THE 1832 REFORM ACT AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL
LEGACY
'The main change - or adaption - in nineteenth century Britain was the extension of
the franchise, and the concomitant gradual democratization of Parliament, or rather of
the House of Commons ... '. 1
The late eighteenth and early nineteenth century has been termed the first 'Age of
Revolution'.2 It certainly was in the sense that advocates of constitutional reform were
in a position to draw upon an increasing body of works of political philosophy which
justified the extension of the franchise to a mass electorate.3 On the other hand,
popular revolutions such as those by the American colonists and in France in 1789
had been journeys into uncharted territory which could have terrifying consequences
for the established elite. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the MPs and
Hereditary Peers who sat in Parliament were almost exclusively the landed gentry
representing an increasingly narrow vested interest.4 In an important sense Parliament
was transforming itself by acquiescing to the need for electoral reform and ensuring
that its own composition would change. Indeed, it was because of the deep rooted
opposition to any change from elements of the landed gentry that the passing into law
of the Reform Bill in 1832 should be regarded without any doubt as one of the most
significant moments in the nation's constitutional history. However, it is argued in this
essay that the fact that it made it to the statute book was more important than the
specific provisions enacted on the face of the Act. The British Constitution unlike
nearly all other constitutions is uncodified, which partly refers to the fact that it has a
variety of sources. But it also has meant that many fundamental rights, including the
right to vote, were not built into any constitutional design, but rather the entitlement
has been incorporated pragmatically and gradually as a result of successive pieces of
legislation. The 1832 Reform Act qualifies as just such a provision.
Although the extension of the franchise under this Act was relatively limited, in the
second part of this essay, it will be suggested that any reflection on the reputation of
the Act needs to take into account a number of factors which are of central importance
to the conduct of general elections. It may seem strange looking back from a twenty
first century perspective that so much of the discussion concerned who was qualified
to vote judged in terms of their ownership of property. Moreover, electoral reform has
not simply been about passing laws that grant an extension of the right to vote. In
order to have fair elections there needed to be an equitable division of electoral
boundaries to allow nationwide representation. The conduct of a general election must

Peter Leyland, Professor of Public Law London Metropolitan University. I would like to thank
Professor Andrew Harding, Professor John Morision, Dr John Allison and Elizabeth Leyland for their
very helpful comments on an earlier version of this essay.
1
R.C. Van Caenegem An Historical Introduction to Western Constitutional Law, Cambridge,
Cambridge UP, 1995, p.196.
2
E. Hobsbawm The Age of Revolution, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1962.
3
English historians of the eighthteenth century have used the term 'revolution' to describe the struggle
between king and parliament and the popular revolt that lay behind it. See e.g. C. Hill The Century of
Revolution 1603-1714, London, Cardinal, 1974; C. Hill The World Turned Upside Down: Radical
Ideas During the English Revolution, London, Penguin, 1975.
4
W. Bagehot, The English Constititution, London, Fontana, 1963 at p.173ff.
1
be overseen to prevent malpractice from overwhelming the event. Limits on the
amount of funds which candidates or parties are allowed to spend has to be set to
prevent candidates or parties gaining an unfair advantage over their competitors. In
order to assess the contribution of the Act in historical perspective this essay not only
explains why these matters were important in 1832 but it considers how such issues
were tackled by the Parliaments of future generations.
Part I: The 1832 Reform Act
Ideas and events which shaped the reform movement
In view of the extreme excesses of the electoral system vividly depicted by Hogarth,
which will feature later, it is not surprising that electoral reform had been on the
political agenda for many years before the 1832 Act was passed.5 In the Eighteenth
Century parliamentary reform was the wish of a small, albeit, growing minority...'. 6
For many writers and reformers the extension of the franchise increasingly became a
key demand. 'The reformers never looked to the common law or the judges to control
the power of Parliament. They realized that the "ancient rights of Englishmen",
recognized by the common law, protected the property and privileges of the élite, at
the expense of the rights of ordinary people. Therefore they appealed to natural rights,
ascertained by reason, rather than to pre-existing rights, established by precedent'.7
Parliamentary reform could achieve the restoration of a balanced constitution.
Constitutional improvement would be achieved by having a better Parliament.8 Adult
manhood suffrage was singled out as a demand in James Burgh's Political
Disquisitions (1775). These demands were heard within Parliament. In 1776, the same
year as the American rebellion, John Wilkes called for an extension of the franchise in
a parliamentary speech. It is interesting that Lord Grey who later as Prime Minister
led the government responsible for passing the 1832 Act had been greeted with
derision when he tried to propose an electoral reform bill in 1793.9 John Cartwright
produced a pamphlet Take Your Choice setting out the main aspects of what would be
incorporated in the Chartist Programme, including universal suffrage.10 The leader of
the Society for Constitutional Information founded in 1780 was calling for equal
representation, annual parliaments and the universal right of suffrage'.11
For many radicals the Rights of Man by Tom Paine remained very influential as this
work provided a principled theory of popular rights. Paine is defending the French
Revolution against the onslaught of Burke: 'it was not against Louis XVI, but against
the despotic principles of the government, that the nation revolted'. 12 He went on to
argue that: 'All agree in establishing one point, the unity of man: by which I mean,
that men are all of one degree, and consequently that all men are born equal, and with
5
P. Langford 'Epilogue' in P. Langford (ed.) The Eighteenth Century, OUP, 2002, p.245,
M. Duffy 'Contested Empires' in Langford P (ed.) The Eighteenth Century, OUP, 2002, p.227
7
J. Goldsworthy, The Sovereignty of Parliament: History and Philosphy, Oxford University Press,
1999, p. 217.
8
Goldsworthy p.219.
9
E. Evans, The Reform Act of 1832, 2nd ed, London, Routledge, 1994, p.49.
10
E. Royle, Chartism, London, Longman, 1980, p.7.
11
A. Briggs The Age of Improvement, London, Longmans, 1959 p.115.
12
T. Paine, The Rights of Man, London, Penguin, 1969, p.69.
6
2
equal natural right13 ... [he goes on to explain that] ... 'A man by natural right, has a
right to judge in his own cause; and so far as the right of mind is concerned, he never
surrenders it ...'.14 This meant that while not offering a full political agenda in a
modern sense, he did recognise the importance of a constitution and that 'all citizens
have a right to cooperate in the formation of the law ... either personally or through
their representatives'.15 While Paine became the inspiration for pockets of more
extreme radicalism William Cobbett, himself influenced by Paine, was an effective
advocate of more moderate reform. As Thompson puts it: 'It was Cobbett who created
this radical intellectual culture, not because he offered its most original ideas, but in
the sense that he found the tone, the style and the arguments which bring the weaver,
the schoolmaster, and the shipwright, into a common discourse.'16 He voiced his ideas
and criticisms in the Weekly Political Register and, in common with many others,
Cobbett viewed parliamentary reform as the means to address the issue of unfairness
in terms of representation what he called 'misgovernment'.
