# Reform Act 1832

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Reform_Act_1832
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Reform_Act_1832.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832
> Source revision: 1350351798
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

UK law reforming the electoral system

Representation of the People Act 1832[a] Act of Parliament Parliament of the United Kingdom Long title An Act to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales Citation 2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 45 Introduced by Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey Territorial extent England and Wales[b] Dates Royal assent 7 June 1832 Commencement 7 June 1832[c] Repealed 30 July 1948 Other legislation Amended by Statute Law Revision Act 1874 Statute Law Revision Act 1890 Representation of the People Act 1918 Repealed by Representation of the People Act 1948 Relates to Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 Scottish Reform Act 1832 Irish Reform Act 1832 Reform Act 1867 Status: Repealed Text of statute as originally enacted

Corporate Property (Elections) Act 1832[d] Act of Parliament Parliament of the United Kingdom Long title An Act to prevent the Application of Corporate Property to the Purposes of Election of Members to serve in Parliament. Citation 2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 69 Territorial extent United Kingdom Dates Royal assent 1 August 1832 Commencement 1 August 1832[e] Repealed 24 November 1949 Other legislation Amended by Municipal Corporations Act 1882 Repealed by Representation of the People Act 1949 Status: Repealed Text of statute as originally enacted

Start of parchment roll of the Reform Act 1832, with [royal assent](/source/Royal_assent) of King [William IV](/source/William_IV)

The **Representation of the People Act 1832**[a] ([2 & 3 Will. 4](/source/2_%26_3_Will._4). c. 45), also known as the **Reform Act 1832**, **Great Reform Act** or **First Reform Act**, was an [act](/source/Act_of_Parliament_(United_Kingdom)) of the [Parliament of the United Kingdom](/source/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom) to reform the electoral system in England and Wales and to expand the [franchise](/source/Suffrage). The measure was brought forward by the [Whig](/source/Whiggism) government of [Prime Minister](/source/Prime_Minister) [Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey](/source/Charles_Grey%2C_2nd_Earl_Grey).[1]

The legislation granted the right to vote to a broader segment of the male population by standardizing property qualifications, extending the franchise to small landowners, tenant farmers, shopkeepers, and all householders who paid a yearly rental of £10 or more. The act also reapportioned constituencies to address the unequal distribution of seats. The act formally excluded women from voting, as a voter was defined in the Act as a male person; prior to 1832 there were occasional, rare, instances of women voting.[2] The act of England and Wales was accompanied by the [Scottish Reform Act 1832](/source/Scottish_Reform_Act_1832) ([2 & 3 Will. 4](/source/2_%26_3_Will._4). c. 65) and [Irish Reform Act 1832](/source/Irish_Reform_Act_1832) ([2 & 3 Will. 4](/source/2_%26_3_Will._4). c. 88).[3]

The act was repealed by the [Representation of the People Act 1948](/source/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1948).[1] The electoral system in the UK is now defined principally by the [Representation of the People Act 1983](/source/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1983) and the [Electoral Administration Act 2006](/source/Electoral_Administration_Act_2006).

Before the reform, most members of Parliament nominally represented [boroughs](/source/Borough). However, the number of electors in a borough varied widely, from a dozen or so up to 12,000. The criteria for qualification for the franchise also varied greatly among these boroughs, from the requirement to own land, to merely living in a house with a [hearth](/source/Hearth) sufficient to boil a pot.[4]

The [Irish Reform Act 1832](/source/Irish_Reform_Act_1832) ([2 & 3 Will. 4](/source/2_%26_3_Will._4) c. 88) brought similar changes to Ireland, and the separate [Scottish Reform Act 1832](/source/Scottish_Reform_Act_1832) ([2 & 3 Will. 4](/source/2_%26_3_Will._4) c. 65) was revolutionary, enlarging the electorate by a factor of 13 from 5,000 to 65,000.[5]

The historiography of the Reform Act is marked by longstanding debates over its causes, nature, and impact. Scholars have long grappled with whether it was a radical modernizing movement that expanded democracy by widening the franchise or a conservative measure intended to preserve aristocratic rule by making necessary concessions.[6]

## Unreformed House of Commons

Main article: [Unreformed House of Commons](/source/Unreformed_House_of_Commons)

[Grey's Monument](/source/Grey's_Monument) in [Newcastle upon Tyne](/source/Newcastle_upon_Tyne), in remembrance of Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey, abolisher of slavery in the British Empire

After the [Acts of Union 1800](/source/Acts_of_Union_1800) became law on 1 January 1801, the unreformed House of Commons comprised 658 members, of whom 513 represented England and Wales. There were two types of constituency: counties and boroughs. County members were supposed to represent landholders, while borough members were supposed to represent mercantile and trading interests.[7]

### Counties

[Counties](/source/Counties_of_the_United_Kingdom) were historical national subdivisions established between the 8th and 16th centuries. They were not merely parliamentary constituencies: many components of government (as well as [courts](/source/Court) and the [militia](/source/Militia)) were organised along county lines.[8] The members of Parliament chosen by the counties were known as [knights of the shire](/source/Knights_of_the_shire). In Wales, each county elected one member, while in England, each county elected two members until 1826 when Yorkshire's representation was increased to four, following the disfranchisement of the Cornish borough of [Grampound](/source/Grampound_(UK_Parliament_constituency)).[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

### Boroughs

Parliamentary boroughs in England ranged in size from small hamlets to large cities, partly because they had evolved haphazardly. The earliest boroughs were chosen in the Middle Ages by county sheriffs, and even a village might be deemed a borough.[9] Many of these early boroughs (such as [Winchelsea](/source/Winchelsea_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) and [Dunwich](/source/Dunwich_(UK_Parliament_constituency))) were substantial settlements at the time of their original enfranchisement, but later went into decline, and by the early 19th century some only had a few electors, but still elected two [MPs](/source/Member_of_Parliament_(United_Kingdom)); they were often known as [rotten boroughs](/source/Rotten_boroughs). Of the 70 English boroughs that Tudor monarchs enfranchised, 31 were later [disfranchised](/source/Disfranchisement).[10] Finally, the parliamentarians of the 17th century compounded the inconsistencies by re-enfranchising 15 boroughs whose representation had lapsed for centuries, seven of which were later disfranchised by the Reform Act 1832. After [Newark](/source/Newark_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) was enfranchised in 1661, no additional boroughs were enfranchised, and, with the sole exception of Grampound's 1821 disfranchisement, the system remained unchanged until the Reform Act 1832. Most English boroughs elected two MPs; but five boroughs elected only one MP: [Abingdon](/source/Abingdon_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), [Banbury](/source/Banbury_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), [Bewdley](/source/Bewdley_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), [Higham Ferrers](/source/Higham_Ferrers_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) and [Monmouth](/source/Monmouth). The [City of London](/source/City_of_London) and the joint borough of [Weymouth and Melcombe Regis](/source/Weymouth_and_Melcombe_Regis_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) each elected four members. The Welsh boroughs each returned a single member.[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

### The franchise

Statutes passed in 1430 and 1432, during the reign of [Henry VI](/source/Henry_VI_of_England), standardised property qualifications for county voters. Under these Acts, all owners of [freehold property](/source/Fee_simple) or land with an annual value of at least forty shillings in a particular county were entitled to vote in that county. This requirement, known as the [forty shilling freehold](/source/Forty_Shilling_Freeholders), was never adjusted for inflation of land value; thus the amount of land one had to own in order to vote gradually diminished over time.[f][12] The franchise was restricted to men by custom rather than statute;[13] on rare occasions women had been able to vote in parliamentary elections as a result of property ownership.[14] Nevertheless, the vast majority of people were not entitled to vote; the size of the English county electorate in 1831 has been estimated at only 200,000 and 400,000 enfranchised Englishmen overall.[15] Furthermore, the sizes of the individual county constituencies varied significantly. The smallest counties, [Rutland](/source/Rutland) and [Anglesey](/source/Anglesey), had fewer than 1,000 voters each, while the largest county, [Yorkshire](/source/Yorkshire), had more than 20,000.[16] Those who owned property in multiple constituencies could [vote multiple times](/source/Plural_voting). Not only was this typically legal (since there was usually no need for a property owner to live in a constituency in order to vote there) it was also feasible, even with the technology of the time, since polling was usually held over several days.

