Extending the Franchise

This section explores how the voting franchise was extended in the 19^th Century. Since the Middle Ages, Parliament's power to influence and control the monarchy gradually increased. However, by the early 19th century, it was still largely controlled by a small group of wealthy and influential men. This situation began to change with the Industrial Revolution, which, from the mid-17th century onwards, dramatically transformed British society. Britain became the first country in the world where more people lived in towns and cities than in the countryside. This massive shift led to the creation of a large urban working class, which began to demand a voice in how the country was governed, as well as greater political representation through electoral reform.

What is the Franchise?

The franchise refers to the part of society that is granted the right to vote in elections. Throughout British history, there have been ongoing debates and struggles regarding the extension of the franchise to various social groups. In the present day, debates continue, such as the discussion over whether 16-year-olds should be granted the right to vote.

The British Electoral System Before 1832

In the early 19th century, the franchise in Britain was very limited. The country was divided into different electoral areas called counties and boroughs, each with distinct rules for determining who could vote.

Voting in Counties

To vote in county elections, individuals were required to meet certain property qualifications. Specifically, one had to own land or property that generated an income of at least 40 shillings per year. This property qualification excluded the vast majority of the population, especially those in the growing urban centres.

Voting in Boroughs

The voting rules in boroughs were even more varied:

• In some boroughs, all landowners were allowed to vote.
• In others, only freemen could vote.
• Some boroughs allowed all male householders to vote, while others restricted voting to specific property owners or members of local councils.
• In certain boroughs, only council members had the right to vote.

Borough Representation and "Rotten" Boroughs

The boroughs varied greatly in terms of their size and population. For example, Westminster had around 12,000 voters, while other boroughs might have had as few as seven. Despite the differences in size, each borough was still represented by two Members of Parliament (MPs). This unequal representation led to the creation of "rotten boroughs" – areas with tiny populations that still sent two MPs to Parliament. Old Sarum in Wiltshire was one such borough, which had a mere handful of voters but still elected two MPs. Meanwhile, rapidly growing industrial towns like Birmingham, with populations of hundreds of thousands, were often underrepresented or had no MPs at all.

Pocket Boroughs and Corruption

Some boroughs had systems where only council members could vote, which allowed wealthy local landowners to control the elections. These boroughs were known as "pocket boroughs" because they were seen as being under the control of rich landowners who essentially had the council "in their pocket."

Voting was not secret – voters had to publicly declare how they cast their ballots. This created an environment ripe for bribery and intimidation. Wealthy individuals often used their influence to sway votes, further deepening the corruption of the system.

Furthermore, Members of Parliament were unpaid, meaning that only wealthy individuals could afford to stand for election, excluding much of the population from participating in the political process.

Challenges to the Government: The Peterloo Massacre

The deeply unequal and corrupt voting system did not go unnoticed. The working-class population became increasingly aware of these injustices and began to demand political reform. One of the most significant events in this struggle for reform was the Peterloo Massacre.

On 16 August 1819, a large crowd of up to 100,000 people gathered at St Peter’s Fields in Manchester. They had come to hear speakers discuss the need for electoral reform. The size of the crowd alarmed local authorities, who feared unrest. In response, the local magistrates called in the cavalry to disperse the crowd and arrest the leaders of the protest.

Instead of a peaceful resolution, the cavalry charged the crowd, many of whom were women and children, resulting in the deaths of at least 11 people and leaving more than 600 injured. The event quickly became known as the Peterloo Massacre, a term that drew a parallel with the Battle of Waterloo, which had occurred just four years earlier in 1815.

In the aftermath of the massacre, the government took action against the protesters. The leaders of the demonstration were charged with treason, while the magistrates and cavalry involved in the attack were exonerated. This further revealed the government's unwillingness to concede to demands for reform.

In response to the growing unrest, the government passed the Six Acts in 1819, which:

• Banned public meetings of more than 50 people.
• Imposed restrictions on publications and public speeches.

These laws showed that the government was not only unwilling to grant reforms but was also prepared to use force and legal measures to prevent further agitation. The repression demonstrated the extent to which the ruling elites were willing to go to maintain the status quo, despite widespread calls for electoral change.