Bentham was another writer who stressed the inevitability of reform. 'The thinking
minds of all nations call for change. There is a deep-lying struggle in the whole fabric
of society; a boundless grinding collision of the New with the Old'. 17 The French
Revolution was only regarded as the prelude which had given birth to a mighty
movement which was seeking after, an imprecisely defined, higher freedom. It is easy
with the benefit of hindsight to assume that a modern form of democracy was
envisioned as the antidote to the undoubted dissatisfaction with the status quo. This
assumption would be incorrect. Professor Hobsbawm explains that: 'For the years
between the French Revolution and the Reform Bill had seen the formation of a
"middle-class consciousness", more conservative, more wary of large idealist causes
[...] more narrowly self-interested than in any other industrialized nation'18 and he
reminds us: '... the representative assembly which [the declaration of rights] envisaged
as the fundamental organ of government was not necessarily a democratically elected
one, or the regime it implied one which eliminated kings. A constitutional monarchy
based on a propertied oligarchy expressing itself through a representative assembly
was more congenial to most bourgeois liberals than the democratic republic which
might have seemed a more logical expression of their theoretical aspirations ... '.19
Certainly virtually all members of parliament who favoured reform in 1830-32 only
identified a limited need for change which was to eliminate the worst inequalities and
abuses of the system.
In the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century Britain experienced the
first 'industrial revolution'. It was marked by a rapidly accelerating rate of industrial
growth, particularly in the cotton industry and a correspondingly sudden rate of
growth in population.20 Existing towns such as Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and
Sheffield had expanded linto great cities, other smaller towns became substantial
towns e.g. around the Lancashire cotton industry: Blackburn, Bolton, Bury, Burnley,
13
Paine p.88.
Paine p.90.
15
Hobsbawm p.80.
16
E. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, London, Penguin, 1963, p.820.
17
J. Bentham 'Sign of the Times' (1829) in P. Keating The Victorian Prophets, Fontana, 1981 at p.67
18
Thompson p.902
19
Hobsbawm p.80.
20
Hobsbawm p.44.
14
3
Nelson and Colne. The rapid expansion brought with it a raft of social and economic
problems relating to matters ranging from unemployment, poor relief, public health
and sanitation to lack of universal education. The industrial strength of the nation was
being created at a breath-taking pace with many adverse implications for the
workforce. It was not simply that the existing authorities were incapable of coping
with such problems. The most pressing anomaly to be addressed was that there had
been a complete failure to redistribute parliamentary seats to the emerging economic
power of manufacturing towns in the midlands and the north which had led to a
massive discrepancy between centres of population and the distribution of
Parliamentary seats. The issue was not only about the right to vote, but about the right
to be represented. It is important to emphasize again that there was very little prospect
of the industrial working class being granted the right to vote in 1832. It took another
50 years before more than half of the adult male population could vote. As we will
soon see workers only benefited indirectly as many of these towns were at least given
a seat in Parliament for the first time.
The Napoleonic War when it ended in 1815 was followed by an economic slump
giving rise to poverty and unemployment. In the absence of any political
representation strikes, demonstrations and occasional riots were the only way for
workers and the poor to express their dissatisfaction. The years between 1815-32 were
marked by sporadic demonstrations and riots the size and frequency of which were in
response to adverse economic circumstances. Not only did the amount of insurrection
tend to be uneven, but it was not orchestrated on a national basis. The potential
revolutionaries throughout this period were 'inexperienced, unclear in their minds,
badly organized and divided'.21 But, the reform movement was not simply comprised
of radicals and workers. It drew support from diverse class interests including the new
industrial entrepreneurs.
The priority of Lord Liverpool's government (1815-27) was to maintain law and order
at all costs, and with this in mind political repression was the main government
answer to political unrest. The so called 'Six Acts' of 1819 suspended Habeus Corpus
(freedom from arbitrary arrest), drilling and exercises were outlawed, magistrates
were empowered to search for arms, the right to hold meetings and the freedom of the
press was restricted. The tragic events of Peterloo, also in 1819, where the local
militia charged a peaceful demonstration, killing several and injuring many more,
were in danger of being replicated. 'Not surprisingly, some historians have chosen
these tense years between Waterloo and Peterloo as the nearest point Britain ever
reached to social revolution'.22 We shall see that apart from the need to eliminate
inequality and abuse the desire to avoid a violent revolution on anything like the scale
experienced in France was advanced as a justification for passing 1832 Reform Act.
This constitutional reform then can be discussed in terms of a wider ongoing class
struggle. The incumbents in Parliament comprising both the Tory Party and the Whig
party were mainly large landowners. This vested interest was seeking to hold on to
their political power in the face of challenges from a new industrial elite and an
emerging but not yet organised industrial working class. Popular unrest acted as a
trigger for reform, but it will be apparent that there was a discernible tide of opinion
21
22
Hobsbawm p.24.
Briggs p.208.
4
which advocated change.23 Indeed, as dissatisfaction increased demand for electoral
reform became a common denominator for the leadership of the Whigs and the
radicals who emerged from among skilled and literate artisans.
Pre 1832: Elections of Inequality and Abuse
It is useful to see how the elected House of Commons was composed prior to the Act
and what was wrong with the arrangements. The method of election for the
Westminster Parliament has always been very easy to understand. In every
constituency qualified voters simply express a preference for their preferred
candidate. The candidate receiving the most votes wins the seat irrespective of
whether this is a majority of the votes cast. ‘First past the post’ is in no way
proportional, so votes are wasted where there are large majorities and smaller parties
with support thinly spread across the nation perform badly. On the other hand, it
registers fluctuations in the relative support between the parties with the widest
national support by showing strong shifts in the total number of seats won. The firstpast-the-post method of election in the UK has contributed to the political dominance
of large parties.24
The total representation for England and Wales of 513 seats in the House of
Commons at the beginning of the nineteenth century was much as it had been at the
end of William III's reign in 1702. The Union with Scotland admitted 45 Scottish
members in 1707. Almost a century later the Union with Ireland in 1801 admitted 100
Irish members.25 This added up to a total number of 658 members which interestingly
is very close to the number of current members (645 MPs in 2009) but of course the
population of the nation was well under half the present level. The visual references to
Hogarths' images from the 1750's confirm that the agenda for electoral reform had
been set well before the French Revolution.
