Suffrage in Britain Since 1832 (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes

Suffrage in Britain Since 1832

The origins of democracy in Britain

Although Parliament itself dates back to the thirteenth century and Magna Carta, democracy in Britain is a much more recent development. Before 1832, Britain operated as an oligarchy – a political system where political power rested exclusively with a small, privileged elite. Only wealthy male property owners who were members of the Church of England, often from the aristocracy, could vote. In 1832, just 2.7% of the population had voting rights.

Suffrage (the right to vote) developed gradually in Britain through evolutionary rather than revolutionary means. This process took approximately a century, from 1832 until nearly all adults gained the franchise. Once the expansion of voting rights began, momentum for political reform continued until virtually the entire adult population was enfranchised (given the right to vote).

The transition from oligarchy to democracy was largely peaceful, though frequent incidents of popular protest occurred. Movements such as the working-class Chartists and the suffragettes sometimes led to violence and law-breaking. By the end of this process, nearly all adults except prisoners and peers had gained voting rights.

The expansion of the franchise: key reform acts

Between 1832 and 1969, six major legislative acts progressively expanded voting rights in Britain. Each act built upon previous reforms, gradually extending the franchise to different groups within society.

Great Reform Act 1832

The Whig government of Lord Grey passed this groundbreaking act, which marked the beginning of democratic reform in Britain. One in five male adults (5.6% of the total population) could now vote. The Act abolished rotten boroughs – constituencies like Old Sarum that had almost no voters but still elected two MPs every election. This represented the first step towards a more representative system.

Second Reform Act 1867

The Conservative government of Benjamin Disraeli passed this much more extensive reform. It allowed many working-class men in cities to vote, effectively doubling the electorate. Roughly one-third of all men could now vote. However, the Act maintained different franchises for urban areas (boroughs) and rural areas (counties), meaning voting qualifications varied by location.

Third Reform Act 1884

William Gladstone's Liberal government established a uniform franchise across the country for men. All working men who met a property qualification could now vote. Despite this progress, 40% of adult men remained excluded, mainly working-class men in rural counties who could not meet the property requirements.

Representation of the People Act 1918

This Act emerged from the social and political changes caused by the First World War. David Lloyd George's wartime coalition government extended voting rights dramatically. All men over 21 (or 19 for veterans) could now vote. Crucially, women over 30 who met the property qualification also gained the vote for the first time.

Representation of the People Act 1928

Stanley Baldwin's Conservative government finally granted women the vote on equal terms to men. All men and women over 21 could now vote, and property qualifications were removed entirely. This represented the achievement of near-universal adult suffrage in Britain.

Representation of the People Act 1969

Harold Wilson's Labour government lowered the voting age to 18. This change reflected broader social changes rather than mounting public pressure, unlike earlier reforms.

Additional democratic measures

Extension of the franchise was accompanied by other measures enhancing democracy:

• Secret ballot introduced in 1872
• Direct bribery of voters banned in 1883
• Constituency boundaries redrawn to achieve more equal populations in 1885

Case study: extending the vote to 18-20 year olds

Unlike other franchise changes driven by public pressure and campaigning, extending the vote to 18-20 year olds responded primarily to social change. Since the Second World War, the status of this age group had been changing, with growing numbers attending university and seeking to marry or buy homes. However, the law still treated them as children.

Chartists and the class dimension

Following the Great Reform Act 1832, which did virtually nothing to extend voting rights to the working class, the Chartists emerged as an early pressure group demanding major political reform. They campaigned for Parliament to adopt the Six Points of the People's Charter, which would have transformed Britain into a full democracy (at least for men) in one step.

The Six Points of the People's Charter

Chartist leaders and tactics

Key leaders included William Lovett, Francis Place and Feargus O'Connor. Although Chartists generally advocated votes for all men, some female Chartists such as Susanna Inge and Anne Walker campaigned for women's suffrage too.

The main Chartist tactic involved compiling and submitting three "monster petitions" to Parliament in 1839, 1842 and 1848, containing up to 6 million signatures. Some signatures were of dubious authenticity (Queen Victoria and Mr Punch appeared multiple times). Parliament, still dominated by the landed aristocracy, overwhelmingly rejected each petition. Several violent protests associated with the movement were violently suppressed by authorities.

The legacy of the Chartists

Although the movement collapsed after the 1848 petition's failure, over time all but one demand was achieved (annual elections being the exception). While a short-term failure, the Chartists' legacy proved significant, influencing other political movements such as the Reform League, which helped pressure the government to pass the Second Reform Act 1867.

Why did the working class demand reform?