In boroughs the franchise was far more varied. There were broadly six types of parliamentary boroughs, as defined by their franchise:

1. Boroughs in which freemen were electors;

1. Boroughs in which the franchise was restricted to those paying [scot and lot](/source/Scot_and_lot), a form of municipal taxation;

1. Boroughs in which only the ownership of a [burgage](/source/Burgage) property qualified a person to vote;

1. Boroughs in which only members of the corporation were electors (such boroughs were perhaps in every case "[pocket boroughs](/source/Pocket_borough)", because corporation members were usually "in the pocket" of a wealthy patron);

1. Boroughs in which male householders were electors (these were usually known as "[potwalloper](/source/Potwalloper) boroughs", as the usual definition of a householder was a person able to boil a pot on his/her own hearth);

1. Boroughs in which freeholders of land had the right to vote.

Some boroughs had a combination of these varying types of franchise, and most had special rules and exceptions, so many boroughs had a form of franchise that was unique to themselves.[17]

The largest borough, [Westminster](/source/Westminster_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), had about 12,000 voters, while many of the smallest, usually known as "rotten boroughs", had fewer than 100 each.[18] The most famous rotten borough was [Old Sarum](/source/Old_Sarum_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), which had 13 [burgage plots](/source/Burgage) that could be used to "manufacture" electors if necessary—usually around half a dozen was thought sufficient. Other examples were [Dunwich](/source/Dunwich_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) (32 voters), [Camelford](/source/Camelford_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) (25), and [Gatton](/source/Gatton_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) (7).[19]

### Pocket boroughs

Many constituencies, especially those with small electorates, were under the control of rich landowners, and were known as nomination boroughs or [pocket boroughs](/source/Pocket_borough), because they were said to be in the pockets of their patrons. Most patrons were noblemen or landed gentry who could use their local influence, prestige, and wealth to sway the voters. This was particularly true in rural counties, and in small boroughs situated near a large landed estate. Some noblemen even controlled multiple constituencies: for example, the [Duke of Norfolk](/source/Charles_Howard%2C_11th_Duke_of_Norfolk) controlled eleven, while the [Earl of Lonsdale](/source/James_Lowther%2C_1st_Earl_of_Lonsdale) controlled nine.[20] Writing in 1821, [Sydney Smith](/source/Sydney_Smith) proclaimed that "The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters!"[21] [T. H. B. Oldfield](/source/T._H._B._Oldfield) stated in his *Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland* that, out of the 514 members representing England and Wales, about 370 were selected by nearly 180 patrons. A member who represented a pocket borough was expected to vote as his patron ordered, or else lose his seat at the next election. Voters in some constituencies resisted outright domination by powerful landlords, but were often open to corruption.[22]

## Movement for reform

### Effects of the French Revolution

Support for parliamentary reform in Britain plummeted following the beginning of the [French Revolution](/source/French_Revolution) in 1789. The revolution led many British politicians to become steadfastly opposed to major political change. Despite this, several [radical](/source/Radicalism_(historical)) groups were established in Britain to agitate for reform. A group of Whigs led by the [Earl of Lauderdale](/source/James_Maitland%2C_8th_Earl_of_Lauderdale) and [Charles Grey](/source/Charles_Grey%2C_2nd_Earl_Grey) founded an organisation advocating parliamentary reform in 1792. This group, known as the [Society of the Friends of the People](/source/Society_of_the_Friends_of_the_People), included 28 MPs.[23] In 1793, Grey presented to the House of Commons a petition from the Friends of the People, outlining [abuses of the system](/source/Abuses_of_the_system) and demanding change. He did not propose any specific scheme of reform, but merely a motion that the House inquire into possible improvements. Parliament's reaction to the French Revolution was so negative that even this request for an inquiry was rejected by a margin of almost 200 votes. Grey tried to raise the subject again in 1797, but the House again rebuffed him by a majority of over 150.[24]

Other notable pro-reform organisations included the [Hampden Clubs](/source/Hampden_Club) (named after [John Hampden](/source/John_Hampden), an English politician who fought on the [Parliamentarian](/source/Roundhead) side during the [English Civil War](/source/English_Civil_War)) and the [London Corresponding Society](/source/London_Corresponding_Society) (which consisted of workers and artisans). But the "Radical" reforms supported by these organisations (for example, universal suffrage) found even less support in Parliament. For example, when [Sir Francis Burdett](/source/Sir_Francis_Burdett%2C_5th_Baronet), chairman of the London Hampden Club, proposed a resolution in favour of universal suffrage, equally sized electoral districts, and voting by secret ballot to the House of Commons, his motion found only one other supporter ([Lord Cochrane](/source/Thomas_Cochrane%2C_10th_Earl_of_Dundonald)) in the entire House.[25]

Despite such setbacks, popular pressure for reform remained strong. In 1819, a large pro-reform rally was held in Birmingham. Although the city was not entitled to any seats in the Commons, those gathered decided to elect [Sir Charles Wolseley](/source/Sir_Charles_Wolseley%2C_7th_Baronet) as Birmingham's "legislatorial representative". Following their example, reformers in Manchester held a similar meeting to elect a "legislatorial attorney". Between 20,000 and 60,000 (by different estimates) attended the event. The protesters were ordered to disband; when they did not, the [Manchester Yeomanry](/source/Manchester_and_Salford_Yeomanry) suppressed the meeting by force. Eighteen people were killed and several hundred injured in what later became known as the [Peterloo Massacre](/source/Peterloo_Massacre). In response, the government passed the [Six Acts](/source/Six_Acts), measures designed to quell further political agitation. In particular, the [Seditious Meetings Act](/source/Seditious_Meetings_Act_1817) prohibited groups of more than 50 people from assembling to discuss any political subject without prior permission from the sheriff or magistrate.[26]

### Reform during the 1820s

Since the House of Commons regularly rejected direct challenges to the system of representation by large majorities, supporters of reform had to content themselves with more modest measures. The Whig [Lord John Russell](/source/John_Russell%2C_1st_Earl_Russell) brought forward one such measure in 1820, proposing the disfranchisement of the notoriously corrupt borough of [Grampound](/source/Grampound_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) in Cornwall. He suggested that the borough's two seats be transferred to the city of [Leeds](/source/Leeds). Tories in the House of Lords agreed to the disfranchisement of the borough, but refused to accept the precedent of directly transferring its seats to an industrial city. Instead, they modified the proposal so that two further seats were given to [Yorkshire](/source/Yorkshire), the county in which Leeds is situated. In this form, the bill passed both houses and became law. In 1828, Lord John Russell suggested that Parliament repeat the idea by abolishing the corrupt boroughs of [Penryn](/source/Penryn%2C_Cornwall) and [East Retford](/source/Retford), and by transferring their seats to Manchester and Birmingham. This time, however, the House of Lords rejected his proposals. In 1830, Russell proposed another, similar scheme: the enfranchisement of Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, and the disfranchisement of the next three boroughs found guilty of corruption; again, the proposal was rejected.[27]

In 1829, support for reform came from an unexpected source – a reactionary faction of the Tory Party. The Tory government under [Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington](/source/Arthur_Wellesley%2C_1st_Duke_of_Wellington), responding to the danger of civil strife in largely Roman Catholic Ireland, drew up the [Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829](/source/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829). This legislation repealed various laws that imposed political disabilities on Roman Catholics, in particular laws that prevented them from becoming members of Parliament. In response, disenchanted [ultra-Tories](/source/Ultra-Tories) who perceived a danger to the established religion came to favour parliamentary reform, in particular the enfranchisement of Manchester, Leeds, and other heavily [Nonconformist](/source/Nonconformist_(Protestantism)) cities in northern England.[28]

## Passage of the Reform Act

Spirit flask in the shape of [Henry Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux](/source/Henry_Brougham%2C_1st_Baron_Brougham_and_Vaux), Lord Chancellor at the time; he holds a document labelled "The Second [Magna Charta](/source/Magna_Charta)."

