{{Short description|UK law reforming the electoral system}} {{use British English|date=May 2012}} {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2021}} {{Infobox UK legislation | short_title = Representation of the People Act 1832{{efn|name=st|The citation of this act by this [[short title]] was authorised by the [[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]].}} | type = Act | parliament = Parliament of the United Kingdom | long_title = An Act to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales | year = 1832 | citation = [[2 & 3 Will. 4]]. c. 45 | introduced_by = [[Prime Minister]] [[Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey]] | territorial_extent = [[England and Wales]]{{efn|Preamble. In Scotland and Ireland, the [[Scottish Reform Act 1832]] ([[2 & 3 Will. 4]]. c. 65) and [[Irish Reform Act 1832]] ([[2 & 3 Will. 4]]. c. 88) applied, respectively)}} | royal_assent = 7 June 1832 | commencement = 7 June 1832{{efn|The [[Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793]].}} | repeal_date = 30 July 1948 | amends = | amendments = {{ubli|[[Statute Law Revision Act 1874]]|[[Statute Law Revision Act 1890]]|[[Representation of the People Act 1918]]}} | related_legislation = {{ubli|[[Parliamentary Elections Act 1695]]|[[Scottish Reform Act 1832]]|[[Irish Reform Act 1832]]|[[Reform Act 1867]]}} | repealing_legislation = [[Representation of the People Act 1948]] | status = Repealed | original_text = https://books.google.com/books?id=Uq0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA154 }} {{Infobox UK legislation | short_title = {{visible anchor|Corporate Property (Elections) Act 1832}}{{efn|name=st2|reference=The citation of this act by this [[short title]] was authorised by section 1 of, and the first schedule to, the [[Short Titles Act 1896]]. Due to the repeal of those provisions it is now authorised by section 19(2) of the [[Interpretation Act 1978]].}} | type = Act | 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. | year = 1832 | citation = [[2 & 3 Will. 4]]. c. 69 | territorial_extent = [[United Kingdom]] | royal_assent = 1 August 1832 | commencement = 1 August 1832{{efn|Section 1.}} | repeal_date = 24 November 1949 | amends = | replaces = | amendments = [[Municipal Corporations Act 1882]] | repealing_legislation = [[Representation of the People Act 1949]] | related_legislation = | status = Repealed | original_text = https://books.google.com/books?id=Uq0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA444 | collapsed = yes }} [[File:Reform Act 1832 First Page.jpg|150px|thumb|right|Start of parchment roll of the Reform Act 1832, with [[royal assent]] of King [[William IV]]]]

The '''Representation of the People Act 1832'''{{efn|name=st}} ([[2 & 3 Will. 4]]. c. 45), also known as the '''Reform Act 1832''', '''Great Reform Act''' or '''First Reform Act''', was an [[Act of Parliament (United Kingdom)|act]] of the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]] to reform the electoral system in England and Wales and to expand the [[Suffrage|franchise]]. The measure was brought forward by the [[Whiggism|Whig]] government of [[Prime Minister]] [[Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey]].<ref name="Parliament">{{Cite web |title=The Reform Act 1832 |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/reformact1832/ |access-date=2025-08-16 |publisher=UK Parliament |language=en}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite news |title=The Reform Act 1832 |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/houseofcommons/reformacts/overview/reformact1832/ |access-date=10 April 2026 |work=Parliament.co.uk}}</ref> The act of England and Wales was accompanied by the [[Scottish Reform Act 1832]] ([[2 & 3 Will. 4]]. c. 65) and [[Irish Reform Act 1832]] ([[2 & 3 Will. 4]]. c. 88).<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | url=https://www.britannica.com/event/Reform-Bill | title=Reform Bill &#124; British Politics, Social Change & Impact on History |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica }}</ref>

The act was repealed by the [[Representation of the People Act 1948]].<ref name="Parliament"/> The electoral system in the UK is now defined principally by the [[Representation of the People Act 1983]] and the [[Electoral Administration Act 2006]].

