The REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1832 (known informally as the
1832 REFORM ACT, GREAT REFORM ACT or FIRST REFORM ACT to distinguish
it from subsequent Reform Acts ) was an
Act of Parliament
The full title is An Act to amend the representation of the people in
England and Wales. Its formal short title and citation is
"Representation of the People Act 1832 (2 the Scottish
Reform Act 1832
Irish Reform Act 1832
* 1 The unreformed House of Commons
* 1.1 Composition
* 1.2 The franchise
* 1.2.1 Women\'s suffrage
* 1.3 Pocket boroughs, bribery
* 2 Movement for reform
* 2.1 Early attempts at reform
* 2.2 Aftermath of the
* 3 Passage of the Reform Act
* 3.1 First Reform Bill * 3.2 Second Reform Bill * 3.3 Third Reform Bill
* 4 Results
* 4.1 Provisions
* 4.1.1 Abolition of seats * 4.1.2 Creation of new seats * 4.1.3 Extension of the franchise
* 4.2 Effects * 4.3 Tenant voters * 4.4 Limitations * 4.5 Further reform
* 5 Assessment * 6 See also * 7 Notes * 8 References * 9 Further reading * 10 External links
THE UNREFORMED HOUSE OF COMMONS
Main article: Unreformed House of Commons
The House of Commons is the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Act of Union 1800
Parliamentary boroughs in England ranged widely in size from small
hamlets to large cities, partly because they had evolved haphazardly.
The earliest boroughs were chosen in the Middle Ages by county
sheriffs, and even a village might be deemed a borough. Many of these
early boroughs (such as Winchelsea and Dunwich ) were substantial
settlements at the time of their original enfranchisement, but later
went into decline, and by the early 19th century some only had a few
electors, but still elected two MPs ; they were often known as rotten
boroughs . In later centuries the reigning monarch decided which
settlements to enfranchise. The monarchs seem mostly to have done so
capriciously, often with little regard for the merits of the place
they were enfranchising. Of the 70 English boroughs that Tudor
monarchs enfranchised, 31 were later disenfranchised. Finally, the
parliamentarians of the 17th century compounded the inconsistencies by
re-enfranchising 15 boroughs whose representation had lapsed for
centuries, seven of which were later disenfranchised by the Reform
Act. After Newark was enfranchised in 1661, no additional boroughs
were enfranchised, and the unfair system remained unchanged until the
Reform Act of 1832. Grampound's disenfranchisement in 1821 was the
sole exception. Most English boroughs elected two MPs; but five
boroughs elected only one MP: Abingdon , Banbury , Bewdley , Higham
Statutes passed in 1430 and 1432, during the reign of Henry VI ,
standardised property qualifications for county voters. Under these
Acts, all owners of freehold property or land worth at least forty
shillings in a particular county were entitled to vote in that county.
This requirement, known as the forty shilling freehold , was never
adjusted for inflation; thus the amount of land one had to own in
order to vote gradually diminished over time. The franchise was
restricted to males by custom rather than statute; on rare occasions
women had been able to vote in parliamentary elections as a result of
property ownership. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people were
not entitled to vote; the size of the English county electorate in
1831 has been estimated at only 200,000. Furthermore, the sizes of
the individual county constituencies varied significantly. The
In boroughs the franchise was far more varied. There were broadly six types of parliamentary boroughs, as defined by their franchise:
* boroughs in which freemen were electors; * boroughs in which the franchise was restricted to those paying scot and lot , a form of municipal taxation; * boroughs in which only the ownership of a burgage property qualified a person to vote; * boroughs in which only members of the corporation were electors (such boroughs were perhaps in every case "pocket boroughs ", because council members were usually "in the pocket" of a wealthy patron); * boroughs in which male householders were electors (these were usually known as "potwalloper boroughs", as the usual definition of a householder was a person able to boil a pot on his/her own hearth); * boroughs in which freeholders of land had the right to vote.
Some boroughs had a combination of these varying types of franchise, and most had special rules and exceptions, so many boroughs had a form of franchise that was unique to themselves.