### First Reform Bill

The death of [King George IV](/source/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom) on 26 June 1830 dissolved Parliament by law, and a [general election](/source/1830_United_Kingdom_general_election) was held. Electoral reform, which had been frequently discussed during the preceding parliament, became a major campaign issue. Across the country, several pro-reform "political unions" were formed, made up of both middle and working class individuals. The most influential of these was the [Birmingham Political Union](/source/Birmingham_Political_Union), led by [Thomas Attwood](/source/Thomas_Attwood_(economist)). These groups confined themselves to lawful means of supporting reform, such as petitioning and public oratory, and achieved a high level of public support.[29]

[Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey](/source/Charles_Grey%2C_2nd_Earl_Grey) became prime minister in 1830, and his first announcement as prime minister was a pledge to carry out parliamentary reform. On 1 March 1831, Lord John Russell brought forward the Reform Bill in the House of Commons on the government's behalf. The bill disfranchised 60 of the smallest boroughs, and reduced the representation of 47 others. Some seats were completely abolished, while others were redistributed to the London suburbs, to large cities, to the counties, and to Scotland and Ireland. Furthermore, the bill standardised and expanded the borough franchise, increasing the size of the electorate (according to one estimate) by half a million voters.[30]

On 22 March, the vote on the [second reading](/source/Reading_(legislature)) attracted a record 608 members, including the non-voting Speaker (the previous record was 530 members). Despite the high attendance, the second reading was approved by only one vote, and further progress on the Reform Bill was difficult. During the committee stage, [Isaac Gascoyne](/source/Isaac_Gascoyne) put forward a motion objecting to provisions of the bill that reduced the total number of seats in the House of Commons. This motion was carried, against the government's wishes, by 8 votes. The ministry lost a vote on a procedural motion by 22 votes. As these divisions indicated that Parliament was against the Reform Bill, the ministry decided to request a dissolution and take its appeal to the people.[31]

### Second Reform Bill

The political and popular pressure for reform had grown so great that in the [1831 general election](/source/1831_United_Kingdom_general_election) pro-reform Whigs won as close to a [landslide victory](/source/Landslide_victory) as the unreformed electoral system was capable of producing; Whig candidates won nearly every seat where there was a meaningful contest - the anti-reform Tories were reduced almost entirely to the members for the rotten boroughs. The Reform Bill was again brought before the House of Commons, which agreed to the second reading by a large majority in July. During the committee stage, opponents of the bill slowed its progress through tedious discussions of its details, but it was finally passed in September 1831, by a margin of more than 100 votes.[32]

The Bill was then sent up to the House of Lords, a majority in which was known to be hostile to it. After the Whigs' decisive victory in the 1831 election, some speculated that opponents would abstain, rather than openly defy the public will. Indeed, when the Lords voted on the second reading of the bill after a memorable series of debates, many Tory peers did refrain from voting. However, the [Lords Spiritual](/source/Lords_Spiritual) mustered in unusually large numbers, and of 22 present, 21 voted against the Bill in October 1831. It failed to pass by 41 votes.[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

Public violence ensued after the Lords rejected the Reform Bill. That very evening, [riots broke out](/source/1831_reform_riots) in [Derby](/source/Derby). A mob attacked the city jail and freed several prisoners. In [Nottingham](/source/Nottingham), rioters set fire to [Nottingham Castle](/source/Nottingham_Castle) (the home of the Duke of Newcastle) and attacked [Wollaton Hall](/source/Wollaton_Hall) (the estate of Lord Middleton). The most significant disturbances occurred at [Bristol](/source/Bristol), where [rioters controlled the city for three days](/source/1831_Bristol_riots). The mob broke into prisons and destroyed the palace of the [Bishop of Bristol](/source/Bishop_of_Bristol), the mansion of the [Lord Mayor of Bristol](/source/Lord_Mayor_of_Bristol), and several private homes. Violence also erupted in [Dorset](/source/Dorset), Leicestershire, and [Somerset](/source/Somerset).[33]

Meanwhile, the political unions, which were operating as separate groups united only by a common goal, formed together into the [National Political Union](/source/National_Political_Union_(England)). Already wary that the riots earlier in the year might be the prelude to revolution, the government saw this new organisation as a threat, and issued a proclamation pursuant to the [Corresponding Societies Act 1799](/source/Unlawful_Societies_Act_1799) declaring the association "unconstitutional and illegal", and commanding all loyal subjects to shun it. The Union continued in defiance of the proclamation, but leaders of the influential Birmingham branch decided to co-operate with the government by discouraging activities on a national level.[34]

### Third Reform Bill

After the Reform Bill was rejected in the Lords, the House of Commons immediately passed a [motion of confidence](/source/Motion_of_confidence) affirming their support for Lord Grey's administration. Because parliamentary rules prohibited the introduction of the same bill twice during the same [parliamentary session](/source/Parliamentary_session), the ministry advised the new king, [William IV](/source/William_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom), to [prorogue](/source/Prorogation_in_the_United_Kingdom) Parliament. As soon as the new session began in December 1831, the Third Reform Bill was brought forward. The bill was in a few respects different from its predecessors; it no longer proposed a reduction in the total membership of the House of Commons, and it reflected data collected during the census that had just been completed. The new version passed in the House of Commons by even larger majorities in March 1832; it was once again sent up to the House of Lords.[35]

Realizing that another rejection would not be politically feasible, opponents of reform decided to use amendments to change the bill's essential character; for example, they voted to delay consideration of clauses in the bill that disfranchised the rotten boroughs. The ministers believed that they were left with only one path to the bill's passage: to create a large number of new peerages, swamping the House of Lords with pro-reform votes but the prerogative of creating peerages rested with the king, who recoiled from so drastic a step and rejected the unanimous advice of his cabinet. Lord Grey then resigned, and the king invited the Duke of Wellington to form a new government.[36]

#### Verge of revolution

The ensuing period became known as the "[Days of May](/source/Days_of_May)"; a wave of large pro-reform demonstrations, led by the political unions, swept the country. A minority of the protestors called for the abolition of the nobility; the most radical demanded [the end of the monarchy](/source/Republicanism_in_the_United_Kingdom).[37] The protests were peaceful, but their massive scale nonetheless spooked many in Parliament. With the [July Revolution](/source/July_Revolution) in France still in recent memory, many thought that if the bill did not pass, revolution was all but inevitable. The [Queen](/source/Adelaide_of_Saxe-Meiningen) believed that "an English revolution [was] rapidly approaching, and that her own fate [was] to be that of [Marie Antoinette](/source/Marie_Antoinette)".[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*] Whig MP [Edward Littleton](/source/Edward_Littleton%2C_1st_Baron_Hatherton) wrote that the nation was "in a state little short of insurrection".[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*] Though the National Political Union kept within the bounds of the law, its leader [Thomas Attwood](/source/Thomas_Attwood_(economist)) boasted that "the nation could be mobilized in an hour", making it clear to all involved that the Union was a powerful extra-Parliamentary force; if an uprising broke out, the government might be unable to suppress it.[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

Many protesters advocated [tax resistance](/source/Tax_resistance), and orchestrated a [run on the banks](/source/Bank_run). Signs appeared across London reading "Stop the Duke; go for gold!" £1.8 million[g] was withdrawn from the [Bank of England](/source/Bank_of_England) in the first days of the run (one-fourth of the £7 million[h] in the bank's possession).[38][39][40]

The National Political Union and other organisations sent petitions to the House of Commons, demanding that they [withhold supply](/source/Loss_of_supply) (cut off funding to the government) until the Lords passed the bill.

The social unrest caused some politicians to abandon the Duke of Wellington, a reactionary Tory and long an ardent opponent of parliamentary reform. Wellington could not summon a majority in the House of Commons, despite promising a modest reform package.

King William recalled Lord Grey to the post of prime minister and consented to create enough Whig peers to force the bill through the Lords. To avoid the appointment of Liberal peers, Wellington circulated a letter among Tory peers, encouraging them to desist from opposition, and warning them of the consequences of continuing. Enough Tory peers relented.[41] By abstaining from subsequent votes, they allowed the legislation to pass in the House of Lords, and the Crown did not feel it needed to appoint additional peers.

