b: parliament, parliamentary reform and general...

1 © Pearson Education Limited 2012

B: PARLIAMENT, PARLIAMENTARY REFORM AND GENERAL ELECTIONS

VISUALS

B1: Hustings in the Westminster constituency at the general election of 1796

Hustings were public political occasions at which candidates for election to parliament were nominated and made speeches. They were always open, usually lively and sometimes even riotous, affairs. Voters and nonvoters alike could attend and participate. Some historians have even considered them as protodemocratic, since candidates made their appeals to the public at large and needed to gauge the strength of public opinion. Before the Reform Act of 1832, hustings were particularly vigorous in constituencies which had large electorates. Westminster, captured here by the artist Robert Dighton (c17521814), was one of the biggest, with about 5000 voters.

Source: Palace of Westminster

B2: Gladstone introduces the Home Rule Bill in the House of Commons, 1886

Evans, The Shaping of Modern Britain


This was one of the great parliamentary occasions. Gladstone’s attempt to right what he considered a great wrong in Ireland split his Liberal party and was, arguably, the first nail in the Liberal coffin as one of the two main parties in the state. The key vote on the bill took place 8 June, when Gladstone’s bill was defeated by 341 votes to 311. Nearly one hundred of his own supporters voted against it. The Liberals lost heavily in the general election which followed shortly afterwards.

Source: Orphan Work

B3: The House of Lords passes the Parliament Act, 1911

On 10 August, the Lords narrowly voted (131114) to pass the Parliament Bill, for which there had been substantial majorities in the Commons for two years. The struggle to get the bill through had been bitter. The Parliament Act prevented the Lords from vetoing legislation passed by the Commons. After 1911, they were permitted to delay the passage of ‘money bills’ (those which involved taxation and most other budget matters) by a maximum of a month and other forms of legislation by two years.



Source: Orphan Work



SIGNIFICANT STATISTICS

1. Before 1832, electors in most constituencies were not put to the trouble of casting a vote. In any 18 th century general election, it was rare for more than one third of constituencies to have a contest. The control of some great landowners in some places was so firm that no contest might take place for decades. Bere Alston (in Devon), West Looe (Cornwall) and NewtonleWillows (Lancashire) did not experience an election throughout the period 17011831. The largest proportion of contests between 1780 and 1832 occurred in 1818, when 38 per cent of constituencies polled.

2. In terms of enfranchisement, the most radical parliamentary reform Act before ‘votes for women’ became a reality in 1918 was the Third – the one which is least studied. While the ‘Great’ Reform Act increased the proportion of adult males who could vote only from 13 per cent to 18 per cent, and the Second Reform Act (1867) increased it from 18 per cent to 36 per cent, the Act of 1884 saw almost twothirds of adult males enfranchised and a much larger proportion of constituencies in which working men were in the majority.

3. Despite its reputation, the Representation of the People Act (1918) deserves to be remembered as much for establishing ‘universal manhood suffrage’ as for giving women votes. This Act increased the overall electorate from 7.7m to 21.4. Of the new voters, about 8m were women but almost 6m were men.



B.i PARLIAMENTARY REFORM AND THE FRANCHISE

B.i.1 Major proposals for parliamentary reform, 1783–1830

May 1783: Pitt’s said his objective was ‘not to innovate, but rather to renew and invigorate the spirit of the Constitution, without deteriorating materially from its present form’.

(a) Measures to be taken to deter bribery at elections.

(b) Boroughs convicted by a Select Committee of the House of corruption to be disfranchised.

(c) An unspecified addition to the number of MPs representing both counties and metropolitan boroughs.

Defeated in the Commons by 293 votes to149

April 1785: Pitt’s proposals

(a) To ‘buy out’ voluntarily 36 small boroughs by compensating electors for their lost rights.

(b) Seats then vacated (maximum 72) would be transferred to counties and to London.

(c) Fortyshilling copyholders and some leaseholders to be added to the county electorate.

Defeated in the Commons by 248 votes to 174

May 1797: Grey’s motion

(a) To increase county representation from 92 MPs to 113, taking the seats from certain small boroughs.

(b) Extension of county franchise to copyholders and leaseholders.

(c) Borough members to be elected on a householder franchise. (Based on resolutions of the Society of the Friends of the People in 1794.)


1809: Curwen’s Act prohibited the sale of seats in the House of Commons passed but it had little practical effect.

May 1810: Thomas Brand’s motion

(a) County franchise to be extended to copyholders.

(b) Borough MPs to be elected by householders paying parish rates. ‘Decayed’ ancient boroughs to be disfranchised and their seats transferred to larger towns which currently had no direct representation.

(c) Patrons of disfranchised boroughs to be compensated.