The Chartists aimed to end aristocratic domination of politics by a small wealthy elite. They believed the wealthy ruled in their own selfish interests:

• No provision existed for the poor or unemployed beyond the horrors of the workhouse
• Tenants had few rights and faced easy eviction
• Housing conditions were often unsanitary and overcrowded
• Taxes on basic essentials like food were high, while taxes on property and income remained relatively low

Opposition from the wealthy elite

The wealthy elite opposed extending the vote to the working class for several reasons:

• They believed working-class men were too poorly educated to vote wisely and understand political issues
• They feared working-class voters might seize the wealth of the rich and privileged, inspired by the French Revolution
• They worried radical change might threaten Britain's global wealth and expanding trading empire
• Fundamentally, they feared losing their grip on power

Suffragists and suffragettes and the gender dimension

Once most men gained the vote, attention shifted largely to women. The women's suffrage movement originated in the 1860s with a simple demand: women should be treated equally to men in politics and other areas of life. Two main groups emerged: the suffragists and the suffragettes.

The suffragists (National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies)

Formed in 1897 from merging several suffrage groups, the suffragists focused on peaceful and constitutional methods:

• Meetings
• Handing out leaflets
• Petitions
• Marches (termed "pilgrimages")
• Lobbying politicians

Their leader, Millicent Fawcett, described the movement as "like a glacier, slow-moving but unstoppable". By 1914, they had around 100,000 members.

The suffragettes (Women's Social and Political Union)

Formed in 1903, the suffragettes were led by Emmeline Pankhurst and her daughters Sylvia and Christabel. They adopted more militant tactics and prepared to break the law:

• Chaining themselves to railings
• Heckling and disrupting public meetings
• Criminal damage and arson
• Hunger strikes when imprisoned

Emily Davison became the highest-profile example when she was trampled to death by the King's horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby. Historical consensus suggests she ran out to attach a suffragette banner to the horse but was accidentally trampled, rather than committing suicide.

Both groups suspended their campaigns in 1914 at the outbreak of the First World War.

Arguments for women's suffrage

Campaigners used several key arguments:

• Women are the intellectual equals of men
• Women paid equivalent taxes and obeyed the same laws as men
• Women could already vote in local elections, serve as mayors, and become doctors and teachers
• Their roles as wives and mothers made a vital contribution to the nation
• The franchise had already been extended to two-thirds of men
• Women could bring additional experience and insights to political debates, including on childcare and social reform

Arguments against women's suffrage

Opponents deployed various arguments:

• The concept of "separate spheres" held that politics and the military were naturally better suited to men
• Women were "too emotional" to cope with the tough and combative world of politics
• Politics would distract women from their "key roles" as wives and mothers
• Women could not make the ultimate sacrifice of serving and dying for their country in wartime
• The drastic actions of suffragettes proved women's unsuitability for political responsibility
• Women would outnumber men in the electorate and therefore "take over" politics

Success and legacy

The suffragists and suffragettes achieved success relatively quickly compared to the Chartists. Most women gained the vote in 1918, with the remainder in 1928. This success resulted from:

• Campaigning by both suffragettes and suffragists
• Women's invaluable contribution during the war, especially as munitions workers
• A change of prime minister
• The need to settle aspects of male suffrage by the war's end

The debate over ethnicity, age and the vote

Ethnic minorities and voting

Unlike the USA, Britain has never had systematic or quasi-legal exclusion of minority ethnic groups from voting (such as Jim Crow laws). However, people from minority ethnic groups have been significantly and historically underrepresented in politics. The first people of colour were elected as MPs in a fully democratic UK in 1987.

The 2019 parliament was the most diverse yet, with around 10% of MPs from minority ethnic backgrounds. However, the Electoral Commission reported in November 2019 that 25% of black voters in Great Britain and 24% of Asian voters had not yet registered to vote. Pressure groups such as Operation Black Vote focus on ensuring minority ethnic groups register and turn out to vote, alongside promoting racial justice and equality throughout the UK.

The case for votes at 16

The issue of age has gained prominence recently, particularly since Scotland and Wales gave the vote to 16 and 17 year olds for local and devolved elections. Arguments for extending this nationwide focus on existing rights and responsibilities this age group already enjoys:

• Paying income tax and National Insurance
• Obtaining tax credits and welfare benefits in their own right
• Consenting to sexual relationships and getting married
• Becoming a company director
• Joining the armed forces

Suffrage as a human right

Only relatively recently has suffrage been considered a fundamental human right. Until the twentieth century, voting was regarded as a privilege to be earned primarily through land and property ownership, reserved exclusively for men.

Votes for all citizens has become a touchstone of global democracy. In the UK, this has largely been the situation since 1928. The main contemporary issues are votes for 16-17 year olds and the much-debated question of votes for prisoners.

The prisoner voting rights debate

Traditionally, prisoners lost the right to vote while incarcerated (unlike many US states where this right is removed permanently). A convicted prisoner, John Hirst, began a legal campaign supported by penal reform pressure groups including the Prison Reform Trust. The UK High Court dismissed Hirst's case in 2001, but this judgement was overturned in 2005 by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

In Hirst v UK, the Court ruled that the UK's blanket ban on prisoner voting was unlawful and violated Article 3 of the First Protocol of the ECHR.