The "pocket boroughs" were controlled by a single person or family who owned the
land and were thereby able to ensure their own election or the election of candidates
sympathetic to their cause. As there was no secret ballot it was relatively easy for
powerful landowners to secure the election of individuals they favoured. The corrupt
practices by which political positions were obtained are amplified in Hogarth's 'An
Election: Canvassing for votes'. In this painting emblematic visual references have
been carefully contrived to convey an unambiguous interpretation of a tainted
political process: 'The new sign [outside the public house] shows gold pouring from a
window of the Treasury and being laden into a wagon labelled OXFORD; thereafter it
23
See Thompson at p.923ff and G. Cole and R. Postgate The Common People, London, Methuen,
1961.
24
During the eighteenth and nineteenth century the Tories and Whigs were the names of the parties in
the ascendancy, but both tended to represent narrow factional interests, in particular, the landed gentry
and the industrial entrepreneurs. By the end of the nineteenth century the Conservatives (originating
from the Tories) and Liberals (originating from the Whigs) were the main parties who alternated in
power. The Labour party as the political voice of the trade union movement was founded in the late
nineteenth century. After the first World War Labour began to replace the Liberals as the main left of
centre party. However, Labour were mostly in opposition until 1945. Since the end of the World War II
the Conservative and Labour parties have alternated between government and opposition.
25
F. Maitland, The Constitutional History of England, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1946
p.351.
5
is distributed from a wheelbarrow to voters by PUNCH CANDIDATE FOR
GUZZLEDOWN ... suggest[ing] that the ruling party, the Whigs, have been using
money raised by taxation to pay for election expenses and bribes'.26 A young man
featured at the centre of the painting accepts two bribes at the same time, confirming
that both parties resort equally to such tactics which had become a regular feature of
the election merry-go-round. Prior to the act landowners with existing seats in the
House of Commons or the House of Lords were able to use the patronage enjoyed
because of their wealth to guarantee the return of a candidate in as many as 213 seats.
Influence was exerted on the outcome in perhaps 200 more.27
Hogarth's panels convey the sense of a nation being failed by its political leaders. Not
only do these images amplify and ridicule the cynical abuse of the system, but they
also call to attention the lack of rules to regulate a process which is especially prone
to abuse. In The Polling, which features election day, a soldier multiple amputee who
is unable to lay his hands on the Bible to take the oath is at the head of a queue of
electors. Next comes the lunatic obviously unable to comprehend the issues. He is
closely followed by a corpse being carried up the steps for a vote to be recorded
notwithstanding his demise. The lack of regulation is also apparent as the route to the
election booth is obstructed by a partisan mob seeking to prevent the arrival of
supporters of the rival party.28
The term 'rotten borough' is used to refer to those parliamentary seats which remained
in place returning members to Parliament even though there was no longer a
substantial electorate. There were famous cases which drew attention to the extreme
inequities which remained. Dunwich in Suffolk where coastal erosion had caused the
medieval town to disappear. It sent two members to the House of Commons despite
the fact that it had only 44 houses and 32 voters. Old Sarum was where the town of
Salisbury used to be several centuries earlier. As Paine observed this was perhaps
most notorious of all. 'The town of Old Sarum which contains not three houses, sends
two members: and the town of Manchester which contains upwards of sixty thousand
souls, is not admitted to send any. Is there any principle in these things?'29 No attempt
had been made to address this problem for centuries. Now with the population
growing rapidly the extent of this discrepancy in the distribution of seats produced a
gross distortion in representation. 'In 1831, the cities of Manchester (population
182,000), Birmingham (144,000), Leeds (123,000) and Sheffield (92,000) had not a
single MP between them ... [while] ... Cornwall with a population of 192,000 sent 44
members to parliament'.30 The extent to which this obvious anomaly would be
addressed by any bill was obviously going to be a crucial question. In particular, the
difficulty was in justifying the removal of some seats without undertaking a systemic
revision of the distribution of seats. This issue comes up repeatedly during the
parliamentary debates on the bill in its various forms.
Turning next to consider the extent of the right to vote prior to 1832 Act. The
boroughs from medieval times were settlements usually with a significant population
which had been granted the right to limited self government and to send members to
26
C. Scull, The Soane Hogarths, Sir John Soane Museum, 2007, p.57.
Pearce p.30.
28
Scull p.59.
29
T. Paine, The Rights of Man, London, Penguin, 1969, p.96.
30
Evans, p.6.
27
6
Parliament (usually 2). For example, Liverpool had been electing two MPs by virtue
of the fact that King John founded the Borough by letters patent in 1207. In the
various boroughs not only was there no uniformity in the right to vote, but voting
qualifications were enjoyed for many different reasons. 'In some large boroughs
almost all permanently resident adult males had the vote before 1832. Here, elections
were frequent and public opinion at elections could be reliably gauged'. 31 This
comment refers to the 'potwallopers' or 'scot and lot' boroughs (comprising 59 seats)
where any adult male of six months residence who was registered as paying the local
poor rate was entitled to vote.32 In corporation boroughs (comprising 43 seats)
members of the corporation were the sole electors. In burgage boroughs (comprising
39 seats) the right to vote was simply inherited. In freeman boroughs (comprising of
62 sets) it was those that were qualified as freeman who had the right to vote.33 The so
called pocket boroughs described the practices in burgage, corporation and freeman
boroughs which permitted a local vested interest to predominate. 'If the numbers were
very few, a proprietor would likely take over. Failing that, the happy electorate sold
itself to the highest bidder and an election took on a festival quality'. 34 Turning next to
the county seats, these constituencies tended to represent larger geographical areas
and ancient legislation had set out basic county electoral qualifications. A law of 1430
provided that knights of the shire are to be chosen by people dwelling and resident in
every county to the value of 40 shillings a year.35 The residential requirement was
removed by a statute of 1774 but this law still led to serious anomalies: 'In 1832 the
main objection to the county qualification was not that it was too high but that it was
extremely capricious; a leaseholder or copyholder, no matter how valuable had no
vote ...'.36 In other words only a freehold interest in land was recognised by the act.
