This painting by Sir George Hayter (now in the National Portrait Gallery) commemorates the passing of the Great Reform Act in 1832. It depicts the first session of the newly reformed House of Commons on 5 February 1833 held in St Stephen's Chapel which was destroyed by fire in 1834. The picture includes some 375 figures and although Hayter abandoned the idea of depicting all 658 Members of the reformed Commons he maintained the relative proportions of the parties. In the foreground, he has grouped the leading statesmen from the Lords: Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey (1764–1845), William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne (1779–1848) and the Whigs on the left; and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington (1769–1852) and the Tories on the right. Painted without a commission it took Hayter ten years to complete and another fifteen to sell. Ironically, it was the Tories who finally agreed to purchase it, in 1858, for the then recently founded National Portrait Gallery.

The Representation of the People Act 1832 (commonly known as the Reform Act 1832 or sometimes as The Great Reform Act) was an Act of Parliament (2 & 3 Will. IV) that introduced wide-ranging changes to the electoral system of England and Wales. According to its preamble, the act was designed to "take effectual Measures for correcting divers Abuses that have long prevailed in the Choice of Members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament."

Calls for reform had been mooted long before 1832, but perennially without success. The Act which finally succeeded was proposed by the Whigs, led by the Prime Minister Lord Grey. It met with significant opposition from the Pittite factions in Parliament that had governed the country for so long (opposition was especially pronounced in the House of Lords). Nevertheless, as a result of public pressure, the bill was eventually passed. The Act granted seats in the House of Commons to large cities that had sprung up during the Industrial Revolution, and took away seats from the "rotten boroughs"—those with very small populations. The Act also increased the number of individuals entitled to vote, increasing the size of the electorate from about 400,000 to 650,000, and allowing a total of one out of six adult males to vote, in a population of some 14 million.

The full title is An Act to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales. Its formal short title and citation is the Representation of the People Act 1832 (2 & 3 Wm. IV, c. 45). The Act only applied in England and Wales; separate reform bills were passed in the same year for Scotland and Ireland.^[1] Other reform measures were passed later during the 19th century; as a result, the Reform Act 1832 is sometimes called the First, or Great Reform Act.

The unreformed House of Commons[link]

Composition[link]

The House of Commons is the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom

After the Act of Union 1800, sometimes referred to as the Act of Union 1801, the unreformed House of Commons was composed of 658 members, of whom 513 represented England and Wales. There were two types of constituencies: counties and boroughs. County members were supposed to represent landholders, while borough members were supposed to represent the mercantile and trading interests of the kingdom.^[2] Counties were historical national subdivisions established between the 8th and 16th centuries. They were not merely parliamentary constituencies; many components of the government (including courts and the militia) were organised along county lines.^[3] The members of Parliament chosen by the counties were known as Knights of the Shire. In Wales each county elected one member of Parliament, while in England each county elected two members until 1826, when Yorkshire's representation was increased to four, following the disenfranchisement of the Cornish borough of Grampound.

Parliamentary boroughs in England ranged wildly in size from small hamlets to large cities, largely because they had evolved haphazardly. The earliest boroughs were chosen in the Middle Ages by county sheriffs at a time when even a village might be deemed a borough.^[4] If their representation continued (which didn't always happen), many of these early boroughs failed to thrive, while more substantial settlements, such as Winchelsea and Dunwich, went into decline. In later centuries the reigning monarch decided which settlements to enfranchise. The monarchs seem mostly to have done so capriciously, however, often with little regard for the merits of the place they were enfranchising. Of the seventy English boroughs that Tudor monarchs enfranchised, thirty-one were later disenfranchised.^[5] Finally, the parliamentarians of the 17th century compounded the illogicality of the system by re-enfranchising fifteen boroughs whose representation had lapsed for centuries, seven of which were later disenfranchised by the Reform Act. After Newark was enfranchised in 1661, no additional boroughs were enfranchised, and the illogicality of the system was all but institutionalised until the Reform Act of 1832.^[6] The greater proportion of boroughs in England elected two members of Parliament; five boroughs however elected only one member,^[7] and the City of London and the joint borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis each elected four members. The Welsh boroughs each returned a single member.

The franchise[link]

Statutes passed in 1430 and 1432, during the reign of Henry VI, standardised property qualifications for county voters. Under these acts, all (male) owners of freehold property or land worth at least forty shillings in a particular county were entitled to vote in that county. This requirement, known as the forty shilling freehold, was never adjusted for inflation; thus, the amount of land that it was necessary for one to own in order to vote was gradually diminished over time.^[8] Nevertheless, the vast majority of individuals were unable to vote; the size of the English county electorate in 1831 has been estimated at only 200,000.^[9] Furthermore, the sizes of the individual county constituencies varied significantly. The smallest counties, Rutland and Anglesey, had fewer than a thousand voters each, while the largest county, Yorkshire, had more than twenty thousand.^[10] Those who owned property in multiple constituencies could vote multiple times; there was normally no requirement for an individual to actually inhabit a constituency in order to vote there.

In boroughs the franchise was far more varied. There were broadly six types of parliamentary boroughs as defined by their franchise:

1. boroughs in which freemen were electors;
2. boroughs in which the franchise was restricted to those paying scot and lot, a form of municipal taxation;
3. boroughs in which only the ownership of a burgage property qualified a person to vote;
4. boroughs in which only members of the corporation were electors (such boroughs were perhaps in every case "pocket boroughs," because council members were usually "in the pocket" of a wealthy patron);
5. boroughs in which male householders were electors (these were usually known as "potwalloper boroughs," as the usual definition of a householder was a person able to boil a pot on their own hearth);
6. boroughs in which freeholders of land had the right to vote.

Some boroughs had a combination of these varying types of franchise and all usually had special rules and exceptions^[11], so many boroughs had a form of franchise that was unique to themselves.

The largest borough, Westminster, had approximately 12,000 voters, while the smallest, usually known as "rotten boroughs" had, in most cases, fewer than a hundred each.^[12] The most famous rotten borough was Old Sarum, which had 13 burgage plots that could be used to "manufacture" electors if necessary—usually around half a dozen was thought sufficient. Other examples include Dunwich (32 voters), Camelford (25), and Gatton (seven).^[13]

Women's suffrage[link]

The claim for the women's vote appears to have been first made by Jeremy Bentham in 1817 when he published his Plan of Parliamentary Reform in the form of a Catechism^[14] and was taken up by William Thompson in 1825, when he published, with Anna Wheeler, An Appeal of One Half the Human Race, Women, Against the Pretensions of the Other Half, Men, to Retain Them in Political, and Thence in Civil and Domestic Slavery: In Reply to Mr. Mill's Celebrated Article on Government.^[15] In the "celebrated article on Government", James Mill had stated:

The passing of the Act seven years later enfranchising "male persons" was, however, a more significant event; it has been argued that it was the inclusion of the word "male", thus providing the first statutory bar to women voting, which provided a focus of attack and a source of resentment from which, in time, the women's suffrage movement grew.^[17]

Corruption[link]

Canvassing for Votes, part of William Hogarth's Humours of an Election series, depicts the political corruption endemic in election campaigns prior to the Great Reform Act.

