Talk:Reform Act 1832/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Women's Suffrage

The last line in the 2nd paragraph states:- "The Act also specifically disenfranchised women, sparking the British suffrage movement."

Is this true? The Act certainly didn't enfranchise women - but did it mention women at all? Women couldn't vote before the act so I don't think it can be said it disenfranchised them.

I don't think either that the British women's suffrage movement began in 1832.

I think this line should be deleted.

Paul Buttle - 12th May, 2007

I have been advised that if there is any truth in the contention that women voted in national elections prior to 1832 it will be found in one or all of the following works:-

Elaine Chalus, Elite Women in English Political Life c. 1754-1790 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005)

Judith S. Lewis, Sacred to Female Patriotism: Gender, Class, and Politics in Late Georgian Britain (NY: Routledge, 2003),

Kathryn Gleadle and Sarah Richardson, eds, Women in British Politics, 1760-1860: the power of the petticoat (NY: St Martin's Press, 2000

I live some distance from a good library so it will be some time before I can check these books. I would be very interested to learn if any of these books can verify that women voted in national elections prior to 1832 - and if so to what extent.

Ned of the Hills

217.155.193.205 (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so decayed

Of the 56 boroughs disenfranchised by the Reform Act 37 became parliamentary boroughs between 1520 and 1650 - not in the distant middle ages. With one or two exceptions they were just as thriving when they were disenfranchised as when they were enfranchised - if not more so. But this isn’t saying a lot. They were enfranchised precisely because they were inconsequential and therefore in the thrall of some local magnate. They were political fixes made simply to get extra MPs elected. It can only be said with confidence, I think, that ten of the 56 were decayed - seven by the action of the sea which destroyed their viability as seaports - two by the action of their owners who wanted to see fewer people living in them - and one by economic forces: Old Sarum. It may be the best known rotten borough but it is the great exception. Paul Buttle 12th May, 2007

Resignation of the Whigs

There was strong opposition from the Tories, who had defeated earlier bills, and it required pressure on William IV and the resignation of the Whig government to pass.

I don't understand if the Act is opposed to by the Tories it would requires the Whigs to resign to pass??? Which party actually passed it and how did the Whigs' resignation fit into it? Stephen C. Carlson

The Whigs introduced the Reform Bill in March 1831. AFAIK, they were in government from 1830 to 1834 (under Grey and Melbourne), so the 1832 Act must have passed under them - though this run might have been interrupted. I'm not sure exactly what this resignation entailed, or when it happened, but I would presume that Grey threatened to resign (and perhaps went through the formalities) in order to blackmail the Lords (with a Tory majority) into passing the Bill and the King into giving it Royal assent.

There were elections in 1831 and 1832. Phlogistomania 21:05, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

If the Whig government had resigned, the Tories would have been unable to form a majority in the Commons and government would have ground to a halt. This did happen several times between the 1830s and the 1870s, Whig and Liberal governments resigning, the Tories/Conservatives forming a minority government which soon fell when it couldn't pass a budget or any legislation, leading to a general election which usually returned a Whig/Liberal Commons majority with a renewed mandate. - Gregg

Explanation - British Historical Facts 1830-1900 (compiled by Chris Cook and Brendan Keith) confirms that the Whig government resigned on 8th May 1832 and resumed on 17th May 1832, without any other government being formed.

The biography of Peel by Norman Gash explains what happened. On 7th May the government was defeated on the bill in a House of Lords Committee. "On 8 May Grey told the King that the cabinet would resign unless they were empowered to make at least fifty peers. The following day the King accepted their resignation. In the famous Days of May which followed, England came nearer to national popular resistance than at any other time during the reform crisis. There were demonstrations all over the country; factories and shops closed; several large industrial towns in the north virtually suspended business; the City of London, followed by hundreds of other bodies petitioned the Commons to stop supplies; there was an organised run on the banks; there were public declarations to withhold taxes; and lower down in the social scale talk of pikes and barricades".

After some popular violence the Tories seem to have accepted that if they formed an anti-reform government this would provoke a revolution. The King therefore had no choice but to give in to the Whigs. As it happened the Lords gave in and passed the bill, so no new peers needed to be created. This was similar to what happened during the dispute over the Parliament Act 1910, when after two general elections the King promised a mass creation and the Lords gave in to avoid that. Gary J 12:00 December 21, 2005 (UTC)

Title

I notice the article is currently at "Reform Act 1832", while the talk page is at "Talk:Reform Act of 1832". I notice also that google has 7 times as many hits for the title with the "of" in it than without. I am therefore about to move the article to the title "Reform Act of 1832". If there is a reason that the title should omit "of", please explain, and I will move it back. -- Infrogmation 06:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

British acts of Parliament are usually named in the format Foobar Act 2004. It's not a big deal (and the standard didn't always exist, qv Act of Settlement, Acts of Union), but the original name is more likely to be correct and, certainly, sits more comfortable to my (British English) eyes… :o) — OwenBlacker 18:32, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Have now moved it back.