Before the reform, most members of Parliament nominally represented [[borough]]s. 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]] sufficient to boil a pot.<ref>{{cite book |last=Vanden Bossche |first=Chris |title=Reform acts: Chartism, social agency, and the Victorian novel, 1832–1867 |date=2014 |isbn=978-1-4214-1209-2 |location=Baltimore, Maryland |pages=74–76 |oclc=867050216 |publisher=The Johns Hopkins University Press}}</ref>

The [[Irish Reform Act 1832]] ([[2 & 3 Will. 4]] c. 88) brought similar changes to Ireland, and the separate [[Scottish Reform Act 1832]] ([[2 & 3 Will. 4]] c. 65) was revolutionary, enlarging the electorate by a factor of 13 from 5,000 to 65,000.<ref name = Houston>{{cite book |first=Robert Allan |last=Houston |title=Scotland: A Very Short Introduction |url= https://books.google.com/books?id=RqAUDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA26 |year=2008 |page=26 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=9780199230792}}</ref>

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.<ref>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. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2169005 online]</ref>

==Unreformed House of Commons== {{Main|Unreformed House of Commons}} [[File:Charles Grey - 2nd Earl Grey - atop the Grey Momument - Newcastle upon Tyne - England - 140804.jpg|alt=Photograph of the statue.|thumb|left|203x203px|[[Grey's Monument]] in [[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]] 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.<ref>Blackstone (1765), pp. 154–155.</ref>

=== Counties === {{Anchor|Counties}} [[Counties of the United Kingdom|Counties]] were historical national subdivisions established between the 8th and 16th centuries. They were not merely parliamentary constituencies: many components of government (as well as [[court]]s and the [[militia]]) were organised along county lines.<ref>Blackstone (1765), p. 110</ref> The members of Parliament chosen by the counties were known as [[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 (UK Parliament constituency)|Grampound]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

=== Boroughs === {{Anchor|Boroughs|Parliamentary 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.<ref>''Parliamentary Representation of English Boroughs in the Middle Ages'' by May McKisack, 1932.</ref> Many of these early boroughs (such as [[Winchelsea (UK Parliament constituency)|Winchelsea]] and [[Dunwich (UK Parliament constituency)|Dunwich]]) were substantial settlements at the time of their original enfranchisement, but later went into decline, and by the early 19th century some only had a few electors, but still elected two [[Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)|MPs]]; they were often known as [[rotten boroughs]]. Of the 70 English boroughs that Tudor monarchs enfranchised, 31 were later [[Disfranchisement|disfranchised]].<ref>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.</ref> 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 (UK Parliament constituency)|Newark]] 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 (UK Parliament constituency)|Abingdon]], [[Banbury (UK Parliament constituency)|Banbury]], [[Bewdley (UK Parliament constituency)|Bewdley]], [[Higham Ferrers (UK Parliament constituency)|Higham Ferrers]] and [[Monmouth]]. The [[City of London]] and the joint borough of [[Weymouth and Melcombe Regis (UK Parliament constituency)|Weymouth and Melcombe Regis]] each elected four members. The Welsh boroughs each returned a single member.{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

===The franchise=== Statutes passed in 1430 and 1432, during the reign of [[Henry VI of England|Henry VI]], standardised property qualifications for county voters. Under these Acts, all owners of [[fee simple|freehold property]] 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 Freeholders|forty shilling freehold]], 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.{{efn|40 shillings, or £2, was equivalent to £{{inflation|UK|2|1430|fmt=c|r=-2}} in {{Inflation/year|UK}} terms in 1430, but had dropped to £{{inflation|UK|2|1832|fmt=c|r=-1}} in {{Inflation/year|UK}} terms by 1832.{{Inflation/fn|UK}}}}<ref>{{harvp|Blackstone|1765|pp=166–167}}</ref> The franchise was restricted to men by custom rather than statute;<ref>{{citation|title=The History of the Parliamentary Franchise|chapter-url=http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/RP13-14|publisher=House of Commons Library|access-date=16 March 2016|date=1 March 2013|chapter=Ancient voting rights|page=6|last1=Johnston|first1=Neil}}</ref> on rare occasions women had been able to vote in parliamentary elections as a result of property ownership.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Heater |first1=Derek |title=Citizenship in Britain: A History |date=2006 |publisher=Edinburgh University Press |isbn=9780748626724 |page=107 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=js-qBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA107}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{harvp|Phillips|Wetherell|1995|p=413}}</ref> Furthermore, the sizes of the individual county constituencies varied significantly. The smallest counties, [[Rutland]] and [[Anglesey]], had fewer than 1,000 voters each, while the largest county, [[Yorkshire]], had more than 20,000.<ref>Thorne (1986), vol. II, pp. 331, 435, 480.</ref> Those who owned property in multiple constituencies could [[plural voting|vote multiple times]]. 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: # Boroughs in which freemen were electors; # Boroughs in which the franchise was restricted to those paying [[scot and lot]], a form of municipal taxation; # Boroughs in which only the ownership of a [[burgage]] property qualified a person to vote; # Boroughs in which only members of the corporation were electors (such boroughs were perhaps in every case "[[pocket borough]]s", because corporation members were usually "in the pocket" of a wealthy patron); # Boroughs in which male householders were electors (these were usually known as "[[potwalloper]] boroughs", as the usual definition of a householder was a person able to boil a pot on his/her own hearth); # Boroughs in which freeholders of land had the right to vote.