The Reform Act received [royal assent](/source/Royal_assent) on 7 June 1832, thereby becoming law.[42]

## Results

### Historiography

The extensive scholarship on the Reform Act is filled with debates over its causes, nature, and impact. Historians have long grappled with whether it was a radical modernizing movement that successfully introduced democracy or rather a conservative measure intended to preserve traditional upper class rule by making a few necessary concessions and thus blocking a revolution.[43][44][45][46][47]

### Provisions

#### Abolition of seats

Poster issued by the [Sheffield](/source/Sheffield) Typographical Society celebrating the passing of the Reform Act

The Reform Act's chief objective was the reduction of the number of nomination boroughs (election districts). There were 203 boroughs in England before the Act.[i] The 56 smallest of these, as measured by their housing stock and tax assessments, were completely abolished. The next 30 smallest boroughs each lost one of their two MPs. In addition [Weymouth and Melcombe Regis](/source/Weymouth_and_Melcombe_Regis_(UK_Parliament_constituency))'s four members were reduced to two. Thus in total the Act abolished 143 borough seats in England (one of the boroughs to be completely abolished, [Higham Ferrers](/source/Higham_Ferrers_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), returned only a single MP).[48]

#### Creation of new seats

In their place the Act created new districts and 130 new seats in England and Wales:

- 26 English counties were divided into two divisions with each division being represented by two members.

- 7 English counties and 3 Welsh counties each received an additional representative; each of the 7 English counties being represented by three members, each of the 3 Welsh counties being represented by two.

- Yorkshire, which was represented by four MPs before the Act, was given an extra two MPs (so that each of its three [ridings](/source/Riding_(division)) was represented by two MPs).

- The Isle of Wight, heretofore part of Hampshire, received its own single representative member.

- 22 large towns were given two MPs.

- Another 21 towns (of which two were in Wales) were given one MP.

Thus 65 new county seats and 65 new borough seats were created in England and Wales. The total number of English members fell by 18 and the number in Wales increased by five.[j] The boundaries of the new divisions and parliamentary boroughs were defined in a separate Act, the [Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832](/source/Parliamentary_Boundaries_Act_1832).

#### Extension of the franchise

In county constituencies, franchise rights were extended to [copyholders](/source/Copyhold) and long-term (at least sixty years) leaseholders of land with at least £10[k] annual value, medium-term (between twenty and sixty years) leaseholders of land with at least £50 annual value, and to [tenants-at-will](/source/Tenants-at-will) paying an annual rent of at least £50[l]. Annual value refers to the rent at which the land might reasonably be expected to be let from year to year. (The franchise rights of 40 shilling freeholders were retained.)[49]

The property qualifications of borough franchise were standardised to male occupants of property who paid a yearly rental of £10[k] or more. The property could be a house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building as long as it was occupied, and occupied for at least 12 months.[50] Existing borough electors retained a lifetime right to vote, however they had qualified, provided they were resident in the boroughs in which they were electors. In those boroughs which had freemen electors, voting rights were to be enjoyed by future freemen as well, provided their freemanship was acquired through birth or apprenticeship and they too were resident.[m]

The Act also introduced a system of [voter registration](/source/Voter_registration), to be administered by the [overseers of the poor](/source/Overseer_of_the_poor) in every parish and township. It instituted a system of special courts to review disputes relating to voter qualifications. It also authorised the use of multiple polling places within the same constituency, and limited the duration of polling to two days. (Formerly, polls could remain open for up to fifteen days.[51])

The Reform Act itself did not affect constituencies in Scotland or Ireland. However, there were also reforms there, under the [Scottish Reform Act](/source/Scottish_Reform_Act_1832) and the [Irish Reform Act](/source/Irish_Reform_Act_1832). Scotland received eight additional seats, and Ireland received five; thus keeping the total number of seats in the House of Commons the same as it had been before the Act. While no constituencies were disfranchised in either of those countries, voter qualifications were standardised and the size of the electorate was increased in both.[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

### Effects

Between 1835 and 1841, local Conservative Associations began to educate citizens about the party's platform and encouraged them to register to vote annually, as required by the Act. Coverage of national politics in the local press was joined by in-depth reports on provincial politics in the national press. Grassroots Conservatives therefore saw themselves as part of a national political movement during the 1830s.[52]

The size of the pre-Reform electorate is difficult to estimate. Voter registration was lacking, and many boroughs were rarely contested in elections. It is estimated that immediately before the Reform Act 1832, 400,000 English citizens (people who lived in the country) were entitled to vote, and that after passage, the number rose to 650,000, an increase of more than 60%.[53] Rodney Mace estimates that before, 1 per cent of the population could vote and that the Reform Act only extended the franchise to 7 per cent of the population.[54]

Tradesmen, such as shoemakers, mistakenly believed that the Reform Act had given them the vote. One example is the shoemakers of [Duns](/source/Duns%2C_Scottish_Borders), [Berwickshire](/source/Berwickshire). They created a banner celebrating the Reform Act which declared, "The battle's won. Britannia's sons are free." This banner is on display at [People's History Museum](/source/People's_History_Museum) in [Manchester](/source/Manchester).[55]

Many major commercial and industrial cities became separate parliamentary boroughs under the act. The new constituencies saw party conflicts within the middle class, and between the middle class and working class. A study of elections in the medium-sized borough of [Halifax](/source/Halifax_(UK_Parliament_constituency)), 1832–1852, concluded that the party organisations, and the voters themselves, depended heavily on local social relationships and local institutions. Having the vote encouraged many men to become much more active in the political, economic and social sphere.[56]

The Scottish Act revolutionised politics in Scotland, with its population of 2 million. Its electorate had been only 0.2% of the population compared to 4% in England. The Scottish electorate overnight soared from 5,000 to 65,000, or 13% of the adult men, and was no longer a private preserve of a few very rich families.[5]

According to Thomas Ertman, the act was a "[critical juncture](/source/Critical_juncture_theory)" in British politics, as it "put an end to executive control of the legislature through pocket boroughs and placemen and ushered in a culture of national political participation; second, it brought forth a new source of order in politics, a two-party system built around religious cleavages; and finally, it acted as both an impetus and a model for future electoral expansions (1867, 1884, 1918)."[57]

#### Tenant voters

Most of the [pocket boroughs](/source/Pocket_borough) abolished by the Reform Act belonged to the Tory party. These losses were somewhat offset by the extension of the vote to tenants-at-will paying an annual rent of £50.[l] This clause, proposed by the Tory [Marquess of Chandos](/source/Richard_Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville%2C_2nd_Duke_of_Buckingham_and_Chandos), was adopted in the House of Commons despite opposition from the Government. The tenants-at-will thereby enfranchised typically voted as instructed by their landlords, who in turn normally supported the Tory party.[58] This concession, together with the Whig party's internal divisions and the difficulties faced by the nation's economy, allowed the Tories under [Sir Robert Peel](/source/Robert_Peel) to make gains in the elections of [1835](/source/1835_United_Kingdom_general_election) and [1837](/source/1837_United_Kingdom_general_election), and to retake the House of Commons in [1841](/source/1841_United_Kingdom_general_election).[59]

A modern historian, David F. Krein's examination of votes in the House concluded that the traditional landed interest "suffered very little" by the 1832 act. They continued to dominate the Commons, while losing some of their power to enact laws that focused on their more parochial interests. By contrast, the same study concluded that the [Reform Act 1867](/source/Reform_Act_1867) caused serious erosion of their legislative power and the 1874 elections saw great landowners losing their county seats to the votes of tenant farmers in England and especially in Ireland.[60]

### Limitations

The property qualifications of the Reform Act were substantial at the time and barred most of the working class from the vote. This created division between the working class and the middle class and led to the growth of the [Chartist Movement](/source/Chartism).[61]

Although it did disenfranchise most [rotten boroughs](/source/Rotten_borough), a few remained, such as [Totnes](/source/Totnes_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) in Devon and [Midhurst](/source/Midhurst_(UK_Parliament_constituency)) in Sussex. Also, bribery of voters remained a problem. As Sir [Thomas Erskine May](/source/Thomas_Erskine_May) observed, "it was too soon evident, that as more votes had been created, more votes were to be sold".[62]

The Reform Act strengthened the House of Commons by reducing the number of nomination boroughs controlled by peers. Some aristocrats complained that, in the future, the government could compel them to pass any bill, simply by threatening to swamp the House of Lords with new peerages. The Duke of Wellington lamented: "If such projects can be carried into execution by a minister of the Crown with impunity, there is no doubt that the constitution of this House, and of this country, is at an end.... [T]here is absolutely an end put to the power and objects of deliberation in this House, and an end to all just and proper means of decision."[63] The subsequent history of Parliament, however, shows that the influence of the Lords was largely undiminished. They compelled the Commons to accept significant amendments to the [Municipal Reform Bill](/source/Municipal_Corporations_Act_1835) in 1835, forced compromises on [Jewish emancipation](/source/Emancipation_of_the_Jews_in_England), and successfully resisted several other bills supported by the public.[64] It would not be until decades later, culminating in the [Parliament Act 1911](/source/Parliament_Act_1911), that Wellington's fears would come to pass.