A large number of House of Commons constituencies, especially those with small electorates, were under the control of rich landowners. These constituencies were known as nomination boroughs or pocket boroughs, because they were said to be in the pockets of their patrons. Most patrons were members of the nobility or the landed gentry who could use their local influence, prestige, and wealth to sway the voters. This was particularly true in rural counties, and in small boroughs situated near a large landed estate. Some noblemen even controlled multiple constituencies; for example, the Duke of Norfolk possessed eleven, while the Earl of Lonsdale owned nine.^[18] Writing in 1821, Sydney Smith proclaimed that "The country belongs to the Duke of Rutland, Lord Lonsdale, the Duke of Newcastle, and about twenty other holders of boroughs. They are our masters!"^[19] T.H.B. Oldfield claimed in his Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland that, out of the 514 members representing England and Wales, about 370 were selected by nearly 180 patrons.^[20] A member who represented a pocket borough was expected to vote as his patron ordered, lest he lose his seat at the next election.

Voters in some constituencies resisted outright domination by powerful landlords, but still were, in many cases, open to corruption. Electors were bribed individually in some boroughs, and collectively in others. In 1771, for example, it was revealed that eighty-one voters in New Shoreham (who constituted a majority of the electorate) formed a corrupt organisation that called itself the "Christian Club," and regularly sold the borough to the highest bidder.^[21] Especially notorious for their corruption were the "nabobs," or individuals who had amassed fortunes in the British colonies in Asia and the West Indies. The nabobs, in some cases, even managed to wrest control of boroughs from the nobility and the gentry.^[22] Lord Chatham, Prime Minister of Great Britain during the 1760s, once commented that "the importers of foreign gold have forced their way into Parliament, by such a torrent of corruption as no private hereditary fortune could resist."^[23]

Movement for reform[link]

Early attempts at reform[link]

William Pitt the Younger was a prominent advocate of parliamentary reform.

During the 1640s, England endured a civil war that pitted King Charles I and the Royalists against the Parliamentarians. In 1647, different factions of the victorious parliamentary army held a series of discussions, the Putney Debates, on reforming the structure of English government. The most radical elements proposed universal manhood suffrage and the reorganisation of parliamentary constituencies. Their leader Thomas Rainsborough declared, "I think it's clear, that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government." More conservative members disagreed, arguing instead that only individuals who owned land in the country should be allowed to vote. For example, Henry Ireton stated, "no man hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom ... that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom." The views of the conservative "Grandees" eventually won out. Oliver Cromwell, who became the leader of England after the abolition of the monarchy in 1649, refused to adopt universal suffrage; individuals were required to own property (real or personal) worth at least £200 in order to vote. He did nonetheless agree to some electoral reform; he disfranchised several small boroughs, granted representation to large towns such as Manchester and Leeds, and increased the number of members elected by populous counties. These reforms were all reversed, however, after Cromwell's death and the last parliament to be elected in the Commonwealth period in 1659 reverted to the electoral system as it had existed under Charles I.^[24]

Following Restoration of the monarchy in 1660 the issue of parliamentary reform lay dormant until it was revived in the 1760s by the Whig Prime Minister William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham ("Pitt the Elder"), who called borough representation "the rotten part of our Constitution" (hence the term "rotten borough"). Nevertheless, he did not advocate an immediate disfranchisement of rotten boroughs. He instead proposed that a third member be added to each county, to countervail the borough influence. The Whigs failed to unite behind the expansion of county representation; some objected to the idea because they felt that it would give too much power to the aristocracy and gentry in rural areas.^[25] Ultimately, despite Chatham's exertions, Parliament took no action on his proposals. The cause of parliamentary reform was next taken up by Lord Chatham's son, William Pitt the Younger (variously described as a Tory and as an "independent Whig"). Like his father, he shrank from proposing the wholesale abolition of the rotten boroughs, advocating instead an increase in county representation. The House of Commons rejected Pitt's resolution by over 140 votes, despite receiving petitions for reform bearing over twenty thousand signatures.^[26] In 1783, Pitt became Prime Minister but was still unable to achieve reform. King George III was averse to the idea, as were many members of Pitt's own cabinet. In 1786, the Prime Minister proposed a reform bill, but the House of Commons rejected it on a 174–248 vote.^[27] Pitt did not raise the issue again for the remainder of his term.

Aftermath of the French Revolution[link]

Support for parliamentary reform plummeted after the launch of the French Revolution in 1789. Reacting to the excesses of the revolution, English politicians became steadfastly opposed to any major political change. Despite this reaction, several groups that agitated for reform were established. A group of Whigs led by James Maitland, 8th Earl of Lauderdale and Charles Grey founded an organisation to advocate for parliamentary reform in 1792. This group, known as the Society of the Friends of the People, included twenty-eight members of Parliament.^[28] In 1793, Grey presented to the House of Commons a petition from the Friends of the People, outlining abuses of the system and demanding change. He did not propose any specific scheme of reform, but merely a motion that the House inquire into possible improvements. Parliament's reaction to the French Revolution was so negative, that even this request for an inquiry was rejected by a margin of almost 200 votes. Grey made a second attempt to raise the subject in 1797, but the House again rebuffed him by a majority of more than 150.^[29]

Other notable pro-reform organisations included the Hampden Clubs (named after John Hampden, an English politician who opposed the Crown during the English Civil War) and the London Corresponding Society (which consisted of workers and artisans). But the "radical" reforms supported by these organisations (for example, universal suffrage) found even less support in Parliament. For example, when Sir Francis Burdett, chairman of the London Hampden Club, proposed a resolution in favour of universal suffrage, equally sized electoral districts, and voting by secret ballot to the House of Commons, his motion found only one other supporter (Lord Cochrane) in the entire House.^[30]

Despite such setbacks, popular pressure for reform remained strong. In 1819, a large pro-reform rally was held in Birmingham. Although the city was not entitled to any seats in the Commons, those gathered decided to elect Sir Charles Wolseley Birmingham's "legislatorial representative." Following their example, reformers in Manchester held a similar meeting to elect a "legislatorial attorney." Between twenty thousand and sixty thousand (by different estimates) attended the event, many of them bearing signs such as "Equal Representation or Death." The protesters were ordered to disband; when they did not, the Manchester Yeomenry suppressed the meeting by force. Eleven people were killed and several hundred injured, the event later to become known as the Peterloo Massacre. In response, the government passed the Six Acts, measures that were designed to quell further political agitation. In particular, the Seditious Meetings Act prohibited groups of more than 50 people from assembling to discuss any political subject without prior permission from the sheriff or magistrate.^[31]

Reform during the 1820s[link]