Some boroughs had a combination of these varying types of franchise, and most had special rules and exceptions, so many boroughs had a form of franchise that was unique to themselves.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 321–322.</ref>

The largest borough, [[Westminster (UK Parliament constituency)|Westminster]], had about 12,000 voters, while many of the smallest, usually known as "rotten boroughs", had fewer than 100 each.<ref>Thorne (1986), vol. II, p. 266.</ref> The most famous rotten borough was [[Old Sarum (UK Parliament constituency)|Old Sarum]], which had 13 [[Burgage|burgage plots]] that could be used to "manufacture" electors if necessary—usually around half a dozen was thought sufficient. Other examples were [[Dunwich (UK Parliament constituency)|Dunwich]] (32 voters), [[Camelford (UK Parliament constituency)|Camelford]] (25), and [[Gatton (UK Parliament constituency)|Gatton]] (7).<ref>Thorne (1986), vol. II, pp. 50, 369, 380.</ref>

===Pocket boroughs===

Many constituencies, especially those with small electorates, were under the control of rich landowners, and were known as nomination boroughs or [[pocket borough]]s, 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 [[Charles Howard, 11th Duke of Norfolk|Duke of Norfolk]] controlled eleven, while the [[James Lowther, 1st Earl of Lonsdale|Earl of Lonsdale]] controlled nine.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 333.</ref> Writing in 1821, [[Sydney Smith]] proclaimed that "The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters!"<ref>Holland and Austin (1855), vol. II, pp. 214–215.</ref> [[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.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 361–362.</ref>

==Movement for reform==

===Effects of the French Revolution===

Support for parliamentary reform in Britain plummeted following the beginning of the [[French Revolution]] in 1789. The revolution led many British politicians to become steadfastly opposed to major political change. Despite this, several [[Radicalism (historical)|radical]] groups were established in Britain to agitate for reform. A group of Whigs led by the [[James Maitland, 8th Earl of Lauderdale|Earl of Lauderdale]] and [[Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey|Charles Grey]] founded an organisation advocating parliamentary reform in 1792. This group, known as the [[Society of the Friends of the People]], included 28 MPs.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 402.</ref> In 1793, Grey presented to the House of Commons a petition from the Friends of the People, outlining [[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.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 404–406.</ref>

Other notable pro-reform organisations included the [[Hampden Club]]s (named after [[John Hampden]], an English politician who fought on the [[Roundhead|Parliamentarian]] side during the [[English Civil War]]) and the [[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, 5th Baronet|Sir Francis Burdett]], 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 ([[Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald|Lord Cochrane]]) in the entire House.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 406–407.</ref>

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, 7th Baronet|Sir Charles Wolseley]] 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 and Salford Yeomanry|Manchester Yeomanry]] suppressed the meeting by force. Eighteen people were killed and several hundred injured in what later became known as the [[Peterloo Massacre]]. In response, the government passed the [[Six Acts]], measures designed to quell further political agitation. In particular, the [[Seditious Meetings Act 1817|Seditious Meetings Act]] prohibited groups of more than 50 people from assembling to discuss any political subject without prior permission from the sheriff or magistrate.<ref>May (1896), vol. II, pp. 352–359.</ref>

===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 [[John Russell, 1st Earl Russell|Lord John Russell]] brought forward one such measure in 1820, proposing the disfranchisement of the notoriously corrupt borough of [[Grampound (UK Parliament constituency)|Grampound]] in Cornwall. He suggested that the borough's two seats be transferred to the city of [[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]], 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, Cornwall|Penryn]] and [[Retford|East 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.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 408–416.</ref>

