1831 Election
The following is a list of freeholders of Hanslope who voted in the election which took place in May 1831. For background to the election see below. |
Freeholders' Names | Place of Abode | Chandos |
Smith |
Grenfell |
Allen, Joseph | Hanslope | |
— |
|
Bishop, Charles | Ditto | |
— |
|
Bishop, James | Ditto | |
— |
|
Castledine, Matthew | Newport Pagnell | |
— |
— |
Clark, George | Hanslope | |
— |
|
Cox, Joel | Ditto | |
— |
|
Crick, James | Ditto | — |
|
|
Crick, Charles | Ditto | |
— |
— |
Curl, Benjamin | Ditto | |
— |
— |
Dawkes, Henry | Ravenstone | — |
— |
|
Fretter, John | Hanslope | |
— |
|
Garrett, Thomas | Ditto | |
— |
|
Garrett, Thomas | Northampton | |
— |
— |
Gregory, Joseph | Hanslope | |
— |
|
Gregory, George | Ditto | |
— |
|
Heygate, James | Ditto | |
— |
— |
Hindes, Thomas | Ditto | |
— |
— |
Latimer, William | Ditto | |
— |
— |
Mayhew, James | Ditto | |
— |
|
Singleton, Rev. Wm. | Ditto | — |
|
|
Smith, Robt. | Ditto | |
— |
— |
Stanton, Thomas | Great Woolstone | — |
|
|
Stimpson, Joseph | Hanslope | |
— |
|
Watts, William Esq. | Ditto | |
— |
|
The last three columns indicate the candidate(s) for whom each elector voted.
The following is taken from the cover page of the record of the election results.
A
P O L L |
||
OF
THE |
||
Freeholders |
||
OF
THE |
||
COUNTY OF BUCKINGHAM | ||
AT
THE |
||
ELECTION |
||
OF |
||
TWO
KNIGHTS OF THE SHIRE, |
||
To
serve in the Parliament, appointed to be holden at the City of WESTMINSTER
on the 14th Day of June, in the 1st Year of the Reign of King WILLIAM the Fourth, A.D. 1831. |
||
TAKEN
AT |
||
AYLESBURY, |
||
ON |
||
Thursday,.............5th, | MAY,1831, |
|
Friday,.................6th, | ||
Saturday,..............7th, | ||
and Monday,.........9th, | ||
BEFORE |
||
HENRY
ANDREWES UTHWATT, ESQUIRE, |
||
Sheriff
of the said County. ______________________________ |
||
CANDIDATES, |
||
THE
MARQUIS OF CHANDOS. |
||
JOHN
SMITH, ESQUIRE. |
||
PASCOE
GRENFELL, ESQUIRE. _____________________ |
||
Printed and Sold by J. H. Marshall, Temple-Street, Aylesbury. | ||
1831. |
The following summary is taken from the above record of the election.
Plumpers. |
Divided. |
|||||||||
C. |
S. |
G. |
C. |
S. |
G. |
C&S |
C&G |
S&G |
No.Polled | |
Aylesbury Three Hundred | 473 |
378 |
205 |
325 |
43 |
.. |
139 |
9 |
196 |
712 |
Ashendon Three Hundreds | 186 |
38 |
20 |
171 |
3 |
.. |
15 |
.. |
20 |
209 |
Buckingham Three Hundreds | 196 |
58 |
31 |
177 |
8 |
.. |
19 |
.. |
31 |
235 |
Burnham Hundred | 137 |
148 |
110 |
119 |
20 |
.. |
18 |
.. |
110 |
267 |
Cottesloe Three Hundred | 195 |
139 |
86 |
150 |
13 |
1 |
43 |
2 |
83 |
292 |
Desborough Hundred | 80 |
182 |
159 |
66 |
19 |
.. |
9 |
5 |
154 |
253 |
Newport Three Hundreds | 275 |
261 |
141 |
232 |
82 |
1 |
41 |
2 |
138 |
496 |
Stoke Hundred | 52 |
80 |
74 |
49 |
3 |
.. |
3 |
.. |
74 |
129 |
1594 |
1284 |
826 |
1289 |
191 |
2 |
287 |
18 |
806 |
2593 |
|
191 |
18 |
|||||||||
2 |
806 |
|||||||||
1482 |
Plumpers. | 1111 |
Divided Votes. | |||||||
1111 |
||||||||||
2593 |
No. Polled. |
The election of 1831 was fought on the issue of parliamentary reform. In 1830, the Whig party had finally achieved office after a generation spent largely in opposition. Their proposals for reform, although given a second reading on 22 March 1831, were attacked during the committee stage when destructive amendments were passed. The government persuaded the king to dissolve parliament and call an election.
Although the 1831 election was fought on the old distribution of seats, it produced a clear-cut majority in favour of reform. By September 1831, the Reform Bill completed all stages in the house of commons. On 8 October, it was rejected by the House of Lords.
In December 1831 a third Reform Bill was introduced, modified in some slight respects. King William IV was brought to accept in January 1832 that it it might be necessary to create new peers. Faced with this threat enough Tory peers yielded to allow the Reform Bill to pass. On 7 June 1832 the Great Reform Act received the royal assent.
The main elements of the reforms were a diminution in the number of pocket and rotten boroughs (each with only a handful of electors), and an extended representation of the growing towns. The reform widened the eligibility to vote, but nevertheless restricted the vote to the wealthier male members of the population. Eligibility was based on ownership, renting or occupation of property over specified values.