Hubbry Logo
Reform Act 1867Reform Act 1867Main
Open search
Reform Act 1867
Community hub
Reform Act 1867
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Reform Act 1867
Reform Act 1867
Reform Act 1867
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Representation of the People Act 1867[1]
Act of Parliament
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long titleAn Act further to amend the Laws relating to the Representation of the People in England and Wales.
Citation30 & 31 Vict. c. 102
Territorial extent United Kingdom
Dates
Royal assent15 August 1867
Other legislation
Amended byStatute Law Revision Act 1875
Relates toReform Act 1884
Status: Amended
Text of statute as originally enacted
Text of the Representation of the People Act 1867 as in force today (including any amendments) within the United Kingdom, from legislation.gov.uk.
Contemporary cartoon of Mr Punch (right) observing as Disraeli outpaces Gladstone (left) and John Bright (behind him) at the Derby, parodying the perceived victor in debates in a split Liberal-led Commons while Disraeli's fellow Conservative, Lord Derby led as Prime Minister from the House of Lords.

The Representation of the People Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102), known as the Reform Act 1867 or the Second Reform Act, is an act of the British Parliament that enfranchised part of the urban male working class in England and Wales for the first time, extending the franchise from landowners of freehold property above a certain value, to leaseholders and rental tenants as well. It took effect in stages over the next two years, culminating in full commencement on 1 January 1869.[2][3]

Before the act, one million of the seven million adult men in England and Wales could vote; the act immediately doubled that number. Further, by the end of 1868 all male heads of household could vote, having abolished the widespread mechanism of the deemed rentpayer or ratepayer being a superior lessor or landlord who would act as middleman for the money paid ("compounding"). The act introduced a near-negligible redistribution of seats, far short of the urbanisation and population growth since 1832.

The overall intent was to help the Conservative Party, Benjamin Disraeli expecting a reward for his sudden and sweeping backing of the reforms discussed, yet it resulted in their loss of the 1868 general election.

Background

[edit]

For the decades after the Reform Act 1832 (the First Reform Act), cabinets (in that era leading from both Houses) had resisted attempts to push through further reform, and in particular left unfulfilled the six demands of the Chartist movement. After 1848, this movement declined rapidly, but elite opinion began to pay attention.[4] It was thus only 27 years after the initial, quite modest, Great Reform Act 1832 that leading politicians thought it prudent to introduce further electoral reform. Following an unsuccessful attempt by Benjamin Disraeli to introduce a reform bill in 1859, Lord John Russell, who had played a major role in passing the Reform Act 1832, attempted this in 1860; but the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, a fellow Liberal, was against any further electoral reform.[citation needed]

The Union victory in the American Civil War in 1865 emboldened the forces in Britain that demanded more democracy and public input into the political system, to the dismay of the upper class landed gentry who identified with the US Southern States planters and feared the loss of influence and a popular radical movement. Influential commentators included Walter Bagehot, Thomas Carlyle, Anthony Trollope, Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill.[5] Proponents used two arguments: the balance of the constitution and "moral right". They emphasized that deserving, skilled, sober, thrifty, and deferential artisans deserve the franchise. Liberal William Gladstone emphasized the "moral" improvement of working men and felt that they should therefore have the opportunity of "demonstrating their allegiance to their betters". However the opposition warned against the "low-class democracy" of the United States and the Australian Colonies.[6]

Palmerston's death in 1865 opened the floodgates for reform. In 1866 Russell (Earl Russell as he had been since 1861, and now Prime Minister for the second time), introduced a Reform Bill. It was a cautious bill, which proposed to enfranchise "respectable" working men, excluding unskilled workers and what was known as the "residuum", those that the MPs of the time described as feckless and criminal poor. This was ensured by a £7 annual rent qualification to vote—or 2 shillings and 9 pence (2s 9d) a week.[n 1][7] This entailed two "fancy franchises", emulating measures of 1854, a £10 lodger qualification for the boroughs, and a £50 savings qualification in the counties. Liberals claimed that "the middle classes, strengthened by the best of the artisans, would still have the preponderance of power".[8]

When it came to the vote, however, this bill split the Liberal Party: a split partly engineered by Benjamin Disraeli, who incited those threatened by the bill to rise up against it. On one side were the reactionary conservative Liberals, known as the Adullamites; on the other were pro-reform Liberals who supported the Government. The Adullamites were supported by Tories and the liberal Whigs were supported by radicals and reformists.[citation needed]

The bill was thus defeated and the Liberal government of Russell resigned.[citation needed]

Birth of the act

[edit]

The Conservatives formed a ministry on 26 June 1866, led by Lord Derby as Prime Minister and Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were faced with the challenge of reviving Conservatism: Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, the powerful Liberal leader, was dead and the Liberal Party was split and defeated. Thanks to manoeuvring by Disraeli, Derby's Conservatives saw an opportunity to be a strong, viable party of government; however, there was still a Liberal majority in the House of Commons.

The Adullamites, led by Robert Lowe, had already been working closely with the Conservative Party. The Adullamites were anti-reform, as were the Conservatives, but the Adullamites declined the invitation to enter into Government with the Conservatives as they thought that they could have more influence from an independent position. Despite the fact that he had blocked the Liberal Reform Bill, in February 1867, Disraeli introduced his own Reform Bill into the House of Commons.

By this time the attitude of many in the country had ceased to be apathetic regarding reform of the House of Commons. Huge meetings, especially the ‘Hyde Park riots', and the feeling that many of the skilled working class were respectable, had persuaded many that there should be a Reform Bill. However, wealthy Conservative MP Lord Cranborne resigned his government ministry in disgust at the bill's introduction.

The Reform League, agitating for universal suffrage, became much more active, and organized demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people in Manchester, Glasgow, and other towns. Though these movements did not normally use revolutionary language as some Chartists had in the 1840s, they were powerful movements. The high point came when a demonstration in May 1867 in Hyde Park was banned by the government. Thousands of troops and policemen were prepared, but the crowds were so huge that the government did not dare to attack. The Home Secretary, Spencer Walpole, was forced to resign.

A Punch cartoon from August 1867 portraying Disraeli as a horse, taking Britannia on a leap in the dark

Faced with the possibility of popular revolt going much further, the government rapidly included into the bill amendments which enfranchised far more people. Consequently, the bill was more far-reaching than any Members of Parliament had thought possible or really wanted; Disraeli appeared to accept most reform proposals, so long as they did not come from Gladstone. An amendment tabled by the opposition (but not by Gladstone himself) trebled the new number entitled to vote under the bill; yet Disraeli simply accepted it. The bill enfranchised most men who lived in urban areas. The final proposals were as follows: a borough franchise for all who paid rates in person (that is, not compounders), men who paid more than £10 rent per year,[9] and extra votes for graduates, professionals and those with over £50 savings. These last "fancy franchises" were seen by Conservatives as a weapon against a mass electorate.