The largest borough, Westminster , had about 12,000 voters, while many of the smallest, usually known as "rotten boroughs", had fewer than 100 each. The most famous rotten borough was Old Sarum , which had 13 burgage plots that could be used to "manufacture" electors if necessary—usually around half a dozen was thought sufficient. Other examples were Dunwich (32 voters), Camelford (25), and Gatton (7).
The claim for the women's vote appears to have been first made by
... all those individuals whose interests are indisputably included in those of other individuals may be struck off without any inconvenience ... In this light also women may be regarded, the interests of almost all of whom are involved in that of their fathers or in that of their husbands.
The passing of the Act seven years later enfranchising "male persons" was, however, a more significant event; it has been argued that it was the inclusion of the word "male", thus providing the first explicit statutory bar to women voting, which provided a focus of attack and a source of resentment from which, in time, the women's suffrage movement grew.
POCKET BOROUGHS, BRIBERY
Canvassing for Votes, part of
Many constituencies, especially those with small electorates, were under the control of rich landowners, and were known as nomination boroughs or pocket boroughs , because they were said to be in the pockets of their patrons. Most patrons were noblemen or landed gentry who could use their local influence, prestige, and wealth to sway the voters. This was particularly true in rural counties, and in small boroughs situated near a large landed estate. Some noblemen even controlled multiple constituencies: for example, the Duke of Norfolk controlled eleven, while the Earl of Lonsdale controlled nine. Writing in 1821, Sydney Smith proclaimed that "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 claimed in his Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland that, out of the 514 members representing England and Wales, about 370 were selected by nearly 180 patrons. A member who represented a pocket borough was expected to vote as his patron ordered, or else lose his seat at the next election.
Voters in some constituencies resisted outright domination by
powerful landlords, but were often open to corruption. Electors were
bribed individually in some boroughs, and collectively in others. In
1771, for example, it was revealed that 81 voters in New Shoreham (who
constituted a majority of the electorate) formed a corrupt
organisation that called itself the "Christian Club", and regularly
sold the borough to the highest bidder. Especially notorious for
their corruption were the "nabobs ", or individuals who had amassed
fortunes in the British colonies in Asia and the
MOVEMENT FOR REFORM
EARLY ATTEMPTS AT REFORM
William Pitt the Younger
During the 1640s, England endured a civil war that pitted King
Charles I and the Royalists against the Parliamentarians . In 1647,
different factions of the victorious parliamentary army held a series
of discussions, the
Putney Debates , on reforming the structure of
English government. The most radical elements proposed universal
manhood suffrage and the reorganisation of parliamentary
constituencies. Their leader
Thomas Rainsborough declared, "I think
it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought
first by his own consent to put himself under that government." More
conservative members disagreed, arguing instead that only individuals
who owned land in the country should be allowed to vote. For example,
Following Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 the issue of parliamentary reform lay dormant until it was revived in the 1760s by the Whig Prime Minister William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham ("Pitt the Elder"), who called borough representation "the rotten part of our Constitution " (hence the term "rotten borough"). Nevertheless, he did not advocate an immediate disfranchisement of rotten boroughs. He instead proposed that a third member be added to each county, to countervail the borough influence. The Whigs failed to unite behind the expansion of county representation; some objected to the idea because they felt that it would give too much power to the aristocracy and gentry in rural areas. Ultimately, despite Chatham's exertions, Parliament took no action on his proposals. The cause of parliamentary reform was next taken up by Lord Chatham's son, William Pitt the Younger (variously described as a Tory and as an "independent Whig"). Like his father, he shrank from proposing the wholesale abolition of the rotten boroughs, advocating instead an increase in county representation. The House of Commons rejected Pitt's resolution by over 140 votes, despite receiving petitions for reform bearing over twenty thousand signatures. In 1783, Pitt became Prime Minister but was still unable to achieve reform. King George III was averse to the idea, as were many members of Pitt's own cabinet. In 1786, the Prime Minister proposed a reform bill, but the House of Commons rejected it on a 174–248 vote. Pitt did not raise the issue again for the remainder of his term.
AFTERMATH OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
Support for parliamentary reform plummeted after the launch of the
Other notable pro-reform organisations included the Hampden Clubs
Despite such setbacks, popular pressure for reform remained strong.
