Andrew Lipson

Reform Act of 1867

THE SECOND REFORM ACT – Changes in England and Wales:

Borough Franchise:

*           All male householders could vote, regardless of the type of dwelling

they occupied, providing they had been in occupancy for at least 12

months.

*            Lodgers occupying premises worth at least £10 per annum in rent could

also vote, with the same occupancy qualification.

County Franchise:

*            Arrangements were the same as in 1832, i.e. 40-shilling freeholders; but

in addition.

*            Owners or leaseholders of land of yearly value of £5 or more could vote,

together with owners of lands to a rateable value of £12 a year, who

also paid poor rates.

Redistribution

*           45 seats were taken from boroughs with under 10,000 inhabitants, and 7

towns were disfranchised for corruption.

*           25 seats were given to counties; 20 seats were created for new boroughs;

6 boroughs received 1 extra seat each; and London University was given a

seat.^[1]

            This document’s original and proposed intention was to extend the vote to the lower classes which hadn’t previously had any influence in governmental affairs, and it also sought to give representation to counties which had recent growth but hadn’t had representative compensation in Parliament.   Benjamin Disraeli, a conservative and progressive member of the House of Commons, wrote the 1867 Reform Act wanting to protect the labor class which was being subjected to cruel and inhumane conditions.  Faced with the liberal opposition in Parliament, a mostly upper-middle class backing, Disraeli was forced to ally himself with the conservative upper class to pass his bill.  This alliance, while beneficial because it helped pass the bill through the Commons and the House of Lords, must have forced Disraeli to sell his goals short.  The bill, proved to be very ineffective in extending the vote for it left too much room for dispute over who was allowed to have the vote.  It took a long fifteen years for the court system to iron out many of the ambiguities, and still much of the popluation still didn’t have the vote. 

            The implications of the Reform Bill proved to be a victory for the upper classes England.  They had managed to satisfy the country’s poor with a front of a progressive movement, yet they had succeeded in extending the vote only to a small portion of the ailing population.  With the increase in representation for the lower classes, many acts were passed assuring them better living and working conditions.  This again was another victory for the aristocracy, for they had undermined the capitalist system which was empowering the bourgeousie.

            It is still unceratin what Disraeli’s motives were in writing the Reform Bill of 1867.  He had many friends in the conservative party, and his alliance with them is seen in his empowering of the suburban counties which were known for their aristocratic heritage.  The Reform Bill 1867 was an ambiguous document which led to many painstaking and tedious trials and court decisions.  Many flat owner all throughout England weren’t allowed the right to vote for fifteen years after the act was passed, and total enfranchisemnt wasn’t achieved until after World War I.  Despite these facts though, Disraeli’s career in politics reflects that he was deeply concerned with the suffering poor.   Disraeli’s government, when he was Prime Minister, passed acts such as the Public Health Act, Pure Food and Drugs Act, the Education Act, and the Factory Act of 1874. Disraeli essentially was pragmatist who knew that the influence of the nation could most easily be manipulated through the upper classes.  He used the insecurities of the aristocracy to develope an atmosphere and national mentality where he could create legislation for the laborers. 

Main Menu

• Benthem vs. Spencer
• Positive Liberty vs. Negative Liberty
• Reform Act
• Links
• Conclusion