The voting qualification in Scotland was £100 much more than in England and Wales
which meant that north of the border even fewer people were entitled to vote.
Defending the traditional Constitution
The Duke of Wellington whose government foundered in 1830 as a result of the
failure of his party to respond to what had become a popular mood for change by the
time of his premiership, articulated the resistance to virtually any reform in his own
party. Notwithstanding the corruption and inequality of representation identified by
others he had no doubt of the virtues of Parliament in its current form. He claimed
that: 'it has as a member every man noted in the country for his fortune, his talents, his
science, his industry or his influence; the first men of all professions, in all branches
of trade and manufacture connected with our colonies abroad; and representing, as it
does, all the states of the United Kingdom'.37 Further he believed that 'To conduct the
government will be impossible, if by Reform the House of Commons should be
31
Evans, p.7.
The amount payable was calculated on the net annual value of occupied property. Residents in
properties below this threshold were not required to pay the poor nor were they given the right to vote.
33
E. Pearce Reform! The Fight for the 1832 Reform Act, London, Jonathan Cape, 2003, p.30.
34
Pearce p.31.
35
8 Hen. VI, c.7
36
Maitland p.354 (Leasehold is holding land for a term of years absolute. Copyhold was an ancient
way of holding land by virtue of copying a court role, an interest which might be converted to
freehold.)
37
E. Smith Reform or Revolution? A Diary of Reform in England, 1830-32, Stroud, Alan Sutton, 1992,
p.61.
32
7
brought to a greater degree under popular influence'.38 This was, in part, a defence of
a natural right to rule, but it was also meant to be a practical claim relating to the
competence and experience of establishment figures in the art of government. In the
words of Wellington again: 'I am certain that the country would be injured by
depriving men of great property of political power: besides the injury done to it by
exposing the House of Commons to a degree of popular influence'. 39 Given the
relatively limited ambitions of the bills presented in Parliament it was perhaps going a
bit too far to claim that Parliamentary reform would be: 'a revolution that will
overturn all the natural influence of rank and property'.40 Nevertheless, scare tactics
which conjured up what reform might bring in its wake were bound to have some
resonance with the established propertied classes. The French Revolution was
relatively fresh in many memories. The prospect of widespread violent unrest was
viewed with apprehension, especially by those with property and thus who had a lot to
lose.
The desire to preserve the traditional constitution which emerged in the late
seventeenth century was another reason for defending the status quo. The Tory
opposition felt that its rather arcane checks and balances resting with established
institutions (Crown, Parliament and the magistracy) was something that should be
preserved in its current form. Above all, the emphasis could be placed on maintaining
stability in comparison to the chaos unleashed in France after the 1789 revolution.
Even Peel who was the leading Tory in the House of Commons commented: 'Let us
never be tempted to resign the well tempered freedom which we enjoy, in the
ridiculous pursuit of the wild liberty that France has established ... liberty which has
neither justice or wisdom for its companions'.41 Both the main political parties agreed
that the role of Parliament was predominantly to represent the interests of private
property. This function was regarded as perfectly natural by property owners whether
they happened to be the traditional landed gentry or the newly emerging industrial
class. Any considerable reform in 1832 would mean that, to some extent at least, the
former were bound to be replaced by the latter.
The Prelude to Reform
The events which unfolded in 1830 contributed to the end of a long period of Tory
domination and their replacement with a government committed to reform. A general
election was precipitated by the death of King George IV and although there was no
decisive swing to the Whigs, the trend was clearly against the Tory anti-reform
faction. Further, the new King was less obviously hostile to Grey, the Whig
opposition leader in waiting, and this enabled him eventually to form a government.
The uprising across the channel also played a significant part in promoting reform.
Thompson tells us that: 'The French Revolution of 1830 had a profound impact upon
the people, electrifying not only the London Radicals but working class reformers in
distant industrial villages.'42 Apart from causing considerable excitement in England
the demise of Charles X: '... brought a revival of interest in Parliamentary reform. If
38
ibid
Smith p.62.
40
Briggs p.242.
41
Evans p.52.
42
Thompson p.911.
39
8
Frenchman could turn out their reactionary government after a short and almost
bloodless contest, why could not Englishmen do the same?'43 In the second half of
1830 there were significant but uncoordinated riots and demonstrations in the South
of England prompted by rural economic hardship. The extremely harsh retribution
which followed these riots was indicative of the nervousness of the authorities. The
government used special commissioners to try 2000 prisoners. 252 were sentenced to
death, 19 of those convicted were hanged. 481 were deported to penal colonies in
Australia. 644 were imprisoned.44 Judges meting out these harsh sentences were in no
doubt that they were meant as a warning to others, but the question was whether the
forces of law and order could cope if the protests became more widespread. Finally,
far from blocking the path to progress, Wellington's total refusal to acknowledge that
there was any case for reform in November 1830 hastened the collapse of his
government.45 'Wellington chose to reply to Grey's first speech in the new session,
which declared that reform was the only way to satisfy the country, with a declaration
that not only was reform inappropriate, and that he had no intention of proposing it,
but that the existing constitution was so perfect that he could not imagine any possible
alternative that would be an improvement'.46 Given the extreme deficiencies which
were recognised by virtually everyone else, this blanket denial of any case to answer
undermined his authority in his own party and made him the subject of ridicule for
opponents.
Achieving a Parliamentary Majority for Reform
We have just observed that Wellington had fallen from power as a result of his almost
fanatical resistance to the demand for reform. The return of the Whigs to power in
1830 on a platform of reform meant that reform of some kind was regarded as
inevitable by all but a rump of Tory opposition. Although in one sense the struggle to
get this Act passed can be regarded as a clash between the established landed classes
and the new industrial interests. By the time the Bill was introduced the
representatives in Parliament of a substantial proportion of the traditional ruling class
were already convinced of the case for a reform of some kind. The Whig government
that came to power was not composed mainly of radicals, but it was built around the
old established Whigs of England. Lord Grey, the Prime Minister, was a 'twenty-four
carat aristocrat' with the highest family connections who despite being counted as a
radical idealist at Cambridge47 was now committed to more moderate parliamentary
reform. Likewise, Earl John Russell who was partly responsible for drafting the bill in
its various forms, was keen to correct constitutional abuse while retaining the spirit of
the traditional constitution. There certainly was no intention: 'to deviate from the track
of the Constitution into the maze of fancy, or the wilderness of abstract rights'. 48
Other prominent government members coming from a similar background included
Henry Brougham as Lord Chancellor and Lord Althorp as the leader of the Commons.