### Further reform

During the ensuing years, Parliament adopted several more minor reforms. The [Parliamentary Elections Act 1835](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parliamentary_Elections_Act_1835&action=edit&redlink=1) (for borough constituencies) and the [Parliamentary Elections (No. 2) Act 1836](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parliamentary_Elections_(No._2)_Act_1836&action=edit&redlink=1) (for county constituencies) increased the number of polling places in each constituencies and thus reduced polling to a single day.[65] Parliament also passed several laws aimed at combatting corruption, including the [Corrupt Practices Act 1854](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corrupt_Practices_Act_1854&action=edit&redlink=1), though these measures proved largely ineffectual. Neither party strove for further major reform; leading statesmen on both sides regarded the Reform Act as a final settlement.[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

There was considerable public agitation for further expansion of the electorate, however. In particular, the [Chartist movement](/source/Chartism), which demanded [universal suffrage](/source/Universal_suffrage) for men, equally sized electoral districts, and voting by [secret ballot](/source/Secret_ballot), gained a widespread following. However, the Tories were united against further reform, and the Liberal Party (successor to the Whigs) did not seek a general revision of the electoral system until 1852. The 1850s saw Lord John Russell introduce a number of reform bills to correct defects the first act had left unaddressed. However, no proposal was successful until 1867, when Parliament adopted the [Second Reform Act](/source/Reform_Act_1867).[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

An area the Reform Act did not address was the issue of municipal and regional government. As a result of archaic traditions, many English counties had enclaves and exclaves, which were mostly abolished in the [Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844](/source/Counties_(Detached_Parts)_Act_1844). Furthermore, many new conurbations and economic areas bridged traditional county boundaries by having been formed in previously obscure areas: the West Midlands conurbation bridged Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, Manchester and Liverpool both had hinterlands in Cheshire but city centres in Lancashire, while in the south Oxford's developing southern suburbs were in Berkshire and London was expanding into Essex, Surrey and Middlesex. This led to further acts to reorganise county boundaries in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries.[*[citation needed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)*]

### Repeal

The whole act was repealed by section 80(7) of, and the thirteenth schedule to, the [Representation of the People Act 1948](/source/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1948) ([11 & 12 Geo. 6](/source/11_%26_12_Geo._6). c. 65), which came into force on 30 July 1948.[66]

## See also

- [Politics portal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Politics)
- [United Kingdom portal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:United_Kingdom)
- [Law portal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Law)

- [1832 United Kingdom general election](/source/1832_United_Kingdom_general_election)

- [Elections in the United Kingdom § History](/source/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom#History)

- [List of constituencies enfranchised and disfranchised by the Reform Act 1832](/source/List_of_constituencies_enfranchised_and_disfranchised_by_the_Reform_Act_1832)

- [Reform Acts](/source/Reform_Acts), other legislation concerning electoral matters

- [Scottish Reform Act 1832](/source/Scottish_Reform_Act_1832), enlarged the electorate by a factor of 13 from 5,000 to 65,000

## Notes

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-st_1-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-st_1-1) The citation of this act by this [short title](/source/Short_title) was authorised by the [Short Titles Act 1896](/source/Short_Titles_Act_1896), section 1 and the first schedule. Due to the repeal of those provisions it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the [Interpretation Act 1978](/source/Interpretation_Act_1978).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-2)** Preamble. In Scotland and Ireland, the [Scottish Reform Act 1832](/source/Scottish_Reform_Act_1832) ([2 & 3 Will. 4](/source/2_%26_3_Will._4). c. 65) and [Irish Reform Act 1832](/source/Irish_Reform_Act_1832) ([2 & 3 Will. 4](/source/2_%26_3_Will._4). c. 88) applied, respectively)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-3)** The [Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793](/source/Acts_of_Parliament_(Commencement)_Act_1793).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-st2_4-0)** The citation of this act by this [short title](/source/Short_title) was authorised by section 1 of, and the first schedule to, the [Short Titles Act 1896](/source/Short_Titles_Act_1896). Due to the repeal of those provisions it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the [Interpretation Act 1978](/source/Interpretation_Act_1978).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-5)** Section 1.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-17)** 40 shillings, or £2, was equivalent to £1,700 in 2025 terms in 1430, but had dropped to £190 in 2025 terms by 1832.[11]

1. **[^](#cite_ref-44)** £1.8 million was equivalent to £200 million in 2025 terms in 1832.[11]

1. **[^](#cite_ref-45)** £7 million was equivalent to £700 million in 2025 terms in 1832.[11]

1. **[^](#cite_ref-56)** Including Monmouth, considered part of Wales under sections 1, 20 and 269 of the [Local Government Act 1972](/source/Local_Government_Act_1972) (cap. 70). The [Interpretation Act 1978](/source/Interpretation_Act_1978) (cap. 30) provides that before 1 April 1974, "a reference to England includes [Berwick-upon-Tweed](/source/Berwick-upon-Tweed) and [Monmouthshire](/source/Monmouthshire)".

1. **[^](#cite_ref-58)** Wales did not lose any of its existing borough representatives because with the exception of Beaumaris and Montgomery these members represented groups of towns rather than an individual town. To enable Wales to retain all of its existing borough seats the Act therefore simply increased, where necessary, the number of towns in these groupings and created entirely new groupings for Beaumaris and Montgomery.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-ten1832_59-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-ten1832_59-1) £10 was equivalent to £1,000 in 2025 terms in 1832.[11]

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-fifty1832_60-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-fifty1832_60-1) £50 was equivalent to £4,800 in 2025 terms in 1832.[11]

1. **[^](#cite_ref-63)** Immediately after 1832, more than a third of borough electors—over 100,000—were "ancient right" electors, the greater proportion being freemen. Their numbers dwindled by death, and by 1898 apparently only one ancient right "potwalloper" remained a registered elector.

## References

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Parliament_6-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Parliament_6-1) ["The Reform Act 1832"](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/reformact1832/). UK Parliament. Retrieved 16 August 2025.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-7)** ["The Reform Act 1832"](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/reformact1832/). *Parliament.co.uk*. Retrieved 10 April 2026.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-8)** ["Reform Bill | British Politics, Social Change & Impact on History"](https://www.britannica.com/event/Reform-Bill). *Encyclopædia Britannica*.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-9)** Vanden Bossche, Chris (2014). *Reform acts: Chartism, social agency, and the Victorian novel, 1832–1867*. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 74–76. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1-4214-1209-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-4214-1209-2). [OCLC](/source/OCLC_(identifier)) [867050216](https://search.worldcat.org/oclc/867050216).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Houston_10-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Houston_10-1) Houston, Robert Allan (2008). [*Scotland: A Very Short Introduction*](https://books.google.com/books?id=RqAUDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA26). Oxford University Press. p. 26. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9780199230792](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780199230792).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-11)** John A. Phillips, and Charles Wetherell, "The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the political modernization of England." *American Historical Review* 100.2 (1995): 411–436. [online](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2169005)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-12)** Blackstone (1765), pp. 154–155.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-13)** Blackstone (1765), p. 110

1. **[^](#cite_ref-14)** *Parliamentary Representation of English Boroughs in the Middle Ages* by May McKisack, 1932.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-15)** The Elizabethan House of Commons – J. E. Neale 1949 pages 133–134. Grampound was one of the 31 boroughs disenfranchised but was disenfranchised in 1821 prior to the Reform Act 1832.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-inflation-UK_16-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-inflation-UK_16-1) [***c***](#cite_ref-inflation-UK_16-2) [***d***](#cite_ref-inflation-UK_16-3) [***e***](#cite_ref-inflation-UK_16-4) UK [Consumer Price Index](/source/Consumer_Price_Index) inflation figures from 1209–2024 based on data from ["Inflation calculator"](https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator). *[Bank of England](/source/Bank_of_England)*. London. 18 February 2026. Retrieved 1 April 2026.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-18)** [Blackstone (1765)](#CITEREFBlackstone1765), pp. 166–167