(d) Elections to parliament to be held every three years


April 1822: Lord John Russell’s motion

The 100 smallest boroughs to lose one of their two MPs and their seats transferred to counties and unenfranchised towns.


1826: The parliamentary borough of Grampound (Cornwall) was disfranchised for corrupt practices at the recent general election. Its two seats were added to the existing two for the largest county: Yorkshire.

1829: Irish Parliamentary Elections Act, passed in the wake of Roman Catholic Emancipation, raised the qualification for freeholders to vote from property worth £2 to £10, thus preventing a large increase in the Catholic vote.

B.i.2 Major proposals for parliamentary reform, 1852–1866

February 1852: Russell’s bill: Vote to be extended to householders to the value of £20 in the counties and £5 in the towns.

The Bill failed when the Russell government resigned.

February 1854: Russell’s bill

(a) Vote to be extended to £10 householders in the counties and £6 householders in the boroughs.

(b) Sixtysix small boroughs to be disfranchised and seats transferred – 46 to the counties, 17 to the boroughs, 2 to the Inns of Court and 1 to London University.

The bill was withdrawn when Crimean War began in September 1854

February 1859: Derby’s bill

(a) Vote to be extended to £10 householders in both county and borough seats.

(b) A lodger franchise of £20 per year to be introduced.

(c) Fortyshilling freeholders living in a borough must vote in that borough and not in adjacent county.

(d) Seventy small boroughs to be disfranchised and their seats transferred, – eighteen to large boroughs and fiftytwo to the counties.

(e) Vote also extended to members of certain professions, government pensioners, university graduates and those with deposits of at least £60 in savings banks. John Bright called these the ‘Fancy franchises’.



The bill was defeated in the Commons by 330 votes to 291. The Derby government resigned and lost the general election which followed.

March 1860: Russell’s bill

(a) Vote to be extended to £10 county householders and £6 borough householders.

(b) A small redistribution of seats was proposed.

Because of limited support from Palmerston as prime minister and lack of unity in the Liberal party, the bill was withdrawn in June 1860.

March 1866: Russell’s bill

(a) Vote to be extended to householders who paid at least £14 in rent to their landlords in county seats and £7 in the boroughs.

(b) A lodger franchise to be introduced for those paying rent of at least £10 a year.

(c) Vote to be extended to those with deposits of at least £50 in savings banks.

(d) Fortynine small boroughs to be disfranchised. Boroughs with populations of less than 8,000 to be grouped together. In the redistribution, twentysix seats were to go to counties, twenty two to the boroughs and one to London University.

A Conservative amendment was carried in the Commons by 335 votes to 304 on 18 June. Russell’s government resigned a week later and the bill fell.

Additionally, seven motions to introduce a secret ballot at elections were introduced without success between 1851 and 1864.

B.i.3 Parliamentary Reform Act (England & Wales), 1832

1. Changes in distribution of seats in England & Wales

(a) Boroughs: Fiftysix borough constituencies disenfranchised and thirty lose one of their two members.

(b) Boroughs: Twentytwo new doublemember and twenty new singlemember borough constituencies created.

(c) Overall, the number of borough seats in England & Wales was reduced from 417 to 337.

(d) Redistribution of county seats: Yorkshire to have six county members; twentysix counties elect four county members instead of two; seven counties to elect three members instead of two; Isle of Wight detached from Hampshire to return a single member.

(e) Overall, the number of county seats in England & Wales was increased from 92 to 159



2. Main qualifications for the franchise in England &Wales

The following were entitled to register for a vote in parliamentary elections

In county seats:

(a) adult males owning freehold property worth at least 40s (£2) per annum.

(b) adult males with copyhold land worth at least £10 per annum.

(c) adult males leasing or renting land worth at least £50 per annum (Chandos amendment).

In borough seats:

(a) adult males owning or occupying property worth at least £10 per annum, provided that:

(i) they had been in possession of the property for at least one year and had paid all contingent taxes arising from the property;

(ii) they had not received any parochial poor relief in the previous year.

(b) Pre1832 franchise holders kept their rights in their lifetimes provided they lived in, or within seven miles of, the borough in which they wished to vote. They could not pass on voting rights to their heirs and successors.

A register of voters was to be established in borough and county seats.

B.i.4 Parliamentary Reform Act (Scotland), 1832

1. Changes in distribution of seats in Scotland

(a) Boroughs: the number of borough seats was increased from fifteen to twentythree, with Glasgow & Edinburgh each returning two members, Aberdeen, Dundee, Greenock, Paisley and Perth each returning one member while smaller boroughs were grouped together to return fourteen members in all.