In 1819, a large pro-reform rally was held in Birmingham. Although the
city was not entitled to any seats in the Commons, those gathered
decided to elect Sir Charles Wolseley as Birmingham's "legislatorial
representative". Following their example, reformers in
REFORM DURING THE 1820S
Since the House of Commons regularly rejected direct challenges to
the system of representation by large majorities, supporters of reform
had to content themselves with more modest measures. The Whig Lord
John Russell brought forward one such measure in 1820, proposing the
disfranchisement of the notoriously corrupt borough of Grampound in
Cornwall. He suggested that the borough's two seats be transferred to
the city of Leeds. Tories in the
House of Lords
Support for reform came from an unexpected source—a faction of the Tory Party—in 1829. The Tory government under Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington , responding to the danger of civil strife in largely Roman Catholic Ireland, drew up the Catholic Relief Act 1829 . This legislation repealed various laws that imposed political disabilities on Roman Catholics, in particular laws that prevented them from becoming members of Parliament. In response, disenchanted Tories who perceived a danger to the established religion came to favour parliamentary reform, in particular the enfranchisement of Manchester, Leeds, and other heavily Noncomformist cities in northern England.
PASSAGE OF THE REFORM ACT
FIRST REFORM BILL
The Duke of Wellington , Tory Prime Minister (1828–30) strongly opposed reform measures.
The death of King George IV on 26 June 1830 dissolved Parliament by law, and a general election was held. Electoral reform, which had been frequently discussed during the preceding parliamentary session, became a major campaign issue. Across the country, several pro-reform "political unions" were formed, made up of both middle and working class individuals. The most influential of these was the Birmingham Political Union , led by Thomas Attwood . These groups confined themselves to lawful means of supporting reform, such as petitioning and public oratory, and achieved a high level of public support.
The Tories won a majority in the election, but the party remained divided, and support for the Prime Minister (the Duke of Wellington ) was weak. When the Opposition raised the issue of reform in one of the first debates of the year, the Duke made a controversial defence of the existing system of government, recorded in the formal "third-party" language of the time:
He was fully convinced that the country possessed, at the present moment, a legislature which answered all the good purposes of legislation,—and this to a greater degree than any legislature ever had answered, in any country whatever. He would go further, and say that the legislature and system of representation possessed the full and entire confidence of the country. He would go still further, and say, that if at the present moment he had imposed upon him the duty of forming a legislature for any country he did not mean to assert that he could form such a legislature as they possessed now, for the nature of man was incapable of reaching such excellence at once. s long as he held any station in the government of the country, he should always feel it his duty to resist measures, when proposed by others.
The Prime Minister's absolutist views proved extremely unpopular, even within his own party. Less than two weeks after Wellington made these remarks, on 15 November 1830 he was forced to resign after he was defeated in a motion of no confidence . Sydney Smith wrote, "Never was any administration so completely and so suddenly destroyed; and, I believe, entirely by the Duke's declaration, made, I suspect, in perfect ignorance of the state of public feeling and opinion." Wellington was replaced by the Whig reformer Charles Grey , who had by this time the title of Earl Grey.
Lord Grey's first announcement as Prime Minister was a pledge to carry out parliamentary reform. On 1 March 1831, Lord John Russell brought forward the Reform Bill in the House of Commons on the government's behalf. The bill disfranchised 60 of the smallest boroughs, and reduced the representation of 47 others. Some seats were completely abolished, while others were redistributed to the London suburbs, to large cities, to the counties, and to Scotland and Ireland. Furthermore, the bill standardised and expanded the borough franchise, increasing the size of the electorate (according to one estimate) by half a million voters.
On 22 March, the vote on the second reading attracted a record 608 members, including the non-voting Speaker (the previous record was 530 members). Despite the high attendance, the second reading was approved by only one vote, and further progress on the Reform Bill was difficult. During the committee stage, Isaac Gascoyne put forward a motion objecting to provisions of the bill that reduced the total number of seats in the House of Commons. This motion was carried, against the government's wishes, by 8 votes. Thereafter, the ministry lost a vote on a procedural motion by 22 votes. As these divisions indicated that Parliament was against the Reform Bill, the ministry decided to request a dissolution and take its appeal to the people.
