Paper 3, Option 36.1: Protest, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain, c1780–1928 - 1 Reform of parliament — Edexcel A-Level History
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Paper 3, Option 36.1: Protest, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain, c1780–1928 - 1 Reform of parliament explained
Paper 3, Option 36.1: Protest, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain, c1780–1928 - 1 Reform of parliament covers 2 specification points, including The franchise c1780 and its significance for… and The problems of representation c1780; the….
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Changes in the franchise, c1780–1928: the franchise c1780 and its significance for representation of the people; pressures for change and reasons for resistance (key developments: the Representation of the People Acts of 1832, 1867, 1884, 1918 and 1928).
In c1780 the franchise varied by borough and county, so representation was patchy: county votes often rested on freehold land worth 40 shillings a year, while borough qualifications ranged from potwalloper households to corporation and freeman votes. Large towns such as Manchester and Birmingham returned no MPs, whereas Old Sarum returned two despite few voters, so the system favoured property, patronage and the south. Pressure came from industrialisation, population shift, radical agitation and later Chartism; resistance came from landowners, the Lords and fears of democracy. The Acts of 1832, 1867, 1884, 1918 and 1928 widened the franchise step by step, with 1918 adding a partial women's vote and 1928 equalising it.
Reform and redistribution, c1780–1928: the problems of representation c1780; the failure of Pitt’s proposals; reasons for resistance to, and key changes brought by, reform (key developments: Representation of the People Acts 1832–1928, Redistribution Act 1885, the Ballot Act 1872, the Corrupt Practices Act 1883); the extent of change by 1928.
Representation c1780 was uneven: counties and boroughs had different franchises, growing towns lacked MPs, and patron-controlled boroughs survived. Pitt's proposals in the 1780s to remove rotten boroughs failed, blocked by vested interests, lack of royal support and parliamentary apathy. Resistance to reform came from Crown, Lords, landowners and those fearing revolution. Change came through the Representation of the People Acts 1832–1928, widening the franchise; the Redistribution Act 1885, moving seats to populous areas; the Ballot Act 1872, introducing secret voting; and the Corrupt Practices Act 1883, curbing bribery and setting spending limits. By 1928 Britain had universal adult suffrage, though plural voting persisted.
Your focus
- Describe the main features of the franchise c1780 and explain its significance for representation.
- Explain pressures for change and reasons for resistance across the period.
- Evaluate the extent to which the named Acts changed the franchise by 1928.
Show all 6 objectives
- Explain the problems of representation c1780 and why Pitt's proposals failed.
- Explain reasons for resistance and the key changes brought by the named reforms.
- Evaluate the extent of change in representation by 1928.
Paper 3, Option 36.1: Protest, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain, c1780–1928 - 1 Reform of parliament flashcards
Card 1 of 8
Franchise c1780
Paper 3, Option 36.1: Protest, agitation and parliamentary reform in Britain, c1780–1928 - 1 Reform of parliament exam tips
Marking Points
- Explains the c1780 franchise as varied and property-linked, using county 40-shilling freeholder qualification and contrasting borough qualifications.
- Links the c1780 franchise to representation by noting unrepresented industrial towns and rotten or pocket boroughs such as Old Sarum.
- Identifies pressures for change, including population growth, urbanisation, radical protest and organised campaigns.
- Explains resistance, including landed and aristocratic interests, Lords' obstruction and anxiety about property and democracy.
- Sequences the five named Acts and states the widening each produced, including 1918 partial women's suffrage and 1928 equal suffrage.
- Explains the problems of representation c1780, including unequal borough and county franchises and unrepresented towns.
- Explains why Pitt's proposals failed, citing aristocratic and borough interests, parliamentary apathy and lack of royal support.
- Analyses reasons for resistance to reform, including Lords' veto power, property fears and revolutionary anxiety.
- Explains key changes: franchise Acts 1832–1928, Redistribution Act 1885, Ballot Act 1872 and Corrupt Practices Act 1883.
- Assesses the extent of change by 1928, noting universal adult suffrage alongside surviving anomalies such as plural voting.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Anchor each Act to one precise change in who could vote or how seats were distributed.
- 💡Use named places and groups to show significance rather than listing statutes.
- 💡When assessing resistance, distinguish Commons, Lords and extra-parliamentary opposition.
- 💡Separate franchise, redistribution, ballot and corruption measures when explaining change.
- 💡Use specific evidence such as Pitt's 1785 bill or the 1885 seat redistribution to support claims.
- 💡Conclude on the extent of change by 1928 with a clear criterion, such as who could vote or how seats matched population.
Common Mistakes
- Treating the c1780 franchise as one uniform national qualification; correct this by distinguishing county freeholder rules from varied borough rules.
- Assuming 1832 introduced democracy; correct this by explaining it redistributed seats and modestly widened the vote while leaving many working men and all women excluded.
- Confusing 1918 with 1928; correct this by stating 1918 gave some women the vote and 1928 equalised the franchise on the same terms as men.
- Treating the Ballot Act 1872 as a franchise measure; correct this by explaining it introduced secret voting, not new voters.
- Assuming the Corrupt Practices Act 1883 ended all corruption; correct this by stating it curbed bribery and set candidate spending limits.
- Claiming 1885 created equal constituencies; correct this by explaining it redistributed seats towards populous areas but left unequal boundaries.