However, Gladstone attacked the bill; a series of sparkling parliamentary debates with Disraeli resulted in the bill becoming much more radical. Having been given his chance by the belief that Gladstone's bill had gone too far in 1866, Disraeli had now gone further.

Disraeli was able to persuade his party to vote for the bill on the basis that the newly enfranchised electorate would be grateful and would vote Conservative at the next election. Despite this prediction, in 1868 the Conservatives lost the first general election in which the newly enfranchised electors voted.

The bill ultimately aided the rise of the radical wing of the Liberal Party and helped Gladstone to victory. The Act was tidied up with many further Acts to alter electoral boundaries.

Provisions of the act

[edit]

Reduced representation

[edit]

Disenfranchised boroughs

[edit]

Four electoral boroughs were disenfranchised by the act, for corruption, their last number of MPs shown as blocks:

Seven English boroughs were disenfranchised by the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868 the next year, their last number of MPs shown as blocks:

Halved representation

[edit]

The following boroughs were reduced from electing two MPs to one:

Three further boroughs (Honiton, Thetford, Wells) were also due to have their representation halved under the 1867 Act, but before this reduction took effect they were disenfranchised altogether by the 1868 Scottish Reform Act as noted above.

Enfranchisements

[edit]

The Act created nine new single-member borough seats:

The following two boroughs were enfranchised with two MPs:

The following two were enlarged:

Other changes

[edit]

Reforms in Scotland and Ireland

[edit]

The reforms for Scotland and Ireland were carried out by two subsequent acts, the Representation of the People (Ireland) Act 1868 and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868.

In Scotland, five existing constituencies gained members, and three new constituencies were formed. Two existing county constituencies were merged into one, giving an overall increase of seven members; this was offset by seven English boroughs (listed above) being disenfranchised, leaving the House with the same number of members.

The representation of Ireland remained unchanged.

Effects

[edit]
"Dishing the Whigs", Fun cartoon. Lord Derby and Benjamin Disraeli "dish" their Whig opponents by introducing more liberal reforms than they had contemplated; their heads are presented on a platter to Queen Victoria.

Direct effects of the Act

[edit]

The slur of local bribery and corruption dogged early debates in 1867–68. The whips' and leaders' decision to steer away discussion of electoral malpractice or irregularity to 1868's Election Petitions Act facilitated the progress of the main Reform Act.[10]

The unprecedented extension of the franchise to all householders effectively gave the vote to many working-class men, quite a considerable change. Jonathan Parry described this as a "borough franchise revolution";[11] Overwhelming election of the landed class or otherwise very wealthy to the Commons would no longer be assured by money, bribery and favours, those elected would reflect the most common sentiment of local units of the public. The brand-new franchise provisions were briefly flawed; the act did not address the issues of compounding and of not being a ratepayer in a household. Compounding (counting of one's under-tenants payments and using that count as a qualification) as to all rates and rents was made illegal, abolished in the enactment of a bill tabled by Liberal Grosvenor Hodgkinson. This meant that all male tenants would have to pay the parish/local rates directly and thus thereafter qualified for the vote.

A 2022 study found that the Act reduced political violence in the UK.[12]

Unintended effects

[edit]
  • Increased amounts of party spending and political organisation at both a local and national level—politicians had to account themselves to the increased electorate, which without secret ballots meant an increased number of voters to treat or bribe.[citation needed]
  • The redistribution of seats actually served to make the House of Commons increasingly dominated by the upper classes. Only they could afford to pay the huge campaigning costs and the abolition of certain rotten boroughs removed some of the middle-class international merchants who had been able to obtain seats.[5]

The Liberal Party was worried about the prospect of a socialist party taking the bulk of the working-class vote, so they moved to the left, while their rivals the Conservatives initiated occasional intrigues to encourage socialist candidates to stand against the Liberals.[citation needed]

Reform Act in literature

[edit]

Thomas Carlyle's essay "Shooting Niagara: And After?" compares the Second Reform Act and democracy generally to plunging over Niagara Falls.[13] His essay provoked a response from Mark Twain, "A Day at Niagara" (1869).[14] Trollope's Phineas Finn is concerned almost exclusively with the parliamentary progress of the Second Reform Act, and Finn sits for one of the seven fictional boroughs that are due to be disenfranchised.[15]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Reform Act 1867

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
![John Tenniel's Punch cartoon depicting the Reform Bill of 1867]float-right The Reform Act 1867, formally the Representation of the People Act 1867 and commonly known as the Second Reform Act, was legislation enacted by the that extended the parliamentary franchise to male householders and certain lodgers in English and Welsh boroughs, thereby enfranchising a substantial segment of the urban who met minimal property qualifications. Introduced by the Conservative administration led by and Edward Smith-Stanley, the Act passed after intense political maneuvering, including amendments that broadened its scope beyond initial intentions, ultimately doubling the electorate in from approximately 1.1 million to over 2 million voters. This expansion shifted electoral power toward industrial urban centers, redistributing seats from underpopulated rural boroughs to growing cities and marking a pivotal step in the gradual of Britain's , though it maintained property-based exclusions and did not extend voting rights to women or agricultural laborers. The Act's passage, achieved by Conservatives against their traditional resistance to radical change, reflected pragmatic party strategy amid public agitation for reform and competition with the Liberal opposition, setting precedents for subsequent enfranchisements while sparking debates on whether it advanced genuine democratic principles or merely served elite political interests.

