By looking at the portrayal and equality between 1830 – 1931, it is questioned whether the Great Reform Act 1832 can be seen as well adjusted due to its adverse and decisive consequences. The Act did bring many positive outcomes including the increase in the electorate and incline in raw materials as shown by John Robottom, for example, coal production increased from 22.5 million tons to 270.0 million tons. Also, by 1928 men and women were able to vote who were previously disregarded due to the consequences of the Great Reform Act extending the electorate. On the other hand, it is believed that the Act brought more negative outcomes which outweighed any favourable results, for example, Professor Gash demonstrated that the new system consisted of elements of the old system just as Parliament comprised of both aristocrats and country gentlemen, putting the working classes at a disadvantage. Therefore, with the use of various secondary sources this essay will discuss the limited and continuing effects of the Great Reform Act 1832, both conclusive and pessimistic, with particular emphasis on unfavourable consequences such as the formation of the Chartist movement and the decline in patronage. Firstly, the Great Reform Act benefited the Middle classes who now had the freedom to use their new political capability to meet their own needs, as shown by Peter Lane. Before the Great Reform Act was introduced in 1832, the electorate was previously 440, 000 and had increased by another 217,000 which consisted mainly of middle class individuals, which shows how dominated the electorate was by the middle classes and how the working classes were at a disadvantage. After which, rich industrialists were on the same terms as the old elite, none... ... middle of paper ... ...ividuals who were already involved in the electorate prior to the introduction of the Great Reform Act. Once the Act was introduced, the electorate did indeed increase, but this was for the middle classes, the working class on the other hand were outraged by the Act and violence erupted such as the formation of the Chartist movement. The political system may have been seen as more ‘organised’, yet political parties including the Tories opposed reform and argued that the existing system had already worked effectively, the Whigs weren’t completely eager either. Nonetheless, the Act did bring many positive outcomes, but they were outweighed by the unfavourable affairs which took place, such as rioting and demonstrations by working class men. Consequently, the Great Reform Act did not bring complete democracy and was condemned by many individuals as previously shown.
It could be argued that Gladstone’s failure to unite his party, during a time when their ultimate support and confidence in his leadership was crucial, was a significant tactical error that contributed heavily towards the failure of the 1886 Home Rule Bill. The results of the 1885 general election were to have a significant impact on the political landscape of Britain; despite winning the most seats, the Liberals did not have an overall majority.As Parnell and the Irish Parliamentry Party (IPP) held the balance...
Disraeli's Motives in Passing the Second Reform Act “The objective of establishing the Conservative Party as a party of government explains most of the actions of the Disraeli in passing the 1867 reform act”. This interpretation of Disraeli’s motives highlights the idea of whether Disraeli passed the second Reform Act through passion or merely to further his political career and boost the profile of the
The Licensing Act and the 1902 Education Act went against the strict political and social views of the non-conformists. This was enough for them to go out and vote Liberal in 1906. This accounts for a 25% increase in Liberal votes in 1906. After years of Tory dominance the Liberals turned the 1900 election result on its head. A major significance was... ...
In the 1906 election, the number of seats won by Liberals increased from 184 to 377, in contrast the numbers of seats lost by the Conservatives went from 402 seats won in 1900 to 157 seats lost in the 1906 election, this represented the lowest number of seats held by a Conservative government since 1832. This dramatic reversal of constituencies held, is due to a number of reasons. An argument is that, due to some poor decisions made by the Conservative governments, they in fact contributed largely to the landslide result in the 1906 election. ‘They were in effect the architects to the own downfall.’
Was the electoral result a consequence of changing British values, or was it a result of Conservative blunders? There is no doubt that the various stratas of British society were all dissatisfied at some point with Conservative rule. The working classes in particular felt upset by the Conservatives over many issues. Chinese Slavery, the decision by the Conservative Government to send thousands of Chinese labourers to South Africa to work the goldmines to rebuild the economy after the Boer War angered many of the working class. To them this decision closed the chance of white emigration to South Africa... ...
result of the industrial revolution's effects on society and politics. Reform was needed and it
Late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century were the years of achievement, the years of one huge reform, the years that shaped the present day in so many ways. The present day industrial workers owe their stable life, pleasant working conditions, and a variety of insurances to nothing else but these fifty four years. The struggling lives of industrial proletariat (thesis), their desire for improvement (antithesis), and the emergence of the welfare state, political democracy, trading unions, and social equality (synthesis) skillfully describe the picture of the events happening in those days.
“After the passing of the Great Reform Bill, the liberal Whig leadership struck a snag. Several years of depression put the conservative Tories back in power in 1841. Wages and living conditions grew steadily worse as the industrial revolution permitted the rise of great fortunes for owners and employers along with starvation and poverty for great numbers of the working classes.” (Earl Davis, The Flint and the Flame, Page 115)
...eform movement does not make the statement viable that reform movements during this time period looked to expand democratic ideals. The Know-Nothing party was almost as bad as the institution on the basis of equality.
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.
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 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.
The Chartist movement itself came about five years’ after the Reform Act was passed, so how can the rise of the movement mark the failure of the Reform Act, when its sole drive perhaps was not fully related to it? Edward Royle had suggested that ‘the roots of Chartism lay in economic hardship’, and that the movement erupted at a time of an economic crisis. The movement was predominately working-class and thus when inflation began to rise, they were hit the hardest and many saw the Chartist movement as the only hope in their desperate situation. This idea can be further supported by a report on a speech by Joseph Rayner Stephens who comments, ‘This question of Universal Suffrage was a knife and fork question…this was a bread and cheese question.’ This suggests the movements idea of universal suffrage was more to do with a socio-economic issue and this can relate with Edward Royle’s view that the Chartist movement erupted as a result of the bad economic conditions, rather than the betrayal of the ‘Great’ Reform Act. In this sense, it suggests the Chartist movement came about many years after the Reform Act was passed because it wasn’t until towards the late 1830’s the economic situation started to worsen for the working-class, and this led many to turn towards Chartism in the hope for a change.
Their initial victory was “followed by an ensuing struggle to implement change”. The people had taken to the streets not knowing what they would do if they did manage to take power. Now that they had, because of their different individual aims, they found it hard to compromise. This eventually led to a growing split between moderates and radicals, as well as between social classes, particularly in France. The moderates did not want a government based on universal male suffrage and the middle classes were determined to resist the demands of the lower classes....
It was always very difficult for people to agree about politics in the 1900s. Many people wanted to make changes or improvements in the government to promote a stronger d...