1. **[^](#cite_ref-19)** Johnston, Neil (1 March 2013), ["Ancient voting rights"](http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP13-14), *The History of the Parliamentary Franchise*, House of Commons Library, p. 6, retrieved 16 March 2016

1. **[^](#cite_ref-20)** Heater, Derek (2006). [*Citizenship in Britain: A History*](https://books.google.com/books?id=js-qBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA107). Edinburgh University Press. p. 107. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9780748626724](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780748626724).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-21)** [Phillips & Wetherell (1995)](#CITEREFPhillipsWetherell1995), p. 413

1. **[^](#cite_ref-22)** Thorne (1986), vol. II, pp. 331, 435, 480.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-23)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 321–322.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-24)** Thorne (1986), vol. II, p. 266.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-25)** Thorne (1986), vol. II, pp. 50, 369, 380.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-26)** May (1896), vol. I, p. 333.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-27)** Holland and Austin (1855), vol. II, pp. 214–215.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-28)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 361–362.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-29)** May (1896), vol. I, p. 402.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-30)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 404–406.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-31)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 406–407.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-32)** May (1896), vol. II, pp. 352–359.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-33)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 408–416.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-34)** May (1896), vol. I, p. 412.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-35)** May (1896), vol. II, p. 384.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-36)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 421–422.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-37)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 422–423.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-38)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 423–424.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-39)** [Rudé (1967)](#CITEREFRudé1967), pp. 97–98

1. **[^](#cite_ref-40)** May (1896), vol. II, pp. 389–390.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-41)** May (1896), vol. I, p. 452.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-42)** May (1896), vol. I, p. 312.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-43)** May (1896), vol. II, pp. 390–391.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-46)** Gross, David M. (2014). *99 Tactics of Successful Tax Resistance Campaigns*. Picket Line Press. p. 176. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-1490572741](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1490572741).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-47)** John T. Hull, Reform movements and ideas (1929) (available at Internet Archives online)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-48)** Francis, History of the Bank of England, p. 66-69 [https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/historyofbankof02fran/historyofbankof02fran.pdf](https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/historyofbankof02fran/historyofbankof02fran.pdf) accessed January 20, 2026

1. **[^](#cite_ref-49)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 312–313.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-50)** Evans, Eric J. (1994) [first published 1983]. [*The Great Reform Act of 1832*](https://books.google.com/books?id=A9cXnG6yW7YC&pg=PA1) (2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 1. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9781134816033](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781134816033).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-51)** Boyd Hilton, *A Mad, Bad and Dangerous people? England 1783–1846* (Oxford UP, 2006) pp.420–437.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-52)** Gilbert A. Cahill, ed. *The Great Reform bill of 1832* (1969) pp.vii to xv.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-53)** William Henry Maehl, ed., *The Reform Bill of 1832; Why Not Revolution?* (1967) pp.1–7.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-54)** David Loades, *Reader's Guide to British History* (2003) 2:1014–1015.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-55)** John A. Phillips, and Charles Wetherell. “The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England.” *American Historical Review* 100#2 1995, pp. 411–36. [online](https://doi.org/10.2307/2169005)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-57)** ["Higham Ferrers. Borough"](http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/constituencies/higham-ferrers). *History of Parliament*. Retrieved 14 September 2021.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-61)** ["The Reform Act of 1832"](http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/refact/refact.htm). *www.historyhome.co.uk*. Retrieved 19 January 2024.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-62)** Johnston, Neil. *The History of Parliamentary Franchise*. London: House of Commons Library, 2013. [https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp13-14/](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp13-14/).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-64)** Burlock, Hillary (3 July 2023). ["Georgian Elections: the Basics"](https://ecppec.ncl.ac.uk/features/georgian-elections-the-basics/). *ECPPEC*. Retrieved 19 January 2024.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-65)** Matthew Cragoe, "The Great Reform Act and the Modernization of British Politics: The Impact of Conservative Associations, 1835–1841", *Journal of British Studies,* July 2008, Vol. 47 Issue 3, pp 581–603

1. **[^](#cite_ref-66)** Phillips and Wetherell (1995), pp. 413–414.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-67)** Rodney Mace (1999). *British Trade Union Posters: An Illustrated History*. [Sutton Publishing](/source/Sutton_Publishing). p. 14. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0750921587](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0750921587).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-68)** "Collection Highlights, Shoemakers Banner" People's History Museum, [online](https://web.archive.org/web/20150113200016/http://www.phm.org.uk/our-collection/shoemakers-banner/)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-69)** Toshihiko Iwama, "Parties, Middle-Class Voters, And The Urban Community: Rethinking The Halifax Parliamentary Borough Elections, 1832–1852," *Northern History* (2014) 51#1 pp. 91–112

1. **[^](#cite_ref-70)** Ertman, Thomas (2010). ["The Great Reform Act of 1832 and British Democratization"](https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010370434). *Comparative Political Studies*. **43** (8–9): 1000–1022. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1177/0010414010370434](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0010414010370434). [ISSN](/source/ISSN_(identifier)) [0010-4140](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0010-4140).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-71)** May (1896), vol. I, p. 428.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-72)** Norman Gash, *Politics in the age of Peel.* (1953) p. 72.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-73)** David F. Krein "The Great Landowners in the House of Commons, 1833–85," *Parliamentary History* (2013) 32#3 pp 460–476

1. **[^](#cite_ref-74)** ["The Chartist Movement"](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/chartists/overview/chartistmovement/). *UK Parliament*. Retrieved 22 July 2022.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-75)** May (1895). [*The Constitutional History of England*](https://books.google.com/books?id=YxYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253). p. 253.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-76)** Quoted in May (1895). [*The Constitutional History of England*](https://books.google.com/books?id=YxYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253). p. 253.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-77)** May (1896), vol. I, pp. 316–317.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-78)** May (1896), vol. I, p. 449.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-79)** ["Representation of the People Act 1948"](https://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/11-12/65/), *[legislation.gov.uk](/source/Legislation.gov.uk)*, [The National Archives](/source/The_National_Archives_(United_Kingdom)), Geo6/11-12 c. 65

## Bibliography

- [Blackstone, William](/source/William_Blackstone) (1765). *Commentaries on the Laws of England*. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

- [Gash, Norman](/source/Norman_Gash) (1952). *Politics in the Age of Peel: A Study in the Technique of Parliamentary Representation, 1830–1850*. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

- Hilton, Boyd. *A Mad, Bad, and Dangerous People?: England 1783–1846* (Oxford University Press, 2008) pp420-438. [online](https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lJsSDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=Boyd+Hilton+Mad+Bad+dangerous&ots=ojao8n21vs&sig=xBPxuaIe26kcCgZCDPsKyWwTnLQ)

- [Lady Holland](/source/Lady_Saba_Holland); [Austin, Sarah](/source/Sarah_Austin_(translator)) (1855). *A Memoir of the Reverend Sydney Smith by his daughter, Lady Holland, with a Selection from his Letters edited by Mrs Sarah Austin (2 vols)*. London: Brown, Green, and Longmans.

- Marcus, Jane, ed. (2001). [*Suffrage and the Pankhursts*](https://books.google.com/books?id=BKu2grJXr-8C). Women's Source Library. Vol. VIII. London: Routledge. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [9780415256933](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780415256933).

- [May, Thomas Erskine](/source/Erskine_May%2C_1st_Baron_Farnborough) (1895). [*The Constitutional History of England Since the Accession of George the Third, 1760–1860*](https://books.google.com/books?id=YxYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253). Vol. 1. pp. 263–364.

- Phillips, John A.; Wetherell, Charles (1995). "The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England". *American Historical Review*. **100** (2): 411–436. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.2307/2169005](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2169005). [JSTOR](/source/JSTOR_(identifier)) [2169005](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2169005).