Historical Context

Electoral Framework Prior to 1867

The electoral framework in the prior to the Reform Act 1867 was primarily shaped by the Representation of the People Act 1832, which had standardized and modestly expanded voting qualifications while redistributing seats but left significant restrictions intact. The total electorate in and stood at approximately 516,000 in 1831 before the 1832 Act, rising to about 809,000 by 1833, representing roughly 6-7% of adult males; by the mid-1860s, this had grown to around 1.057 million in alone, still excluding the vast majority of working-class men due to property or occupancy thresholds. The system maintained 658 parliamentary seats, with 56 decayed boroughs fully disfranchised, 31 others reduced to single-member representation, and 67 new constituencies created, primarily in growing industrial areas, though many small boroughs persisted with electorates under 500 voters. In counties, the franchise derived from the ancient 40-shilling freehold qualification, supplemented by the 1832 Act's additions of £10 copyholders, £10 leaseholders for terms of 60 years or more, and £50 tenants-at-will, broadening access to smaller landowners and some tenant farmers but favoring those with substantial property interests. This yielded an estimated 344,015 county electors immediately after 1832, with voting restricted to males over 21 who met these criteria after annual registration. Plural voting was permitted, allowing qualified individuals to cast ballots in multiple county divisions or even boroughs if they held separate qualifications there, reinforcing the influence of propertied elites. Borough electorates, totaling about 270,639 post-1832, operated under a more uniform £10 occupancy franchise for male householders occupying premises for at least 12 months, replacing the pre-1832 patchwork of freemen, scot-and-lot payers, potwallopers, and corporation rights that had varied wildly by locality. Existing ancient right voters were grandfathered in, but recipients of were disqualified in boroughs, and the system perpetuated urban-rural disparities, with county seats often larger and more representative of agricultural interests compared to underpopulated s controlled by patrons. Additional features underscored the framework's limitations: voting occurred openly without , enabling intimidation and bribery; annual registration imposed a 1-shilling and clerical hurdles, deterring poorer qualifiers; and women, non-propertied laborers, and most artisans remained excluded by custom and , confining the electorate to roughly 8% of the adult by the 1860s. These elements preserved an oligarchic structure, where influence concentrated among the middle and upper classes despite the 1832 expansions.

Limitations and Agitations Post-1832 Reform

The , while redistributing seats and broadening property qualifications for voting in boroughs and counties, maintained stringent franchise requirements that excluded the vast majority of the working classes, who lacked sufficient property or rental income to qualify. In , the electorate expanded from approximately 366,000 voters prior to the Act to around 650,000 afterward, representing still only about 7 percent of the adult male population and failing to address the underrepresentation of rapidly growing industrial urban areas. The Act explicitly defined voters as male householders or property owners meeting £10 occupancy or £40 freehold thresholds, thereby disenfranchising most laborers, factory workers, and agricultural hands amid the ongoing industrialization that swelled the urban proletariat. This preservation of class-based exclusions entrenched parliamentary dominance by the and emerging middle classes, consolidating rather than diluting elite influence. The Act's shortcomings fueled widespread working-class agitation, manifesting most prominently in the Chartist movement, which arose in the late 1830s as the first national mass campaign explicitly driven by proletarian demands for political inclusion. Chartists, drawing from the unfulfilled promises of 1832, presented the People's Charter in 1838, advocating six key reforms: for males aged 21 and over, voting by , abolition of property qualifications for Members of , payment of MPs to enable working-class representation, equal-sized electoral districts, and annual parliaments to ensure accountability. Mass petitions followed, including one in 1839 with 1.3 million signatures, another in 1842 claiming over 3 million, and a 1848 submission with purported 2 million, each rejected by on procedural and substantive grounds, highlighting the legislative body's resistance to proletarian enfranchisement. Chartist agitation combined constitutional tactics like rallies and publications with sporadic violence, such as the 1839 where thousands of marchers clashed with authorities, resulting in fatalities and transportation of leaders, yet ultimately suppressing immediate threats without conceding reforms. Regional political unions, including remnants of the Birmingham , sustained pressure through local campaigns, but internal divisions over force versus physical force strategies, coupled with economic upturns post-1848 that diverted working-class focus to prosperity over politics, led to Chartism's decline by the mid-1850s. Nonetheless, the movement's emphasis on democratic deficits persisted, influencing later radical demands and underscoring the causal link between 1832's incomplete franchise expansion and sustained calls for broader electoral access culminating in the 1867 Act.

Legislative Origins

Liberal Reform Efforts and Failure

Following the limited enfranchisement achieved by the , which added approximately 217,000 voters but left the electorate stagnant relative to population growth, successive Liberal governments faced persistent demands for further electoral expansion. Efforts in the 1850s, including bills proposed by Lord John Russell in 1854 and 1859, failed due to insufficient parliamentary support amid concerns over radicalism and public disinterest. Similarly, a 1860 initiative under Viscount Palmerston collapsed after internal party divisions and opposition to broadening the county franchise. The decisive Liberal attempt came in 1866 under Lord Russell, whose administration, returned to power in 1865 with a mandate including reform, tasked William Gladstone with drafting the legislation. Introduced on 12 March 1866, the bill sought to enfranchise around 200,000 additional voters through a composite scheme: an occupancy franchise of £7 annual value in boroughs and £10 in counties, enfranchisement of £10 lodgers after one year's residency, and extensions to copyholders and leaseholders. This approach, influenced by the so-called "Ryswick" compromise, aimed to balance moderate expansion with safeguards against excessive but drew criticism for its complexity and perceived inadequacy. Opposition fractured the Liberal majority. Radicals, led by , condemned the measure as insufficient, advocating instead for household suffrage to include more working-class voters without property qualifications. Concurrently, a dissenting Liberal faction known as the Adullamites, spearheaded by Robert Lowe and dubbed for their "cave of Adullam" withdrawal from party lines, viewed the bill as perilously radical, warning of threats to property and social order; Lowe famously articulated elite disdain in parliamentary rhetoric. Aligning with Conservatives, the Adullamites supported amendments that undermined the bill, culminating in its defeat on 18 June 1866 when an amendment passed 315 to 304, prompting Russell's resignation and the government's collapse. This failure stemmed from irreconcilable intra-party tensions—radicals demanding bolder change and moderates fearing instability—exposing the Liberals' inability to unify behind a viable proposal amid rising extraparliamentary agitation.