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]], responding to the danger of civil strife in largely Roman Catholic Ireland, drew up the [[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]] who perceived a danger to the established religion came to favour parliamentary reform, in particular the enfranchisement of Manchester, Leeds, and other heavily [[Nonconformist (Protestantism)|Nonconformist]] cities in northern England.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 412.</ref>

==Passage of the Reform Act== [[File:Stoneware Reform Bill spirit flats (Derbyshire, 1832).jpg|thumb|Spirit flask in the shape of [[Henry Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux]], Lord Chancellor at the time; he holds a document labelled "The Second [[Magna Charta]]."]] ===First Reform Bill=== The death of [[George IV of the United Kingdom|King George IV]] on 26 June 1830 dissolved Parliament by law, and a [[1830 United Kingdom general election|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]], led by [[Thomas Attwood (economist)|Thomas Attwood]]. These groups confined themselves to lawful means of supporting reform, such as petitioning and public oratory, and achieved a high level of public support.<ref>May (1896), vol. II, p. 384.</ref>

[[Charles Grey, 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.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 421–422.</ref>

On 22 March, the vote on the [[reading (legislature)|second reading]] attracted a record 608 members, including the non-voting Speaker (the previous record was 530 members). Despite the high attendance, the second reading was approved by only one vote, and further progress on the Reform Bill was difficult. During the committee stage, [[Isaac Gascoyne]] put forward a motion objecting to provisions of the bill that reduced the total number of seats in the House of Commons. This motion was carried, against the government's wishes, by 8 votes. 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.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 422–423.</ref>

===Second Reform Bill=== The political and popular pressure for reform had grown so great that in the [[1831 United Kingdom general election|1831 general election]] pro-reform Whigs won as close to a [[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.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 423–424.</ref>

The Bill was then sent up to the House of Lords, a majority in which was known to be hostile to it. After the Whigs' decisive victory in the 1831 election, some speculated that opponents would abstain, rather than openly defy the public will. Indeed, when the Lords voted on the second reading of the bill after a memorable series of debates, many Tory peers did refrain from voting. However, the [[Lords Spiritual]] mustered in unusually large numbers, and of 22 present, 21 voted against the Bill in October 1831. It failed to pass by 41 votes.{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

Public violence ensued after the Lords rejected the Reform Bill. That very evening, [[1831 reform riots|riots broke out]] in [[Derby]]. A mob attacked the city jail and freed several prisoners. In [[Nottingham]], rioters set fire to [[Nottingham Castle]] (the home of the Duke of Newcastle) and attacked [[Wollaton Hall]] (the estate of Lord Middleton). The most significant disturbances occurred at [[Bristol]], where [[1831 Bristol riots|rioters controlled the city for three days]]. The mob broke into prisons and destroyed the palace of the [[Bishop of Bristol]], the mansion of the [[Lord Mayor of Bristol]], and several private homes. Violence also erupted in [[Dorset]], Leicestershire, and [[Somerset]].<ref>{{harvp|Rudé|1967|pp=97–98}}</ref>

Meanwhile, the political unions, which were operating as separate groups united only by a common goal, formed together into the [[National Political Union (England)|National Political Union]]. 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 [[Unlawful Societies Act 1799|Corresponding 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.<ref>May (1896), vol. II, pp. 389–390.</ref>

===Third Reform Bill=== After the Reform Bill was rejected in the Lords, the House of Commons immediately passed a [[motion of confidence]] affirming their support for Lord Grey's administration. Because parliamentary rules prohibited the introduction of the same bill twice during the same [[parliamentary session]], the ministry advised the new king, [[William IV of the United Kingdom|William IV]], to [[Prorogation in the United Kingdom|prorogue]] Parliament. As soon as the new session began in December 1831, the Third Reform Bill was brought forward. The bill was in a few respects different from its predecessors; it no longer proposed a reduction in the total membership of the House of Commons, and it reflected data collected during the census that had just been completed. The new version passed in the House of Commons by even larger majorities in March 1832; it was once again sent up to the House of Lords.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 452.</ref>

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.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 312.</ref>

