How was Britain governed and how did democracy and
political organisations change and develop? (25
MARKERS)
,‘Democracy in Britain in 1885 was little different from that in 1846.’
Assess the validity of this view. 2017 - Q4
Introduction: Although significant reforms were made between 1846 and 1885, including widening
the franchise and redistributing seats, many aspects of British democracy remained elitist and limited.
These factors are: the franchise and electorate size, electoral corruption and secrecy of the ballot,
constituency representation, and access to political power. Overall, there was notable progress,
especially after the 1867 and 1884 Reform Acts, but the fundamental class-based structure and
political elitism persisted, suggesting that change was limited rather than transformative.
Point: The electorate was significantly widened by 1885 compared to 1846, undermining the view in
the question.
Evidence: In 1846, only around 650,000 men could vote, roughly 1/6th of adult males — franchise
was highly restricted by property ownership.
Second Reform Act 1867 enfranchised urban working-class men in boroughs, increasing the
electorate to over 1 million.
Third Reform Act 1884 extended the borough franchise to counties, creating a more uniform system.
After 1884, the electorate rose to 5.5 million, about 60% of adult males.
Representation now better reflected industrial society, including agricultural labourers who were
entirely excluded in 1846.
Counterargument: However, women were still excluded and many working-class men remained
disenfranchised due to residency and rent requirements.
Explanation: Though the franchise was still limited, it had clearly expanded substantially from 1846,
showing progress in democratic inclusion.
Point: By 1885, elections were far fairer and less corrupt, showing substantial development.
Evidence: In 1846, voting was still open and vocal, subjecting voters to bribery and intimidation.
The Ballot Act 1872 introduced secret voting, curbing landlord and employer coercion.
The Corrupt Practices Act 1883 imposed strict spending limits, penalising bribery.
Before this, boroughs like Sudbury and St Albans were disenfranchised due to corruption.
Campaign costs were drastically reduced, opening the way for more legitimate candidacies.
Counterargument: Some informal intimidation and treating persisted, and wealth still mattered in
candidacy due to unpaid MPs.
Explanation: These reforms suggest a significant departure from the corrupt practices of 1846,
making 1885 elections more democratic.
Point: Redistribution of seats made the system more representative of population distribution.
Evidence: In 1846, rotten and pocket boroughs still existed — e.g., Old Sarum, with 7 voters and 2
MPs.
The 1867 Act redistributed 45 seats from small boroughs to growing towns.
Redistribution Act 1885 created single-member constituencies with roughly equal populations.
Heavily industrialised areas like Lancashire gained multiple MPs to reflect population growth.
Urban working-class interests had more opportunity to be represented.
Counterargument: Despite these changes, rural overrepresentation and landowner influence
persisted, especially in counties.
Explanation: These changes enhanced fairness, but the system still privileged traditional elites,
meaning change was meaningful yet incomplete.
Point: Access to Parliament remained socially exclusive despite reforms, limiting democratic
progress.
Evidence: MPs were still unpaid in 1885, making it difficult for working-class men to run.
,Politics remained dominated by aristocracy and upper middle class — Gladstone, Salisbury, and
Disraeli all from elite backgrounds.
Landowners continued to dominate county seats and local politics.
Working-class MPs had no formal party backing until the Labour Representation Committee (1900).
No formal mechanisms to ensure diversity of class or gender in politics.
Counterargument: Emergence of Liberal-Labour candidates, e.g., Thomas Burt, suggests growing
inclusivity.
Explanation: Progress in access to vote did not translate to access to power; the system remained
elitist in personnel and ideology.
Conclusion: There were undeniable changes in British democracy between 1846 and 1885 — most
notably, a massive expansion of the electorate, the secret ballot, and redistribution of seats. However,
these reforms only partially opened the political system. Class barriers, the exclusion of women,
unpaid MPs, and the dominance of traditional elites limited the extent of change. Thus, democracy in
1885 was meaningfully more advanced, but still bore significant continuities with the elitist structures
of 1846.