(b) Counties: the total number of members returned remained at thirty. Each county was to return one member each except that the following pairs of adjacent counties returned one member per grouping: Clackmannan & Kinross; Elgin & Nairn; Ross & Cromarty

2. Main qualifications for the franchise in Scotland


In county seats:

(a) adult males owning property worth at least £10 per annum.

(b) adult male leaseholders with a lease duration of at least 57 years on property worth at least £10 per annum.



(c) adult male leaseholders with a lease duration of at least 19 years on property worth at least £50 per annum.

(d) adult male leaseholders who had paid a minimum of £500 for their lease.

In borough seats:

(a) adult males owning or occupying property worth at least £10 per annum, provided that:

(i) they had been in possession of the property for at least one year and had paid all contingent taxes arising from the property;

(ii) they had not received any parochial poor relief in the previous year.

(b) Those entitled to vote at parliamentary election now did so directly, rather than being elected by burgh councils as before

B.i.5 Parliamentary Reform Act (Ireland), 1832

1. Changes in distribution of seats in Ireland

(a) Boroughs: the number of borough seats was increased from thirtyfive to thirtynine, one additional member being given to the boroughs of Belfast, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. The University of Dublin was also given a second seat

(b) Counties: No change to the situation created by the Act of Union in 1800. Each of the thirtytwo Irish counties returned two members to the Westminster parliament.

2. Main qualifications for the franchise in Ireland


In county seats:

(a) adult males who owned property worth at least £10 a year

(b) adult male leaseholders the annual value of whose land was worth at least £10 a year, provided that the lease had a duration of at least twenty years.

In borough seats:

(a) adult males who occupied property worth at least £10 a year*

(b) in places which were designated as ‘counties of cities’, owners and leaseholders of property worth at least £10 a year

(c) Pre1832 franchise holders kept their rights in their lifetimes but could not pass on voting rights to their heirs and successors.

• It is worth noting that Protestant owners of land worth only 40 shillings (£2) had been entitled to vote in elections for the Westminster Parliament from 1801 to 1829. Although Roman Catholic Emancipation in 1829 gave adult male Catholics a vote, the threshold



for voting was raised from £2 to £10, thus excluding all but the more prosperous landowners from the franchise.

B.i.6 Irish Franchise Act, 1850

Main terms

(a) Qualification for the borough franchise was reduced from £10 to £8

(b) In the counties, the qualification to vote was based on occupation of property rather than on an ownership or leasehold requirement. The qualifying rental value was set at £12 a year

B.i.7 Parliamentary Reform Act (England and Wales) 1867 (Second Reform Act)

1. Changes in the distribution of seats in England and Wales

Boroughs

(a) Three doublemember and one singlemember parliamentary boroughs – Lancaster, Reigate, Totnes & Great Yarmouth – were disfranchised for corruption.

(b) Thirtyeight boroughs with populations lower than 10,000 lost one of their two members.

(c) In 1868 (see B.ii.vi below), seven of England’s smallest parliamentary boroughs – Arundel, Ashburton, Dartmouth, Honiton, Lyme Regis, Thetford and Wells lost all direct representation

(d) Two new doublemember and nine new singlemember borough constituencies created.

(e) The largest provincial cities Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester – now returned three, rather than two, members.

(f) Overall, the number of borough seats in England & Wales was reduced from 337 to 304 and the number of University seats increased from four to five, with a seat for the London University added to the two each for Oxford and Cambridge

Counties

(a) Ten counties elect three additional members each, while Lancashire elects three additional members and Yorkshire’s West Riding elects two further members.

(b) Overall, the number of county seats in England & Wales was increased from 159 to 184.

2. Main qualifications for the franchise in England and Wales


In county seats:



(a) Adult males who either owned lands with a clear yearly value of at least £5, or held them on leases running for sixty years or more.

(b) Adult male occupiers of lands with a rateable value of at least £12 per annum who were paying poor rates on the property.

(c) Adult males not qualified under (a) or (b) who qualified under the terms of the 1832 Reform Act

In borough seats:

(a) Adult male owners and occupiers of dwellinghouses, if resident in their properties for at least twelve months.

(b) Lodgers occupying lodging houses worth at least £10 rental per annum, if lodging for at least twelve months.

The Minority Clause

In both county and borough seats which returned three members to Parliament no elector could vote for more than two candidates; in the fourseat constituency of the City of London no elector could vote for more than three candidates.

