OCR Specification focus:
‘the aims and terms of the 1832 Act.’
The 1832 Reform Act, also known as the Great Reform Act, marked a turning point in British politics by addressing electoral inequalities and expanding parliamentary representation.
Background to Reform
In the early nineteenth century, the electoral system was widely regarded as corrupt and outdated. Parliamentary representation had not kept pace with the vast demographic, social, and economic changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. Many boroughs, known as rotten boroughs, retained seats despite tiny populations, while new industrial cities such as Manchester and Birmingham lacked representation. Public pressure for reform increased due to:
The growth of middle-class influence.
Concerns about unrest and revolution in the wake of events in France.
The need to address widespread political grievances without destabilising the established order.
Aims of the 1832 Reform Act
The Act was not designed as a revolutionary measure, but rather as a calculated response to popular discontent and demands for political modernisation. The main aims were:
To address inequalities in representation by redistributing seats from underpopulated boroughs to growing towns and counties.
To extend the franchise in a controlled way, incorporating wealthier sections of the middle class while excluding the majority of working people.
To preserve the existing political and social order by avoiding radical reforms that might destabilise monarchy, aristocracy, or property rights.
To diminish corruption by standardising the voting system across the country.
To strengthen parliamentary legitimacy and reduce the risk of revolution by responding to widespread calls for reform.
The balance sought was to modernise just enough to defuse agitation while leaving the political elite firmly in control.
Terms of the Act: Redistribution of Seats
The 1832 Reform Act made significant changes to the distribution of parliamentary seats:
Boroughs with fewer than 2,000 inhabitants lost both seats (56 so-called “rotten boroughs” were entirely disenfranchised).
A comparative map of Pontefract shows the borough’s pre-1832 boundary (green) and post-Reform Act boundary (red). It visually demonstrates how the Act redrew borough limits to rationalise representation. This example helps students connect the statutory seat changes to actual geographical adjustments. Source
Boroughs with populations between 2,000 and 4,000 lost one seat (30 boroughs in total).
New seats were created in growing industrial areas:
22 new boroughs gained two MPs.
21 other new boroughs gained one MP.
The counties received an additional 65 seats, reflecting increased importance of rural and industrial populations.
This redistribution ensured that large and dynamic towns such as Manchester, Leeds, and Birmingham gained representation for the first time.
This 1831 survey map by Robert K. Dawson outlines the proposed Parliamentary Borough of Birmingham created under the 1832 settlement. It exemplifies the Act’s urban enfranchisement, bringing major industrial towns into Parliament. Labels and street patterns make the new borough’s extent easy to interpret in relation to the city. Source
Terms of the Act: Franchise and Voting Rights
The Act expanded the electorate, though still kept it limited:
In boroughs, the franchise was extended to male householders who occupied property worth £10 a year or more.
In counties, voting rights were extended to:
All forty-shilling freeholders (retained from earlier rules).
Tenant farmers paying at least £50 a year in rent.
Copyholders and leaseholders meeting certain property thresholds.
Franchise: The legal right to vote in elections.
This created a more uniform and predictable electorate. Overall, the number of voters rose by about 50%, from roughly 435,000 to 652,000, out of a total population of around 14 million. Despite this, the vast majority of working-class men and all women remained excluded from the vote.
Terms of the Act: Electoral Practices
The Act also sought to limit electoral corruption and clarify procedures:
Voter registration was formalised, requiring annual lists of qualified electors.
Voting was still conducted in public at the hustings, making voters vulnerable to intimidation and bribery.
Standardised property qualifications reduced ambiguity in eligibility and curtailed some abuses of influence.
Hustings: The platform where candidates addressed voters and where votes were cast in public before the introduction of the secret ballot.
While bribery and pressure continued, the reforms provided a clearer legal framework for elections.
Political and Social Implications
Although limited, the 1832 Reform Act represented a major constitutional change:
It confirmed the principle that representation should reflect population size, even if imperfectly.
It incorporated the industrial middle class into the political nation, making them stakeholders in the existing order.
It weakened the position of aristocratic patrons who had previously controlled rotten boroughs.
It created expectations of further reform, opening the door to later acts in 1867, 1884, and beyond.
Limitations of the Act
Despite its significance, the Act left many grievances unresolved:
The working classes remained disenfranchised, despite their prominent role in agitation for reform.
Voting remained tied to property ownership, not individual rights.
Corruption and open voting meant that intimidation persisted.
The Act preserved the dominance of the landed elite in Parliament, as the middle class gained only limited power.
Nevertheless, the Act succeeded in its immediate aim: preventing revolution while securing gradual change. It was a cautious compromise between pressure from below and resistance from above, ensuring that political reform proceeded under the control of Parliament rather than through upheaval.
FAQ
The £10 qualification was chosen as a compromise: high enough to exclude the bulk of working-class men but low enough to include the prosperous middle class.
It was intended to enfranchise shopkeepers, skilled artisans, and professionals who could demonstrate stability and responsibility through property. This reflected Parliament’s desire to expand representation cautiously without undermining the property-based system of politics.
Aristocratic patrons lost control over many small boroughs once they were disfranchised or had their seats reduced.
Their ability to nominate MPs diminished, especially in areas previously dominated by so-called pocket boroughs. However, landed influence remained strong in county constituencies, ensuring the aristocracy retained considerable parliamentary power.
Public pressure was crucial in forcing reluctant politicians to act. Large reform meetings, demonstrations, and petitions created a sense of urgency.
The Birmingham Political Union, led by Thomas Attwood, mobilised thousands in peaceful rallies.
Riots in places such as Bristol in 1831 after the Lords rejected reform showed the dangers of resisting change.
These pressures convinced many MPs that reform was necessary to avoid revolution.
No, the Act did not introduce the secret ballot. Voting continued to be conducted in public at hustings.
This left electors vulnerable to bribery, landlord pressure, and intimidation. The secret ballot only came later with the Ballot Act of 1872, showing that electoral corruption remained a problem long after 1832.
The working classes, who had campaigned vigorously for reform, were the most disappointed.
They had hoped for a far wider franchise, but most remained excluded because of property thresholds.
Women were also entirely excluded, despite some calls for their inclusion.
Radical reformers criticised the Act as too cautious, arguing it maintained elite control rather than introducing real democracy.
Practice Questions
Question 1 (2 marks)
Name two types of boroughs or towns that gained parliamentary representation under the 1832 Reform Act.
Mark Scheme
1 mark for each correct identification, up to 2 marks.
Acceptable answers include:
Industrial towns (e.g., Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham) (1 mark each)
Growing urban centres (1 mark each)
Do not award marks for rotten boroughs or areas that lost representation.
Question 2 (6 marks)
Explain two ways in which the franchise was changed by the 1832 Reform Act.
Mark Scheme
Up to 3 marks for each valid explanation, maximum 6 marks.
Points may include:
Borough franchise extended to male householders occupying property worth £10 a year or more (1 mark for identification, 1–2 marks for explaining significance, e.g., standardising criteria, admitting middle class).
County franchise widened to include tenant farmers paying £50 rent, copyholders and leaseholders meeting property thresholds (1 mark for identification, 1–2 marks for explaining significance, e.g., modest expansion of rural vote).
Overall electorate increased by roughly 50%, creating more uniformity (1 mark for identification, 1–2 marks for explanation of scale of change).
Maximum of 2 explained points required.
Answers that only list changes without explanation should not be awarded more than 2 marks in total.