- Rover, Constance (1967). *Women's Suffrage and Party Politics in Britain, 1866–1914*. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

- Rudé, George (1967). "English Rural and Urban Disturbances on the Eve of the First Reform Bill, 1830–1831". *Past and Present* (37): 87–102. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1093/past/37.1.87](https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fpast%2F37.1.87). [JSTOR](/source/JSTOR_(identifier)) [650024](https://www.jstor.org/stable/650024).

- [Smith, E. A.](/source/E._A._Smith_(historian)) (1992). *Reform or Revolution? A Diary of Reform in England, 1830-2*. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Alan Sutton.

- Thorne, R. G. (1986). *The House of Commons: 1790–1820*. London: Secker and Warburg.

- [Trevelyan, G. M.](/source/G._M._Trevelyan) (1922). *British History in the Nineteenth Century and After (1782–1901*. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

## Further reading

- Aidt, Toke S., and Raphaël Franck. "How to get the snowball rolling and extend the franchise: voting on the Great Reform Act of 1832." *Public Choice* 155.3–4 (2013): 229–250. [online](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-011-9911-y)

- [Brock, Michael](/source/Brock%2C_Michael). (1973). *The Great Reform Act.* London: Hutchinson Press. [online](https://archive.org/details/greatreformact0000broc)

- Butler, J. R. M. (1914). *The Passing of the Great Reform Bill.* London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

- Cahill, Gilbert A. ed. *The great reform bill of 1832* (1969), excerpts from primary and secondary sources; [online](https://archive.org/details/greatreformbillo0000gilb)

- Cannon, John. (1973). *Parliamentary Reform 1640–1832.* New York: Cambridge University Press.

- Christie, Ian R. (1962). *Wilkes, Wyvill and Reform: The Parliamentary Reform Movement in British Politics, 1760–1785.* New York: St. Martin's Press.

- Collier, Martin and Philip Pedley. (2001) *Britain 1815-51: Protest and Reform* Oxford: Heinemann, 2001.

- Conacher, J.B. (1971)*The emergence of British parliamentary democracy in the nineteenth century: the passing of the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, and 1884–1885* (1971).

- Gary Cox and Sebastian Saiegh (2022), "Suffrage Reform and Financial Volatility: Reconsidering the Great Reform Act." *Journal of Historical Political Economy* 2(3): 415-447.

- Ertman, Thomas. "The Great Reform Act of 1832 and British Democratization." *Comparative Political Studies* 43.8–9 (2010): 1000–1022. [online](http://cps.sagepub.com/content/43/8-9/1000.short)

- Evans, Eric J. (1983). *The Great Reform Act of 1832.* London: Methuen and Co.

- Foot, Paul (2005). *The Vote: How It Was Won and How It Was Undermined.* London: Viking.

- Fraser, Antonia (2013). *Perilous question: the drama of the Great Reform Bill 1832.* London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

- Gash, Norman. (1979) "The Constitutional Revolution" in *Aristocracy and people: Britain 1815-1865* Cambridge: Harvard UP, pp.129–155. [online](https://archive.org/details/aristocracypeopl0000gash_c0a5)

- Halévy Élie. *The Triumph of Reform 1830-1841* (1923) [online](https://archive.org/details/triumphofreform1000282mbp/page/n4/mode/1up)

- Maehl, William H., Jr., ed. *The Reform Bill of 1832: Why Not Revolution?* (1967) 122pp; historiography and brief excerpts from primary and secondary sources; [online](https://archive.org/details/reformbillof18320000maeh)

- Mandler, Peter. (1990). *Aristocratic Government in the Age of Reform: Whigs and Liberals, 1830–1852.* Oxford: Clarendon Press.

- Morrison, Bruce. (2011) "[Channeling the "Restless Spirit of Innovation": Elite Concessions and Institutional Change in the British Reform Act of 1832.](http://mtw160-198.ippl.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/world_politics/v063/63.4.morrison.pdf)" *World Politics* 63.04 (2011): 678–710.

- Newbould, Ian. (1990). *Whiggery and Reform, 1830–1841: The Politics of Government.* London: Macmillan.

- O'Gorman, Frank. (1989). *Voters, Patrons, and Parties: The Unreformed Electoral System of Hanoverian England, 1734–1832.* Oxford: Clarendon Press.

- Phillips, John A. (1992). *The Great Reform Bill in the Boroughs: English Electoral Behaviour, 1818-1841* Oxford University Press; [online](https://archive.org/details/greatreformbilli0000john/page/n5/mode/2up)

- Phillips, John A. (1982). *Electoral Behaviour in Unreformed England: Plumpers, Splitters, and Straights.* Princeton: [Princeton University Press](/source/Princeton_University_Press).

- Pearce, Edward. *Reform!: the fight for the 1832 Reform Act* (Random House, 2010)

- Trevelyan, G. M. (1920). *Lord Grey of the Reform Bill: Being the Life of Charles, Second Earl Grey.* London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

- Vanden Bossche, Chris R. (2014) *Reform Acts: Chartism, Social Agency, and the Victorian Novel, 1832–1867* (2014) [excerpt and text search](https://www.amazon.com/Reform-Acts-Chartism-Victorian-1832-1867/dp/product-description/142141208X)

- Veitch, George Stead. (1913). *The Genesis of Parliamentary Reform.* London: Constable and Co.

- Warham, Dror. (1995). *Imagining the Middle Class: The Political Representation of Class in Britain, c. 1780–1840.* Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

- Whitfield, Bob. *The Extension of the Franchise: 1832–1931* (Heinemann Advanced History, 2001), textbook

- Wicks, Elizabeth (2006). *The Evolution of a Constitution: Eight Key Moments in British Constitutional History.* Oxford: Hart Pub., pp. 65–82.

- Woodward, Sir E. Llewellyn. (1962). *The Age of Reform, 1815–1870.* Oxford: Clarendon Press. [online](https://archive.org/details/age-of-reform-1815-1870-the-woodward-e.-l.-ernest-llewellyn-1890-1971/page/n5/mode/1up)

### Primary sources

- Gash, Norman, ed. *The Age of Peel* (1968) [online](https://archive.org/details/ageofpeel0000norm/page/n4/mode/1up), covers 1828 to 1848

## External links

English [Wikisource](/source/Wikisource) has original text related to this article:

**[Reform Act 1832](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/en:Special:Search/Reform_Act_1832)**

- Full original text of the act as passed: ["Cap. XLV: An Act to amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales."](https://books.google.com/books?id=Uq0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA154). *The statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland*. Vol. 2 & 3 William IV. London: His Majesty's statute and law printers. 1832. pp. 154–206 – via Google Books.

- [*A Web of English History*. "Tory arguments against reform"](https://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/refact/antiref.htm)

- [Bloy, Marjie. "The Reform Act Crisis"](https://www.victorianweb.org/history/reform.html)

- [Spartacus. "1832 Reform Act"](https://www.spartacus-educational.com/PR1832.htm)

- [The National Archives. "The Struggle for Democracy"](https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20220201201225/https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm)

- BBC Radio 4, [In Our Time](/source/In_Our_Time_(radio_series)), ["The Great Reform Act"](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00flwh9), hosted by Melvin Bragg, 27 November 2008