B.i.8 Parliamentary Reform Act (Scotland), 1868

1. Changes in the distribution of seats in Scotland

Burghs

(a) The representation of both Glasgow was increased from two to three members and that of Dundee from one to two members

(b) A new burgh constituency – Hawick Burghs was created. It returned one member to Parliament

(c) Scottish Universities sent MPs to Parliament for the first time: electors from the Universities of Edinburgh & St Andrews sent one member between them, as did electors from the Universities of Glasgow & Aberdeen

(d) Overall, the number of burgh seats in Scotland increased from 23 to 26. Additionally, two University seats were created

Counties

(a) The representation of Aberdeenshire, Ayrshire and Lanarkshire was increased from one to two Members of Parliament

(b) The counties of Selkirk and Peebles were merged for the purpose of returning one Member

(c) Overall, the number of county seats in Scotland increased from thirty to thirtytwo.



The intention was that the total number of Members returned to the House of Commons should remain the same as before at 658. Thus, the seven additional members elected to represent Scottish constituencies (two County, three Burgh and two University) were counterbalanced by the removal from the list of constituencies of seven of the smallest English boroughs, all but one of them in the south of England.

2. Main qualifications for the franchise in Scotland


In county seats

(a) Adult males who either owned lands with a clear yearly value of at least £5, or held them on leases running for sixty years or more.

(b) Adult male occupiers of lands with a rateable value of at least £14 per annum who were paying poor rates on the property.

(c) Adult males not qualified under (a) or (b) who qualified under the terms of the 1832 Reform Act

In burgh seats:

(a) Adult male owners and occupiers of dwellinghouses, if resident in their properties for at least twelve months.

(b) Lodgers occupying lodging houses worth at least £10 rental per annum, if lodging for at least twelve months.

The Minority Clause operated similarly in Scotland as in England (see B.ii.v above).

B.i.9 Parliamentary Reform Act (Ireland), 1868

1. The Distribution of seats in Ireland:

There were no major changes in the distribution of parliamentary seats in Ireland, except that the boundaries of parliamentary boroughs were altered in some instances to ensure that they became the same as those of municipal boroughs.

2. Main changes in qualification for the franchise in Ireland

The following were entitled to register for a vote in parliamentary elections:

In county seats, the franchise qualification remained unchanged from those established in the Irish Franchise Act of 1850 (see B.ii.4 above)

In borough seats,

(a) Adult male owners or occupiers of dwelling houses with a clear yearly value of at least £4



(b) Lodgers occupying lodging houses worth at least £10 rental per annum, if lodging for at least twelve months

B.i.10 An Act to Amend the Law relating to procedure at parliamentary and municipal elections, 1872

This legislation is much better known as the Ballot Act. It gave electors the right to cast their vote (or ‘ballot’) in secret. As its full title indicates, this right extended to local, as well as to parliamentary, elections. This legislation was initially to run until 1880 and its terms were reviewed every year thereafter until its provisions were made permanent under the Representation of the People Act in 1918. The Act proved generally very effective and was especially important in Ireland where tenants could now freely vote against candidates supported by their landlords. The Act was an important reason for the emergence of Irish nationalism as a parliamentary force from the late 1870s onwards.

B.i.11 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883

Main terms

(a) ‘Corrupt practice’ at elections was defined to include: bribery, treating, use of undue influence, assaulting, abducting or impersonating a voter

(b) Fines or imprisonment prescribed for those convicted of corrupt practice. Candidates and those elected by use of corrupt practice could be permanently excluded from the constituency and excluded from the House of Commons for up to seven years

(c) ‘Illegal practices’ at elections covered: infringement of published rules concerning financial accounts and the use of election agents

(d) Those convicted were liable to fines and exclusion from public office and the exercise of voting rights for up to five years

(e) Maximum allowable expenses were prescribed for constituencies of different sizes and types. For a constituency with 2,000 voters, election expenses were not to exceed £710 with an additional £40 for every extra thousand voters.

B.i.12 Parliamentary Reform Act, 1884 (Third Reform Act)

Main Terms

(a) A uniform household and (£10) lodger franchise was established in counties and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom. The basis used for qualification was that determined by the Second Reform Act of 1867, including a oneyear residential qualification.

(b) Adult males inhabiting a dwelling house in the role of an employee, but whose employer did not live there, were treated as occupying tenants for purposes of qualifying for the vote



(c) Subdivision of properties in the same constituency to create more than one qualification to vote in that constituency was prohibited.

(d) Adult males

B.i.13 Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885

(a) This Act made the number of constituents in each parliamentary constituency much less unequal than had previously been the case. The work of redistribution was placed in the hands of politically neutral ‘boundary commissioners’. In all, 160 parliamentary seats were redistributed.

(b) In England and Wales, 79 towns with populations fewer than 15,000 were entirely disfranchised. 22 Irish boroughs were disfranchised and 2 Scottish burghs. The English boroughs of Macclesfield and Sandwich were disfranchised for corruption

(c) 36 towns with populations between 15,000 and 50,000 lost one of their two MPs

(d) All towns with populations between 50,000 and 165,000 returned two MPs to parliament

(e) 25 boroughs (21 English, 1 Welsh, 1 Scottish and 1 Irish) still returned two MPs. Electors could use two votes in these constituencies. Elsewhere, singlemember constituencies were established.