Conservative Tactical Adoption Under Disraeli

Following the defeat of the Liberal government's reform bill on 18 June 1866, which proposed a £7 franchise but collapsed amid party divisions and opposition from Conservative benches, Earl Derby's Conservative administration assumed power without committing to further . , as and de facto leader in the Commons, initially adhered to this stance, viewing radical enfranchisement as a threat to aristocratic influence. However, mounting extraparliamentary pressure from the Reform League, culminating in the Hyde Park riots of May 1867 where demonstrators defied a ban and dismantled railings, compelled a strategic pivot. Disraeli introduced a Conservative reform bill on 11 February 1867, advocating household in boroughs tempered by "fancy franchises" granting additional votes to educated or propertied individuals, alongside a £15 occupation franchise. This measure encountered resistance from traditionalist Conservatives, including Lord Robert Cecil (later ), who resigned from the cabinet in March 1867, decrying it as a betrayal of party principles that risked empowering radicals. Disraeli countered internal dissent through persuasive oratory, framing the bill as alignment with Queen Victoria's implicit endorsement and historical inevitability, while emphasizing paternalistic benefits for the "respectable" to foster loyalty to the established order. A pivotal shift occurred on 20 May 1867 when Disraeli accepted the Hodgkinson Amendment, which eliminated fancy franchises and extended the borough vote to all rate-paying householders and £10 lodgers, enfranchising approximately 500,000 additional voters and rendering the bill more democratic than the original Liberal proposal. This concession, driven by Liberal pressure in and public agitation, passed the on 30 July 1867 by a margin of 361 to 310, before receiving Lords' approval on 15 August 1867. The tactical adoption aimed to "dish the Whigs" by appropriating Liberal reformist credentials, positioning Conservatives as the enactors of change to secure electoral gratitude from newly enfranchised urban workers, whom Disraeli believed could be integrated into a " democracy" supportive of traditional institutions. This maneuver doubled the electorate from about 1 million to 2 million in , marking a calculated Disraeli dubbed a "leap in the dark," predicated on the causal assumption that timely concession to democratic pressures would preserve Conservative relevance amid industrialization and , rather than allowing radicals to dominate the narrative. Despite short-term Liberal gains in the 1868 election, where they secured 387 seats to Conservatives' 271, the act facilitated long-term Tory adaptation by broadening appeal beyond agrarian elites.

Enactment Process

Parliamentary Debates and Key Amendments

The Reform Bill was introduced in the on March 18, 1867, by as under Lord Derby's minority Conservative government, following the failure of the preceding Liberal reform effort in 1866. The initial proposal retained a cautious approach, advocating a £6 rateable value qualification for the borough franchise, alongside "fancy franchises" for certain property owners and a two-year residency requirement, while lowering the county franchise threshold from £50 to £15 occupier value. Debates in the Commons highlighted deep divisions, particularly among Conservatives wary of expanded democracy; figures like Viscount Cranborne (later ) and Robert Lowe resigned from the cabinet in protest, decrying the measure as a leap toward mob rule and increased electoral risks. Disraeli defended the bill in key speeches, such as on February 25, 1867, emphasizing the intelligence and contributions of the working classes and framing reform as a conservative to preempt radical demands. William Gladstone, leading the Liberal opposition, initially criticized the bill's limited scope but pragmatically supported amendments to broaden it, arguing that denying the vote to respectable artisans undermined social stability; his interventions, including classical allusions to Trojan horses in earlier 1866 debates, underscored a rhetorical push for measured enfranchisement. Extraparliamentary pressures, including Hyde Park demonstrations in July 1867, intensified the urgency, prompting Disraeli to expedite passage despite internal party revolts. The bill underwent significant alterations during the committee stage, transforming it into a more expansive measure. The pivotal Hodgkinson Amendment, carried on May 17, 1867, replaced the £6 rating threshold with household suffrage in boroughs by abolishing the compounding system—whereby landlords paid poor rates on behalf of low-rent tenants—thereby requiring direct rate payment from householders and enfranchising an estimated additional 500,000 men, primarily urban artisans. Gladstone backed this change, viewing it as advancing equitable representation, while Disraeli accepted it to maintain , though it alienated traditionalists. Other modifications included dropping the "fancy franchises" to simplify qualifications, reducing the county rental franchise to £12, shortening residency to one year, and clarifying rateable value definitions amid debates over gross estimated rental versus deductions for taxes. These amendments, ratified in the , passed the third reading on July 15, 1867, after Disraeli's tactical concessions secured a narrow against ongoing Liberal scrutiny and Conservative defections. The Lords approved the revised bill on August 6, 1867, with minimal further changes, enacting it as the Representation of the People Act 1867.

Influence of Extraparliamentary Pressure

The defeat of the Liberal government's reform bill in August 1866 galvanized extraparliamentary groups, particularly the Reform League—formed in February 1865 to advocate manhood , the , and abolition of property qualifications for MPs—which escalated public campaigns to pressure Parliament for democratic expansion. These efforts drew on working-class and radical support, including trade unions and remnants of , amid economic recession that heightened social tensions and fears of unrest akin to 1848 continental revolutions. The League's strategy emphasized orderly mass meetings to showcase popular demand without overt violence, contrasting with earlier disorganized protests. A pivotal event occurred on July 23, 1866, when 50,000 to 100,000 Reform League supporters convened in , defying a ban; police barricades prompted crowds to breach railings, leading to skirmishes and the park's occupation for three days, which forced Spencer Walpole's resignation and alarmed elites about working-class assertiveness. This incident, though containing minor violence, amplified agitation, followed by provincial spectacles: 200,000 to 250,000 in Birmingham on August 27, 200,000 in on September 24, 200,000 to 300,000 in on October 8, and a London trades demonstration on December 3 with 25,000 to 35,000 marchers observed by half a million. These gatherings, often involving union banners and petitions, demonstrated coordinated scale and restraint, signaling to the breadth of unenfranchised urban support. Agitation intensified in 1867 as Conservatives tabled their bill, culminating in the Reform League's May 6 Hyde Park rally, where 150,000 to 200,000 assembled despite prohibition; troops and 10,000 police mobilized, but after railings yielded to crowd pressure, authorities permitted peaceful proceedings, averting confrontation and exposing governmental vulnerability. This "moral victory" humiliated the Derby-Disraeli ministry, with contemporary observers like The Times estimating 40,000 to 50,000 core attendees amid broader throngs, reinforcing demands for household suffrage. The events swung Tory backbench opinion toward reform, as extraparliamentary momentum—coupled with Liberal threats—prompted Disraeli to endorse amendments broadening urban enfranchisement, aiming to channel agitation into controlled expansion rather than risk escalation. Historiographical assessments vary on causation: proponents like Royden Harrison attribute decisive force to the May demonstration's display of proletarian power, compelling concessions to preserve order, while skeptics such as and prioritize intra-party maneuvers and ideological shifts, viewing agitation as atmospheric rather than coercive. of mobilized crowds and official retreats supports a contributory role, as the threat of sustained disorder—without intent—accelerated the bill's from targeted franchises to near-universal urban male , doubling the electorate to avert broader instability.