Since the House of Commons regularly rejected direct challenges to the system of representation by large majorities, supporters of reform had to content themselves with more modest measures. The Whig Lord John Russell brought forward one such measure in 1820, proposing the disfranchisement of the notoriously corrupt borough of Grampound in Cornwall. He suggested that the borough's two seats be transferred to the city of Leeds. Tories in the House of Lords agreed to the disfranchisement of the borough, but refused to accept the precedent of directly transferring its seats to an industrial city. Instead, they modified the proposal so that two further seats were given to Yorkshire, the county in which Leeds is situated. In this form, the bill passed both houses and became law. In 1828, Lord John Russell suggested that Parliament repeat the idea by abolishing the corrupt boroughs of Penryn and East Retford, and by transferring their seats to Manchester and Birmingham. This time, however, the House of Lords rejected his proposals. In 1830, Russell proposed another, similar scheme: the enfranchisement of Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham, and the disfranchisement of the next three boroughs found guilty of corruption; again, the proposal was rejected.^[32]

Support for reform came from an unexpected source—a faction of the Tory Party—in 1829. The Tory government under Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, responding to the danger of civil strife in largely Roman Catholic Ireland, drew up the Catholic Relief Act 1829. This legislation repealed various laws that imposed political disabilities on Roman Catholics, in particular laws that prevented them from becoming members of Parliament. In response, disenchanted Tories who perceived a danger to the established religion came to favour parliamentary reform, in particular the enfranchisement of Manchester, Leeds, and other heavily Noncomformist cities in northern England.^[33]

Passage of the Reform Act[link]

First Reform Bill[link]

The death of King George IV on 26 June 1830 dissolved Parliament by law, and a general election was held. Electoral reform, which had been frequently discussed during the preceding parliamentary session, became a major campaign issue. Across the country, several pro-reform "political unions" were formed, made up of both middle and working class individuals. The most influential of these was the Birmingham Political Union, led by Thomas Attwood. These groups confined themselves to lawful means of supporting reform, such as petitioning and public oratory, and achieved a great level of public support.^[34]

The Tories won a majority in the election, but the party remained divided, and support for Prime Minister (Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington) was weak. When the Opposition raised the issue of reform during one of the first debates of the year, the Duke made a controversial statement defending the existing system of government, recorded in the formal "third-party" language of the time:^[35]

The Prime Minister's absolutist views proved extremely unpopular, even within his own party. Less than two weeks after Wellington made the above remarks,^[36] he was forced to resign after an adverse vote in a Commons vote on a confidence motion. Sydney Smith wrote, "Never was any administration so completely and so suddenly destroyed; and, I believe, entirely by the Duke's declaration, made, I suspect, in perfect ignorance of the state of public feeling and opinion."^[37] Wellington was replaced by the Whig reformer Charles Grey, who had by this time the title of Earl Grey.

Lord Grey's first announcement as Prime Minister was a pledge to carry out parliamentary reform. On 1 March 1831, Lord John Russell brought forward the Reform Bill in the House of Commons on the government's behalf. The bill disfranchised sixty of the smallest boroughs, and reduced the representation of forty-seven others. Some seats were completely abolished, while others were redistributed to the London suburbs, to large cities, to the counties, and to Scotland and Ireland. Furthermore, the bill standardised and expanded the borough franchise, increasing the size of the electorate (according to one estimate) by half a million voters.^[38]

On 22 March, the vote on the second reading attracted a record 608 members, including the non-voting Speaker (the previous record was 530 members). Despite the high attendance, the second reading was approved by only one vote, and further progress on the Reform Bill was difficult. During the committee stage, Isaac Gascoyne put forward a motion objecting to provisions of the bill that reduced the total number of seats in the House of Commons. This motion was carried, against the government's wishes, by nine votes. Thereafter, the ministry lost a vote on a procedural motion by twenty-two votes. As these divisions indicated that Parliament was, in the end, against the Reform Bill, the ministry decided to request a dissolution and take its appeal to the people.^[39]

Second Reform Bill[link]

The political and popular pressure for reform had grown so great that pro-reform Whigs won an overwhelming House of Commons majority in the general elections of 1831. The Whig party won almost all constituencies with genuine electorates, leaving the Tories with little more than the rotten boroughs. The Reform Bill was again brought before the House of Commons, which agreed to the second reading by a large majority in July. During the committee stage, opponents of the bill slowed its progress through tedious discussions of its details, but it was finally passed in September, by a margin of more than a hundred votes.^[40]

The Bill was then sent up to the House of Lords, a majority in which was known to be hostile to it. After the Whigs' decisive victory in the 1831 election, some speculated that opponents would abstain, rather than openly defy the public will. Indeed, when the Lords voted on the second reading of the bill after a memorable series of debates, many Tory peers did refrain from voting. However, the Lords Spiritual mustered in unusually large numbers, and of twenty-two present, twenty-one voted against the Bill. It failed by forty-one votes.

When the Lords rejected the Reform Bill, public violence ensued. That very evening, riots broke out in Derby, where a mob attacked the city jail and freed several prisoners. At Nottingham, rioters set fire to Nottingham Castle (the home of the Duke of Newcastle) and attacked Wollaton Hall (the estate of Lord Middleton). The most significant disturbances occurred at Bristol, where rioters controlled the city for three days. The mob broke into prisons and destroyed several buildings, including the palace of the Bishop of Bristol, the mansion of the Lord Mayor of Bristol, and several private homes. Other places that saw violence included Dorset, Leicestershire, and Somerset.^[41]

Meanwhile, the political unions, which had hitherto been separate groups united only by a common goal, decided to form the National Political Union. Perceiving this group as a threat, the government issued a proclamation pursuant to the Corresponding Societies Act 1799 declaring such an association "unconstitutional and illegal," and commanding all loyal subjects to shun it. The leaders of the National Political Union ignored this proclamation, but leaders of the influential Birmingham branch decided to co-operate with the government by discouraging activities on a national level.^[42]

Third Reform Bill[link]

Lord Grey (painted by George Hayter) headed the Whig ministry that ushered the Reform Bill through Parliament.

After the Reform Bill was rejected in the Lords, the House of Commons immediately passed a motion of confidence affirming their support for Lord Grey's administration. Because parliamentary rules prohibited the introduction of the same bill twice during the same session, the ministry advised the King to prorogue Parliament. As soon as the new session began in December 1831, the Third Reform Bill was brought forward. The bill was in a few respects different from its predecessors; it no longer proposed a reduction in the total membership of the House of Commons, and it reflected data collected during the census that had just been completed. The new version passed in the House of Commons by even larger majorities in March 1832; it was once again sent up to the House of Lords.^[43]

Realising that another rejection would be politically unfeasible, opponents of reform decided to use amendments to change the bill's essential character, voting, for example, to delay consideration of clauses in the bill that disfranchised the rotten boroughs. The ministers believed that they were left with only one alternative: to create a large number of new peerages, swamping the House of Lords with pro-reform votes. But the prerogative of creating peerages rested with King William IV, who recoiled from so drastic a step. The King rejected the unanimous advice of his cabinet, at which Lord Grey resigned, and the Crown called upon the Duke of Wellington to form a new government.^[44]

The ensuing period became known as the "Days of May," with so great a level of political agitation that some feared revolution. Some protesters advocated non-payment of taxes, and urged a run on the banks, saying, "Stop the Duke, go for gold." £1.5 million was withdrawn from the Bank of England. The National Political Union and other organisations sent petitions to the House of Commons, demanding that they withhold supply (cut off funding to the government) until the House of Lords should acquiesce. Some demonstrations called for the abolition of the nobility, and some even of the monarchy.^[45] In these circumstances, the Duke of Wellington had great difficulty in building support for his premiership, despite promising moderate reform. He was unable to form a government, leaving William IV with no choice but to recall Lord Grey. At length, the King consented to fill the House of Lords with Whigs; however, without the knowledge of his cabinet, he circulated a letter among Tory peers, encouraging them to desist from further opposition, and warning them of the consequences of continuing. At this, opposition peers relented.^[46] By abstaining from further votes, they allowed the legislation to pass in the House of Lords, and the Crown was not forced to create new peers. The bill finally received the Royal Assent on 7 June 1832, thereby becoming law.

