Rotten and pocket boroughs facts for kids

Old Sarum in Wiltshire, a hill that had almost no people but still elected two Members of Parliament until 1832. Painting by John Constable, 1829

A rotten borough or pocket borough was a special type of voting area in England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom before 1832. These areas had very few voters. This meant that a wealthy person, called a patron, could easily control who became a Member of Parliament (MP).

These boroughs were also known as nomination boroughs because the patron could simply "nominate" who would win. The same system existed in the Parliament of Ireland during the 1700s. Most of these unfair boroughs were ended by the Reform Act 1832.

How Voting Worked Before

Old Towns and New Towns

A parliamentary borough was an old town that had been given the right to send two MPs to the House of Commons. Over many years, towns changed. Some grew much bigger, while others became very small or even empty. However, the boundaries of these voting areas often stayed the same. This meant that a tiny village might still elect two MPs, while a large, growing city had no MPs of its own.

Why They Were "Rotten"

For a long time, the areas that elected MPs did not change, even when the number of people living there did. In some places, so few people could vote that a rich person could easily influence them. They might offer money or other favors. In the early 1800s, people who wanted change called these areas "rotten boroughs." They said the voting process was "rotten" or corrupt.

They also called them "pocket boroughs" because the MPs elected were "in the pocket" of the patron. This meant the patron controlled them completely. Voters usually had to show their vote by raising their hand in public. This made it hard for them to vote against the patron's wishes. Often, only one or two candidates would even run, because everyone knew the patron's choice would win.

Unfair Representation

This system meant that an MP could be elected by just a few voters. At the same time, many new, large towns had no MPs at all. For example, Manchester grew into a huge city during the Industrial Revolution. But before 1832, it was just part of a larger county area. It did not have its own MPs.

By 1831, out of 406 elected MPs, 152 were chosen by fewer than 100 voters each. Also, 88 MPs were chosen by fewer than 50 voters.

Changes Over Time

People started pushing for changes in the early 1800s. They finally succeeded with the Reform Act 1832. This law got rid of most rotten and pocket boroughs. It also gave more MPs to new, bigger towns. Later, the Ballot Act 1872 brought in the secret ballot. This meant people could vote in private, so patrons could no longer know how someone voted. This made it much harder for patrons to control elections.

Rotten Boroughs Explained

The name rotten borough became common in the 1700s. It described a voting area with very few voters. These areas had lost most of their people and importance over time. The word rotten showed that people thought the system was corrupt and had declined. In these boroughs, most voters could not vote freely. This was because there was no secret ballot, and they depended on the borough's "owner."

Famous Examples

Often, rotten boroughs had been important towns long ago. But their boundaries were never updated. For example, in the 1100s, Old Sarum was a busy city with a large cathedral. But the cathedral and city moved to a new spot, which became the city of Salisbury. Even though Old Sarum became almost empty, it still kept the right to elect two MPs. This meant one landowning family could control who those two MPs were.

Many rotten boroughs were controlled by rich landowners or peers (members of the nobility). These powerful people would give the MP seats to their friends or family. They might also sell the seats for money or favors. Peers who controlled these boroughs had extra power. They were already in the House of Lords, and they could also control MPs in the House of Commons. This control was based on property rights, which could be passed down or sold.

Even with very few voters, most of these old boroughs elected two MPs. This was a very unfair number compared to their small populations.

For example, Arthur Wellesley, who later became the Duke of Wellington, was an MP for the rotten borough of Trim.

Pocket Boroughs Explained

Pocket boroughs were voting areas that could be controlled by one person. This person usually owned at least half of the special houses called "burgage tenements." The people living in these houses had the right to vote in the borough's elections. A rich patron could buy these houses and put their own tenants in them. These tenants were chosen because they would vote as their landlord told them. They might also be afraid to displease the landlord.

Since there was no secret ballot until 1872, the landowner could find out how people voted. They could even kick out tenants who did not vote for their chosen candidates. People would often say that "Mr. A was elected on Lord B's interest." This meant Lord B controlled Mr. A's election.

Some boroughs were controlled by the government itself. For example, the Treasury or Admiralty departments could choose candidates.

Some rich people controlled many boroughs. For instance, the Duke of Newcastle was said to have seven boroughs "in his pocket." Often, the person who controlled a pocket borough would become an MP themselves. This is why they were also called proprietorial boroughs.

Wealthy owners saw pocket boroughs as a good way to make sure that landowners had a strong voice in the House of Commons. The Reform Act 1832 greatly reduced these boroughs. Then, the Reform Act 1867 mostly got rid of them. This law gave more people the right to vote. It also set up the idea that each voting area should have about the same number of voters.

The Push for Change

Calls for Reform

In the late 1700s, many groups wanted to change Parliament. Groups like the London Corresponding Society thought the rotten borough system was unfair. They wanted a fairer way to choose MPs that matched where people actually lived in Britain. However, laws passed by William Pitt the Younger made it illegal for these groups to meet.

In the 1800s, the movement for reform grew stronger. People wanted to end the unfair system where boroughs with few voters had too much power. A big step was the Catholic Emancipation in 1829. This event helped bring the issue of reform to the forefront.

The Reform Act of 1832

The reform movement had a major success with the Reform Act 1832. This law took away the right to elect MPs from 56 boroughs. Most of these were in the south and west of England. This change gave more MPs to new, large cities and industrial areas, which were mostly in the north.

Why Some Defended Them

Some politicians, especially the Tories, defended rotten and pocket boroughs. They argued that these boroughs helped keep the government stable. They also said that these boroughs were a way for talented young politicians to enter Parliament. William Pitt the Elder was often given as an example of this. Some MPs believed the boroughs should stay because Britain had been successful while they were part of the system.

People from British colonies in places like the West Indies and India also sometimes supported rotten boroughs. They said that since they had no direct MPs, these boroughs offered a way for their interests to be heard in Parliament.

Spencer Perceval, a Tory politician, argued that if pocket boroughs were removed, the entire parliamentary system might fall apart.

See also

In Spanish: Burgo podrido para niños

• Apportionment (politics)
• Functional constituencies in Hong Kong and Macau
• Gerrymandering