Principal Provisions

Enfranchisement Qualifications

The Representation of the People Act 1867 extended the parliamentary franchise in to additional categories of male ratepayers and property occupiers, thereby enfranchising a broader segment of the urban while modestly expanding rural eligibility. In borough constituencies, eligibility was granted to all male householders occupying a dwelling house rated to the poor rate, provided they were not in receipt of ; this provision effectively enfranchised compound householders (those whose rates were previously paid by landlords) by requiring direct rate payment by the occupier, without a fixed monetary threshold beyond the rating itself. Additionally, male lodgers aged 21 or over, occupying unfurnished lodgings of a clear yearly value of £10 or upwards for at least 12 months preceding the register's date, qualified for the vote. In county constituencies, the Act retained the longstanding 40-shilling freehold qualification but lowered thresholds for other property-based franchises to incorporate smaller owners and tenants. Copyholders and leaseholders of land or tenements (excluding dwelling houses) with an annual value of £5 or more became eligible, down from prior higher limits, as did tenants-at-will or occupiers of such properties valued at £12 annually, reduced from £50. These county changes enfranchised agricultural laborers and small tenant farmers who met the occupancy duration and non-relief conditions, though the franchise remained more restrictive than in boroughs due to the emphasis on land over urban dwellings. Universal qualifications across both and franchises required voters to be male British subjects aged 21 years or older, with 12 months' residency in the constituency or property occupation, and free from disqualifications such as receiving parochial relief or employment by election candidates within six months of nomination. The Act's provisions, enacted on 15 August 1867, approximately doubled the electorate in from around 1.1 million to over 2 million qualified males by 1868, with borough expansions accounting for the majority of new voters (~711,000 added) compared to counties (~248,000).

Redistribution and Borough Adjustments

The Representation of the People Act 1867 addressed malapportionment by adjusting representation and reallocating seats from underpopulated areas to regions of demographic growth. Under Schedule D of the Act, 39 small English and Welsh s—those with populations generally under 10,000—were reduced from returning two members of to one, thereby freeing 39 seats without wholly disenfranchising any constituency. This measure targeted lingering anomalies from the settlement, where small, often rural or stagnant s retained disproportionate influence despite population stagnation or decline. The reallocated seats were primarily assigned to expanding urban centers and populous counties, creating five new single-member borough constituencies—Burnley, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, and Stockton-on-Tees—and granting two members each to the new metropolitan boroughs of Chelsea and Hackney. Additional seats went to county divisions, including the southern division of , the western division of the , and enlarged metropolitan districts such as , the Tower Hamlets, , and . These changes, detailed in Schedules E and F, extended parliamentary representation to industrializing areas while maintaining the overall total of 658 seats for . Critics, including radicals who favored broader enfranchisement, viewed the adjustments as insufficiently radical, failing to fully counteract urbanization's effects or eliminate pocket boroughs' remnants, though Conservatives argued the targeted reallocations preserved balanced governance without destabilizing rural interests. The provisions reflected tactical compromise during enactment, prioritizing franchise expansion over sweeping boundary overhaul, which was deferred to later legislation like the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885.

Ancillary Electoral Modifications

The Representation of the People Act 1867 incorporated provisions to accommodate compound householders—tenants under agreements where landlords collected and paid rates as part of rent—in the borough franchise. Under prior law, only direct ratepayers qualified, excluding an estimated 507,700 such occupiers in England and Wales who met the £10 occupancy threshold but lacked separate rating. Section 9 of the Act permitted these householders to notify local overseers, triggering separate rating and qualification as voters upon payment, thereby enfranchising approximately 170,000 additional men who would otherwise have been barred. This adjustment mitigated the Act's initial oversight in assuming universal direct rating among new urban voters, though implementation required claimants to proactively register, leading to uneven uptake. To promote pluralistic outcomes in multi-member constituencies, the Act established the limited vote for 43 seats in three-member borough districts, restricting electors to two votes per election rather than three. This mechanism, applied selectively to urban areas with divided electorates, sought to guarantee minority party representation by curbing the potential for one faction to monopolize all seats under full plurality voting. It represented an early experiment in moderated majority rule, influencing subsequent electoral designs, though its scope remained confined and was later superseded by broader reforms. Additional procedural refinements included mandates for overseers to compile revised electoral registers incorporating the expanded qualifications, with deadlines aligned to annually for qualification assessment. The Act also preserved certain non-residential "fancy" franchises, such as those for freemen and corporation voters in , while streamlining dual-voting rights for those holding both and qualifications, allowing separate ballots without forfeiture. These changes enhanced administrative efficiency but did not alter core residency requirements, which stayed at 12 months, nor introduce secrecy in voting, deferred to the 1872 Ballot Act. Overall, such modifications facilitated smoother integration of the doubled electorate—rising from about 1 million to 2 million in —without overhauling the open, oral polling system.

Regional Extensions

Reforms in Scotland

The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868 extended the parliamentary franchise in to align more closely with the household and lodger established in English boroughs by the 1867 Act, while adapting provisions to Scottish valuation rolls and poor rates systems. In burghs, it granted voting rights to male inhabitants of full age, without legal incapacity, who had occupied a dwelling-house as owner or tenant for at least twelve months prior to 31 in the registration year, provided the property appeared on the valuation roll and rates were paid by specified dates. A separate lodger franchise applied to those occupying unfurnished lodgings rated at £10 or more annually for the same twelve-month period. In counties, the Act introduced an ownership qualification for males possessing lands or heritable subjects valued at £5 or more yearly, held for at least six months before 31 , and an occupation qualification for tenants of lands valued at £12 or more yearly (with provisions for sub-tenants reaching £14 in aggregate), occupied for twelve months and subject to poor rates payment. Redistribution of seats under the Act increased Scotland's representation in the by seven members, sourced from the disfranchisement of seven small English boroughs such as and . Key changes included allocating two seats to the Scottish universities (one for and combined, one for and ), expanding to three members, granting two seats each to the counties of , , , and , uniting the counties of Selkirk and into a single constituency returning one member, and creating a new district of burghs encompassing , , and Selkirk for one member. Several counties were divided into , each returning one member, with boundaries defined to reflect population shifts while preserving existing burgh groupings where feasible. Ancillary modifications included restricting voters in three-member constituencies like to two votes to prevent dominance by any single group, disqualifying those receiving payment for services from voting if employed within six months of an election, and adjusting registration timelines to accommodate the expanded electorate, such as earlier sheriff clerk duties for compiling rolls. These changes, enacted on 25 1868, roughly doubled Scotland's electorate from approximately 60,000-70,000 qualified voters pre-reform to over 130,000 by 1869, though the proportional increase lagged behind England's due to higher rural thresholds and Scotland's distinct legal framework for tenancies and valuations.