Results[link]

Provisions[link]

Poster issued by the Sheffield Typographical Society celebrating the passing of the Act.

The Reform Act's chief objective was the reduction of the number of nomination boroughs. Two hundred and three boroughs existed in England before the Act.^[47] The fifty-six least consequential of these boroughs, as measured by their housing stock and tax assessments, were completely abolished. The next thirty least consequential boroughs each lost one of their two members of parliament. In addition Weymouth and Melcombe Regis' entitlement to four members was reduced to two members. In total therefore the Act disfranchised 143 borough seats in England (one of the boroughs to be completely abolished, Higham Ferrers, had only a single representative). In their place the Act created 135 new seats for England and Wales. Twenty-six English counties were divided into two divisions with each division being represented by two members. Eight English counties and three Welsh counties each received an additional representative and Yorkshire, which was represented by four MPs before the Act was given an extra two MPs (so that each of its three ridings was represented by two MPs). Twenty-two large towns were given the privilege of electing two representatives, and another twenty-one towns (two being in Wales) were given the privilege of electing a single representative. Thus the Act's enfranchising clauses created 65 new county seats and 65 new borough seats in England and Wales with the total number of members representing England falling by seventeen and the number representing Wales rising by four.^[48] The boundaries of the new divisions and parliamentary boroughs were defined in a separate Act, the Parliamentary Boundaries Act 1832.

The Act also extended the franchise. In county constituencies in addition to forty-shilling freeholders, franchise rights were extended to owners of land in copyhold worth £10 (£7,948.71 in 2007) and holders of long-term leases (more than sixty years) on land worth £10 and holders of medium-term leases (between twenty and sixty years) on land worth £50 and to tenants-at-will paying an annual rent of £50. In borough constituencies all male householders living in properties worth at least ten pounds a year were given the right to vote – a measure which introduced to all boroughs a standardised form of franchise for the first time. Existing borough electors retained a lifetime right to vote, however they qualified, provided they were resident in the boroughs in which they were electors. In those boroughs which had freemen electors voting rights were to be enjoyed by future freemen as well provided their freeman-ship was acquired through birth or apprenticeship and they too were resident.^[49]

The Act also introduced a system of voter registration, to be administered by the overseers of the poor in every parish and township. It instituted a system of special courts to review disputes relating to voter qualifications. It also authorised the use of multiple polling places within the same constituency, and limited the duration of polling to two days. (Formerly, polls could remain open for up to forty days.)

The Reform Act did not affect constituencies in Scotland or Ireland. However, reforms in those parts of the United Kingdom were carried out by the Scottish Reform Act and the Irish Reform Act. Scotland received eight additional seats, and Ireland received five thus keeping the number of seats in the House of Commons the same number as it was before the Act. While no constituencies were disfranchised in either of these countries, voter qualifications were standardised and the size of the electorate was expanded in both.

Effects[link]

The British political landscape was modernised and energised by the passage of the 1832 Reform Act. Local Conservative Associations began to educate citizens about the Party's platform and encouraged them to register to vote annually, as mandated by the Act. Press 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.^[50]

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 were entitled to vote, and that after passage, the number rose to 650,000, an increase of more than 60%.^[51] By this estimate, 95% of the population (of roughly 13 million people, at the time) remained with no vote, including all women. Indeed, the Act specified that only "male persons" were to vote, introducing the first explicit statutory bar to women's suffrage.

Most of the pocket boroughs 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. This clause, proposed by the Tory 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.^[52] This concession, together with the Whig Party's internal divisions and the difficulties faced by the nation's economy, allowed the Tories under Sir Robert Peel to make gains in the elections of 1835 and 1837, and to retake the House of Commons in 1841.

Limitations[link]

The Reform Act did very little to appease the working class, since voters were required to possess property worth £10, a substantial sum at the time. This split the alliance between the working class and the middle class, giving rise to the Chartist Movement.

Although it did disenfranchise most rotten boroughs, a few remained, such as Totnes in Devon and Midhurst in Sussex. Also, bribery of voters remained a problem. As Sir Thomas Erskine May observed, "it was too soon evident, that as more votes had been created, more votes were to be sold."^[53]

The Reform Act strengthened the House of Commons by reducing the number of nomination boroughs controlled by peers. Some aristocrats complained that, in the future, the government could compel them to pass any bill, simply by threatening to swamp the House of Lords with new peerages. The Duke of Wellington lamented: "If such projects can be carried into execution by a minister of the Crown with impunity, there is no doubt that the constitution of this House, and of this country, is at an end. [...] [T]here is absolutely an end put to the power and objects of deliberation in this House, and an end to all just and proper means of decision."^[54] The subsequent history of Parliament, however, shows that the influence of the Lords was largely undiminished. They compelled the Commons to accept significant amendments to the Municipal Reform Bill in 1835, forced compromises on Jewish emancipation, and successfully resisted several other bills supported by the public.^[55]

Further reform[link]

During the ensuing years, Parliament adopted several more minor reforms. Acts of Parliament passed in 1835 and 1836 increased the number of polling places in each constituency, and reduced polling to a single day.^[56] Parliament also passed several laws aimed at combatting corruption, including the Corrupt Practices Act 1854, though these measures proved largely ineffectual. Neither party strove for further major reform; leading statesmen on both sides regarded the Reform Act as a final settlement.

There was considerable public agitation for further expansion of the electorate, however. In particular, the Chartist movement, which demanded universal suffrage for men, equally sized electoral districts, and voting by secret ballot, gained a widespread following. But the Tories were united against further reform, and the Liberal Party (successor to the Whigs) did not seek a general revision of the electoral system until 1852. The 1850s saw Lord John Russell introduce a number of reform bills to correct defects the first act had left unaddressed. However, no proposal was successful until 1867, when Parliament adopted the Second Reform Act.

