Why Disraeli Passed the 1867 Second Reform Act
The 1867 Second Reform Act was an extremely intelligent piece of
politics and demonstrated how clever Disraeli was as a politician, the
act itself would enable Disraeli to the gain power amongst the
Commons. With the death of Palmerston in 1865 the question of Reform
was immediately back on agenda. Palmerston had been such a major
political figure that while he was present, reform would never be an
issue in the Houses of Parliament.
Within a couple of months of the Derby administration coming into
power there were two days of riots in Hyde Park over the reform of
Parliament, involving clashes with police and the destruction of some
of the park railings. If the Conservatives wished to remain in power
something needed to be done, or so Disraeli said when he made a speech
to the Commons in 186 7 saying that reform needed to be passed in
order to "destroy the present agitation". However, we know that this
is not really the case as these riots were nothing in comparison to
the riots in 1932 over the first Reform Act when the entire city of
Birmingham was seized by protestors and rioters, this was merely given
as a reason to help gain support of the MP's in Parliament in passing
the Act.
A similar reason that Disraeli presented to the Conservative Party for
the need to Reform was a phrase that he coined Tory democracy, this he
explained was the theory that the Conservatives should not resist
social Reform but should in fact use it to gain the support of the
newly enfranchised voters i.e. the working class. This meant that if
the Tory's passed an act of social Reform the working class ma...
... middle of paper ...
...passing the Second Reform Act was
his intense dislike of Ewart Gladstone, the rivalry between Disraeli
and Gladstone had been present since the repeal of the Corn Laws in
1845, and during the 1866 Russel administration Disraeli had cleverly
demolished an attempt by Gladstone to push through a Second Reform
Bill. If therefore, Gladstone was able to push through a Reform Bill
of his own only a year later he would be humiliating the Liberals and
in particular Gladstone himself, this is a concept he called, "to dish
the Whigs".
Principally the reasons for Disraeli passing the 1867 Second Reform
Act was to gain power for himself among the government, potentially
succeeding Derby as the Prime minister. However, his stated political
reasons of the time might simply have been said to justify reform
amongst his own party.
The failure of the home rule bill in 1886 was due, to a large extent, to the tactical mistakes made by gladstone, such as the failure to unite his party and his underestimation of conservative opposition towards the bill. However, it could also be argued that other factors, such as the sectarian nature of Irish society and subsequent opposition in Ulster also played a major role in the failure of the Home Rule Bill and thus inevitable regardless of Gladstone’s actions.
It must be considered when viewing the achievements of Labour that in 1924, the Labour government was not in a position to push ahead with radical policies, as a minority in the house of commons a Conservative vote and abstinence of a liberal support would have brought the government down. A heavy reliance on the liberals existed in the first labour government which some argue restricted them heavily, policies such as nationalisation and disarmament had no chance of being implemented. Also due to its reliance on the Liberals its relationship with trade unions was damaged as they felt they were not being represented as well as promised. To labour this was a large problem as trade unions provided most of their funds, however to be too sympathetic to the unions would make it difficult to project an image of their party as genuinely national. Labour theorised that a gradual series of changes would be more beneficial to their aims, and using their rise to power in 24 as foundation stone to prove their capability in government, their socialist views were still present, however were a realistic take on Labours ability to bring change to Britain, which was at this point vastly limited.
Disraeli's Motives in Passing the Second Reform Act “The objective of establishing the Conservative Party as a party of
The notion of overseeing welfare wasn’t always the case in the UK. Before this the ‘Poor Law’ was operated. (1598-1948) This consisted on a basis that the poor amongst society were essentially a problem of their own making and in turn needed to be punished because of this. ‘Those without jobs were lazy, feckless or in some other way delinquent’ (Coats: 34: 2012) Welfare was deemed to be a privilege, a goodwill gesture from the rich to the poor. Harsh living conditions and the punishments were seen as motivation for the poor to strive to improve their own lives.
Some of the evils that the reformers of the period 1820-1860 were attempting to eliminate was the increased alcohol usage in that time period. The temperance movement was important because many people living in the northern United States were operating machinery and factory owners did not want their employees drunk while operating heavy machinery. Another evil that the reformers of the period were trying to eliminate was slavery. Many of the abolitionist came from the northern United States and believed that blacks should have equal rights to whites. Another evil that the reformers were attempting to eliminate was the inequality of women. Similar to slavery, many reformers believed that women should have equal rights to males in terms of pay for work, political rights, and social conventions. Next, the reformers were attempting to reform the education system. The reformers were attempting to make the education more public and with a more comprehensive curriculum. Lastly, another reform was a religious reform in which preachers were attempting to spread Christianity and inspire people to become more involved in Christianity.