Reforms in Ireland

The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act 1868, enacted on 25 July 1868 as a companion to the Reform Act 1867, extended the parliamentary franchise in Ireland by lowering qualifications while maintaining a rating threshold not imposed in English boroughs. In boroughs, it enfranchised householders and rated at £4 or more annually, introducing a £10 lodger franchise for those occupying unfurnished lodgings of equivalent value for at least 12 months. For counties, the £12 threshold was reduced to £4, aligning more closely with Scottish provisions but excluding unrated householders to account for prevalent smallholdings and subtenancy under Irish systems. These changes substantially expanded urban electorates, raising the number of registered voters from 30,673 in 1865 to 45,625 by the , an increase of nearly 50 percent, though the overall Irish electorate grew more modestly to approximately 230,000 due to slower enfranchisement. Redistribution provisions adjusted boundaries in select , such as and , to reflect population shifts, but preserved Ireland's 105 seats without major reallocation, reflecting parliamentary caution amid concerns over Catholic-Protestant electoral balances and potential Fenian agitation. Critics, including Irish Liberals, deemed the £4 rating barrier stingier than England's household , arguing it deliberately limited access in poorer districts where rates were often landlord-paid or below threshold, thus preserving elite influence over tenant voters. The Act also mandated revised valuation lists by 1 January 1869, standardizing registration but excluding reforms until later legislation. This measured extension prioritized stability in a context of agrarian unrest and denominational tensions, enfranchising skilled artisans and middling tenants without broadly empowering landless laborers.

Short-Term Outcomes

Electorate Expansion and Composition

The Reform Act 1867 substantially expanded the electorate in by enfranchising additional males meeting revised property criteria, increasing the total number of qualified voters from approximately one million to roughly two million. This near-doubling added nearly 938,000 new voters, primarily through lowered thresholds in boroughs and counties. Prior to the Act, voting eligibility under the 1832 Reform Act had been confined largely to middle-class property owners, representing about one in seven adult males; post-1867, the proportion rose to around one in three. The expansion targeted urban dwellers via household suffrage in boroughs, granting the vote to male heads of households aged 21 or over who occupied premises and paid local rates, without a specific rental value but effectively favoring those in dwellings of modest worth. A supplementary £10 annual lodger franchise extended eligibility to non-householders renting furnished lodgings of that value for over a year, further broadening access in densely populated areas. In counties, the franchise threshold dropped to occupiers of or premises rated at £12 annually, adding rural smallholders but with less proportional impact than in towns. These provisions excluded non-ratepaying dependents, paupers, and women entirely, maintaining a property-based filter that barred the unskilled urban poor and agricultural laborers lacking independent occupancy. The resulting electorate composition shifted markedly toward inclusion of the respectable working classes, particularly skilled artisans, tradesmen, and mechanics in industrial boroughs like and Birmingham, who formed the bulk of new registrants due to rising and homeownership among this group. While middle-class voters retained dominance in absolute terms, working-class men—previously underrepresented despite comprising the majority of the male —gained a pivotal foothold, estimated at over half of the added voters in urban seats. This infusion reflected causal pressures from , which elevated property-holding among laborers, rather than ideals, as the Act preserved disqualifications for those without fiscal stake in local . Registration challenges and ongoing for compound householders tempered the shift, ensuring the electorate remained weighted toward propertied interests.

Impact on the 1868 Election

The Reform Act 1867 significantly expanded the electorate for the held between 17 November and 7 December 1868, increasing the total number of registered voters by approximately 97% to over 2 million, with the addition of more than 1 million new voters primarily consisting of urban householders and £10 lodgers in boroughs, as well as lower-threshold occupiers. This doubling in alone shifted the composition toward greater urban working-class representation, though the Act's provisions maintained property qualifications and excluded women and rural laborers without sufficient holdings. In the results, the Liberal Party won 382 seats in the 658-member , while the Conservatives secured 276, enabling to form a in December 1868. Compared to the 1865 , Liberals gained a net of 22 seats (rising from around 360 including allies to 382), with Conservatives losing a corresponding 22 (from 298 to 276); regional patterns showed Liberal dominance in (52 seats to Conservatives' 8), (22 to 8), and (65 to 40), offsetting Conservative advances in English counties due to seat redistributions. The proportion of uncontested seats fell from 37% in 1865 to 23% in 1868, reflecting heightened competition amid the enlarged franchise. Although the enfranchisement of working-class voters was anticipated to favor Liberals—given their advocacy for further and appeal to urban nonconformists—empirical analysis indicates no causal link between the franchise extension and increased Liberal vote share, which rose modestly from 63% in to 66% in 1868. Voter turnout in areas with full electorate expansion was about 7% lower than elsewhere, and new voters did not disproportionately support Liberals; instead, Gladstone's personal popularity, the Irish Church disestablishment issue, and Conservative internal divisions under —who had steered the Act through —appear to have driven the outcome. The results underscored a short-term Liberal advantage despite the Conservative-originated , with boundary adjustments providing some Conservative gains in northern English divisions but failing to offset broader losses.

Enduring Consequences

Evolution of Political Parties and Organization

The Reform Act 1867 doubled the electorate in from approximately one million to nearly two million voters by extending the borough franchise to most male householders and lodgers meeting a £10 rental qualification, thereby necessitating more sophisticated party structures to manage , , and mobilization amid heightened competition. This shift marked a transition from elite-dominated, decentralized toward mass-oriented organization, as parties adapted to influence a larger, more diverse urban working-class electorate previously reliant on and local influence. The Act's provisions, including the abolition of (though partially reversed by the 1869 Assessed Rates Act), complicated registration processes, compelling parties to invest in agents and administrative machinery to ensure eligible voters were enrolled. Conservatives, having passed the measure under Benjamin Disraeli despite internal divisions, responded proactively by founding the National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations in November 1867 to link local branches with central leadership and promote uniform policy dissemination. This was followed in 1870 by the establishment of the Conservative Central Office under Disraeli's direction, which centralized election strategy, funding, and professional staffing, enabling coordinated national campaigns that proved instrumental in subsequent electoral recoveries. The organizational innovations reflected a strategic pivot to "popular Toryism," emphasizing appeals to newly enfranchised artisans through platforms blending traditionalism with reformist credentials. Liberals, benefiting from the expanded franchise in the 1868 general election, accelerated their adaptation by formalizing hierarchical structures, particularly through the system exemplified in Birmingham under figures like and Francis Schnadhorst in the early 1870s. This method systematized ward-level , candidate endorsement, and voter loyalty, transforming loose alliances into disciplined machines capable of sustaining Gladstone's moralistic . Overall, the Act fostered a partisan landscape where national parties supplanted independent MPs as primary vehicles for electoral opinion, paving the way for intensified spending on and agents in the 1870s.