Assessment[link]

Several historians credit the Reform Act 1832 with launching modern democracy in Britain. G. M. Trevelyan hails 1832 as the watershed moment at which "'the sovereignty of the people' had been established in fact, if not in law."^[57] Sir Erskine May notes that "[the] reformed Parliament was, unquestionably, more liberal and progressive in its policy than the Parliaments of old; more vigorous and active; more susceptible to the influence of public opinion; and more secure in the confidence of the people," but admitted that "grave defects still remained to be considered."^[58] Other historians have taken a far less laudatory view, arguing that genuine democracy began to arise only with the Second Reform Act in 1867, or perhaps even later. Norman Gash states that "it would be wrong to assume that the political scene in the succeeding generation differed essentially from that of the preceding one."^[59] E. A. Smith proposes, in a similar vein, that "when the dust had settled, the political landscape looked much as it had done before.^[60]

Historians have long pointed out that, in 1829–31, it was the Ultra-Tories or "Country Party" which pressed most strongly for Reform, regarding it as a means of weakening Wellington's ministry, which had disappointed them by granting Catholic emancipation and by its economic policies.^[61]

Evans (1996) emphasises that the Reform Act "opened a door on a new political world." Although Grey's intentions were conservative, Evans says, and the 1832 Act gave the aristocracy an additional half-century's control of Parliament, the Act nevertheless did open constitutional questions for further development. Evans argues it was the 1832 Act, not the later reforms of 1867, 1884, or 1918, that were decisive in bringing representative democracy to Britain. Evans concludes the Reform Act marked the true beginning of the development of a recognisably modern political system.^[62]

See also[link]

• Chartism
• Secret ballot
• Official names of United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies
• Jacksonian Democracy
• List of constituencies enfranchised and disfranchised by the Reform Act 1832
• Universal suffrage

References[link]

Footnotes[link]

Bibliography[link]

Further reading[link]

External links[link]

• Full original text of the Act as passed: "Cap. XLV: An Act to amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales.". The statutes of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 2 & 3 William IV. London: His Majesty's statute and law printers. 1832. pp. 154–206. http://books.google.com/books?id=Uq0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA154. Retrieved 2 December 2010. 
• Bloy, Marjie. The Reform Act Crisis.
• Spartacus. 1832 Reform Act.
• The National Archives. "The Struggle for Democracy."
• BBC Radio 4, In Our Time, The Great Reform Act

v t e United Kingdom legislation Pre-Parliamentary legislation List of English statutes Acts of Parliament by states preceding the Kingdom of Great Britain Acts of the Parliament of England to 1483 1485–1601 1603–1641 Interregnum (1642–1660) 1660–1699 1700–1706 Acts of the Parliament of Scotland Acts of the Parliament of Ireland to 1700 1701–1800 Acts of Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain 1707–1719 1720–1739 1740–1759 1760–1779 1780–1800 Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 1801–1819 1820–1839 1840–1859 1860–1879 1880–1899 1900–1919 1920–1939 1940–1959 1960–1979 1980–1999 2000 to date Church of England Measures List Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 Legislation of devolved institutions Acts of the Scottish Parliament Acts and Measures of the Welsh Assembly Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland Orders in Council for Northern Ireland Secondary legislation United Kingdom Statutory Instruments Scottish Statutory Instruments Act of Sederunt

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)

In the United Kingdom, Reform Act is a generic term used for legislation concerning electoral matters. It is most commonly used for laws passed to enfranchise new groups of voters and to redistribute seats in the British House of Commons. The periodic redrawing of constituency boundaries is now dealt with by a permanent Boundary Commission in each part of the United Kingdom, rather than by a Reform Act.

Some people in Britain, mostly associated with the Liberal Democrats, have called for a new "Great Reform Act" to introduce electoral changes they favour. These would include lowering the minimum voting age to 16 and introducing proportional representation.

Reform Act may refer to:

• Reform Act 1832 (England and Wales), which gave representation to previously underrepresented urban areas and extended the qualifications for voting
• Scottish Reform Act 1832, a similar reform applying to Scotland
• Irish Reform Act 1832, a similar reform applying to Ireland
• Reform Act 1867, which widened the franchise and adjusted representation to be more equitable
• Ballot Act 1872 (sometimes called the "Reform Act of 1872"), which introduced the secret ballot

• Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883 (sometimes called the "Reform Act of 1883"), which introduced campaign spending limits
• Reform Act 1884, which allowed people in counties to vote on the same basis as those in towns. Home ownership was the only qualification
• Reform Act 1885, which split most multi-member constituencies into multiple single-member ones
• Reform Act 1918, which abolished property qualifications for men and introduced limited female suffrage
• Reform Act 1928, which widened suffrage by giving women electoral equality with men

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: The article lacks structure and needs more background information (as well as sources).. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (December 2011)

This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. You can assist by editing it. (December 2011)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2011)

There are many people in history who are commonly appended with the phrase "the Great", or who were called that or an equivalent phrase in their own language. Other languages have their own suffixes such as e Bozorg and e azam in Persian and Urdu respectively.

In Persia, the title "the Great" at first seems to be a colloquial version of the Old Persian title "Great King". This title was first used by the conqueror Cyrus II of Persia.^[1]

The Persian title was inherited by Alexander III of Macedon (336–323 BC) when he conquered the Persian Empire, and the epithet "Great" eventually became personally associated with him. The first reference (in a comedy by Plautus)^[2] assumes that everyone knew who "Alexander the Great" was; however, there is no earlier evidence that Alexander III of Macedon was called "the Great".

The early Seleucid kings, who succeeded Alexander in Persia, used "Great King" in local documents, but the title was most notably used for Antiochus the Great (223–187 BC).

Later rulers and commanders began to use the epithet "the Great" as a personal name, like the Roman general Pompey. Others received the surname retrospectively, like the Carthaginian Hanno and the Indian emperor Ashoka the Great. Once the surname gained currency, it was also used as an honorific surname for people without political careers, like the philosopher Albert the Great.

As there are no objective criteria for "greatness", the persistence of later generations in using the designation greatly varies. For example, Louis XIV of France was often referred to as "The Great" in his lifetime but is rarely called such nowadays, while Frederick II of Prussia is still called "The Great". A later Hohenzollern - Wilhelm I - was often called "The Great" in the time of his grandson Wilhelm II, but rarely later.

