History

The unreformed British parliamentary system was undemocratic; it excluded the majority of the population from voting including all women most working class men, many middle class men and all the poor. Its distribution of seats was inadequately representative and excluded important towns. It included rotten boroughs, the occasional sale of seats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence and plural voting. The system was dominated by the aristocracy and gentry, and many seats were uncontested. Lang, (1999). The purpose of this essay is to identify the factors that led to the nineteenth century parliamentary reform and go on to assess the impact that the reform made.

Around the middle of the nineteenth century an extensive debate took place in Britain on the nature and desirability of Ð''democracy.' Who should be allowed to vote in general elections? Should the franchise be limited, as in the past, to those who had special qualifications, such as the ownership of property; which the rental value had to be at least at least 40 shillings per annum, and those who had an economic stake in the country? Property owners argued that the old system had worked in the past so surely it would continue to do so Ð'- and that the wealthy were naturally superior to the poor. Pearce, Stern, (1994).

Others believed that the franchise was restricted and haphazard and that the qualifications for voting were outdated and illogical in their view every man had the right to vote, all men had been created equally and therefore all were entitled to a say in the way they were governed.

A small but growing number also believed that women should have the vote on precisely the same terms as men.

The population of England and Wales doubled between 1801-1851 many parishes began to burst at the seams. Towns like Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford and Leeds were seeing large population increases due to industrial growth. Earl Grey proposed such towns needed representation in the House of Commons; this would lead to large increase in the voting population if the proposal was successful. On the other hand rotten boroughs were parliamentary constituencies that had over the years declined in size, but still had the right to elect members of the House of Commons. Most of the constituencies were under the control and influence of just one man, the patron. As there were only a few individuals with the vote and no fair voting method (secret ballot) which encouraged bribery and corruption as it was easy for potential candidates to buy their way to victory. The distribution of seats did not match the distribution of the population. Pearce, Stern, (1994).

Between 1770-1830 the Tories were the dominant force in the house of commons they were strongly opposed to the increase of the number of people who could vote; however in 1830 Earl Grey a Whig became prime minister, Grey asked William IV to dissolve parliament so the Whigs could secure a larger majority in the house of commons and this would help his government carry out their proposals for parliamentary reform. William IV agreed. Grey attempted reform several times and on 22nd September 1831 the House of Commons passed the reform bill; however, Tories still dominated the House of Lords which were a continuous stumbling block and the bill was defeated. People started reform riots in several British towns. Grey asked the king to create a large number of Whig peers in the House of Lords to get the bill passed but he refused and Grey resigned.

The Duke of Wellington was asked to form a new government, but he could not get enough support as some Tories were unwilling to join a cabinet that was in opposition to the views of the vast majority of the people in Britain. Sir Robert Peel argued that if the King and Wellington went ahead with their plan there was a strong danger of civil war in Britain. Heinemann, (1994).

William was forced to ask Grey to return to office due to Wellington failing to gain the support of other significant figures. Once again Grey asked the king to create a large number of new Whig peers William agreed to do this and when the Lords heard the news, they agreed to pass the reform act.

The intentions of the1832 reform act meant getting rid of rotten boroughs, providing seats for rising towns which were not boroughs. In the boroughs Male occupiers or owners of property worth Ð'Ј10 a year in rent were eligible to vote as long as they had not been in receipt of poor relief over the previous year. The old 40 shilling freeholder qualification continued in the counties in addition the vote would go to adults leasing or renting land worth at least Ð'Ј50 per year. Pearce, Stern, (1994).

There were still Faults not remedied by the act such as although Rotten boroughs started disappearing the constituencies still varied in size of electorate. The south of England was still over represented. Still no secret ballot, corruption and bribery continued. Wealthy landowners still predominated even with an increase in businessmen and industries. The position of the House of Lords remained unaffected. In boroughs and counties the right to vote was limited to adult men who were not peers, lunatics or criminals. Men who did not qualify for the property qualification and all women were still excluded. Lang, (1999).

In the 1860s enthusiasm for reform grew for several reasons; British interest in foreign affairs, the death of Lord Palmerston and in 1866 an economic downturn increased social discontent adding fuel to the calls for reform and boosting the membership of two recently formed organisations the reform union and the reform league these organisations argued for extension of franchise, secret voting and even distribution of seats

When the act was passed it was suppose to allow working class men suffrage but the 1867 Act only gave the vote to men who lived in officially recognized towns, or boroughs, and who either owned or were the primary occupant of an officially recognized house or else paid more than 10 pounds a year