SECOND REFORM BILL
The political and popular pressure for reform had grown so great that pro-reform Whigs won an overwhelming House of Commons majority in the general election of 1831 . The Whig party won almost all constituencies with genuine electorates, leaving the Tories with little more than the rotten boroughs. The Reform Bill was again brought before the House of Commons, which agreed to the second reading by a large majority in July. During the committee stage, opponents of the bill slowed its progress through tedious discussions of its details, but it was finally passed in September, by a margin of more than 100 votes.
The Bill was then sent up to the House of Lords, a majority in which was known to be hostile to it. After the Whigs' decisive victory in the 1831 election, some speculated that opponents would abstain, rather than openly defy the public will. Indeed, when the Lords voted on the second reading of the bill after a memorable series of debates, many Tory peers did refrain from voting. However, the Lords Spiritual mustered in unusually large numbers, and of 22 present, 21 voted against the Bill. It failed by 41 votes.
When the Lords rejected the Reform Bill, public violence ensued. That
very evening, riots broke out in
Meanwhile, the political unions, which had hitherto been separate groups united only by a common goal, decided to form the National Political Union . Perceiving this group as a threat, the government issued a proclamation pursuant to the Corresponding Societies Act 1799 declaring such an association "unconstitutional and illegal", and commanding all loyal subjects to shun it. The leaders of the National Political Union ignored this proclamation, but leaders of the influential Birmingham branch decided to co-operate with the government by discouraging activities on a national level.
THIRD REFORM BILL
Lord Grey (painted by George Hayter ) headed the Whig ministry that ushered the Reform Bill through Parliament.
After the Reform Bill was rejected in the Lords, the House of Commons immediately passed a motion of confidence affirming their support for Lord Grey's administration. Because parliamentary rules prohibited the introduction of the same bill twice during the same session, the ministry advised the new king, William IV , to prorogue Parliament. As soon as the new session began in December 1831, the Third Reform Bill was brought forward. The bill was in a few respects different from its predecessors; it no longer proposed a reduction in the total membership of the House of Commons, and it reflected data collected during the census that had just been completed. The new version passed in the House of Commons by even larger majorities in March 1832; it was once again sent up to the House of Lords.
Realizing that another rejection would not be politically feasible, opponents of reform decided to use amendments to change the bill's essential character; for example, they voted to delay consideration of clauses in the bill that disfranchised the rotten boroughs. The ministers believed that they were left with only one alternative: to create a large number of new peerages, swamping the House of Lords with pro-reform votes. But the prerogative of creating peerages rested with the king, who recoiled from so drastic a step and rejected the unanimous advice of his cabinet. Lord Grey then resigned, and the king invited the Duke of Wellington to form a new government.
The ensuing period became known as the "
Days of May
Abolition Of Seats
Poster issued by the
The Reform Act's chief objective was the reduction of the number of nomination boroughs. There were 203 boroughs in England before the Act. The 56 smallest of these, as measured by their housing stock and tax assessments, were completely abolished. The next 30 smallest boroughs each lost one of their two MPs. In addition Weymouth and Melcombe Regis 's four members were reduced to two. Thus in total the Act abolished 143 borough seats in England (one of the boroughs to be completely abolished, Higham Ferrers , had only a single representative).
Creation Of New Seats
In their place the Act created 130 new seats in England and Wales:
* 26 English counties were divided into two divisions with each division being represented by two members. * 8 English counties and 3 Welsh counties each received an additional representative. * Yorkshire, which was represented by four MPs before the Act was given an extra two MPs (so that each of its three ridings was represented by two MPs). * 22 large towns were given two MPs. * Another 21 towns (of which two were in Wales) were given one MP.
Thus 65 new county seats and 65 new borough seats were created in England and Wales. The total number of English members fell by 17 and the number in Wales increased by four. The boundaries of the new divisions and parliamentary boroughs were defined in a separate Act, the Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832 .