Rulers[link]

• Abbas I of Persia (1571–1629), Shah of Iran
• Akbar (1542–1605), ruler of the Mughal Empire of South Asia, mainly India
• Alain I of Albret (1440–1522), French aristocrat
• Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), King of Macedonia, Persia, Greece, Egypt, and all of Mesopotamia
• Alexander I of Georgia (1386–1446), King of Georgia
• Alfonso III of León (c. 848-910), King of León, Galicia and Asturias
• Alfred the Great (848/849-899), King of Wessex
• Antiochus III the Great (c. 241–187 BC), ruler of the Seleucid Empire
• Ashoka the Great (c. 304–232 BC), Indian emperor of the Maurya dynasty
• Ashot I of Iberia “the Great”(died 826/830), presiding prince of Iberia (modern Georgia),
• Askia Mohammad I (c. 1442–1538), ruler of the Songhai Empire
• Bhumibol Adulyadej (born 1927), King of Thailand
• Bolesław I Chrobry (967-1025), sometimes called "the Great", first King of Poland
• Bruno the Great (925–965), Archbishop of Cologne and Duke of Lotharingia (also listed in the following section)
• Buddha Yodfa Chulaloke (1736–1809), founder and ruler of the Rattanakosin Kingdom (in what is now Thailand)
• Cnut the Great (c. 985 or 995-1035), King of Denmark, England, Norway and parts of Sweden
• Casimir III the Great (1310–1370), King of Poland
• Catherine the Great (1729–1796), Empress of Russia
• Chandragupta II (reigned 375-413/415), also known as Vikramaditya, ruler of the Gupta empire in India
• Charlemagne (died 814), King of the Franks and Emperor of the Romans
• Chulalongkorn (1853–1910), King of Siam (now Thailand)
• Chlothar II (584-629), King of Neustria and King of the Franks
• Conrad, Margrave of Meissen (c. 1097-1157), Margrave of Meissen
• Constantine I (c. 272-337), Roman emperor
• Cyaxares the Great (c. 625-585 BC), third king of Media
• Cyrus the Great (c. 600 BC or 576 BC–530 BC), founder and ruler of the Persian or Achaemenid Empire
• Darius the Great (550 – 486 BC), third ruler of the Persian Empire
• Devapala (died 850), ruler of the Pala Empire in the Indian subcontinent
• Dionysius I, Greek tyrant of Syracuse^[3]
• Ferdinand I of León and Castile (c. 1015–1065), King of León and Count of Castile
• Frederick the Great (1712–1786), King of Prussia
• Genghis Khan (1162?-1227), founder and Great Khan of the Mongol Empire
• Gero (c. 900–965), ruler of Marca Geronis, a very large march in Europe
• Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (1594–1632), King of Sweden, founder of the Swedish Empire, and noted military leader
• Gwanggaeto the Great, King of Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea^[4][5]
• Hanno the Great, the name of three leaders of Carthage, in the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd centuries BC
• Henry I, Duke of Burgundy (946–1002)
• Henry IV of France (1553–1610), King of France and King of Navarre
• Herod the Great (73/74 BC-4 BC), King of Judea
• Hugh the Great (898-956), Duke of the Franks and Count of Paris
• Hugh Magnus of France (1007–1025), co-King of France
• Hugh I, Count of Vermandois (1057–1101)
• Humphrey I de Bohun (died c. 1123), Anglo-Norman aristocrat
• Ivan III of Russia (1440–1505), Tsar of Russia
• John I of Portugal (1358–1433), King of Portugal and the Algarve
• John II of Aragon (1398–1479), King of Aragon and, through his wife, King of Navarre
• Justinian I (483-565), Byzantine Emperor
• Kamehameha I (c. 1758-1819), first King of Hawai'i
• Kanishka (died c. 127), ruler of the Kushan Empire in Central Asia and parts of India
• Kvirike III of Kakheti (1010–1029), King of Kakheti in eastern Georgia
• Kublai Khan (1215–1294), Mongol ruler in the 13th century and Emperor of China; founder of the Yuan Dynasty
• Llywelyn the Great (c. 1172–1240), Prince of Gwynedd and de facto ruler of most of Wales
• Louis I of Hungary (1326–1382), King of Hungary, Croatia and Poland
• Mangrai the Great (1238–1317), Lanna, northern Thailand
• Emperor Meiji (1852–1912), Emperor of Japan
• Mircea I of Wallachia (1355–1418)
• Mithridates II of Parthia (died 88 BC), ruler of the Parthian Empire (in present day Iran)
• Mithridates VI of Pontus (134 BC–63 BC), ruler of Pontus and the Bosporan Kingdom
• Mstislav I of Kiev (1076–1132), Grand Prince of Kievan Rus
• Naresuan (1555–1605), King of Ayutthaya
• Narai (1633–1688), King of Ayutthaya (in what is now modern Thailand)
• Odo the Great (died c. 735), Duke of Aquitaine
• Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor (912-973)
• K'inich Janaab' Pakal (603-683), ruler of the Mayan city-state of Palenque
• Parakramabahu I of Polonnaruwa (1123–1186), King of Sri Lanka
• Peter Krešimir IV of Croatia (died 1075), King of Croatia
• Peter the Great (1672–1725), Tsar of Russia
• Peter III of Aragon (1239–1285), King of Aragon and King of Sicily
• Pompey (106 BC-48 BC), military and political leader of the late Roman Republic, rival of Julius Caesar
• Radama I (1793–1828), first king of greater Madagascar
• Raja Raja Chola I (c. 947-1014), Indian emperor of the Cholas.^[6][7][8]
• Rajendra Chola I (reigned 1014–1044), Tamil King of India
• Ramesses II (reigned 1279 BC – 1213 BC), considered the greatest pharaoh of Ancient Egypt
• Ram Khamhaeng (around 1237 to 1247-1298), King of Sukhothai (in present day Thailand)
• Ramon Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona (1082–1131), also Count of Provence and various other counties
• Rhodri the Great (c. 820–878), King of Gwynedd (in present day Wales)
• Roman the Great (after 1160-1205), Grand Prince of Kiev
• Saladin (c. 1138-1193), Kurdish Sultan of Egypt and Syria, founder of the Ayyubid dynasty, and victor over the Crusaders
• Samudragupta (c. 335–375), ruler of the Gupta empire in the Indian subcontinent
• Sancho III of Navarre (c. 992-1035), King of Kingdom of Navarre
• Sargon of Akkad (died c. 2215 BC), ruler of the Akkadian Empire
• Sejong the Great (1397–1450), Korean king^[9]
• Shapur II (309-379), king of the Sassanid Empire, Persia
• Simeon I of Bulgaria (864/865-927), ruler of the First Bulgarian Empire
• Stephen III of Moldavia (1433–1504), Prince of Moldavia (Romania)
• Stephen Uroš IV Dušan of Serbia (c. 1308-1355), King of Serbia and Emperor of the Serbs and Greeks
• Taksin (1734–1782), King of the Thonburi Kingdom (Thailand)
• Tamar (1160-1123), Queen of the Georgian Empire
• Timur (1336–1405), better known as Tamerlane, founder of the Timurid Dynasty
• Theobald II, Count of Champagne (1090–1151), Count of Blois and of Chartres as Theobald IV, Count of Champagne and of Brie
• Theodoric the Great (454-526), King of the Ostrogoths, regent of the Visigoths and a viceroy of the Byzantine Empire
• Theodosius I (347-395), Roman emperor
• Tigranes the Great (140-55 BC), Emperor of Armenia
• Tiridates III of Armenia (285-339), King of Armenia
• Umar (c. 586 to 590–644), second caliph of the Muslim Empire
• Valdemar I of Denmark (1131–1182), King of Denmark
• Valentinian I (364-375), Roman Emperor
• Vladimir I of Kiev (c. 958-1015), ruler of Kievan Rus
• Vytautas (c. 1350-1430), archduke of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy
• William I, Count of Burgundy (1020–1087), Count of Burgandy and Mâcon
• William V, Duke of Aquitaine (969-1030), also Count of Poitou
• Xerxes I (519-465 BC), King of Kings of the Achaemenid Empire (Persia)
• Yu the Great (c. 2200-2100 BC), legendary ruler in ancient China