==== Verge of revolution ==== The ensuing period became known as the "[[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 [[Republicanism in the United Kingdom|the end of the monarchy]].<ref>May (1896), vol. II, pp. 390–391.</ref> The protests were peaceful, but their massive scale nonetheless spooked many in Parliament. With the [[July Revolution]] in France still in recent memory, many thought that if the bill did not pass, revolution was all but inevitable. The [[Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen|Queen]] believed that "an English revolution [was] rapidly approaching, and that her own fate [was] to be that of [[Marie Antoinette]]".{{Citation needed|date=September 2025}} Whig MP [[Edward Littleton, 1st Baron Hatherton|Edward Littleton]] wrote that the nation was "in a state little short of insurrection".{{Citation needed|date=September 2025}} Though the National Political Union kept within the bounds of the law, its leader [[Thomas Attwood (economist)|Thomas Attwood]] 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|date=September 2025}}

Many protesters advocated [[tax resistance]], and orchestrated a [[Bank run|run on the banks]]. Signs appeared across London reading "Stop the Duke; go for gold!" £1.8&nbsp;million{{efn|£1.8&nbsp;million was equivalent to £{{inflation|UK|1.8|1832|fmt=c|r=-2}}&nbsp;million in {{Inflation/year|UK}} terms in 1832.{{Inflation/fn|UK}}}} was withdrawn from the [[Bank of England]] in the first days of the run (one-fourth of the £7&nbsp;million{{efn|£7&nbsp;million was equivalent to £{{inflation|UK|7|1832|fmt=c|r=-2}}&nbsp;million in {{Inflation/year|UK}} terms in 1832.{{Inflation/fn|UK}}}} in the bank's possession).<ref>{{cite book |last=Gross|first=David M.|year=2014|title=99 Tactics of Successful Tax Resistance Campaigns|publisher=Picket Line Press|isbn=978-1490572741|page=176}}</ref><ref> John T. Hull, Reform movements and ideas (1929) (available at Internet Archives online)</ref><ref>Francis, History of the Bank of England, p. 66-69 https://dn790008.ca.archive.org/0/items/historyofbankof02fran/historyofbankof02fran.pdf accessed January 20, 2026</ref>

The National Political Union and other organisations sent petitions to the House of Commons, demanding that they [[Loss of supply|withhold 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.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 312–313.</ref> 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]] on 7 June 1832, thereby becoming law.<ref>{{cite book|last=Evans|first=Eric J.|year=1994|title=The Great Reform Act of 1832|edition=2nd|orig-year=first published 1983|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781134816033|page=1|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=A9cXnG6yW7YC&pg=PA1}}</ref>

==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.<ref>Boyd Hilton, '' A Mad, Bad and Dangerous people? England 1783–1846'' (Oxford UP, 2006) pp.420–437.</ref><ref>Gilbert A. Cahill, ed. ''The Great Reform bill of 1832'' (1969) pp.vii to xv.</ref><ref>William Henry Maehl, ed., ''The Reform Bill of 1832; Why Not Revolution?'' (1967) pp.1–7. </ref><ref> David Loades, ''Reader's Guide to British History'' (2003) 2:1014–1015. </ref><ref>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. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2169005 online]</ref>

===Provisions===

====Abolition of seats==== [[File:Sheffield Typographical Society - Reform Act.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Poster issued by the [[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.{{efn|Including Monmouth, considered part of Wales under sections 1, 20 and 269 of the [[Local Government Act 1972]] (cap. 70). The [[Interpretation Act 1978]] (cap. 30) provides that before 1 April 1974, "a reference to England includes [[Berwick-upon-Tweed]] and [[Monmouthshire]]".}} 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 (UK Parliament constituency)|Weymouth and Melcombe Regis]]'s four members were reduced to two. Thus in total the Act abolished 143 borough seats in England (one of the boroughs to be completely abolished, [[Higham Ferrers (UK Parliament constituency)|Higham Ferrers]], returned only a single MP).<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/constituencies/higham-ferrers| title=Higham Ferrers. Borough |work=History of Parliament| access-date = 14 September 2021}}</ref>

====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 [[Riding (division)|ridings]] 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.{{efn|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.}} The boundaries of the new divisions and parliamentary boroughs were defined in a separate Act, the [[Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832]].

