‘The corruption of the best things becomes the worst.’ The Politics of Electoral Registration in Several Midland Boroughs in the Age of Reform, 1832-41

Ahead of next Tuesday’s Parliaments, Politics and People seminar, we hear from Sarah Boote Powell, of the University of Warwick. On 14 May she will discuss the politics of electoral registration in the Midlands in the aftermath of the 1832 Reform Act.

The seminar takes place on 14 April 2024, between 5:30 and 6.30 p.m. It is taking place online, via Zoom. Details of how to join the discussion are available here.

Even before Peel’s rallying cry of ‘Register, Register, Register’ in 1837, which urged Conservatives to enrol all eligible voters (and many whose eligibility was dubious) onto parliamentary constituency registers, this requirement of the 1832 Reform Act was already embedded into the course and conduct of local politics in many places.

Editorial in the Conservative Patriot discussing Peel’s rallying cry of ‘Register! Register! Register!’, Patriot, 21 Sept. 1837 CC BNA

In freeman boroughs like Coventry, Leicester and Northampton, which had a vibrant tradition of popular engagement in parliamentary elections, registration caused partisanship, increased rivalries and stimulated the development of formal party organisation. From the very first annual registration process, criticism of its many imperfections resulting from ambiguities and imprecision in the registration and franchise clauses of the 1832 legislation, meant the criteria for admission onto the register was open to interpretation by all.

Handbooks were duly published from 1832 onwards for voters, electoral agents, candidates and the legal profession, to provide clarity and concise guidance on how to navigate registration. Yet all to no avail, for Reformers’ expectations that an electoral roll would reduce the time and cost of polling, and make contested elections less violent, were dashed.

The imposition of annual registration for parliamentary voters, and from 1835 for municipal electors as well, instead generated sustained political conflict along ‘party’ lines. Claim and counterclaim about eligibility, and the deployment of familiar electioneering tactics such as bribery and treating continued.

Coventry, Warwickshire; viewed from a hill-side on which cattle, donkeys and sheep are grazing, horses pulling carriages at right. c.1832
J. Turner, ‘Coventry’ c. 1832 CC BM

All were evident in the Coventry revisions of 1832 and 1841, where the proceedings in the courtroom itself were extremely animated as locals, fuelled by the ale-barrel, settled old scores. This pattern of behaviour was the norm in many other places and in 1837 the Sunday Times lamented the ‘annual farce’ of registration.

The fact was that whereas pre-Reform the electoral canvass could provide some indication of the strength of a candidate’s support prior to the poll, after 1832 a successful registration could determine the outcome of the election. It was therefore essential for candidates’ supporters to pack the register with their partisans, whilst removing opponents’ names and blocking their claims for insertion in the list. Consequently, there was an almost constant focus on the registration process in boroughs where an increasingly politically-conscious populace was catalysed by a highly partisan press.

So, why was registration so problematic? The answer lay in the clauses and the franchise qualifications in the Reform Act upon which it was based. Eligibility was predicated on the rate-paying qualification, not receiving alms for the previous twelve months, and certain other residency requirements; all of which were ambiguous at best.

Clause 36 of the 1832 Reform Act preventing those who had received ‘parochial relief or other Alms’ in the previous twelve months from registering to vote (2 & 3 Will. IV, c. 45)

Moreover, as the formal process of registration began in June and ended with the publication of the electoral lists after their very public revision in annual courts held late September to October for that purpose, it dominated political discourse for many months.  If the deadline for payment of all rates and taxes by 6 April as a condition for qualification is considered, the process took even longer. 

Tremendous organisation by a growing band of specialist political agents and their associates was thus needed to ensure all eligible persons were included on the draft lists well before autumn’s revision court was even held. Men like the Warwick solicitor and Liberal activist, Joseph Parkes, were not new to electioneering in 1832, but they were instrumental in transforming party organisation and registration machinery. In the 1830s. In 1826, Parkes managed Leicester’s Liberal campaign and was subsequently involved in registration activities in Coventry and elsewhere. Similarly, local men in Leicester, Coventry and Northampton successfully deployed their expertise in the use (and abuse) of electoral law for party gain.

Another notable effect of registration was that it introduced a new political actor, the revising barristers, whilst boosting the role of existing ones such as election agents and overseers. The revising barristers could admit or expunge names from the lists. But in boroughs where the freeman franchise was retained alongside the newer £10 household qualification, the application of the 1832 Act clashed with ancient privileges and rights. Contradictory decisions made by the charismatic Coventry revising barrister about the right to poll of residents of Bablake Hospital and of recipients of White’s Loans became highly contentious. It was a similar picture in the other two Midland boroughs.

A voter dressed in a blue coat and yellow hat pulls the nose of a polling officer
New voting qualifications introduced in 1832 co-existed with ancient voting rights in most constituencies. This included freeman rights in some boroughs and freeholder (or ‘vreeholder’) rights in the counties and some boroughs. C. J. Grant, ‘Qualifying’, McLean’s Monthly Sheet of Caricatures or The Looking Glass, 36 (1 Dec. 1832), © British Library

However, registration had the greatest impact on overseers, for they were largely responsible for drawing up the draft lists of the parliamentary and municipal electorate for inspection by the inhabitants and their representatives before the revision court was held. The overseers were thus essential for managing, maintaining, and amending where necessary, records of poor relief, rate-paying, residency and property value.

Despite their failure to draw up the lists of electors correctly, which disfranchised 170 voters of one Leicester parish in 1832, the contemporary view of the ineptitude of these parochial officers is exaggerated. The evidence overall indicates that most overseers in these Midland boroughs displayed energy, efficiency and tenacity in the execution of their duties. William Thornton of Leicester for example, was extremely competent, if Machiavellian, and his vital role in the registration system united the parochial, municipal and parliamentary spheres of local political activity.

SBP

The seminar takes place on 14 April 2024, between 5:30 and 6.30 p.m. It is taking place online, via Zoom. Details of how to join the discussion are available here.

Leave a comment