- [Image of the original act on the Parliamentary Archives website](https://archives.parliament.uk/collections/getrecord/GB61_HL_PO_PU_1_1832_2and3W4n147)

v t e Electoral reform in the United Kingdom Representation of the People Acts Reform Acts England and Wales, 1832 Scotland, 1832 Ireland, 1832 England and Wales, 1867 Scotland, 1868 Ireland, 1868 1884 1918 1928 1948 1949 1969 1981 1983 1985 1989 1990 1991 1993 2000 Local government reform Pre-1990 Police burgh (Scotland, 1833) Municipal Corporations Act 1835 (England and Wales) Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840 Local Government Act 1888 (England and Wales) London Government Act 1963 Local Government Act 1972 Local Government Act 1985 Local authorities in England Local Government Act 1992 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 Greater London Authority Greater London Authority Act 1999 (mayor, assembly constituencies) Mayors for combined authorities Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 Police and crime commissioners Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 Local authorities in Scotland Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004 Scottish Local Government (Elections) Act 2009 Local authorities in Wales Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 Local authorities in Northern Ireland Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 Constituencies reform United Kingdom Parliament Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832 Parliamentary Boundaries (Ireland) Act 1832 Redistribution of Seats Act 1885 Redistribution of Seats (Ireland) Act 1918 House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1944 House of Commons (by Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Northern Ireland Parliament Government of Ireland Act 1920 House of Commons (Method of Voting and Redistribution of Seats) Act (Northern Ireland) 1929 Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 Scottish Parliament Scotland Act 1998 (constituencies) Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004 Senedd Cymru Government of Wales Act 1998 (constituencies) Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024 Northern Ireland Assembly Northern Ireland Act 1998 (constituencies) Assembly Members (Reduction of Numbers) Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 Other related Acts Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 Ballot Act 1872 Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883 European Assembly Elections Act 1978 (repealed) Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999 Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Electoral Administration Act 2006 Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (repealed) Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 Elections Act 2022 Ballot Secrecy Act 2023 Scotland Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Act 2025 Wales Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Act 2025 Northern Ireland Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 Related topics Chartism Unreformed House of Commons Rotten and pocket boroughs University constituency Women's suffrage Wales Historiography 2011 United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum Elections in the United Kingdom Corrupt practices Boundary commissions Parliament in the Making Parliamentary franchise (1885–1918)

v t e Suffrage Basic topics Universal suffrage Right to run for office Age of candidacy Banned Term limit Women Suffragette Women's liberation movement Men Black Youth Demeny voting Non-citizen Non-resident citizen One man, one vote Multiple citizenship Voting age Free and fair election Secret ballot Compulsory voting Disfranchisement Voter turnout Wasted vote By country Austria Australia 1902 Commonwealth Franchise Act aboriginal women Canada Chile Colombia Ecuador Hong Kong India Japan Kuwait Liechtenstein Mexico New Zealand Spain (Civil War, Francoist) Philippines Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom women Cayman Islands Scotland Wales laws 1832 1918 1928 United States women African Americans Native Americans felons foreigners District of Columbia Puerto Rico states Constitutional amendments: 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, 26th Indian Citizenship Act 1965 Voting Rights Act Events International International Woman Suffrage Alliance conferences 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th Hong Kong Hong Kong 1 July marches 2014 Hong Kong protests 2019–2020 Hong Kong protests United Kingdom WSPU march (1906) Mud March (1907) Women's Sunday (1908) Black Friday (1910) Battle of Downing Street (1910) Women's Coronation Procession (1911) Great Pilgrimage (1913) Open Christmas Letter (1914) Suffragette bombing and arson campaign United States Seneca Falls Convention (1848) Declaration of Sentiments (1848) Rochester Convention (1848) Ohio Women's Convention (1850) Ohio Women's Convention (1851) National Women's Rights Convention (1850–1869) Trial of Susan B. Anthony (1872–1873) Suffrage Hikes (1912–1914) Woman Suffrage Procession (1913) Suffrage Torch Suffrage Special (1916) Silent Sentinels (1917–1919) Night of Terror Prison Special 1920 United States presidential election "Give Us the Ballot" (1957) Freedom Summer (1964) Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) Women (memorials) List of suffragists and suffragettes Timeline of women's suffrage US in majority-Muslim countries Historiography of the Suffragettes Women's suffrage organizations and publications Women's rights activists Leser v. Garnett Auckland Women's Suffrage Memorial Belmont–Paul Monument Rise up, Women (Emmeline Pankhurst statue) Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst Memorial Elizabeth Cady Stanton statue Suffragette Memorial Portrait Monument Women's Rights Pioneers Monument Forward statue Kate Sheppard National Memorial Millicent Fawcett statue Great Petition (2008 sculpture) Centenary of Women's Suffrage Commemorative Fountain Resilience Turning Point Suffragist Memorial Eagle House Pankhurst Centre Paulsdale Suffragette Handkerchief Holloway banner Holloway brooch Holloway Jingles Hunger Strike Medal Justice Bell Suffrage jewellery Suffragette penny Suffrage Oak Women's Rights National Historical Park Women's Suffrage National Monument International Women's Day Susan B. Anthony Day Women's Equality Day Popular culture "The Women's Marseillaise" "The March of the Women" (1910 song) The Mother of Us All (1947 opera) "Sister Suffragette" (1964 song) Suffrage plays Women's suffrage in film Votes for Women (1912 film) Shoulder to Shoulder (1974 series) Not for Ourselves Alone (1999 documentary) Iron Jawed Angels (2004 film) Up the Women (2013 sitcom) Selma (2014 film) Suffragette (2015 film) Sylvia (2018 musical) Suffs (2022 musical) Susan B. Anthony dollar National Voting Rights Museum (US) New Zealand ten-dollar note Women's Suffrage Centennial silver dollar (2020 U.S. commemorative) 2020 US ten-dollar bill Art in the women's suffrage movement in the United States Music and women's suffrage in the United States

v t e United Kingdom legislation Pre-parliamentary legislation List of English statutes Charter of Liberties Magna Carta Acts of parliaments of states preceding the Kingdom of Great Britain Parliament of England 1225–1267 1275–1307 1308–1325 Temp. incert. 1327–1376 1377–1397 1399–1411 1413–1421 1422–1460 1461 1463 1464 1467 1468 1472 1474 1477 1482 1483 1485 1487 1488 1491 1495 1496 1503 1509 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1523 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1551 1553 1554 1555 1557 1558 1562 1566 1571 1572 1575 1580 1584 1586 1588 1592 1597 1601 1603 1605 1606 1609 1620 1623 1625 1627 Petition of Right 1640 Interregnum (1642–1660) 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1670 1672 1675 1677 1678 1679 Habeas Corpus Act 1680 1685 1688 1689 Bill of Rights 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 Union with Scotland Act Parliament of Scotland 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1431 1432 1433 1434 1436 1437 1438 1440 1443 1445 1449 1450 1451 1452 1454 1455 1456 1457 1466 1467 1468 1469 1471 1474 1475 1476 1478 1481 1482 1483 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1491 1493 1496 1503 1504 1509 1515 1522 1524 1525 1526 1528 1532 1535 1540 1542 1543 1545 1551 1555 1557 1558 1560 1563 1564 1567 1571 1572 1573 1578 1579 1581 1584 1585 1587 1592 1593 1594 1597 1600 1604 1606 1607 1609 1612 1617 1621 1633 Rescinded (1639–1651) 1661 1662 1663 1669 1670 1672 1673 1681 1685 1686 1689 Claim of Right 1690 1693 1695 1696 1698 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 1707 Union with England Act Acts of Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain 1707 1708 1709 1710 1711 1712 1713 1714 1715 1716 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1734 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1753 1754 1755 1756 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761 1762 1763 1764 1765 1766 1767 1768 1769 1770 1771 1772 1773 1774 1775 1776 1777 1778 1779 1780 1781 1782 1783 1784 1785 1786 1787 1788 1789 1790 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 Acts of the Parliament of Ireland 1169–1192 1200–1299 1300–1399 1400–1499 1500–1599 1600–1690 1691–1700 1701–1710 1711–1720 1721–1730 1731–1740 1741–1750 1751–1760 1761–1770 1771–1780 1781–1790 1791–1800 Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1801 1802 1803 1804 1805 1806 1807 1808 1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 1814 1815 1816 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Halsbury's Statutes Legislation.gov.uk Short titles relating to the EU (formerly EC) 1972 to date By session 42 (1·2·3·4·5) 43 (1·2) 44 (1·2·3·4) 45 (1·2·3·4) 46 47 (1·2·3·4·5) 48 (1·2·3·4) 49 (1·2·3·4) 50 (1·2·3·4·5) 51 (1·2·3·4·5) 52 (1·2·3·4) 53 (1·2·3·4) 54 (1·2·3·4·5) 55 (1·2·3·4) 56 (1·2) 57 (1·2) 58 (1·2·3·4) 59 (1) Church of England measures List Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 Legislation of devolved institutions Parliament of Northern Ireland List Northern Ireland Assembly (1973) List Scottish Parliament 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Senedd Cymru 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Northern Ireland Assembly 2000 2001 2002 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2020 2021 2022 2023 2023 2024 2025 2026 Secondary legislation United Kingdom statutory instruments Order in Council List of Privy Council orders for Northern Ireland List Scottish statutory instruments Acts of Sederunt Acts of Adjournal Church of England instruments Welsh statutory instruments

Authority control databases: People UK Parliament

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Reform Act 1832](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.