====Extension of the franchise==== In county constituencies, franchise rights were extended to [[Copyhold|copyholders]] and long-term (at least sixty years) leaseholders of land with at least £10{{efn|name=ten1832|£10 was equivalent to £{{inflation|UK|10|1832|fmt=c|r=-2}} in {{Inflation/year|UK}} terms in 1832.{{Inflation/fn|UK}}}} annual value, medium-term (between twenty and sixty years) leaseholders of land with at least £50 annual value, and to [[tenants-at-will]] paying an annual rent of at least £50{{efn|name=fifty1832|£50 was equivalent to £{{inflation|UK|50|1832|fmt=c|r=-2}} in {{Inflation/year|UK}} terms in 1832.{{Inflation/fn|UK}}}}. 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.)<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Reform Act of 1832 |url=http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/refact/refact.htm |access-date=2024-01-19 |website=www.historyhome.co.uk}}</ref>

The property qualifications of borough franchise were standardised to male occupants of property who paid a yearly rental of £10{{efn|name=ten1832}} 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.<ref>Johnston, Neil. ''The History of Parliamentary Franchise''. London: House of Commons Library, 2013. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/rp13-14/.</ref> 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.{{efn|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.}}

The Act also introduced a system of [[voter registration]], to be administered by the [[Overseer of the poor|overseers of the poor]] in every parish and township. It instituted a system of special courts to review disputes relating to voter qualifications. It also authorised the use of multiple polling places within the same constituency, and limited the duration of polling to two days. (Formerly, polls could remain open for up to fifteen days.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Burlock |first=Hillary |date=2023-07-03 |title=Georgian Elections: the Basics |url=https://ecppec.ncl.ac.uk/features/georgian-elections-the-basics/ |access-date=2024-01-19 |website=ECPPEC |language=en-US}}</ref>)

The Reform Act itself did not affect constituencies in Scotland or Ireland. However, there were also reforms there, under the [[Scottish Reform Act 1832|Scottish Reform Act]] and the [[Irish Reform Act 1832|Irish Reform Act]]. Scotland received eight additional seats, and Ireland received five; thus keeping the total number of seats in the House of Commons the same as it had been before the Act. While no constituencies were disfranchised in either of those countries, voter qualifications were standardised and the size of the electorate was increased in both.{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

===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.<ref>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</ref>

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%.<ref>Phillips and Wetherell (1995), pp. 413–414.</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Rodney Mace |title=British Trade Union Posters: An Illustrated History |date=1999 |publisher=[[Sutton Publishing]] |isbn=0750921587 |page=14}}</ref>

Tradesmen, such as shoemakers, mistakenly believed that the Reform Act had given them the vote. One example is the shoemakers of [[Duns, Scottish Borders|Duns]], [[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]] in [[Manchester]].<ref> "Collection Highlights, Shoemakers Banner" People's History Museum, [https://web.archive.org/web/20150113200016/http://www.phm.org.uk/our-collection/shoemakers-banner/ online]</ref>

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 (UK Parliament constituency)|Halifax]], 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.<ref>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</ref>

The Scottish Act revolutionised politics in Scotland, with its population of 2&nbsp;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.<ref name = Houston/>

According to Thomas Ertman, the act was a "[[Critical juncture theory|critical juncture]]" 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)."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ertman |first=Thomas |date=2010 |title=The Great Reform Act of 1832 and British Democratization |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414010370434 |journal=Comparative Political Studies |language=EN |volume=43 |issue=8–9 |pages=1000–1022 |doi=10.1177/0010414010370434 |issn=0010-4140|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

==== Tenant voters ==== Most of the [[pocket borough]]s 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.{{efn|name=fifty1832}} This clause, proposed by the Tory [[Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos|Marquess of Chandos]], was adopted in the House of Commons despite opposition from the Government. The tenants-at-will thereby enfranchised typically voted as instructed by their landlords, who in turn normally supported the Tory party.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 428.</ref> This concession, together with the Whig party's internal divisions and the difficulties faced by the nation's economy, allowed the Tories under [[Robert Peel|Sir Robert Peel]] to make gains in the elections of [[1835 United Kingdom general election|1835]] and [[1837 United Kingdom general election|1837]], and to retake the House of Commons in [[1841 United Kingdom general election|1841]].<ref>Norman Gash, '' Politics in the age of Peel.'' (1953) p. 72.</ref>

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]] 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.<ref>David F. Krein "The Great Landowners in the House of Commons, 1833–85," ''Parliamentary History'' (2013) 32#3 pp 460–476</ref>

===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 [[Chartism|Chartist Movement]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Chartist Movement |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/chartists/overview/chartistmovement/ |access-date=22 July 2022 |website=UK Parliament}}</ref>