Extension Of The Franchise
The Act also extended the franchise. In county constituencies, in addition to forty-shilling freeholders, franchise rights were extended to owners of land in copyhold worth £10 and holders of long-term leases (more than sixty years) on land worth £10 and holders of medium-term leases (between twenty and sixty years) on land worth £50 and to tenants-at-will paying an annual rent of £50. In borough constituencies all male householders living in properties worth at least £10 a year were given the right to vote – a measure which introduced to all boroughs a standardised form of franchise for the first time. Existing borough electors retained a lifetime right to vote, however they had qualified, provided they were resident in the boroughs in which they were electors. In those boroughs which had freemen electors, voting rights were to be enjoyed by future freemen as well provided their freemanship was acquired through birth or apprenticeship and they too were resident.
The Act also introduced a system of voter registration , to be administered by the overseers of the poor in every parish and township. It instituted a system of special courts to review disputes relating to voter qualifications. It also authorised the use of multiple polling places within the same constituency, and limited the duration of polling to two days. (Formerly, polls could remain open for up to forty days.)
The Reform Act itself did not affect constituencies in Scotland or Ireland. However, reforms there were carried out by the Scottish Reform Act and the Irish Reform Act . Scotland received eight additional seats, and Ireland received five; thus keeping the total number of seats in the House of Commons the same as it had been before the Act. While no constituencies were disfranchised in either of those countries, voter qualifications were standardised and the size of the electorate was expanded in both.
Local Conservative Associations began to educate citizens about the Party's platform and encouraged them to register to vote annually, as mandated by the Act. Press coverage of national politics in the local press was joined by in-depth reports on provincial politics in the national press. Grassroots Conservatives therefore saw themselves as part of a national political movement during the 1830s.
The size of the pre-Reform electorate is difficult to estimate. Voter registration was lacking, and many boroughs were rarely contested in elections. It is estimated that immediately before the 1832 Reform Act, 400,000 English subjects were entitled to vote, and that after passage, the number rose to 650,000, an increase of more than 60%.
Tradesmen, such as shoemakers, believed that the
Reform Act had given
them the vote. One example is the shoemakers of
Many major commercial and industrial cities became separate parliamentary boroughs under the Act. The new constituencies saw party conflicts inside the middle-class, and between the middle-class and working-class. Iwami looked at elections in the medium-sized borough of Halifax, 1832–1852, and reports that the party organizations, and the voters themselves, depended heavily on local social relationships and localized institutions. Having the vote encouraged many men to become much more active in the political, economic and social sphere.
Most of the pocket boroughs abolished by the
Reform Act belonged to
the Tory Party. These losses were somewhat offset by the extension of
the vote to tenants-at-will paying an annual rent of £50. This
clause, proposed by the Tory Marquess of Chandos , was adopted in the
House of Commons despite opposition from the Government. The
tenants-at-will thereby enfranchised typically voted as instructed by
their landlords, who in turn normally supported the Tory party. This
concession, together with the Whig Party's internal divisions and the
difficulties faced by the nation's economy, allowed the Tories under
Krein examines the votes in the House and reports that the traditional landed interest "suffered very little" by the terms of the 1832 Act. They continued to dominate Commons, while losing a bit of their power to enact laws that focused on their more parochial interests. By contrast, Krein argues, the 1867 Reform Act caused serious erosion of their legislative power and the 1874 elections saw great landowners losing their county seats to the votes of tenant farmers in England and especially in Ireland.
The Reform Act did very little to appease the working class by enfranchising them, since voters were required to possess property worth £10, a substantial sum at the time. This split the alliance between the working class and the middle class, giving rise to the Chartist Movement .
Although it did disenfranchise most rotten boroughs , a few remained, such as Totnes in Devon and Midhurst in Sussex. Also, bribery of voters remained a problem. As Sir Thomas Erskine May observed, "it was too soon evident, that as more votes had been created, more votes were to be sold".
Reform Act strengthened the House of Commons by reducing the
number of nomination boroughs controlled by peers. Some aristocrats
complained that, in the future, the government could compel them to
pass any bill, simply by threatening to swamp the
House of Lords
During the ensuing years, Parliament adopted several more minor reforms. Acts of Parliament passed in 1835 and 1836 increased the number of polling places in each constituency, and reduced polling to a single day. Parliament also passed several laws aimed at combatting corruption, including the Corrupt Practices Act 1854 , though these measures proved largely ineffectual. Neither party strove for further major reform; leading statesmen on both sides regarded the Reform Act as a final settlement.