See Talk:List of Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Summary of naming conventions, where I listed how I understood the naming convention to be, and no-one objected in 6 months, so I guess it's sort-of policy. Maybe I should move it to a sub-branch of the MoS...

James F. (talk) 02:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Size of the Electorate after the Act

This article states that there were 652,000 electors after the act. 827,776 votes were cast in the 1832 General Election. Something's not quite right here. Phlogistomania 21:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Many Parliamentary constituencies were multi-member. The Analysis of constituencies in Table 14-10 of British Electoral Facts 1832-1987 (compiled by F.W.S. Craig) confirms there were 1 four member, 7 three member, 240 two member and 153 one member constituencies in 1832. At this time the voter, in a multi-member seat, could but did not have to cast as many votes as there were MPs to be elected. This explains how there could be more votes than electors. Gary J 13:03, December 21, 2005 (UTC)

Errors in list

There appears to be a number of errors in the list of rotten boroughs abolished in 1832. It does not conform to the list on http://www.nationalarchives.g ov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/transcripts/great_reform.htm (a clearer version is at http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/refact/refact.htm), so I'm modifying it. Jooler 09:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

There still seems to be some confusion, particularly in the list of Boroughs reduced to one seat, where changes made by the Second Reform Act in 1868 have been wrongly included. I have followed the list in British Historical Facts 1830-1900, which being in alphabetical order is easier to follow than the one Jooler linked to.

Gary J 13:14, 28 December 2005

Newport

To clarify - before the Reform Act there were two Newports, but only ONE was disenfranchised and that one was the one in Cornwall - see http://www.oldtowns.co.uk/Cornwall/launceston.htm Jooler 00:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Source of information used for edits December 21, 2005

I am not sure how I should record the sources for the additional information I inserted in the article, so I will put them here.

• I inserted a list of six Acts (identified by formal short title and citation of the regnal year and chapter number). Source an extract from Appendix 6 (on page 189) of British Electoral Facts 1832-1987(Parliamentary Research Services 1989).

• I modified the first few words of the next paragraph as with the insertion of the Acts it was no longer clear what 'it' referred to in the pre-existing text.

• I then considerably expanded the section on Ireland at the end of the Article. Information used in the section came from Parliamentary Election Results in Ireland 1801-1922 (Royal Irish Academy 1978), British Historical Facts 1830-1900 (Macmillan 1975) and British Electoral Facts 1832-1987 cited above. I have produced my own text incorporating facts from these various sources, so I hope that does not amount to a breach of copyright. Gary J 13.27 December 21, 2005 (UTC)

Scotland's alternating constituecies

This does not seem quite right:

... before the Act six small counties only elected an MP in alternate years, this was changed so that three new constituencies each consisted of two counties.

I believe Caithness and Buteshire had been paired as alternating constituencies and became separate single-county constituencies.

Laurel Bush 12:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC).

I agree, that is what happened. This is confirmed in British Historical Facts 1830-1900 (page 111).

Gary J 12:27, 28 December 2005

Cheers. Recent edits seem to clear it up. Laurel Bush 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC).

Macclesfield: borough or county?

Reform Act 1832 lists Macclesfield as a borough constituency. In Macclesfield (UK Parliament constituency), however, it is described as a county constituency. Laurel Bush 13:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

Macclesfield was a Borough constituency until it was disenfranchised for corruption on 25th June 1885. The Borough was then included in the Cheshire, Eastern county division. Later the same year a county division called Cheshire, Macclesfield was created.

Gary J 13:20, 30th December 2005

Cheers. I note most links in the England and Wales section are to articles about towns/boroughs, but there are a lot of articles specifically about constituencies, both current and historic. And Macclesfield (UK Parliament constituency) seems to need some reference to the historic borough constituency. Laurel Bush 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC).

First changes in almost 150 years?

... the first changes to electoral franchise legislation in almost one hundred and fifty years: this refers to England and Wales, but not to Scotland and Ireland? 1832 minus 150 equals 1682, 25 years before the parliamentary union of Scotland with England and Wales and 119 years before the creation of Commons constituencies in Ireland. Laurel Bush 15:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

I think this was a generalisation by the original author. I am not sure anything particularly relevant happened in 1682 in any part of the future United Kingdom. Electoral franchise legislation was rare before 1832. The last general law on the subject, I can think of in England, was the Act establishing a uniform 40 shillings landowning franchise in County elections, which from memory was about 1440. Possibly the author meant that the last constituencies enfranchised in England before the Reform Act were about one hundred and fifty years before. County Durham in 1675 and Durham City in 1678 seem to have been the newest English constituencies of the pre-Reform era.