Although it did disenfranchise most [[rotten borough]]s, a few remained, such as [[Totnes (UK Parliament constituency)|Totnes]] in Devon and [[Midhurst (UK Parliament constituency)|Midhurst]] in Sussex. Also, bribery of voters remained a problem. As Sir [[Thomas Erskine May]] observed, "it was too soon evident, that as more votes had been created, more votes were to be sold".<ref>{{cite book|author=May|title=The Constitutional History of England|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YxYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253|year=1895|page=253}}</ref>

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."<ref>Quoted in {{cite book|author=May|title=The Constitutional History of England|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YxYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253|year=1895|page=253}}</ref> 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 Corporations Act 1835|Municipal Reform Bill]] in 1835, forced compromises on [[Emancipation of the Jews in England|Jewish emancipation]], and successfully resisted several other bills supported by the public.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, pp. 316–317.</ref> It would not be until decades later, culminating in the [[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]] (for borough constituencies) and the [[Parliamentary Elections (No. 2) Act 1836]] (for county constituencies) increased the number of polling places in each constituencies and thus reduced polling to a single day.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 449.</ref> Parliament also passed several laws aimed at combatting corruption, including the [[Corrupt Practices Act 1854]], though these measures proved largely ineffectual. Neither party strove for further major reform; leading statesmen on both sides regarded the Reform Act as a final settlement.{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

There was considerable public agitation for further expansion of the electorate, however. In particular, the [[Chartism|Chartist movement]], which demanded [[universal suffrage]] for men, equally sized electoral districts, and voting by [[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 [[Reform Act 1867|Second Reform Act]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

An area the Reform Act did not address was the issue of municipal and regional government. As a result of archaic traditions, many English counties had enclaves and exclaves, which were mostly abolished in the [[Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844]]. Furthermore, many new conurbations and economic areas bridged traditional county boundaries by having been formed in previously obscure areas: the West Midlands conurbation bridged Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, 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|date=December 2020}}

=== Repeal === The whole act was repealed by section 80(7) of, and the thirteenth schedule to, the [[Representation of the People Act 1948]] ([[11 & 12 Geo. 6]]. c. 65), which came into force on 30 July 1948.<ref>{{Cite legislation UK|act=Representation of the People Act 1948|type=act|year=Geo6/11-12|chapter=65}}</ref>

== See also == {{Portal|Politics|United Kingdom|Law}} * [[1832 United Kingdom general election]] * [[Elections in the United Kingdom#History|Elections in the United Kingdom § History]] * [[List of constituencies enfranchised and disfranchised by the Reform Act 1832]] * [[Reform Acts]], other legislation concerning electoral matters * [[Scottish Reform Act 1832]], enlarged the electorate by a factor of 13 from 5,000 to 65,000

== Notes == {{notelist}}

== References == {{reflist}}

== Bibliography == {{refbegin}} * {{cite book |author-link=William Blackstone |last=Blackstone |first=William |year=1765 |title=Commentaries on the Laws of England |location=Oxford |publisher=Clarendon Press}} * {{cite book |author-link=Norman Gash |last=Gash |first=Norman |date=1952 |title=Politics in the Age of Peel: A Study in the Technique of Parliamentary Representation, 1830–1850 |location=London |publisher=Longmans, Green, and Co.}}

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

* {{cite book|last1=Lady Holland |author-link1=Lady Saba Holland |author-first2=Sarah |author-last2=Austin |author-link2=Sarah Austin (translator) |date=1855 |title=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) |location=London |publisher=Brown, Green, and Longmans}} * {{cite book |editor-last=Marcus |editor-first=Jane |date=2001 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BKu2grJXr-8C |series=Women's Source Library |volume=VIII |title=Suffrage and the Pankhursts |location=London |publisher=Routledge|isbn=9780415256933 }} * {{cite book |author-link=Erskine May, 1st Baron Farnborough |last=May |first=Thomas Erskine |title=The Constitutional History of England Since the Accession of George the Third, 1760–1860 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YxYYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA253 |year=1895 |volume=1 |pages= 263–364}} * {{cite journal |last1=Phillips |first1=John A. |first2=Charles |last2=Wetherell |date=1995 |title=The Great Reform Act of 1832 and the Political Modernization of England |journal=American Historical Review |volume=100 |issue=2 |pages=411–436 |jstor=2169005 |doi=10.2307/2169005}} * {{cite book |last=Rover |first=Constance |date=1967 |title=Women's Suffrage and Party Politics in Britain, 1866–1914 |location=London |publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul}} * {{cite journal |last=Rudé |first=George |date=1967 |title=English Rural and Urban Disturbances on the Eve of the First Reform Bill, 1830–1831 |journal=Past and Present |issue=37 |pages=87–102 |doi=10.1093/past/37.1.87 |jstor=650024}} * {{cite book|last=Smith |first=E. A. |author-link=E. A. Smith (historian) |date=1992 |title=Reform or Revolution? A Diary of Reform in England, 1830-2 |location=Stroud, Gloucestershire |publisher=Alan Sutton}} * {{cite book |last=Thorne |first=R. G. |date=1986 |title=The House of Commons: 1790–1820 |location=London |publisher=Secker and Warburg}} * {{cite book|last=Trevelyan |first=G. M. |author-link=G. M. Trevelyan |date=1922 |title=British History in the Nineteenth Century and After (1782–1901 |location=London |publisher=Longmans, Green, and Co.}} {{refend}}