‘Reform movements in the United States sought to expand democratic ideals. Assess the validity of this statement with specific reference to the years 1825-1850.’
...s. Although all of these reforms sought to expand democratic ideals, some had unforeseen and unintended effects. Morse wanted to protect democracy and the US from infiltrators but his paranoia influenced his one-sided view of halting immigration which is against democratic ideals of promoting a safe haven for those seeking liberty from an aggressor. Then there were the transcendentalist’s whose aim it was to create a perfect society. Although well-meaning, fundamentally goes against democratic ideals. The validity that reform movements sought to expand democratic ideals is proven by the domino effect of several movements such as equality brought on by women’s suffrage, temperance, and the abolition of slavery which accomplished similar goals and combined efforts to change society to better our needs and requirement for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It is a basic rule of human nature that Homo Sapien needs permanency. In times of great social upheaval, people will often turn to the familiar arms of religion in search of that permanency. The 1830s through 1850s were no exception to the rule. The nation was hit by wave after wave of moral reform movements as the people turned to organized religion for stability in the midst of the Industrial Revolution. But why did these moral reform movements happen, why were they so concentrated in that era, and what gave them force? The Industrial Revolution caused a massive social upheaval as business markets expanded and interpersonal relationships became more numerous. In the midst of all this change, people sought stability in religion and moral reform movements grew directly out of those religious convictions.
To summarize, for the most part, the reformists of the early 1800’s sought to make America an idealistic democratic nation. Some fought for their rights, some fought for reform of society, and some battled for the sake of the future through education; but all reformists had one idea in mind, and that was to make the United States a more fair and democratic nation for everyone to appreciate.
American reform movements in the early to mid 1800’s strived at improving our developing society. America was growing larger, and with the expanding population, many new ideas sprang up. Conflicting opinions between the people of the United States caused the emergence of an Age of Reform, where people tried to change things such as the educational system and women’s rights. These movements were the result of our nation’s self-determination and interest in improving the society we live in.
Reform was the goal of the Progressive movement, and with that in mind the reformers had great success. Progressive reformers were made up primarily of middle class men and women whose two main goals were to limit the trusts and to improve conditions of life and labor. These people were part of both political parties at the time, as well as in all regions of the country, and in all levels of the government. They wanted to remove bribed members of the legislature so that just laws and regulations were made that would benefit the people rather than the power-hungry corporations. This major movement altered all aspects of life creating a better living and working environment for people. The Progressive Era reformers and federal government developed the political, social, and economical elements for the better of the country.
Believe it or not, major events occurred in the 1870s. They did not go wild in their cowboy boots and hats riding along on their horses. The American people were expanding west and man was the controversy endless. Come on now, it’s drama, it can be dated back to the B.C. years. Of course the drama was all tied into politics. Politics in the 1870s consisted of changes, first time events, and two elections.
The citizens and leaders of the reform movements realized that without action, these movements would be nothing (DOC G). So many of them decided to step out and stand up for their cause. Without these important American leaders, our nation would not have grown into the nation it is today. Through their determination and sacrifice, they made a huge difference in expanding America’s democratic ideals by laying the foundation for religion and education, movements through abolition and temperance acts, expanding beliefs by caring for the insane, and taking a stand for personal rights.
I commend the authors' overall work in being able to effectively present the aims of the reform movement and its progression over time. I am especially was appreciative of what seemed to be a very critical analysis of the policies that came out of the “reformers” at the time. Yet, I do have some minor issues with how they seem to skim though the topic while forgetting to discuss some others important elements of the topic. For example, I thought it was odd that although the reform movement had some major issues within its ideals of "fixing democracy", they did not seem to focus on heavily on some of the positive benefits of the movement. Therefore, with this paper, I hope to hone into what I personally thought were fascinating elements of the reading, which was how the reform Movement was instrumental in establishing strong elite governmental policies against the typical machine city politics at the time, but also in some major cases discriminated and disenfranchised individuals in lower socioeconomic classes within those newly "reformed" cities.
An upcoming Chartist founder in 1832, Henry Hetherington had quoted that the ‘Reform Act was never intended to do you one particle of good.’ Opinions like Henry Hetherington’s after the passing of 1832 Reform Act eventually led to the emergence of Chartism as a national movement in 1837, who were predominately working class and depicted the ‘Great ‘Reform Act of 1832 as a betrayal and a failure, rather than being ‘Great’. The Reform Act was hoped by many to be a ‘remedy’ for many of those from the lower end of the social classes and finally a chance for them to get their voices heard by the government through enfranchisement, however many thought they were ‘deceived’ by it when it was passed. On the other hand, Historians have contended