(f) The larger UK cities now returned a number of members broadly proportion to their population size. Parliamentary seats were allocated as follows:

Liverpool: 8

Birmingham, Glasgow and the Tower Hamlets district of east London: 7 each

Manchester: 6

Leeds: 5

Belfast, Dublin and Edinburgh: 4 each

(g) County seats were redistributed in a broadly proportional way. Those with the highest populations were given the largest number of seats. Lancashire was allocated 24 county seats and Yorkshire’s three Ridings between them returned 25 county members.

(h) The county seats were divided into ‘districts’. Each county district returned one member.

This redistribution increased the number of MPs sitting in the House of Commons from 658 (although in practice 652 from 1870 to 1885 because of four English and two Irish constituencies) to 670. This number remained stable until 1914.



B.i.14 Parliament Act, 1911

Main terms

(a) The House of Lords’ powers to reject money bills coming to them from the House of Commons was ended

(b) The Lords could reject other bills but a timelimit was imposed. In practice, if the Commons passed a bill in three successive sessions of parliament, the Lords’ power of veto expired after two years. A bill which was first presented in the House of Lords and was supported by the Commons, however, could still be blocked indefinitely if there was no Lords majority for it.

(c) The maximum length of a Parliament, which had stood at seven years since 1716, was reduced to five. [This reduction was almost immediately ignored because of the outbreak of the First World War. The parliament elected in December 1910 was not dissolved and a general election called until November 1918.]

(d) In associated legislation, Members of Parliament who were not ministers received a salary for the first time. A Bill, strongly supported by the Labour Party, was passed in the Commons by 265 votes to 173. The annual salary was initially set at £400. Government ministers did not receive a salary for their duties until the passage of the Ministers of the Crown Act in 1937.



Bii Parliament and Parties, the Electorate and Elections

B.ii.1 A note on parties and political groupings in the House of Commons, 1784–1832

It is not possible to offer any clear indication of the state of parties after each General Election in this period. Most elections in any case did not result in any marked change of allegiance between parties; none directly caused a change of government, though the 1830 Election sensibly weakened Wellington’s. The two great shifts in parliamentary strength after elections – 1784 and 1807 – reflected massively increased support for new governments already installed by George III.

Nor are party allegiances reliable guides. Though subsequent historians have pinned the label on to him cheerfully enough, the younger Pitt would never accept that he was a Tory. This title was accepted only by his direct political descendants: Liverpool, Canning and Peel. Similarly, the vicissitudes of the Whigs reflect splits as well as loss of support. Some kind of continuity can be claimed from the Rockingham Whigs, through the Foxite reformers of the 1790s and the opposition to Liverpool’s long administration to the eventual emergence of Grey’s government in 1830. Such continuity, which can be further traced into Liberalism in the 1840s and 1850s, should not obscure the fact that the Portland Whigs who joined the Pitt government did so with no sense of desertion from Whiggery. Rather they saw themselves as defenders of the true spirit of the 1688 Revolution in an age threatened by ‘Jacobins and Atheists’.

It may be more helpful to talk of political groupings rather than parties. The estimates below draw on calculations made by party managers. They frequently got their sums wrong and only limited reliance should be placed on them. Solid quantification is not possible given the fluid condition of party allegiance and the continuing strength of independent MPs. The task is made harder by the fact that very few divisions attracted the votes of even as many of onehalf of the members of the Commons. Except for the committed politicians, the general rule as late as 1830 was arrival in London after the parliamentary session had begun and departure well before it finished. This was not infrequently exploited by government managers anxious to smuggle contentious legislation through a thin House early or late in the session. Party strengths, therefore, tended to fluctuate more within a particular session because of absence than between elections as a result of measurable shifts of opinion.

When ministries were firmly established, also, there was a tendency both for opposition to operate more formally and also for opposition support to dwindle. Thus, the Whigs could call upon only between 30 and 60 supporters in divisions immediately before the 1818 Election. However, the election of that year, fought in a difficult economic climate for the government, resulted in the return of perhaps 175 members favourably disposed to the opposition. On particular issues, especially those affecting taxation and expenditure, opposition and independents could combine seriously to embarrass the government or even defeat it. In 1816, most notably, this combination resulted in a defeat for Liverpool by about 40 votes on a government motion to retain Pitt’s wartime expedient of an income tax. Even such a severe rebuff, however, did not pose a threat to the government’s continued existence. Both parties knew that on any issue of confidence, the independents would return to their natural haven and support the government.

