Editing Reform Act 1832 (section)

===Effects===
Between 1835 and 1841, local Conservative Associations began to educate citizens about the party's platform and encouraged them to register to vote annually, as required by the Act. Coverage of national politics in the local press was joined by in-depth reports on provincial politics in the national press. Grassroots Conservatives therefore saw themselves as part of a national political movement during the 1830s.<ref>Matthew Cragoe, "The Great Reform Act and the Modernization of British Politics: The Impact of Conservative Associations, 1835–1841", ''Journal of British Studies,'' July 2008, Vol. 47 Issue 3, pp 581–603</ref>

The size of the pre-Reform electorate is difficult to estimate. Voter registration was lacking, and many boroughs were rarely contested in elections. It is estimated that immediately before the 1832 Reform Act, 400,000 English subjects (people who lived in the country) were entitled to vote, and that after passage, the number rose to 650,000, an increase of more than 60%.<ref>Phillips and Wetherell (1995), pp. 413–414.</ref> Rodney Mace estimates that before, 1 per cent of the population could vote and that the Reform Act only extended the franchise to 7 per cent of the population.<ref>{{cite book |author1=Rodney Mace |title=British Trade Union Posters: An Illustrated History |date=1999 |publisher=[[Sutton Publishing]] |isbn=0750921587 |page=14}}</ref>

Tradesmen, such as shoemakers, believed that the Reform Act had given them the vote. One example is the shoemakers of [[Duns, Scottish Borders]], [[Berwickshire]]. They created a banner celebrating the Reform Act which declared, "The battle's won. Britannia's sons are free." This banner is on display at [[People's History Museum]] in [[Manchester]].<ref>{{citation |title=Collection Highlights, Shoemakers Banner |publisher=People's History Museum |url=http://www.phm.org.uk/our-collection/shoemakers-banner/}}</ref>

Many major commercial and industrial cities became separate parliamentary boroughs under the Act. The new constituencies saw party conflicts within the middle class, and between the middle class and working class. A study of elections in the medium-sized borough of Halifax, 1832–1852, concluded that the party organisations, and the voters themselves, depended heavily on local social relationships and local institutions. Having the vote encouraged many men to become much more active in the political, economic and social sphere.<ref>Toshihiko Iwama, "Parties, Middle-Class Voters, And The Urban Community: Rethinking The Halifax Parliamentary Borough Elections, 1832–1852," ''Northern History'' (2014) 51#1 pp. 91–112</ref>

The Scottish Act revolutionised politics in Scotland, with its population of 2&nbsp;million. Its electorate had been only 0.2% of the population compared to 4% in England. The Scottish electorate overnight soared from 5,000 to 65,000, or 13% of the adult men, and was no longer a private preserve of a few very rich families.<ref name = Houston/>

==== Tenant voters ====
Most of the [[pocket borough]]s abolished by the Reform Act belonged to the Tory party. These losses were somewhat offset by the extension of the vote to tenants-at-will paying an annual rent of £50.{{efn|name=fifty1832}} This clause, proposed by the Tory [[Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos|Marquess of Chandos]], was adopted in the House of Commons despite opposition from the Government. The tenants-at-will thereby enfranchised typically voted as instructed by their landlords, who in turn normally supported the Tory party.<ref>May (1896), vol. I, p. 428.</ref> This concession, together with the Whig party's internal divisions and the difficulties faced by the nation's economy, allowed the Tories under [[Robert Peel|Sir Robert Peel]] to make gains in the elections of [[1835 United Kingdom general election|1835]] and [[1837 United Kingdom general election|1837]], and to retake the House of Commons in [[1841 United Kingdom general election|1841]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2020}}

A modern historian's examination of votes in the House concluded that the traditional landed interest "suffered very little" by the 1832 Act. They continued to dominate the Commons, while losing some of their power to enact laws that focused on their more parochial interests. By contrast, the same study concluded that the [[1867 Reform Act]] caused serious erosion of their legislative power and the 1874 elections saw great landowners losing their county seats to the votes of tenant farmers in England and especially in Ireland.<ref>David F. Krein "The Great Landowners in the House of Commons, 1833–85," ''Parliamentary History'' (2013) 32#3 pp 460–476</ref>