Talk:Reform Act 1867

Untitled

was there an increase in party dominance?

did voter behaviour change?

did parties change their policy and presentation?

did the new electoral register rule help or hinder the development of democratic politics?

Bright

"the radical Bright" Can someone explain this "Bright"? Memenen 00:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John Bright. john k 08:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Russell and Gladstone

The article currently says, Earl Russell resigned when his proposed reforms were rejected and William Gladstone became leader of the Liberal party in 1866. In 1866, Gladstone's Whig government introduced a Reform Bill.

Besides the oddness of calling Gladstone a Whig (he was a Tory, and then a Liberal, but never a Whig), this is simply wrong - Gladstone did not become PM until 1868. The whole account seems garbled. Can anyone clear things up? john k 08:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Complete Changes

I am editing in the full changes to the seats as per Cook in British historical facts, 1830-1900. Shipguy 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What a Mess!

This article is a mess, full of unlikely-sounding interpretations and at times hard to follow. For example, I doubt the repeated insistence that Disraeli did things only to thumb his nose at Gladstone is a solidly grounded interpretation of how this bill took the form it did. I hope someone who knows the subject will clean it up thoroughly.

Lubejob 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree--this one should be nominated for a "Worst of Wikipedia" award. Totally and completely un-useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.249.72 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiting Gladstone was certainly a major part of what Disraeli was up to, if Roy Jenkins' Gladstone biography is any guide. That said, the article isn't particularly well or sophisticatedly written. john k 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Four years after the above comments were made, the article is still a bit of a mess. pmr (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well - Disraeli accepted amendments (most notably Hodgkinson's which had the effect of massively increasing the electorate) provided they did not come from Gladstone. Agree the article needs some serious work.05:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Paulturtle (talk)

Necessary improvements

Certainly the First Reform Act was preceded by a mass movement in the country. IT would be useful to know to what extent the 1867 Act was a result of social movements. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Context - what next?

Hi,

The article currently does a pretty good job of saying what went before, but I can't see any pointers on which articles to look to to see what happened next. The big dangling question for me is that of further enfranchisement - it looks like this act doubled enfranchisement from 1 to 2 million, but out of a total of 5 million - so when did the next three million get the vote?

Perhaps a succession box, listing acts that progressively enfranchised more groups, might be a good way of showing this?

Thanks, 217.46.192.153 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reform Act, which covers all the UK Reform Acts, has a graph which tries to show votes by gender. It's not very good (I know, because I made it), and could do with somebody with better graphing skills making a better version.--ML5 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Norfolk Meirion?

One of the disenfranchised boroughs is given as "Great Yarmouth, Norfolk Meirion". What does this mean? A Google for the phrase "Norfolk Meirion" returns no hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors thereof. Is it simply a mistake? 86.136.250.154 (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Date?

Can we get a date when this came into effect? The article only includes the year, 1867. I'm wondering whether the clauses about demise of the crown would be part of the body of law carried over into Canada-- which depends on whether it was before or after July 1.Stevecudmore (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

incomprehensible

I came here to find out who was entitled to vote after this act of parliament. I shall now go elsewhere to find this out, because it does not say. I see there is a flag for clarification needed in the section 'background' against the explanation of what the qualification was in order to vote. I agree, it does not explain this. That flag was dated 2014, so plainly no one has stopped by to sort the problem since then, and very probably much before. I expect this is a case that people who understand do not notice that someone inexperienced in this area of history would not understand simply from what is written here. What is compounding of rent? How does £7 qualify one to vote? How would a £50 savings qualification be calculated?Sandpiper (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Tidying up the treatment of various English boroughs

I've made a few alterations to clarify the treatment of various English boroughs under the reforms of 1867/68.

Specifically:

- The 1867 Act disenfranchised four boroughs, not two only as previously stated. See section 12 of the Act, where the four boroughs are plainly listed.

- I have added a note to clarify that the four boroughs were disenfranchised for corruption (again, see section 12 of the 1867 Act) and I have added the number of MPs returned by each of these boroughs.

- I have also added notes to clarify the point that of the seven English boroughs disenfranchised by the Scottish Reform Act 1868, four had only one MP (having had their representation halved in 1832) and the other three had two MPs (but had been due to lose a seat each under the 1867 Act). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.8.61 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Rent calculation

"This was ensured by a £7 annual rent qualification to vote—or 26 shillings a week" £7 annual rent is 140 shillings per year. Spread over 52 weeks that is 2.69 shillings a week, so 2 shillings and 8d a week

I don't know what the correct value should be, but the quoted sentence can't possibly be right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twidale (talk • contribs) 08:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)