There was considerable public agitation for further expansion of the electorate, however. In particular, the Chartist movement , which demanded universal suffrage for men, equally sized electoral districts, and voting by secret ballot , gained a widespread following. But the Tories were united against further reform, and the Liberal Party (successor to the Whigs) did not seek a general revision of the electoral system until 1852. The 1850s saw Lord John Russell introduce a number of reform bills to correct defects the first act had left unaddressed. However, no proposal was successful until 1867, when Parliament adopted the Second Reform Act .
An area the
Reform Act did not address was the issue of municipal and
regional government. As a result of archaic traditions, many English
counties had enclaves and exclaves, which were mostly abolished in the
Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844 . Furthermore, many new
conurbations and economic areas bridged traditional county boundaries
by having been formed in previously obscure areas: the West Midlands
conurbation bridged Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire,
Several historians credit the Reform Act 1832 with launching modern democracy in Britain. G. M. Trevelyan hails 1832 as the watershed moment at which "'the sovereignty of the people' had been established in fact, if not in law". Sir Erskine May notes that " reformed Parliament was, unquestionably, more liberal and progressive in its policy than the Parliaments of old; more vigorous and active; more susceptible to the influence of public opinion; and more secure in the confidence of the people", but admitted that "grave defects still remained to be considered". Other historians have taken a far less laudatory view, arguing that genuine democracy began to arise only with the Second Reform Act in 1867, or perhaps even later. Norman Gash states that "it would be wrong to assume that the political scene in the succeeding generation differed essentially from that of the preceding one". E. A. Smith proposes, in a similar vein, that "when the dust had settled, the political landscape looked much as it had done before".
Historians have long pointed out that, in 1829–31, it was the Ultra-Tories or "Country Party" which pressed most strongly for Reform, regarding it as a means of weakening Wellington's ministry, which had disappointed them by granting Catholic emancipation and by its economic policies.
Evans (1996) emphasises that the Reform Act "opened a door on a new political world". Although Grey's intentions were conservative, Evans says, and the 1832 Act gave the aristocracy an additional half-century's control of Parliament, the Act nevertheless did open constitutional questions for further development. Evans argues it was the 1832 Act, not the later reforms of 1867, 1884, or 1918, that were decisive in bringing representative democracy to Britain. Evans concludes the Reform Act marked the true beginning of the development of a recognisably modern political system.
* British politics portal
* Law of
England and Wales
List of Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, 1820–39
* List of constituencies enfranchised and disfranchised by the
Reform Act 1832
Reform Act 1832
* ^ Hans-Peter Becht: Wahlen, Wahlkämpfe und „politische
Öffentlichkeit“ als Auslöser und Indikatoren politischen Wandels
in Baden. 1818-1871, in: Ritter, Gerhard A. (Hg.): Wahlen und
Wahlkämpfe in Deutschland. Von den Anfängen im 19. Jahrhundert bis
zur Bundesrepublik. Düsseldorf 1997, pp. 17-62, here p. 18.
* ^ Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1832 (2 & 3 Wm. IV,
c. 65) and Representation of the People (Ireland) Act 1832 (2 & 3 Wm.
IV, c. 88 )
* ^ Blackstone (1765), pp. 154–155.
* ^ Blackstone (1765), p. 110
* ^ Parliamentary Representation of English Boroughs in the Middle
Ages by May McKisack, 1932.
* ^ The Elizabethan House of Commons – J E. Neale 1949 pages
133–134. Grampound was one of the 31 boroughs disenfranchised but
was disenfranchised prior to the
Reform Act in 1821.
* ^ Blackstone (1765), pp. 166–167.
* ^ "Ancient voting rights", The History of the Parliamentary
Franchise, House of Commons Library, 1 March 2013, p. 6, retrieved 16
* ^ Heater, Derek (2006). Citizenship in Britain: A History.
Edinburgh University Press. p. 107. ISBN 9780748626724 .
* ^ Phillips and Wetherell (1995), p. 413.
* ^ Thorne (1986), vol. II, pp. 331, 435, 480.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, pp. 321–322.
* ^ Thorne (1986), vol. II, p. 266.
