their two MPs, and Weymouth and Melcombe Regis saw its four members cut to two. In total, the act eliminated 143 borough seats in England; one of the abolished boroughs, Higham Ferrers, had only ever held a single MP.

  In their place, the act created 130 new seats across England and Wales. Twenty-six English counties were split into two divisions, each electing two members. Seven English counties and three Welsh counties gained an extra representative apiece, bringing each English county to three members and each Welsh county to two. Yorkshire, already served by four MPs, gained two more, giving each of its three ridings two members. The Isle of Wight, previously part of Hampshire, got its own single representative. Twenty-two large towns received two MPs each, and another 21 towns, two of them in Wales, received one. England's total membership fell by 18 while Wales gained five, and the new boundaries were set out in a separate Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832.

  In the counties, the vote now extended to copyholders and long-term leaseholders, those holding land for at least sixty years worth £10 or more annually. Medium-term leaseholders, holding land for twenty to sixty years worth at least £50 a year, also qualified. So did tenants-at-will paying £50 or more in annual rent. The old forty shilling freeholders kept their vote as well. In the boroughs, the franchise was standardised to male occupants paying a yearly rental of £10 or more. The property could be a house, warehouse, shop, or similar building, occupied for at least 12 months. Existing borough voters, and future freemen admitted by birth or apprenticeship, kept their vote as long as they remained resident.

  Polling, once allowed to run for as long as 15 days, was now capped at two, with multiple polling places allowed within a single constituency. The act introduced voter registration, run by the overseers of the poor in every parish and township, and set up special courts to settle qualification disputes. The act itself left Scotland and Ireland untouched, but the companion Scottish and Irish Reform Acts standardised voter qualifications there too. Scotland gained 8 additional seats and Ireland gained 5, keeping the Commons at its previous total size.

  On paper those additions looked modest. In practice, one of those companion acts was about to transform an entire country's electorate almost overnight.

• 8. What Came After

  ›

  Before the Reform Act, an estimated 400,000 English citizens were entitled to vote. After it passed, that number rose to about 650,000, an increase of more than 60%. Historian Rodney Mace estimates that before the act, only 1% of the population could vote, and that the Reform Act extended the franchise to just 7%.

  Scotland's own reform act proved far more dramatic, in a country of roughly 2 million people. Its electorate had been just 0.2% of the population, compared with 4% in England. Overnight, the Scottish electorate soared from 5,000 to 65,000, or 13% of adult men. It was no longer the private preserve of a handful of wealthy families.

  Some tradesmen misunderstood their new standing entirely. The shoemakers of Duns, in Berwickshire, mistakenly believed the act had given them the vote, and made a banner celebrating the moment that read, "The battle's won. Britannia's sons are free." That banner is now on display at the People's History Museum in Manchester.

  A study of elections in Halifax, a medium-sized borough, between 1832 and 1852 found that party organisation depended heavily on local relationships. Voters there leaned on the same local social ties and institutions. Having the vote pushed many men into far greater political, economic, and social activity than before. Historian Thomas Ertman called the act a "critical juncture" in British politics. He argued it ended executive control of the legislature through pocket boroughs and placemen. It introduced a two-party system organised around religious divisions, he wrote, and it modeled later expansions of the franchise in 1867, 1884, and 1918.

  The Tory Marquess of Chandos moved to offset the loss of Tory-held pocket boroughs by extending the vote to tenants-at-will paying £50 a year in rent, pushing the clause through over the government's objections. Those tenant voters typically followed their landlords' instructions at the polls, and most landlords backed the Tories. Combined with Whig infighting and a struggling economy, that concession helped the Tories gain ground in the 1835 and 1837 elections. Under Sir Robert Peel, they retook the House of Commons in 1841. Historian David F. Krein concluded that the landed interest "suffered very little" from the 1832 act and kept its grip on the Commons, though it lost some power over narrower, local legislation. The same study found the Reform Act 1867 eroded that power far more sharply. By the 1874 elections, great landowners were losing county seats to tenant farmers in England, and especially in Ireland.

  The act's property qualifications still barred most of the working class from voting, a divide that fed the growth of the Chartist movement. A handful of rotten boroughs survived regardless, including Totnes in Devon and Midhurst in Sussex. Bribery persisted too; Sir Thomas Erskine May observed that "it was too soon evident, that as more votes had been created, more votes were to be sold." The Duke of Wellington warned that the practice threatened graver consequences still: "If such projects can be carried into execution by a minister of the Crown with impunity, there is no doubt that the constitution of this House, and of this country, is at an end." In practice, the Lords kept most of their influence. They forced changes to the Municipal Reform Bill in 1835 and extracted compromises on Jewish emancipation. Wellington's fears would not come true until the Parliament Act 1911.

  The Parliamentary Elections Act 1835 and the Parliamentary Elections (No. 2) Act 1836 added polling places and cut voting down to a single day. The Corrupt Practices Act 1854 tried to curb bribery too, largely without success. Leading figures in both parties treated the Reform Act as a final settlement. The Chartist movement kept demanding universal male suffrage, equal districts, and the secret ballot. No further reform bill succeeded until 1867's Second Reform Act.

  More than a century after William IV gave his assent to the original bill, the Representation of the People Act 1948 repealed the whole of the Reform Act 1832, effective from the 30th of July 1948.