In this respect 1832 did not represent a significant new line in British politics, as it always had been, property was seen as the guarantor of independence and responsibility, the prerequisites demanded from voters. .
However both those in opposition, and some of those in government, believed that, whatever its foundations, the Reform Act would seriously change the balance of power in British politics. Wellington certainly feared the radical effects of widening the franchise, fearing a middle-class oligarchy; given the sentiments of Whig Coalition MP Althorp, this is perhaps unsurprising. In 1831 Althorp wrote to the drafting committee, explaining that his decision to desist campaigning for secret ballots resulted from a belief that "with such a reform proposed, the people will soon have the power of taking what more they want-. This view would very much suggest that the Act was a watershed, dividing unreformed aristocratic government, from reformed government ruled by public opinion. There is some credit to this argument. Although contemporaries and historians alike have denounced the reforms as insubstantial, it should be remembered that there was a fifty percent increase in the number of men who had the vote. Furthermore the abolition of 56 nomination boroughs, and the removal of one of their MP's from a further 31 small boroughs, made a significant reduced the role of patronage in Parliament. The Commons became, to some extent, a more independent body, with the limitation of both the Crown and Lord's ability to choose representatives in Parliament. In addition the passage of the Reform Act also demonstrated the failure of the monarchy to deliver a majority in Parliament at a time of crisis - William IV was forced to rely on Grey after Wellington's inability to form a ministry in May 1832. It was made clear that a ministry could now survive without the support of the Crown and Lords, but not without the support of the Commons.