These figures were representative of the magnates that owned a substantial proportion
43
Woodward p.77.
J. Harrison The Common People: A History from the Norman Conquest to the Present, London,
Flamingo, 1984, p.251.
45
Hansard, 3rd, vol i, 2 November 1830, cols. 52-3.
46
Smith p.23.
47
Pearce p.13.
48
See J. Allison The English Constitution: Continuity, Change and European Effects, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 2007 p.16/17.
44
9
of England. Crucially, however, as a government they had wider support: '... a large
part of the money interest in the City of London; a sizeable share of the
manufacturing interest of the industrial provinces, ... the main forces of old dissent,
represented in Parliament from 1784-1830 by William Smith...'.49
There were three versions of the bill before it was eventually passed and they were all
quite similar. Even in its original form, setting the pace for the eventual Act, the bill
went further than expected. It was recognised by Earl John Russell and others on the
drafting committee that in order to defuse the crisis of unrest a substantial measure
was called for. Although the drafting committee had proposed a £20 franchise
qualification, before the bill was given its first reading in Parliament Lord Grey, the
Prime Minister, insisted that the level should set at £10 a year. In regard to the
redistribution of seats this draft bill would have disenfranchised 60 boroughs of less
than 2000 inhabitants and returning 119 members and it would have taken 1 member
from a further 47 boroughs. 7 large cities and 4 London districts were to be given two
members. Twenty more towns were granted one member each. The subject of debate
veered from matters of high principle to rear guard defence staged by Tories. The
main thrust of their opposition, as noted earlier, was that any reform amounted to a
confiscation of customary private property rights without the offer of compensation.
In the House of Commons the Tories typically repeated the view that 'a stake in the
country was an essential title to political power'. Unleashing the process of reform
would lead to the eventual destruction of Parliament. There was resistance to the
proposed shift in the distribution of seats from country squirarchy to industrial towns.
It was also pointed out with some justification that the reform proposals fell short of
being a rational scheme for a comprehensive redistribution of seats. The first bill
needed the support from Irish members to scrape a majority. It narrowly passed its
second reading in the Commons by 302 votes to 301 but it was then defeated in
committee on the 19 April 1831. The King called an election on the issue of the bill
which the Whigs and pro-reformers supporting the government of Lord Grey won
resoundingly. It seemed that the tide was turning inexorably towards reform. The
second bill following the election was largely similar to the first (£50 tenants at will in
the counties were also to be given the vote). This time it gained a substantial majority
of 136 votes in the Commons on second reading and 109 votes on its third reading
and seemed to be set fair for the statute book. There was a famous impassioned
speech lasting more than three hours in the Upper House in which Lord Chancellor
Brougham used eloquence and invective to undermine the repeated objections which
failed to take account of how extensive the clamour for reform had now become:
'For if all your lordships' castles, manors, rights of warren and rights of chase, with all
your broad acres, were brought to the hammer and sold at fifty years' purchase, the
price would fly up and kick the beam when counterpoised by the vast and solid riches
of those middles classes who are also the genuine depositaries of sober, rational,
intelligent and honest English feeling. Unable though they may be to round a period
or point and epigram, they are solid, right-judging men and above all, not given to
change ... Grave - intelligent - rational - fond of thinking for themselves- they
consider a subject long before they make up their minds on it ... It is an egregious
49
Briggs p.237.
10
folly to suppose that the popular clamour for Reform ... could have been silenced by
mere change of ministers ... .'50
The point being that with the will to reform having spread to a new industrial elite
change had now become inevitable. Lord Brougham ended by imploring his fellow
peers not to reject the bill, fearing dire consequences (rioting and insurrection).
However, Wellington decided to mount a rear guard action in the House of Lords.
The bill was again defeated by 199 votes to 158 on the 8 October 1831. This was
largely thanks to the intervention of the bishops against the bill.
The impact was immediate. Never has the nation been closer to revolution than in the
autumn of 1831. Many feared outbreaks of violence on an unprecedented scale. Riots
were triggered in many parts of the country and the authorities were barely equipped
to contain the unrest. Reformers such as Francis Place and Attwood urged restraint
but not surprisingly this rejection was the signal for unrest. In October and November
reactionary figures including the Duke of Newcastle and the Duke of Cumberland
were assaulted and the windows of Wellinton's London house were broken. The
Mansion House was attacked in demonstrations which went out of control but there
was a determination by the radical leaders not to play into the hands of the authorities
by allowing mob rule to completely take over.
Now the question was how the log jam caused by the intransigence of peers could be
overcome. It occurred to the Whig leadership, just as we shall see it did to Asquith
and Lloyd George 80 years later when the Parliament Bill was rejected, that the
solution could be in the hands of the King. Essentially, they recognised that the bill's
passage could be ensured if William IV could be persuaded to create sufficient peers
to ensure a majority in the upper house. This break caused by the defeat of the Second
Bill was also an opportunity for negotiation to get Tory waverers to change their
minds by offering limited concessions. A Third Reform Bill was introduced on the 12
December 1831. The main changes were that this version reduced the list of
condemned seats from 69 to 49 but second seats were granted to some northern
industrial towns. It sailed through the House of Commons in two days and was passed
on second reading by 324 votes to 162. Grey was reluctant to flood the House of
Lords with new peers which he felt set a dangerous precedent. Nevertheless, William
IV was approached with this in mind as there was no alternative. Initially, he was
reluctant to commit himself but in January agreed to appoint sufficient new peers to
ensure a majority in the House of Lords. In April 1832 with this threat looming the
Bill passed its second reading in the House of Lords by 9 votes. A further crisis
erupted when the bill was defeated on 7 May, this time in its committee stage in the
House of Lords. The King accepted the government's resignation rather than accede
to the request to create 50 new peers. This sparked another round of nationwide mass
demonstrations. In the meantime there was deadlock as Wellington was unable to
form an alternative government. Finally, the King had very little alternative but to
invite Grey to form a government with an assurance that sufficient peers would be
created to guarantee the bill's passage. At this point the Conservative opposition in the
Lords caved in and the bill passed its third reading by 106 votes to 22. It has been
50
Pearce p.192.