* ^ Thorne (1986), vol. II, pp. 50, 369, 380.
* ^ London: R. Hunter.
* ^ London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green.
Bruce Mazlish (1988). James and John Stuart Mill: Father and
Son in the Nineteenth Century. Transaction Publishers. p. 86.
* ^ Rover (1967), p. 3. The rejection of the claims of certain
women to be placed on the electoral roll was subsequently confirmed,
in spite of the
Interpretation Act 1850 (13 & 14 Vict. c. 21) which
specified that the masculine gender should include the feminine unless
otherwise provided, in Chorlton v. Lings 4CP 374. In the case of
Regina v. Harrald 7QB 361 it was ruled that married women, otherwise
qualified, could not vote in municipal elections. This decision made
it clear that married women would be excluded from the operation of
any Act enfranchising women for the parliamentary vote, unless special
provision to the contrary was made.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, p. 333.
* ^ Holland and Austin (1855), vol. II, pp. 214–215.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, pp. 361–362.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, p. 340.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, p. 335.
* ^ Roderick Cavaliero (2002). Strangers in the Land: The Rise and
Decline of the British Indian Empire. I.B.Tauris. p. 65.
* ^ Cannon (1973), cap. 1.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, p. 394.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, p. 397.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, pp. 400–401.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, p. 402.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, pp. 404–406.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, pp. 406–407.
* ^ May (1896), vol. II, pp. 352–359.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, pp. 408–416.
* ^ May (1896), vol. I, p. 412.
Norman Gash (1990). Wellington: Studies in the Military and
Political Career of the First Duke of Wellington.
* Blackstone, Sir William . (1765–1769). Commentaries on the Laws
of England. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
* Gash, Norman . (1952). Politics in the Age of Peel: A Study in the
Technique of Parliamentary Representation, 1830–1850. London:
Longmans, Green, and Co.
* Lady Holland and Sarah Austin. (1855). A Memoir of the Reverend
Sydney Smith by his daughter, Lady Holland, with a Selection from his
Letters edited by Mrs Sarah Austin. 2 vols. London: Brown, Green, and
* Marcus, Jane (ed.). (2001). Women\'s Source Library Vol.VIII:
* Full original text of the Act as passed: "Cap. XLV: An Act to
amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales.". The
statutes of the
* v * t * e
Electoral reform in the
* England and Wales, 1832 * Scotland, 1832 * Ireland, 1832 * England and Wales, 1867 * Scotland, 1868 * Ireland, 1868
* Scotland, 1833 * England and Wales, 1835 * Ireland, 1840
Representation of the People Acts
* 1884 * 1918 * 1928 * 1948 * 1949 * 1969 * 1981 * 1983 * 1985 * 1989 * 1990 * 1991 * 1993 * 2000
OTHER RELATED ACTS
* Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832 * Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 * Ballot Act 1872 * Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883 * Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 * House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 * Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 * Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 * European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 * Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 * Electoral Administration Act 2006 * Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 * Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 * Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013
* Women\'s suffrage
* v * t * e
Acts of Parliament by states preceding
Kingdom of Great Britain
* Acts of the Parliament of England
* to 1483 * 1485–1601 * 1603–1641 * Interregnum (1642–1660) * 1660–1699 * 1700–1706
* Acts of the Parliament of Scotland
Acts of Parliament of the
Kingdom of Great Britain
* 1707–1719 * 1720–1739 * 1740–1759 * 1760–1779 * 1780–1800
ACTS OF THE PARLIAMENT OF IRELAND
* to 1700 * 1701–1800
* 1801–1819 * 1820–1839 * 1840–1859 * 1860–1879 * 1880–1899 * 1900–1919 * 1920–1939 * 1940–1959 * 1960–1979 * 1980–1999 * 2000 to date * Halsbury\'s Statutes * Legislation.gov.uk * Short titles
CHURCH OF ENGLAND MEASURES
Church of England
LEGISLATION OF DEVOLVED INSTITUTIONS
* Acts of the Scottish Parliament
* Acts and Measures of the National Assembly for Wales
* Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly * Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland * Orders in Council for Northern Ireland
LEGISLATION RELATING TO THE EUROPEAN UNION