Religious figures[link]

• Abraham the Great of Kashkar (ca. 492-586), monk and saint of the Assyrian Church of the East
• Abraham Kidunaia (died c. 366, hermit, priest, and Christian saint of Mesopotamia
• Albertus Magnus (1193/1206–1280), medieval German philosopher and theologian
• Anthony the Great (c. 251–356), early Christian saint of Egypt
• Babai the Great (c. 551–628), Assyrian church leader
• Basil of Caesarea (330-379), Greek bishop and theologian
• Bruno the Great (925–965), Archbishop of Cologne and Duke of Lotharingia (also listed in the previous section)
• Euthymius the Great (377-473), abbot and Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox saint
• Gertrude the Great (1256-c. 1302), German Benedictine, mystic, theologian and Roman Catholic saint
• Pope Gregory I (c. 540-604)
• Hiyya the Great, 3rd-century rabbi, Palestine
• Pope John Paul II (1920–2005)
• Pope Leo I (c. 391 or 400-461)
• Macarius of Egypt (c. 300-391), Egyptian hermit
• Pope Nicholas I (c. 800-867)
• Photius I of Constantinople (c. 810–c. 893), Eastern Orthodox saint and Patriarch of Constantinople
• William of Maleval (died 1157), founder of the Catholic congregation of Williamites

Other[link]

• Beli Mawr, a figure in medieval Welsh literature and genealogies
• Emmy the Great, folk singer
• Matteo Rosso the Great, Roman politician and father of Pope Nicholas III
• Prokop the Great, Hussite general in Bohemia

See also[link]

• Epithet
• List of monarchs by nickname
• List of nicknames of European Royalty and Nobility: G-I
• James, son of Zebedee, also known as James the Greater, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus
• Ajax (mythology), called Ajax the Greater
• Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, whose common honorific "Mahatma" means "Great Soul"

Notes[link]

This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2011)

See also the Reform Act disambiguation page

The Reform Bills were a series of proposals to reform voting in the British parliament. These include the Reform Acts of 1832, 1867, and 1884.

Background[link]

The three acts extended voting rights to previously disenfranchised citizens. Before 1832, one adult male in ten had the vote. Moreover the franchise varied a great deal. A few boroughs gave the vote to all male householders. But many parliamentary seats were under the control of a small group or sometimes a single rich aristocrat. Reforms had been proposed in the 18th century, both by radicals such as John Wilkes and by more conservative politicians such as William Pitt the Younger. But there was strong opposition to reform, especially after the outbreak of the French Revolution. The cause was continued after 1792 by the London Corresponding Society

1832 Reform Act[link]

The 1832 Reform Act was the most controversial of the electoral reform acts passed by the Parliament. The Act reapportioned Parliament in a way fairer to the cities of the old industrial north, which had experienced tremendous growth. The Act also did away with most of the "rotten" and "pocket" boroughs such as Old Sarum, which with only seven voters (all controlled by the local squire) was still sending two members to Parliament. This act not only re-apportioned representation in Parliament, thus making that body more accurately represent the citizens of the country, but also gave the power of voting to those lower in the social and economic scale, for the act extended the right to vote to any man owning a household worth £10, adding 217,000 voters to an electorate of 435,000. As many as one man in five (though by some estimates still only one in seven) now had the right to vote.

For many conservatives, this effect of the bill, which allowed the middle classes to share power with the upper classes, was revolutionary. Some historians argue that this transfer of power achieved in England what the French Revolution achieved eventually in France. The agitation preceding and following the first Reform Act (which Dickens observed at first hand as a shorthand Parliamentary reporter) made many people consider fundamental issues of society and politics.

The novel Middlemarch, by Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot) is set in the 1830s and mentions the struggle over the Reform Bills, though not as a major topic. Eliot's Felix Holt, the Radical, set in 1832, is a novel explicitly about the Great Reform Act.

1867 Reform Act[link]

This extended the right to vote still further down the class ladder, adding just short of a million voters—including many workingmen—and doubling the electorate, to almost two million in England and Wales. It, too, created major shock waves in contemporary British culture, some of which appear in works such as Matthew Arnold's Culture and Anarchy and John Ruskin's The Crown of Wild Olive, as authors debated whether this shift of power would create democracy that would, in turn, destroy high culture.

The opposite case had been argued by the 'Chartists' , who campaigned from 1838 for a wider reform. The movement petered out in the 1850s, but achieved most of its demands in the longer run.

1884 Representation of the People Act[link]

Along with the 1885 Redistribution Act, this tripled the electorate again, giving the vote to most agricultural laborers. Only after 1884 did a majority of adult males have the vote.

By this time, voting was becoming a right rather than the property of the privileged. However, women were not granted voting rights until the Act of 1918, which enfranchised all men over 21 and women over thirty. This last piece of gender discrimination was eliminated 10 years later (in 1928) by the Equal Franchise Act and the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969.

See also[link]

• Rotten boroughs
• Reform Act 1832
• Reform Act 1867
• Representation of the People Act 1884

External links[link]

• The National Archives
• The Electoral Reform Society
• The Reform Act Crisis on the Victorian Web
• Text of the 1832 Act
• Spartacus School Net on 1832, 1867, 1884, and Parliamentary reform in general

Don Davies LLB (Alberta) BA (Alberta) MP
Member of the Canadian Parliament for Vancouver Kingsway
Incumbent
Assumed office 2008
Preceded by	David Emerson
Personal details
Born	(1963-01-16) January 16, 1963 (age 49) Edmonton, Alberta
Political party	New Democratic Party
Spouse(s)	Sheryl Palm
Residence	Vancouver, British Columbia
Profession	Lawyer

Don Davies MP (born January 16, 1963) is a Canadian Member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party, representing the riding of Vancouver Kingsway. He is also Canada's Official Opposition Critic for International Trade

Life and career[link]

Davies was born in Edmonton, Alberta. Davies earned a Bachelor of Political Science and a Law Degree (LL.B.) at the University of Alberta. Davies was employed as Researcher, Official Opposition Caucus, and Executive Assistant for Policy and Communications to the Hon. Ray Martin, Leader of the Official Opposition of Alberta from 1989-1991.

Davies and his wife moved to British Columbia in 1991. In 1992 he became the Director of legal resources for Teamsters Canada (Local 31) - a position he held until his election to the House of Commons in 2008.

Davies has served various public bodies involving occupational health and safety, employment standards and transportation policy. He was Chair on the Mount Pleasant Parent Advisory Council and serves as Secretary-Treasurer of the Meridian Cultural Society - providing public space for childcare, church and cultural events.