Alterations in Voting Patterns and Governance

The Second Reform Act 1867 expanded the electorate by approximately 97% nationally, with boroughs experiencing a 152% increase compared to 47% in counties, introducing a larger proportion of working-class urban voters. This shift reduced the incidence of uncontested elections from 37% in 1865 to 23% in 1868, fostering greater electoral competition as parties fielded more candidates to contest seats. Instrumental variable estimates indicate that a doubling of the electorate raised the candidate-to-seat ratio by about 65% and decreased uncontested seats significantly, reflecting adaptations to mobilize the new voters. Empirical evidence reveals limited alterations in core voting patterns, with no causal link between franchise extension and increased Liberal Party support; a 100% electorate increase correlated with only a statistically insignificant 4% rise in Liberal vote share. Similarly, Liberal seat shares remained unaffected, showing no pronounced partisan realignment toward class-based preferences among the newly enfranchised. Turnout exhibited a modest decline, with a 100% electorate expansion associated with a 7% drop, suggesting that higher participation rates did not immediately materialize despite the broader franchise. Conservative incumbents were 30% less likely to stand in high-reform areas, prompting greater candidate turnover and from challengers. In , the reform yielded no detectable changes in parliamentary behavior, as MPs maintained consistent voting records on key issues like the Abolition of Church Rates Bill before and after 1867. However, the enlarged electorate incentivized enhanced party organization, including systematic and national structures to coordinate campaigns, marking an early step toward modern mass politics. This organizational evolution increased to constituents over time, though immediate policy outputs showed continuity rather than disruption. The absence of radical shifts underscores the Act's integration of new voters without destabilizing established influences in .

Unanticipated Social and Economic Effects

The abolition of rate compounding by the Reform Act 1867 required previously indirect payers—primarily working-class tenants—to settle poor rates directly with local authorities, thereby enfranchising an estimated 938,427 additional voters while imposing novel fiscal obligations on urban households. This shift disrupted established landlord-tenant arrangements, as compounded rents no longer bundled rates, prompting some landlords to adjust tenancies or evict low-paying occupants to mitigate their residual liabilities. Local governments encountered heightened administrative burdens and collection inefficiencies, exacerbating strains on municipal finances and the poor law system amid rapid urbanization. Financial markets registered immediate apprehension over the Act's implications, with an event-study analysis of London Stock Exchange data revealing statistically significant negative abnormal returns for British equities on pivotal parliamentary dates, such as the bill's second reading in August 1867. Investors interpreted the enfranchisement of propertyless skilled workers—encompassing roughly 35-40% of adult urban males—as heightening risks to property rights through prospective demands for redistributive policies or regulatory encroachments favoring labor over capital. This reaction underscored a perceived erosion of elite safeguards against populist fiscal pressures, contrasting with the Conservative leadership's tactical intent to preempt radical agitation rather than foster systemic economic reconfiguration. Socially, the Act's selective extension to male householders and lodgers crystallized a novel category of working-class , yet its exclusion of women and rural laborers inadvertently amplified grievances over representational inequities, spurring early suffragist and cross-class coalitions for . By integrating antagonistic socioeconomic strata into the polity without proportional parliamentary redistribution—evident in disparities like Birmingham's voter surge from 10,823 to 63,909 for unchanged MP allocations—the legislation sowed seeds of constitutional disequilibrium, fostering iterative demands that destabilized the envisaged balanced order. These dynamics, unforeseen amid the bill's hurried passage, marked a pivot from containment of unrest to entrenched trajectories of participatory expansion.

Contemporary and Retrospective Critiques

Conservative Concerns Over Stability and Qualification

Prominent Conservatives, including Viscount Cranborne (later the ), voiced apprehensions that the Reform Act 1867's adoption of household suffrage in boroughs would extend the franchise to urban working men insufficiently qualified by education, economic stake, or deliberative capacity to exercise it responsibly. They contended that such voters, often aligned with trades unions or lacking independent means, prioritized class antagonisms over national interests, potentially fostering demagoguery and eroding the balanced constitution predicated on property-based representation. Cranborne specifically criticized the measure for admitting hundreds of thousands without prior scrutiny of their political reliability, likening the outcome to unleashing unpredictable forces akin to a "Prætorian guard" disdainful of established hierarchies. These critics foresaw threats to social and political stability, arguing that the Act would create a working-class electoral —projected at around 1 million new voters against 500,000 existing ones—capable of dominating and igniting irreconcilable conflicts between labor and capital, thereby endangering property rights and the monarchy's moderating role. In his opposition speech during the bill's third reading on , , Cranborne described the as a "tremendous " enacted "absolutely in the dark," without empirical assessment of its cascading effects on , and warned it would usher in an era of perpetual "turmoil and change" supplanting two centuries of incremental stability. He further asserted that representatives enfranchised under such lax qualifications might subordinate constitutional duties to constituent pressures, compelling votes against broader class interests to preserve personal positions. The depth of these qualms manifested in high-profile resignations from Lord Derby's government on March 2, 1867, when Cranborne, alongside Lord Carnarvon and Sir John Peel, withdrew in protest against Benjamin Disraeli's willingness to embrace household , viewing it as a betrayal of principles safeguarding the realm from unqualified mass influence. Cranborne decried the process as political "sophistry" and "legerdemain," borrowing ethics from adventurers that would cause representative institutions to "crumble beneath your feet," reflecting a broader conservative skepticism toward democratizing reforms absent safeguards like or educational tests. Such arguments echoed longstanding reservations, amplified by contemporary unrest like the 1866 Hyde Park riots, that unlettered "swarms" could propel radicalism, inverting the hierarchy where propertied elites had historically checked impulsive majorities.

Radical Demands for Broader Suffrage

Radical reformers, including members of the Reform League formed in 1865 and influenced by earlier Chartist principles, demanded and the as essential steps toward broader electoral participation. The League, comprising trade unionists, socialists, and republicans, organized mass demonstrations such as the July 1866 Hyde Park gathering of 50,000 to 200,000 participants to pressure for these changes amid economic discontent. Their program emphasized enfranchising all adult males over 21, equal electoral districts, and the abolition of qualifications for Members of , viewing limited expansions as inadequate safeguards against elite dominance. The Reform Act 1867, while enfranchising urban householders and £10 lodgers—doubling the electorate to approximately 2 million—drew radical critiques for excluding rural agricultural laborers, who comprised a substantial portion of working males, and for retaining compound householders' disenfranchisement through rate-paying technicalities. Chartist legacies amplified these demands, as the movement's 1838 People's Charter had long advocated votes for all men, no voter qualifications, and annual parliaments—provisions unmet by 1867's household suffrage compromise, which radicals saw as perpetuating class exclusions despite urban gains. Post-enactment agitation persisted, with League publications like The Bee-Hive in August 1867 decrying the Act's failure to deliver full democratic equality and predicting renewed campaigns for comprehensive reforms, including enacted only in 1872. These demands underscored radicals' causal view that partial enfranchisement risked ongoing elite manipulation without universal male inclusion, fueling eventual extensions in the 1884 Act for counties and later efforts.

