How much was the British political system changed by the 1832 reform act/ was fairer representation of the new industrial cities the main consequence of the great reform act 1832-52? Flashcards
Factor 1- electorate size/ industrial city representation
Facts-Change- size of electorate rose from 366,000 to 650,000 ( now 18% of population) combined with 50% more Mps going for the same seat (from 30% before 1832 to 50% after) allowing voters more choice at elections. under the whigs government the Property qualification for voting in counties reduced to men in counties to owned land worth £10/year or rented land worth £50/year. In the boroughs it was men who owned or rented property worth £10/year provided they had owned it for a year and paid taxes
Explanation-This allowed better representation of politics as their was more possibility for new MPs to be elected with different political ideas, which means that the following elections would be more democratic, as more people were voting from a larger choice of people. This shows change was made by the reform act, although the change is limited by the fact that voting remained a public affair until 1872, so bribery and intimidation still played a part in politics in the short term, but was amended in the long term.
Factor 1- limitations of increased electorate/ better representation of cities
Facts-although more men were involved in the electorate across the country, correcting imbalance between rural and urban areas, borough sizes still weren’t resolved; 73 boroughs had fewer than 500 voters and 31 fewer than 300.
Explanation- Shows that increased electorate wasn’t a mass affair and change was still limited, as areas like Manchester with a population of around 400,000 by 1851 still lacking a proportional amount of representation (had 0 representatives before electoral reform). Short term problems are eventually fixed, but not for many years later.
Factor 2- party politics
Facts- The idea of political parties representing a group of people with common interests and working together to push for change became much more prominent following the reform act. Party discipline therefore increased as party politics became more professional, and politicians voted how their party wanted, not how they wanted themselves. Seats were redistributed across the country -56 boroughs disenfranchised and 30 losing one of their two MPs. 42 new borough constituencies created. Encouraged diverse party politics that matched the differing demographic of people across the country eg industrialised North v rural south
Explanation- This shows some change because the British political system is becoming a more professional system, rather than a place for the rich the exploit their status and become MPs for personal financial gain, as had been the case before.
Factor 2- limitations of party politics improvements
Facts- However, it was very expensive to become an MP as you needed income of over £600, so the rich still very much had control over the system. As a result of the expenses, the emergence of new parties was also limited as the whigs and tories continued to dominate elections. Parliament seats still favoured the rural south, who had 370 Mps whilst the industrialised north had 120.
Explanation- The changes to attitude towards party politics was a strong basis for further change regarding the introduction of new competing parties, but a completely fair and democratic system was more of a long term venture that exceeded the limited change of the reform act.
Factor 3- impact on different classes (limitations too)
Facts- as a result of increased electorates and more impactful party politics, there was increased involvement in politics by middle class people. This is an important factor of change to the system as previously the middle class had political demands, but felt they were ignored in favour of aristocratic nepotism and patronage. Now they had more chance for representation, and to provide their business knowledge in parliament to increase the emphasis of government and businesses working together eg laissez faire policies.
Limitations/explanation-this definitely gives the chance for middle class members to be involved in politics, although in the short term change is yet again limited by the expenses (£600 income to become MP), and pre existing problems of bribery/ intimidation which keeps the middle class from fully immersing in parliament. Of the 103 cabinet members between 1830-66, only 14 were middle class, showing that complete change was still not possible in the short term. This shows that the changes also weren’t a widespread idea as lower classes and workers were excluded from many of the benefits of the act. --Whigs made no attempt to hide the fact that the land qualification was there to exclude the lower classes, and the rise of groups like the chartists following reform would suggest a distinct lack of improvement for the working classes who were keen to push for further reform
line of argument/ judgement
The 1832 reform act does not provide perfect overnight change in any area of parliament, and even today there exists problems with the parliamentary system. Instead, the act provides some limited change in a number of the right areas of parliament, such as the electorate and attitudes towards party politics, which is a basis for further reform which would’ve been recognised for democrats in the 1830’s who weren’t yet in a position to make change because of the costs etc. In the short term, it would’ve satisfied some people in Britain, such as some middle class people and some party members, but realistically the fixing of the corrupt pre reform system was a long term venture that began with the reform act of 1832; providing hope for more effective change in years to come.