Davies has been active with community organizations including Tools for Peace, Vancouver Co-op Radio, Lawyers for Social Responsibility, La Quena Cooperative and the Dickens Community Group. He has also been a local hockey coach.

He has been married for 27 years to Sheryl Palm, a speech pathologist at the B.C. Children's Hospital; they have three children and a grandchild.

Electoral history[link]

Davies was first elected during the 2008 federal election. He received 15,933 votes, winning the riding by 2,769 votes over his nearest competitor.

He was re-elect in the 2011 election.

Parliamentary functions[link]

Davies is currently

Earlier, Davies was the New Democrat Critic for:

• Official Opposition Critic for Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism (2011-2012)
• Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (CIMM 2011-2012)

• Public Safety and National Security (2009-2011)
• Multiculturalism (2008-2011)
• Western Economic Diversification^[1]
• He was also the NDP Deputy Critic for Citizenship and Immigration.

Legislative initiatives[link]

Davies has introduced 15 Private Members' Bills in the House of Commons:

• Bill C-327 - To designate April 23 as 'Canadian Autism Day', to recognize the many Canadians affected by Autism Spectrum Disorder
• Bill C-346 - To help consumers make informed choices by requiring all food to be labelled with its country of origin
• Bill C-347 - To help consumers make informed choices by requiring all fish and seafood to be labeled as either wild or farmed
• Bill C-446 - To prevent MPs from crossing the floor to join a different political party, without getting approval from voters in a by-election
• Bill C-458 - To protect our environment and our economic interest in eco-tourism by banning oil tanker traffic from ecologically sensitive waters off the coast of British Columbia
• Bill C-495 - To mandate the creation of a national office to track firefighter and emergency response statistics from across the country, to provide firefighters and emergency responders with information they need to help them protect Canadians
• Bill C-517 - To create a tax credit for members of legions and veterans' organizations to refund the cost of their membership dues, so that these organizations can raise the revenue they need to operate without placing a financial burden on their members
• Bill C-528 - To require Canada to meet its longstanding commitment to dedicate 0.7% of our GNP to foreign aid for poverty reduction in developing countries
• Bill C-529 - To create a tax incentives for Canadians to make purchases to reduce their energy consumption, save families money and protect our environment
• Bill C-543 - To change the hours of voting in federal elections in B.C. to 8 am-8 pm, so that it is easier for B.C. voters to cast a ballot after work
• Bill C-550 - To provide student loan refunds to doctors and nurse practitioners who agree to practice family medicine in an under-served area
• Bill C-578 - To provide national dental and prescription drug coverage for seniors and children under 12
• Bill C-594 - To expand voting hours across Canada in federal elections to 7 am-10 pm to improve the accessibility of the voting system
• Bill C-598 - To remove the GST/HST from the purchase of batteries for medically necessary devices
• Bill C-634 - To lower the voting age in federal elections to 16 ^[2]

He has introduced 14 Motions, including proposals to build affordable housing at the Little Mountain site in Vancouver Kingsway, improve the recognition of foreign professional credentials, and create a National Education Strategy to improve the quality and accessibility of primary, secondary and post-secondary public education in Canada.^[3]

He has also co-sponsored more than 100 Bills and Motions, put forward by Members from all 4 parties in the House of Commons.^[3]

References[link]

1. ^ NDP Shadow Cabinet.
2. ^ Don Davies MP Biography.
3. ^ ^{a b} House of Commons Order Paper, March 11 2011.

External links[link]

• Don Davies - Member of Parliament Website
• Don Davies - Parliament of Canada biography

v t e   Current Members of the House of Commons of Canada Government v t e Conservative Party Harper Ablonczy Adams Adler Aglukkaq Albas Albrecht Alexander Allen Allison Ambler Ambrose Anders Anderson Armstrong Ashfield Aspin Baird Bateman Benoit Bernier Bezan Blaney Block Boughen Braid Breitkreuz G. Brown L. Brown P. Brown Bruinooge Butt Calandra Calkins Cannan Carmichael Carrie Chisu Chong Clarke Clement Daniel Davidson Dechert Del Mastro Devolin Dreeshen Duncan Dykstra Fantino Fast Findlay Finley Flaherty Fletcher Galipeau Gallant Gill Glover Goguen Goodyear Gosal Gourde Grewal Harris Hawn Hayes Hiebert Hillyer Hoback Hoeppner Holder James Jean Kamp Keddy Kenney Kent Kerr Komarnicki Kramp Lake Lauzon Lebel Leef Leitch Lemieux Leung Lizon Lobb Lukiwski Lunney McColeman MacKay MacKenzie McLeod Mayes Merrifield Menegakis Menzies Miller J. Moore R. Moore Nicholson Norlock Obhrai O'Connor Oda Oliver O'Neill-Gordon Opitz Paradis Payne Penashue Poilievre Preston Raitt Rajotte Rathgeber Reid Rempel Richards Rickford Ritz Saxton Scheer Schellenberger Seeback Shea Shipley Shory Smith Sopuck Sorenson Stanton Storseth Strahl Sweet Tilson Toet Toews Trost Trottier Truppe Tweed Uppal Valcourt Van Kesteren Van Loan Vellacott Wallace Warawa Warkentin Watson J. Weston R. Weston Wilks Williamson Wong Woodworth Yelich T. Young W. Young Zimmer Official Opposition v t e New Democratic Party Mulcair Allen Angus Ashton Atamanenko Ayala Aubin Benskin Bevington Blanchette Blanchette-Lamothe Boivin Borg Boulerice Boutin-Sweet Brahmi Brosseau Caron Cash Charlton Chicoine Chisholm Choquette Chow Christopherson Cleary Comartin Côté Crowder Cullen D. Davies L. Davies Day Dewar Dionne Labelle Donnelly Doré Lefebvre Dubé Duncan Dusseault Freeman Garrison Genest Genest-Jourdain Giguère Godin Gravelle Groguhé D. Harris J. Harris Hassainia Hughes Jacob Julian Kellway Larose Lapointe Latendresse Laverdière LeBlanc Leslie Liu Mai Marston Martin Masse Mathyssen Michaud Moore D. Morin I. Morin M-A. Morin M-C. Morin Nantel Nash Nicholls Nunez-Melo Papillon Patry Péclet Perreault Pilon Quach Rafferty Ravignat Raynault Rousseau Saganash Sandhu Savoie Scott Sellah Sims Sitsabaiesan Stewart Stoffer Sullivan Thibeault Toone Tremblay Turmel Third Party v t e Liberal Party Rae Andrews Bélanger Bennett Brison Byrne Casey Coderre Cotler Cuzner Dion Duncan Easter Eyking Foote Fry Garneau Goodale Hsu Karygiannis Lamoureux LeBlanc MacAulay McCallum McGuinty McKay Murray Pacetti Regan Scarpaleggia Sgro Simms St-Denis Trudeau Valeriote Independents v t e Bloc Québécois Plamondon Bellavance Fortin Mourani v t e Green Party May v t e Independent Goldring Hyer 41st Canadian Parliament Vacancies: 1