11
claimed with some justification that the most revolutionary aspect of the reform crisis
of 1831-2 was not the Reform Bill itself, but the coercion of the House of Lords.51
Evaluating the immediate impact of the Reform Act
The electorate was increased by around 50% through the lowering and standardising
the property qualification for voters in both the boroughs and the county seats. In the
towns or boroughs the vote was given to £10 freeholders provided they were in
possession for at least a year and were not in receipt of poor relief. In addition, those
with a right to vote prior to the act retained the right to vote. Further, in the county
seats the Act gave the vote to adult males owning freehold property of 40 shillings
(£2), copyholders in possession worth £10 and anyone renting land worth £50 p.a..
The effect was to extend the vote in parts of the country like London which had
relatively high property prices. The Act immediately added a total of 217,000 voters
to an electorate of 435,000 but due to the increasing wealth of the nation a further
400,000 voters had been added by 1867.52
The Act's greatest achievement was the redistribution of seats which although limited
in extent managed to eliminate the worst of previous anomalies. 56 rotten and pocket
boroughs lost representation entirely, a further 30 boroughs lost one of their two seats.
22 new boroughs were created with two members and 19 new boroughs with one
member. The representation of counties was increased. One county was given six
members. 26 counties were given 4 members. 7 counties were given three members. 6
counties retained two members. Isle of White was a single member constituency.
Wales had three two-member counties and 9 one-member counties. Serious anomalies
remained. For example, Thetford, Reigate, Westbury and Calne had no more than 200
voters but continued to send members to Parliament while no parliamentary seat was
granted to towns such as Croydon, Doncaster and Loughborough which had
populations above 10,000.53
Part II: The Legacy of the 1832 Reform Act
The remainder of this essay provides a wider assessment of the contribution of the
1832 Reform Act. This is measured against the main steps towards the extension of
the franchise and the introduction of the current electoral system. The discussion is
roughly organised around the themes of: the regulation of corrupt practices;
equalising electoral boundaries; further steps towards universal suffrage, including the
struggle for votes for women; and the implications for the constitutional role of the
House of Lords.
The Elimination of Corrupt Practices
Although the Reform Act abolished a substantial proportion of rotten and pocket
boroughs it did not eliminate corruption. In particular, it failed to bring in the secret
51
S. Lang Parliamentary Reform 1785-1928, London, Routledge, 2007, p.37.
Woodward p.88.
53
Evans p.63.
52
12
ballot. However, the act for the first time introduced an official register of elections
for each constituency. This broke with former practice which was open to blatant
abuse on election day (as is evident from Hogarth's example). Previously all that was
required was for a would-be voter to turn up to vote and swear an oath prescribed by
statute that he had the requisite voting qualification. The 1832 Act prescribed a formal
procedure: '... until 1832 no list of voters was prepared beforehand. Since the Reform
Act the qualifications by property, occupation and so forth are not strictly speaking
qualifications entitling one to vote - they are qualifications entitling one to be placed
on the register of electors, and the only qualification that entitles one to vote is the
fact that one is a registered elector'.54 In order to be registered, voters were required to
pay a registration fee of a shilling. The oversight for registers was often slack because
the act provided inadequate supervision. Electoral agents were responsible for
organising the campaign for the candidates and they were required to get the local
electorate in their constituency registered.
The first of Hogarth's famous scenes features 'An Election Entertainment'. It was
executed in 1754 as an allegory of Leonardo's Last Supper exactly 100 years before
Parliament legislated to address the problem it highlighted. This panel features the
feasting and revelling associated with election time. The pre-election entertainment
was the opportunity for candidates to lavish favours in exchange for votes. The
Corrupt Practices Act 1854 was a largely unsuccessful attempt to stamp out the
considerable corruption which continued to accompany elections. It required an audit
of accounts payable by each candidate and it defined the various forms of corrupt
practice, including the intimidation of voters, but it did not put an end to practices
such as indirect bribery through the payment of election expenses.55 The Ballot Act of
1872 introduced the secret ballot but this did not prevent voters from accepting bribes
from more than one candidate before they registered their preference in secret. The
Corrupt Practices Act 1883 effectively eliminated improper conduct at elections. In
the first place it set strict limits on the amount that could be spent by candidates. This
would mean that at constituency level one candidate would not be able to gain an
unfair advantage over another. It specified in even more detail what practices were
forbidden and what were allowed and it turned the poacher into the gamekeeper by
making election agents the guardians of public morals at election times by requiring
them to verify the electoral accounts of their candidate.56 Bribery, treating or undue
influence were punishable by up to a year’s imprisonment with or without hard labour
or a fine up to £200. While impersonating a voter or aiding or abetting impersonation
was punishable with up to two years, with or without hard labour.57 The raising of
electoral funding has remained a matter for concern. The Political Parties, Elections
and Referendums Act 2000 now regulates the conduct of political parties. It set up an
Election Commission to oversee the electoral process. The Act also requires political
parties to be registered and it imposes restrictions on the source of donations to
prevent foreign and anonymous support for political parties. The Act further requires
that any donation over £5000 to a political party is declared. Both the Labour and
Conservative parties have faced criticism following the 2005 election for accepting
loans from donors in order to circumvent the provisions of this Act.58
54
Maitland p.355.
Woodward p.91.
56
Briggs p.415
57
Corrupt Practices Act 1883, s.6.
58
See Constitutional Affairs Select Committe, First Report, Party Funding, HC 163-1; Government
55
13
Equal Electoral Districts
The extension of the franchise in 1832, 1867 and 1884 was accompanied in each case
by a redistribution of seats to eliminate rotten boroughs and to achieve a more even
electorate in each constituency. Only forty five additional English seats were
redistributed by the 1867 Act with the largest cities each granted a single additional
member. The 1884 reform initiative involved a much more far-reaching redistribution
of seats than there had been in 1867. Seventy nine towns with less than 15,000
inhabitants lost their seats while thirty six more towns with less than 50,000 lost one
of their two members. Only the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and boroughs
between 50,000 and 165,000 retained two members. However, the principle of a
broad mathematical equality in the population size of constituencies was adopted in
1917 when the 1918 Reform Act was drafted.59
The UK has a first-past-the-post (simple plurality) electoral system which operates by
dividing the nation into 645 approximately equal constituencies in terms of
population, each of which sends a single member to Parliament. It produces MP's who
represent clearly defined geographical areas and who pursue grievances on behalf of
their constituents. The modern Electoral Commission dates from after the Second
World War. It was established following the recommendation of the Departmental
Committee under the Registrar General for England and Wales, Sir Sylvanus Vivian.
The Commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were set up
originally under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats Act) Act 1944. Any
constituency over 100,000 was to be immediately divided up so that the 1945 general
election could be fought using the new constituencies.
The legislation in this area has been repeatedly modified. The Parliamentary
Constituencies Act 1986, as amended by the Boundary Commissions Act 1992,
requires the Commission to review the representation of England in the House of
Commons (with similar provisions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and to
submit a report to the Home Secretary not less than eight nor more than twelve years
from the date of the submission of their last such report. The Commission currently
works on the basis that 'The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the
electoral quota as is practicable ...' In doing this it takes into account a number of subrules to allow for some flexibility e.g. geographical considerations and shape of a
constituency. There may need to be quite far-reaching changes to make in response to
changes in population. Most prominently, a falling population meant that the number
of constituencies in Scotland must diminish in order for the electorate as a quota to be
approximately equal in all parts of the United Kingdom. It is difficult to introduce a
method of boundary drawing that avoids gerrymandering, but at least the boundary
commission was established as an independent agency. Nevertheless, the government
may be able to use its majority to prevent recommended changes in constituencies
conforming to shifts in population because the government party faces the prospect of
losing seats as a consequence.
Response to the Constitutional Affairs Committee First Report of Session 2006-07: Party Funding,
May 2007, HMSO, CM 7123.
59
A. Bradley and K. Ewing Constitutional and Administrative Law, 14th edn, London, Longman,
p.158.
14
The path towards further reform
After the House of Lords caved in and approved the 1832 Reform Act the propertied
classes had been forced with great reluctance to accept a significant dose of reform.
However, from the standpoint of the Whigs who were mainly behind the Bill this was
as far as it went.60 'The lack of legislation to eliminate electoral influence after 1832
[was] entirely deliberate. Any move towards "fairer" elections or equal electoral
districts could be interpreted as a dangerous compromise with the principles of
democracy'.61 In other words 'Those who hoped that the Reform Bill ... would usher in
an era of democracy, or even government by the bourgeoisie, were to find their hopes
disappointed'.62 The Act temporarily stemmed the tide of popular agitation but it was
obvious that such a limited measure could not provide anything like a permanent
solution. While it might be regarded as an achievement that the Act managed to gain
parliamentary support and become law, it never had any prospect of satisfying the
demands of reformers. The upsurge of political unrest continued to mirror the cycles
of severe unemployment and poverty that resulted from swings of economic fortune.
Chartism the greatest of all nineteenth century popular movements was soon launched
as a national campaigning organisation. Thompson is in no doubt that: 'The line from
1832 to Chartism is not a haphazard pendulum alternation of 'political' and 'economic'
agitations but a direct progression, in which simultaneous and related movements
converge towards a single point. This point was the vote'.63 This national protest
movement had ambitious political demands, namely: universal suffrage, abolition of
property qualification for MPs, payment of MPs, equal electoral districts, the secret
ballot and annual parliaments. Indeed, apart from the prospect of poverty and
starvation which impacted on many working people with varying intensity
corresponding to peaks and troughs in the economic cycle, the immediate enthusiasm
for Chartism was a combination of disillusionment with the Reform Act of 1832 and a
continuing belief in the possibility and efficacy of reform. There were major upsurges
of support Chartism in the winter of 1839 and 1842 and then again in 1848, the year
of European revolutions.
Given the focus by the Chartist movement on further electoral reform, it is surprising
that from 1832 it took 35 years for the next significant measure to be passed. By the
time the Second and Third Reform Acts were passed although there may have been
debate as to how much further to go with reform there was cross-party consensus over
the need for some extension of the franchise and the measures were not held up in the
House of Lords as they had been in 1832. The numbers entitled to vote had increased
significantly since 1832 with improved economic conditions and increased property
values allowing a greater proportion of the male population to meet the 1832 property
qualification. The 1867 Reform Acts and 1884 Reform Acts each continued with
further reductions to the property qualification, the first adding nearly a million more
male voters to the electoral register and the second more than doubling the electorate
to 5.5 million voters.
60
Lord John Russell famously asserted that the act had attained the limit of desirable change (date).
Evans p.63
62
A. Wilson The Victorians, London, Arrow Books, 2003, p.39.
63
Thompson p.909.
61
15
Votes for Women and Universal Suffrage
Viewed from a modern perspective the apparent neglect of concern to obtain votes for
women may seem surprising. Calls for female suffrage date back well before the 1832
Reform Act. In the eighteenth century Mary Wollstonecraft was a radical among her
contemporaries who had published her influential Vindication of the Rights of
Woman 1792 arguing that men and women should be entitled to the same
fundamental rights. Female suffrage was not supported by many of the early
reformers such as Bentham and Cartwright but women were encouraged to participate
in the reform movement.64 The Chartists left out any mention of female suffrage as
part of the 'People's Charter' fearing that such a radical proposal might alienate
potential supporters. Nevertheless, the cause of female suffrage was increasingly
championed in key texts. For example in 1851 Harriet Taylor Mill published the
Enfranchisement of Women. In 1865 John Stuart Mill, who himself became an
important advocate for this cause, presented a petition to Parliament calling for
women to be given the vote as part of the wider case for equality of the sexes. In the
late Victorian period some mainly middle class women faced with continued
resistance were becoming increasingly impatient at the lack of progress. The National
Union of Women's Suffrage Societies was established in 1888 to present the case for
female suffrage. It is striking that throughout this period there was remarkably strong
opposition to female suffrage from many establishment figures. One such, the
constitutional theorist AV Dicey, once wrote that: 'the Conservative argument against
votes for women conforms to the nature of things ...' further asserting that '... women
of pre-eminent goodness are often lacking in the virtues such as active courage,
firmness of judgment, self-control, steadiness of conduct, and above all, a certain
sense of justice maintained in the heat of party conflict, which are often to be found in
Englishmen even of an ordinary type.65 Not withstanding such extraordinary prejudice
in some quarters, there were sporadic signs of the recognition of female suffrage
within the bounds of the British Empire well before voting rights were granted in UK
elections. In the Isle of Man female ratepayers were allowed to vote in 1881 and in
1893, after a campaign by the Women's Christian Temperance Union, women in New
Zealand were given the right to vote.