== Further reading == {{refbegin}} * 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. [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-011-9911-y online] * [[Brock, Michael]]. (1973). ''The Great Reform Act.'' London: Hutchinson Press. [https://archive.org/details/greatreformact0000broc online] * 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; [https://archive.org/details/greatreformbillo0000gilb online] * 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. [http://cps.sagepub.com/content/43/8-9/1000.short online] * 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. [https://archive.org/details/aristocracypeopl0000gash_c0a5 online]

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

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

* Mandler, Peter. (1990). ''Aristocratic Government in the Age of Reform: Whigs and Liberals, 1830–1852.'' Oxford: Clarendon Press. * Morrison, Bruce. (2011) "[http://mtw160-198.ippl.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/world_politics/v063/63.4.morrison.pdf Channeling the "Restless Spirit of Innovation": Elite Concessions and Institutional Change in the British Reform Act of 1832.]" ''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; [https://archive.org/details/greatreformbilli0000john/page/n5/mode/2up online]

* Phillips, John A. (1982). ''Electoral Behaviour in Unreformed England: Plumpers, Splitters, and Straights.'' Princeton: [[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) [https://www.amazon.com/Reform-Acts-Chartism-Victorian-1832-1867/dp/product-description/142141208X excerpt and text search] * 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.&nbsp;65–82. * Woodward, Sir E. Llewellyn. (1962). ''The Age of Reform, 1815–1870.'' Oxford: Clarendon Press. [https://archive.org/details/age-of-reform-1815-1870-the-woodward-e.-l.-ernest-llewellyn-1890-1971/page/n5/mode/1up online] ===Primary sources=== * Gash, Norman, ed. ''The Age of Peel'' (1968) [https://archive.org/details/ageofpeel0000norm/page/n4/mode/1up online], covers 1828 to 1848 {{refend}}

== External links == {{Wikisource}} * Full original text of the act as passed: {{cite book|title=The statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Uq0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA154 |volume=2 & 3 William IV |year=1832 |location=London |publisher=His Majesty's statute and law printers |pages=154–206 |chapter=Cap. XLV: An Act to amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales. |via=Google Books}} * [https://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/refact/antiref.htm ''A Web of English History''. "Tory arguments against reform"] * [https://www.victorianweb.org/history/reform.html Bloy, Marjie. "The Reform Act Crisis"] * [https://www.spartacus-educational.com/PR1832.htm Spartacus. "1832 Reform Act"] * [https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20220201201225/https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/getting_vote.htm The National Archives. "The Struggle for Democracy"] * BBC Radio 4, [[In Our Time (radio series)|In Our Time]], [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00flwh9 "The Great Reform Act"], hosted by Melvin Bragg, 27 November 2008 * [https://archives.parliament.uk/collections/getrecord/GB61_HL_PO_PU_1_1832_2and3W4n147 Image of the original act on the Parliamentary Archives website]

{{UK electoral reform|state=expanded}} {{Suffrage}} {{UK legislation}} {{Authority control}}

[[Category:United Kingdom Acts of Parliament 1832]] [[Category:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom concerning England and Wales]] [[Category:Repealed United Kingdom Acts of Parliament]] [[Category:1832 in British law]] [[Category:Representation of the People Acts]] [[Category:1832 in politics]] [[Category:Election legislation in the United Kingdom]] [[Category:June 1832]] [[Category:Electoral reform in the United Kingdom]] [[Category:Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey]]