In the estimates which follow it is important to remember that in normal circumstances the opposition was the most clearly identifiable group in the Commons apart from ministers



themselves. Given the usual predisposition of genuine independents to support the government in the interests of stability, the distinction between administration supporters and independents or the uncommitted was hazy. It is safe to assume that the government could hope to entice far more of the uncommitted into its lobby on any issue of confidence than could the opposition. In other words, figures for the opposition should be regarded as near maxima; government support, though more amorphous, was potentially much greater. Indeed, during the Liverpool administration, those formally committed to the government rarely exceeded 60 or 70, as the power of patronage perceptibly diminished. Government majorities which in a moderately full division fell as low as the size of this formal support were regarded as embarrassing.

Government also had cause for concern if, despite obtaining majorities in the House, its support was falling among county members and those who represented borough seats with electorates sufficiently large to be proof against aristocratic management. It was most noticeable in the ostensibly indecisive election of 1830 that the government fared badly in county and ‘open’ borough seats. Wellington’s obvious lack of public support in those constituencies where it could be effectively expressed was damaging and led to a further erosion of support among those independents who normally voted with the government. His administration lasted barely three months after the results were known.

The following estimates attempt to capture key stages in changing political alignments.

B.ii.2 Estimates of party strength, 17831832

(a) John Robinson’s estimate of the strength of parties on Pitt’s accession to power, December 1783

Supporters of the FoxNorth coalition 231

Supporters of Pitt 149

Independents leaning towards Pitt 104

Independents leaning towards Fox 74

(b) State of the parties after General Election, March 1784

Pittites 315

Foxites and Northites 213

Independents and ‘doubtfuls’ 30



These figures include large numbers of independent members who declared themselves either for Pitt or for Fox on the hustings but who would not consider themselves ‘party men’. One estimate puts the Whig opposition at 132 after 1784, including over 60 supporters of the Fox–Portland connection and over 50 followers of Lord North.

(c) State of the parties in 1788

Government: Pitt 280

Opposition: PortlandFox group with followers of North 155

Independents 122

(d) State of the parties after the Whig split July 1794

Supporters of Pitt. This estimate includes notionally independent MPs who generally supported the government on important issues 426

Portland Whigs 77

Foxite Whigs 55

(e) State of the parties at the accession of the Ministry of All the Talents, 1806

Supporters of the ministry 260

Independents, but leaning to the ministry 176

Opposition (Pittites) 108

Independent, but leaning to the opposition 110

(f) State of the parties after the 1806 Election

Supporters of the Talents ministry 308

Independent, but leaning to the ministry 151

Opposition (Pittites) 90


(g) State of the parties after the 1807 Election

Supporters of the Portland ministry 216

Independent, but leaning to the ministry 154

Opposition (Foxites and Grenvillites) 213


(h) State of the parties after the Election of 1818

Supporters of Liverpool (Tories) 280

Opposition (Whigs) 175

Doubtful or uncommitted 203



(i) State of the parties after the Election of 1830

Government supporters (WellingtonPeel Tories) 250

Opposition supporters

(Whigs, Canningite and Huskissonite Tories) 196


(j) State of the parties after the Election of 1831

Proreform (Whigs) 370

Antireform (Tories) 235


Sources: (ed.) R.G.Thorne, The Commons, 17901820, Vol I of the History of Parliament, 17901820 (1986); (ed.) D.R. Fisher, The House of Commons, 182032, Vol I of the History of Parliament, 182032 (2009); J. Cannon, Parliamentary Reform 1640–1832 (2nd edn, 1980); F. O’Gorman, The Whig Party and the French Revolution (1967); W.A.Hay, The Whig Revival, 180830 (2005) L. G. Mitchell, The Whig World (2005); A. Mitchell, The Whigs in Opposition, 1815–30 (1967); J. E. Cookson, Lord Liverpool’s Administration: the crucial years, 1815–22 (1975); P.J.Jupp, The Governing of Britain, 16881848 (2006)

B.ii.3 Approximate size of the electorate, 1831–1911

Figures are in 000s

1831 1833 1852 1865 1868 1880 1885 1910 (Dec)

England 409 610 858 970 1880 2339 4095 5775

Wales 30 42 55 62 127 15 282 426

Scotland 5 64 99 105 231 294 561 779

Ireland 76 92 164 204 223 229 738 684

Universities 7 7 9 11 22 29 33 47

TOTAL 527 815 1176 1352 2483 3041 5709 7711

(The totals slightly exceed those in table B.ii.3 below. This is because graduates of the ancient universities are only included here. After the First Reform Act, they never exceeded 1% of the total electorate and their impact on the outcome of general elections was negligible.)



