The electoral register dates back to 1832. Prior to the introduction of the Reform Act 1832 the few people eligible to vote would simply turn up at hustings to cast their ballot. The voting was done in the open (there was no secret ballot), which of course gave candidates the opportunity to bribe and/or threaten voters — both were part and parcel of elections in the early 19th century.

The Tories had long since opposed electoral reform. However, by the early 1830s they could no longer block liberal reforms. The Reform Act received Royal assent, and parishes up and down the country now had to compile and publish a list of all eligible voters in their area. This didn't quite weed out corruption; voting was still done in the open, and so their was still plenty of opportunity for bribing and threatening voters. It would take another thirty years before the secret ballot was introduced and another few decades before elections started to resemble modern day elections.

Literature on sexual matters

The electoral register was, and still is, a public document. From 1832 onwards the register was routinely inspected by candidates to contest the right to vote of political opponents. This practice gradually died down as the franchise was extended and elections became less corrupt. By the early 20th century hardly anyone ever inspected the register. However, by the 1960s a new group of people had taken an interest in the electoral roll… advertisers had figured out that they could use the register as a mailing list. The electoral roll was still updated once a year, so it was a fairly complete list with up to date names and addresses. And it was cheap too; the data has always been provided for minimal fees.

The use of the electoral register as a junk mail list was debated in the House of Commons in March 1970. James Dickens (Labour) noted that the sale of the electoral register in his Lewisham constituency had risen steeply since 1965. This had led to a growing volume of strong complaints from […] constituents who find that they are being circulated in a completely unsolicited and indiscriminate way with a variety of advertising material offering products and services of all types. Worse, companies such as Julian Press were targeting certain groups, such as people who had just turned 18, with advertisements for gambling and literature on sexual matters.

I should point out that the electoral roll doesn't normally include the elector's date of birth. However, after the introduction of the Representation of the People Act 1969, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, registration offices had started adding the date of birth of voters who would be 18 by the time the next election would take place. This is why marketers could now use the electoral roll to target young adults with literature on sexual matters. Dickens argued that this could discourage householders from registering to vote, and he asked the Government to therefore ban the sale of electoral data for commercial purposes:

I submit that the time for action is now, as the evidence is beginning to accumulate. I urge my hon. Friend to announce that the Government will take action forthwith, by introducing legislation, to amend especially Regulation 22 of S.I. 904 of 1969 – to confine the sale of the electoral register either to public bodies, or, in the case of additional copies, to political or Church organisations, and to place an absolute prohibition upon the sale of the register to any other persons — especially to those who want to use it for private gain.

It may be objected that as the register is a public document it must be readily available. I entirely accept that. My suggestion would in no way diminish the role of the register in this respect. It would continue to be freely available for inspection at town halls, post offices, public libraries and other public buildings. Again, it may be said that a person could go to such a public building and use the register for the purposes for which some persons are using it now, namely, commercial advertising. I submit that that would be an exceedingly laborious process, in contrast with the extreme ease, convenience and cheapness of using the register as it is currently being used.

Eric Lubbock (Liberal Democrats) and Peter Jackson (Labour) agreed but Labour's Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Merlyn Rees, did not. He recognised the issue was a matter of widespread public concern but insisted nothing could be done:

The trouble is that no action which the Government could properly take in connection with the electoral register would have the effect which hon. Members on both sides of the House desire. […] I do not think that legislation is the right remedy.

Rees' argument was twofold. Firstly, he argued that it is vital that the electoral is a public document:

We really cannot legislate for a document which must be displayed in public but which is obtainable by some members of the public and not others. Either a document is public or it is not, and it is in the public interest that the electoral register should remain a public document and that access to it should be unrestricted.

Apart from that there were practical objections. For instance, how do you decide who may and may not use electoral data? Dickens had suggested limiting the sale of the register to either to public bodies, or, in the case of additional copies, to political or Church organisations. By throwing in the church he had effectively undermined his argument. After all, if you allow religious organisations to access the electoral register then you probably should also include charities and other institutions that are deemed "good". Where exactly do you draw the line? Rees pointed out the flaw in the argument by pointing to the local schoolmaster and country parson in his constituency. Both had bought a copy of the register and they had used it for perfectly proper purposes. Should they now be banned from buying the register? And how are you supposed to enforce such legislations?

Where would the offence begin and where would it end? Would it be an offence for a copy of the register to be found on commercial premises or in the possession of an advertising agent? What if the man claimed that he was considering standing for election? What about an address list prepared from the register? Once the list was finished and the register destroyed, how could it be proved that the names came from the register?

Should we let the onus be on the advertiser to show that he had not used the register? Would this not be an unreasonable burden on him? Would it not oblige him to disclose details of his commercial practice every time information was laid against him? Who would lay the information? So one goes on. What machinery would we have at the Home Office to deal inspectorially with this problem? Therefore, the question of enforcement is really great, having started with much more simple and black and white arguments with which we all agree.

Times change (but some things remain the same)

When access to the full electoral register was eventually restricted, at around the turn of the century, enforcement was hardly used as an argument. The discussion about who should and shouldn't have access to (full) electoral roll had also changed. Advertisers didn't get access, and the church was never even mentioned. Instead, much time was spent debating whether or not credit reference and debt collection agencies should have access. In other words, the new debate centred around the question to what extent the sale of voters' personal data should benefit the economy. A sign of the times indeed…

And, speaking of signs of the times, there is one other interesting titbit from the 1970 debate. Peter Jackson had also raised the use of computer tapes in his contribution. The Under-Secretary acknowledged that providing the electoral register on tapes would make the electoral register even more attractive to advertisers. At the time this was an emerging problem; computers were still huge, primitive beasts and not widely used yet. However, it was likely the use of computers would become much widespread. Rees confirmed that registration officers were not required to provide the register on tapes, at least for the moment:

My hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak referred to computer tapes. It is a fact that computer tapes are used for printing the electoral register. The use of these tapes would greatly facilitate the printing of labels for sending out advertising matter. They would be enormously helpful to anyone with access to a computer. Probably only the larger firms are in a position to use them as yet, but, as time goes on, more local authorities will have computer installations and I have no doubt that in some areas the political parties will be interested in obtaining tapes for sending out political material. We have not yet decided what should be the policy for the sale of these tapes. They are not copies of the register within the meaning of the Regulations; so the registration officer is not obliged to sell them.

Alas, from 1986 onwards registration officers would provide the electoral register in computer-compatible form, which could be either a tape with data or printed address labels (though the latter was at the discretion of registration officers).