, What pressures did governments face and how did they
respond to these? (25 MARKERS)
political organisations change and develop? (25
MARKERS)
,‘Democracy in Britain in 1885 was little different from that in 1846.’
Assess the validity of this view. 2017 - Q4
Introduction: Although significant reforms were made between 1846 and 1885, including widening
the franchise and redistributing seats, many aspects of British democracy remained elitist and limited.
These factors are: the franchise and electorate size, electoral corruption and secrecy of the ballot,
constituency representation, and access to political power. Overall, there was notable progress,
especially after the 1867 and 1884 Reform Acts, but the fundamental class-based structure and
political elitism persisted, suggesting that change was limited rather than transformative.
Point: The electorate was significantly widened by 1885 compared to 1846, undermining the view in
the question.
Evidence: In 1846, only around 650,000 men could vote, roughly 1/6th of adult males — franchise
was highly restricted by property ownership.
Second Reform Act 1867 enfranchised urban working-class men in boroughs, increasing the
electorate to over 1 million.
Third Reform Act 1884 extended the borough franchise to counties, creating a more uniform system.
After 1884, the electorate rose to 5.5 million, about 60% of adult males.
Representation now better reflected industrial society, including agricultural labourers who were
entirely excluded in 1846.
Counterargument: However, women were still excluded and many working-class men remained
disenfranchised due to residency and rent requirements.
Explanation: Though the franchise was still limited, it had clearly expanded substantially from 1846,
showing progress in democratic inclusion.
Point: By 1885, elections were far fairer and less corrupt, showing substantial development.
Evidence: In 1846, voting was still open and vocal, subjecting voters to bribery and intimidation.
The Ballot Act 1872 introduced secret voting, curbing landlord and employer coercion.
The Corrupt Practices Act 1883 imposed strict spending limits, penalising bribery.
Before this, boroughs like Sudbury and St Albans were disenfranchised due to corruption.
Campaign costs were drastically reduced, opening the way for more legitimate candidacies.
Counterargument: Some informal intimidation and treating persisted, and wealth still mattered in
candidacy due to unpaid MPs.
Explanation: These reforms suggest a significant departure from the corrupt practices of 1846,
making 1885 elections more democratic.
Point: Redistribution of seats made the system more representative of population distribution.
Evidence: In 1846, rotten and pocket boroughs still existed — e.g., Old Sarum, with 7 voters and 2
MPs.
The 1867 Act redistributed 45 seats from small boroughs to growing towns.
Redistribution Act 1885 created single-member constituencies with roughly equal populations.
Heavily industrialised areas like Lancashire gained multiple MPs to reflect population growth.
Urban working-class interests had more opportunity to be represented.
Counterargument: Despite these changes, rural overrepresentation and landowner influence
persisted, especially in counties.
Explanation: These changes enhanced fairness, but the system still privileged traditional elites,
meaning change was meaningful yet incomplete.
Point: Access to Parliament remained socially exclusive despite reforms, limiting democratic
progress.
Evidence: MPs were still unpaid in 1885, making it difficult for working-class men to run.
,Politics remained dominated by aristocracy and upper middle class — Gladstone, Salisbury, and
Disraeli all from elite backgrounds.
Landowners continued to dominate county seats and local politics.
Working-class MPs had no formal party backing until the Labour Representation Committee (1900).
No formal mechanisms to ensure diversity of class or gender in politics.
Counterargument: Emergence of Liberal-Labour candidates, e.g., Thomas Burt, suggests growing
inclusivity.
Explanation: Progress in access to vote did not translate to access to power; the system remained
elitist in personnel and ideology.
Conclusion: There were undeniable changes in British democracy between 1846 and 1885 — most
notably, a massive expansion of the electorate, the secret ballot, and redistribution of seats. However,
these reforms only partially opened the political system. Class barriers, the exclusion of women,
unpaid MPs, and the dominance of traditional elites limited the extent of change. Thus, democracy in
1885 was meaningfully more advanced, but still bore significant continuities with the elitist structures
of 1846.
, What pressures did governments face and how did they
respond to these? (25 MARKERS)