B.ii.4 Impact of the Reform Acts on the approximate size of the electorate, 18311911

Electorate Proportion of adult Increase in

males enfranchised percentage of voters

1831: England & Wales 439,000 13 –

Scotland 4,579 1 –

Ireland 75,960 3 –

UK TOTAL 519,539

After the 1832 Reform Acts:

1832: England & Wales 651,535 18 48

Scotland 64,447 11 (14fold)

Ireland 92,152 7 21

UK TOTAL 808,134 16 56

1865: England & Wales 1,031,752 18 –

Scotland 105,608 14 –

Ireland 200,242 15 –

UK TOTAL 1,337,602

After the 18678 Reform Acts

1868: England & Wales 2,007,753 36 95

Scotland 231,376 30 119

Ireland 223,400 16 12

UK TOTAL 2,462,529 34 84

1880: England & Wales 2,488,650 38

Scotland 293,581 33

Ireland 229,204 17

UK TOTAL 3,011,435



After the 1884 Reform Act

1885: England & Wales 4,376,916 63 76

Scotland 560,580 61 91

Ireland 737,965 59 222

UK TOTAL 5,675,461 61 88

1910: England & Wales 6,200,636 63

(Dec) Scotland 779,012 62

Ireland 683,767 54

UK TOTAL 7,663,415

Note Figures are approximations. It is impossible to be sure how far plural voting affected total figures of the electorate. Estimations of population derive from census material and extrapolation of trends in inter–censual estimates.

Source: C.Rollings & M.Thrasher, British Electoral Facts (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2007)

B.ii.5 The Changing Composition of the House of Commons in the nineteenth century

These four tables indicate how the distribution of seats changed because, respectively, of the Act of Union between Britain and Ireland (1800), the First Reform Act (1832), the Second Reform Acts (1867 & 1868) and the Redistribution of Seats Act (1885). From 17801800, the distribution of seats was identical to that of 1801 for England, Wales and Scotland. Ireland had no direct representation in the Westminster parliament and the total number of members in the House of Commons was 558.

The national status of Monmouth and Monmouthshire was ambiguous as between England and Wales. However, during the nineteenth century, both the borough and its surrounding county were considered as part of England for most official purposes. Accordingly, the county and borough seats have been allocated to England in the following table:

1801 England Wales Scotland Ireland TOTAL

County seats 80 12 30 64 186

Borough seats 405 12 15 35 467

University seats 4 – – 1 5

TOTALS 489 (74%) 24 (4%) 45 (7%) 100 (15%) 658




County seats 144 15 30 64 253


University seats 4 – – 2 6

TOTALS 471 (72%) 29 (4%) 53 (8%) 105 (16%) 658


County seats 169 15 32 64 280


University seats 5 – 2 2 9

TOTALS 464 (71%) 29 (4%) 60 (9%) 105 (16%) 658


County seats 233 20 39 85 377


University seats 5 – 2 2 9

TOTALS 464 (69%) 31 (5%) 72 (11%) 103 (15%) 670

Source: C.Rollings & M.Thrasher, British Electoral Facts (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2007)

B.ii.6 General Election Results, 18321910

Parties Seats Won Proportion of vote won Result

1832: Whig/Liberal 441 66.7 Whig/Lib majority 224

Tory/Conservative 175 29.4

Radicals/reformers 42 3.9

1835: Liberal 385 57.4 Lib majority 112

Conservative 273 42.6



1841: Liberal 271 46.9

Conservative 367 50.9 Con majority 76



Irish Repealers* 20 2.1

1847: Liberal 292 53.9 No overall majority

Conservatives/Lib

Conservatives 325 42.2

Irish Repealers 36 3.1

Chartist 1 0.6

Others 2 0.2

1852: Liberal 324 58.4




Irish Repealers 13 17







1874: Liberal 242 52.0


Irish Home Rule 60 3.7



Irish Home Rule 63 2.8



Irish Parliamentary 86 6.9



Independent Liberal 15 1.7

Independent Conservative 2 0.3

LibLab 1 0.2

1886: Liberal 192 41.8

Conservative and

Liberal Unionists 393 51.1 Con majority 116





Independent Labour 3 0.5

1895: Liberal 177 45.7



1900: Liberal 183 44.7



Labour 2 1.6

1906: Liberal 397 49.4 Liberal majority 125



Labour 30 4.8

1910 (Jan): Liberal 275 43.6 No overall majority



Labour 40 7.0

‘All for Ireland’ 8 0.4

Independent nationalist 3 0.4



1910 (Dec): Liberal 272 43.2 No overall majority



Labour 42 6.3

‘All for Ireland’ 8 1.2

Independent nationalist 2 0.0

Notes:

1. The apparent precision of these figures is misleading. Rather, they should be seen as rough guides to the strength of the two major parties, especially since party allegiance in the period before 1860, was not particularly secure and many of those allocated to one party or another in these computations would have wished to be considered as ‘independent’ rather than Liberal or Conservative.