Empirical Evaluations of Democratic Trade-offs

Empirical analyses of the 1867 Reform Act have assessed trade-offs such as enhanced political inclusion against risks of instability, fiscal expansion, and policy shifts favoring redistribution over property rights. Studies indicate that the Act's enfranchisement of approximately 938,000 additional urban working-class men, doubling the electorate to nearly 2 million, did not precipitate the radical leftward electoral surge anticipated by contemporaries, with no significant causal increase in Liberal Party vote shares or seats in subsequent elections. Instead, it intensified electoral competition, raising the candidate-to-seat ratio by about 29% and reducing uncontested seats by 22% per 100% electorate expansion, while slightly lowering turnout by 7%. This suggests a trade-off where broader participation fostered organizational dynamism and accountability without immediate partisan dominance by pro-redistribution forces. A key benefit emerged in reduced domestic , as the Act channeled discontent into electoral channels; econometric evidence from county-level data shows a causal decline in election-related disturbances post-1867, attributing this to the substitution of ballots for bullets amid heightened stakes for newly enfranchised voters. On , local government data from 1867 to 1910 reveal an inverted-U pattern in public goods expenditure: initial franchise expansion boosted per-capita spending on sanitation infrastructure (e.g., sewers, ) by 0.17 to 0.71 standard deviations per 10% increase in male enfranchisement, peaking at 40-55% franchise levels before declining as poorer voters prioritized over further investment. This highlights a wherein moderate enhanced public health-oriented provisioning—aligning with working-class demands for urban amenities—but risked underinvestment in collective goods when fiscal burdens extended to low-income groups resistant to rate hikes. Investor reactions underscored concerns over rights erosion, with prices of British firms falling upon the Act's passage in August 1867, reflecting market anticipation of redistributive pressures from enfranchised skilled workers lacking property stakes. The decline's magnitude aligned with predictions of median-voter shifts toward interventionism, though redistribution remained restrained in the short term, averting broader economic disruption. Collectively, these findings portray the Act as stabilizing unrest while introducing tensions between inclusive and efficient , with no of systemic instability but clear signals of recalibrated priorities toward immediate voter interests over long-term fiscal prudence.

References

  1. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/furtherreformacts/
  2. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/from-the-parliamentary-collections/collections-reform-acts/great-reform-act111/
  3. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z6c6cqt/revision/8
  4. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-euro/second-reform-act
  5. https://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/The%2520Impact%2520of%2520the%2520Second%2520Reform%2520Act.pdf
  6. https://historyofparliament.com/2018/01/24/the-second-reform-act-of-1867-party-interest-or-the-road-to-democracy-a-debate-between-rt-hon-the-lord-adonis-and-kwasi-kwarteng-mp/
  7. https://branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=janice-carlisle-on-the-second-reform-act-1867
  8. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/reformact1832/
  9. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP13-14/RP13-14.pdf
  10. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/what-caused-the-1832-great-reform-act/
  11. https://ecppec.ncl.ac.uk/features/electorates-and-voter-turnout/
  12. https://historyandpolicy.org/opinion-articles/articles/nick-clegg-and-the-not-so-great-1832-reform-act/
  13. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/chartists/overview/chartistmovement/
  14. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/what-was-chartism/
  15. https://historyofparliament.com/2018/07/17/the-1842-chartist-petition/
  16. https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Chartist-Movement/
  17. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z6c6cqt/revision/6
  18. https://academic.oup.com/book/4425/chapter/146428313
  19. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/politics-and-government/reform-act-1867
  20. https://liberalhistory.org.uk/history/gladstones-first-government/
  21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/559898
  22. https://newleftreview.org/issues/i208/articles/catherine-hall-rethinking-imperial-histories-the-reform-act-of-1867.pdf
  23. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Adullamite
  24. https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=jur
  25. https://spartacus-educational.com/PR1867.htm
  26. https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1504&context=honors_proj
  27. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zckdd2p/revision/6
  28. https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1152&context=jur
  29. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100410602
  30. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/from-the-parliamentary-collections/collections-reform-acts/great-reform-act22/
  31. https://spartacus-educational.com/ExamIR16.htm
  32. https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1152&context=jur
  33. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1867/102/pdfs/ukpga_18670102_en.pdf
  34. https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4508/england-and-wales
  35. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1867-05-17/debates/055855d2-70cf-4981-8237-04d851024870/ParliamentaryReform%25E2%2580%2594RepresentationOfThePeopleBill%25E2%2580%2594Bill79
  36. https://aceproject.org/main/english/es/esy_uk.htm
  37. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/30-31/102/section/1
  38. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1820-1832/survey/ix-english-reform-legislation
  39. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/48/section/3/enacted
  40. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/48/section/9/enacted
  41. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/31-32/48/section/10/enacted
  42. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/representation-of-the-people-ireland-act-1868
  43. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1868-05-07/debates/9d1599b0-9c2e-465a-97d1-b70ecda2e0e9/RepresentationOfThePeople%28Ireland%29Bill%25E2%2580%2594Bill71
  44. https://aura.abdn.ac.uk/bitstreams/61e356ad-5ec2-4493-93e6-1257a3b04e71/download
  45. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/irish-historical-studies/article/irish-electorate-18681915/226E5237BBD603CE7C86640FB31EE00C
  46. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1876-03-28/debates/729cd631-8fa7-47d6-a429-fd47d546098e/BoroughFranchise%28Ireland%29
  47. https://vlex.co.uk/vid/representation-of-the-people-808407829
  48. https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/wp1008.pdf
  49. https://liberalhistory.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/101-Steed-General-Election-of-1868.pdf
  50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3825753
  51. https://www.conservatives.com/organisation/national-convention/history-of-the-national-convention
  52. https://academic.oup.com/book/10000/chapter/157387744
  53. https://personal.lse.ac.uk/dewanta/downloads/Franchise.pdf
  54. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-010-9719-1
  55. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1867/jul/15/parliamentary-reform-representation-of
  56. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z6c6cqt/revision/7
  57. https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/econjl/v133y2023i652p1510-1536..html
  58. https://jnchapman.com/assets/pdf/franchiseLong.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.