Gary J 13:36, 30th December 2005

Cheers. Seems there would be no real harm in simply removing the 150 years reference from the article. Laurel Bush 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC).

No, I think it's useful if phrased more precisely. 150 (or 154) years without revising constiuencies is a long time, especially if it includes the beginning of the industrial revolution. Doops | talk 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not seeing anything very specific to refer to circa 1682. And imprtant 'landmark' changes in the composition of the House of Commons, and in the area it represented, occured in 1707/1708 and 1801. At present the article comes across as very Anglo-centric: by 1832 the Commons had become, or had been merged into, a house of the parliament of the United KIngdom, not just of England and Wales, and those changes occured during the previous 125 years. Laurel Bush 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

Fair enough. It shouldn't be hard to find a phrasing that reflects that. Doops | talk 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite tricky, actually. Not least because of the lack of clarity reflected below, under What 'Reform Act'? Laurel Bush 12:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

What 'Reform Act'?

I read The Reform Act of 1832 ... was one of a number of linked statutes, passed by Parliament in 1832. The formal short titles and citations of the Acts are as follows. But the list which follows does not included a reference to anything called the Reform Act. Was there as Reform Act, or is it just an umbrella term for a collection of acts with other names? Laurel Bush 10:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC).

And if there was one act with Reform Act in its title then I imagine there were three: the Reform Act 1832, the Reform (Scotland) Act 1832 and the Reform (Ireland) Act 1832. Laurel Bush 12:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

I note the wording has changed recently and seems now to make more sense. Laurel Bush 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

Good point. Reform Bill or Act are the popular terms, used at the time and since for this sort of legislation. The formal short titles given to the statutes have never included the word 'reform'. :Gary J --Gary J 23:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Linked to "Reform Bills"

There was no cross-connection. --GwydionM 20:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Stockport

Wasn't Stockport enfranchised? Morwen - Talk 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job

I just read this artical to help me with my history a level and it really helped King Alaric 10:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Automated peer review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Elonka 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GA comments

This is a remarkable article, that is well on its way to FA, let alone GA.  :) I'll be happy to promote it to GA, if a few minor things can be cleaned up:

• The Lead should definitely be expanded, per WP:LEAD, to give more of a summary of the article. Right now the lead primarily focuses on what the Act is, but doesn't go into the history at all. Whereas the majority of the article is absolutely about the history, and the generations of politics that led towards the Act. A brief summary of those hundreds of years of history should go into the lead.
  • I think that it's best to keep mention of the previous history short in the lead, because otherwise you lose focus on the main subject. The history is important context, but summarising too much of it in the lead would lose the article's focus. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• In the "First Reform Bill" section, if I'm reading it right, the Duke of Wellington is also the Prime Minister, yes? Because he's referred to by different names in the section, making it sounds like they're two different people.
  • I find it hard to read it that way, but I put it in parentheses. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Also in the "First Reform Bill" section there's a block quote which looks like an actual quote, but then seems to be explanatory text, but it's not clear where the text is from.
  • That's how parlimentary speeches were given in those days - speaking in the third person about yourself. It's weird, but you get used to it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Is the correct spelling "disfranchised" or "disenfranchised"?
  • Both are acceptable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• In the "Composition" section, there appears to be some duplicated information about how many members could be elected from each borough: "in Wales, only one" "Welsh boroughs returned one member".
  • Counties are not the same as boroughs. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• In the "Results" section, it would be helpful to include some context. Instead of "56 boroughs were abolished," say "Out of xxxx boroughs before the passage of the Act, 56 were abolished..." (etc)
  • Done. Adam Cuerden ^talk
• I saw the House of Lords sometimes referred to as "Lords". I'd recommend spelling it out.
  • "Lords" is used to refer to the members of the House of Lords. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• The "Effects" section needs a good re-read - there were some stray punctuation marks and extra words.
  • Fixed. --Elonka 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• In "Assessment" I would include the birth/death dates of the rating historians, to give a sense of when their opinions came from.
  • I don't really see the point. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• The article makes too much use of parentheticals. I would rewrite as much as possible to avoid their use.

Hope that's helpful! I look forward to reading the next draft. --Elonka 21:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am reluctantly failing the GA nom on this article, since it appears that no one is available who can address the above-mentioned problems. If someone does have time to get to them though (especially expanding the article lead), then the article can definitely be resubmitted for GA. --Elonka 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination

I have undertaken a review, with due regard to the comments above, and in my opinion this article meets the criteria in it's current form. In particular, it is well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and illustrated with free content.

With some work this would make an excellent featured article. Well done to all concerned. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2