2. In the general elections held from 184757, there is a strong case for separating ‘Peelites’ from either Liberals or Conservatives. This has not been done here because Peelites’ primary allegiance was first to Peel himself and, after his death in 1850, to his legacy. If this had been done, about 90 ‘Peelites’ might have been separately listed as such in 1847 rather than, as some historians would argue, dubiously ‘inflating’ the numbers in the Conservative column. Although neither of the major parties had an overall majority, in practice Russell’s government held generally secure majorities in the Commons from late 1846 until 1850.

3. Irish MPs listed here as ‘Repealers’ or as members of the ‘Irish Parliamentary Party’ were all nationalists of one form or another. Their influence as a coherent minority party, especially in the 1870s and 1880s, was significant.

• * Irish repealers wished to get rid of the Act of Union linking Ireland with Great Britain

• # Liberal Conservatives were those Conservatives who supported Peel when he repealed the Corn Laws. They were often known as ‘Peelites’ although they did not function as a separate party. On major economic issues, they generally sided with the Liberals, thus enabling the Liberals to form a government

• @ Liberal Unionists had broken with Gladstone over Home Rule and increasingly co operated with the Conservatives. In effect, they operated as a single party, although they did not formally join as the ‘Conservative and Unionist Party’ until 1912.

Sources: F.W.S. Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results, 183285 (Macmillan, London, 1977) and British Parliamentary Election Results, 18851918 (Macmillan, London, 1974). C.Rallings and M.Thrasher, British Electoral Facts (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2007)



B.ii.7 Voters and numbers of seats uncontested in parliamentary elections, 17841831

Number of contests Percentage of contests

1784 72 29.6

1790 76 31.3

1796 60 24.7

1802 73 30.0

1806 65 26.8

1807 71 29.2

1812 57 23.5

1818 93 38.3

1820 73 30.0

1826 88 36.2

1830 83 34.1

1831 75 30.9

Average percentage of contests in the general elections of 17841831 inclusive: 30.4

B.ii.8 Votes Cast at General Elections, 18321910, and Unopposed Elections

Total no of votes cast MPs returned Percentage of

at general elections unopposed constituencies without

a contest

1832: 827,776 189 28.7

1835: 611,137 278 41.8

1837: 798,025 236 35.9

1841: 593,445 337 51.2

1847: 482,429 367 55.9

1852: 743,904 255 39.0

1857: 716,552 328 50.2

1859: 565,500 379 58.0

1865: 854,856 303 46.0

1868: 2,333,251 212 32.2

1874: 2,466,037 187 28.7



1880: 3,359,416 109 16.7

1885: 4,638,235 43 6.4

1886: 2,865,265 224 33.4

1892: 4,598,319 63 9.4

1895: 3,866,282 189 28.2

1900: 3,523,482 243 36.3

1906: 5,626,091 114 17.0

1910 (Jan): 6,667,400 75 11.2

1910 (Dec): 5,235,238 163 24.3

A note on electoral contests:

This table shows the dangers of assuming that, after the socalled ‘Great’ Reform Act of 1832, the electorate became heavily engaged in a participatory electoral process. In six of the twenty general elections held between the passing of the First Reform Act and the First World War, at least 40 per cent of MPs were returned unopposed. Conservative MPs, many of them firmly entrenched in county seats, were more likely than were Liberals to be spared a contest. In Peel’s election victory of 1841, 212 of the 367 Conservatives returned were unopposed. Over the whole period, unopposed Conservatives outnumbered unopposed Liberals in a ratio of almost five to three.

However, by the end of the nineteenth century, contested elections were much more the norm. Although almost a quarter of MPs were returned unopposed in the last general election before the First World War, one important effect of parliamentary reform Acts was to increase the number of electoral contests, as the following table, showing the number of uncontested seats in the UK, indicates:

183265: 45.1

186880: 25.9

18851910: 20.8

Furthermore, the overall proportion of uncontested seats in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was boosted by the small number of contests in Ireland as the electorate outside Ulster overwhelmingly supported candidates who wished to repeal of the Union and the establishment of a fully independent Ireland. In 1906, seventyfour of the eightythree Irish nationalists returned to the UK parliament were unopposed.

Sources: J. Cannon, Parliamentary Reform 1640–1832 (2nd edn, 1980); F. W. S. Craig, British Parliamentary Election Results, 1832–85 (1977). C.Rallings and M.Thrasher, British Electoral Facts (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2007)

b: parliament, parliamentary reform and general...

Documents