In the first decade or so of the new century the militant wing of the suffragette
movement, the Women's Social and Political Union, formed in 1898, and led by
Emmeline Pankhurst, took centre stage in the struggle with violent demonstrations
and publicity-seeking stunts, including hunger strikes by women in prison. But the
use of violence appeared to make opponents within the government more resolute and
alienated some potential supporters. The campaign was suspended on the opening of
hostilities in 1914. Given the huge number of casualties and sacrifice for their country
it would have been 'monstrously unjust' not to have extended the vote to men and also
to women who had served their country.66 During the Great War (1914-18)
Parliament finally relented and settled in principle the question of votes for women,
which had caused so much turmoil before the war. The legislation was passed with
relatively little controversy. Indeed, it was because of the great contribution of women
64
E. Royle, Chartism, London, Longman, 1980, p.82
F. Mount, The British Constitution Now, Mandarin Books, p.57 quotes from 'Letters to a friend on
votes for women' (1893).
66
A. Taylor, British History 1900-1945, London, Penguin, p.133.
65
16
to industry and to the war effort generally that: 'War smoothed the way for democracy
...'.67 At the outbreak of hostilities it is estimated that approximately 58% of adult
males had the right to vote.68 The Representation of the People Act 1918 went a great
deal further by dispensing with any previous property qualifications. Men over the
age of 21 were entitled to vote on the basis of six months occupancy. Women over 30
were also granted voting rights if they had a property qualification or if their husband
had the right to vote. However, universal adult suffrage was achieved in 1928 when
women were given the vote on the same basis as men.69
Additional Constitutional Implications of the 1832 Reform Act
The defeat in 1832 for the opposition to the bill in the House of Lords marked the
beginning of the end of the power of the unelected House and at the same time the
political power of the established aristocracy. In his famous study of the British
Constitution first published in the 1860's Bagehot notes the growing preponderance of
the House of Commons and observes that: 'Since the Reform Act the House of Lords
has become a revising and suspending house ... The House has ceased to be one of
latent directors, and has become one of temporary rejecters and palpable alterers.'70
On reflection it is apparent that there was great constitutional significance in the way
the issue of the stalemate between the two houses was resolved. Lord Grey recognised
that inviting the King to step in to defuse the crisis by creating peers to pass the bill
would be setting an important precedent.
In the British Constitution when constitutional matters are not prescribed by statute
they are frequently determined by convention. These conventions are rules (not
always clear cut) which govern the way discretionary powers of the main
constitutional players should be exercised.71 According to some eminent
constitutionalists they are determined by whether there is a precedent which has a
good constitutional reason for existing and which the constitutional actors believe to
be binding on them.72 The next stalemate, which was in any sense comparable,
occurred when the House of Lords itself broke with another convention 73 by refusing
to pass the radical 1909 budget. Soon afterwards the Lords rejected the Parliament
Bill which had been introduced to remove its own power of veto over legislation. In
both 1831-2 and 1909-11 the reigning monarch recognised that in a situation where
the House of Lords appeared to thwart the will of the elected House of Commons by
refusing to pass legislation of foremost importance, a general election should first be
called to test the mood of the country.
The next conclusion that might be drawn from the crisis surrounding the Reform Act
was that if the election result favoured the party, or coalition of parties, proposing the
contested bill, the King, if asked to do so, was obliged to ignore his personal
67
Taylor p.134.
D. Butler and A Sloman British Political Facts, 1900-1979, St Martin's Press, 1980.
69
Representation of the People Act 1928.
70
Bagehot p.128
71
P. Leyland, The Constitution of the United Kingdom: A Contextual Analysis, Oxford: Hart
Publishing, 2007 p.25ff.
72
I. Jennings, I The Law and the Constitution p.136
73
The predominance of the elected House of Commons over financial maters was recognised by
convention.
68
17
preference and consider appointing sufficient peers to secure the bill's passage. In
1910 the death of the King meant that two general elections had to be held. The big
difference relating to the latter crisis was that because of electoral reform in 1832,
1867 and 1884 the constitution was becoming more democratic. In 1831 the result of
the election was clear cut but only a small proportion of the population had the chance
to express a preference, while in 1910 more than half adult males could vote, greatly
strengthening the mandate for House of Lords reform and making it difficult to accept
the intransigence of a privileged minority of peers who were attempting to resist the
will of the people. Of course, the passage of the Parliament Act in 1911 meant a de
facto reduction in the power of the House of Lords.74
Conclusion
From a contemporary standpoint most constitutionalists would agree with the
assertion that:
'The right to vote is the most important of all the civil liberties possessed by an
individual in a representative democracy ... The effect of the exercise of an individual
right to vote is not necessarily precisely to choose one's rulers but rather to participate
in the process of electing a government that is, broadly speaking, representative of the
people.'75
The brief review in this essay of the reform legislation which followed the 1832
Reform Act confirms that the Act itself was only a very limited step towards
achieving universal suffrage. Most notably, it only conferred the right to vote to
relatively few additional male voters who were able to meet the stringent property
qualifications which were stipulated. Nor did the Act manage to eliminate the
widespread corruption associated with elections. In fact, the most obvious practical
achievement of this measure was to initiate the process of redistributing seats from the
so called 'rotten boroughs' to cities and towns that previously had no representation in
Parliament, despite their rapidly growing contribution to the national economy.
However, above all, the 1832 Reform Act is an important constitutional landmark
because it can be regarded as a symbolic defeat of immense significance for the
landed interests within Parliament. They were persuaded by popular agitation to
relinquish their near monopoly in Parliament by consent. Although the same interests
continued to have strong representation, particularly in the House of Lords, their
dominant position had been successfully challenged, in turn, convincing reformers
that further progress towards universal suffrage was attainable. Even limited
extension of the franchise in 1832, 1867 and 1884 had-far reaching constitutional
consequences during the course of the nineteenth century. It led to more
representative political parties that could claim a mandate from an increasing
electorate for the introduction of policies of social reform funded by progressive
taxation. As we also observed, the next constitutional crisis occurred when the
74
The Parliament Act 1911 entirely removed the right of veto by the upper house over financial
matters (money bills declared by the Speaker of the House of Commons) and in respect of other
legislation it granted the Lords a delaying power of 2 years. The Act also reduced the maximum length
between elections from 7 to 5 years.
75
C. Gearty Civil Liberties, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007 p.61.
18
legitimacy of the elected House of Commons to pursue such policies was challenged,
again unsuccessfully, by an increasingly anachronistic House of Lords.
19