How far do the sources support the conclusion that during the period 1815-1918 the British Parliamentary system was only reformed when those in power feared violence of revolution?

04/05/07

All of the sources give evidences of different view at the time of reform from 1815-1918. Some of the sources also show how reform happened around the time of violence and the threat of revolution; this would suggest either a weak government or an unhappy public.

Sources two is a great example of the government’s fear of revolution and how the government has supposedly lost support to the revolutionaries. Sources two goes as far as admitting to the fear of revolution, “I oppose universal suffrage because I think it would produces a destructive revolution” he goes on to say why; “it is our best security against a revolution” this speech is one of the strongest speeches supporting reform which leads to the fact that it is not trustworthy because of the reason in which it was written. It admits as to why reform must happen and also gives a reason for the anger of peaces loving, intelligent numbers that are being driven to revolution, “we drive to the side of revolution those whom we shut out of power”, but this does not full support the question but it does support the conclusion because in the defensive speech of reform it does admit to the fear of revolution, the sources is also reliable because it was a parliament speech.

Sources three by Lord Salisbury the same man that predicted the violence after the 1831 reform Act claims that reform was passed in order to maintain “our institutions” otherwise giving in to the revolutionaries, he also refers to the “phantom of a conservative democracy” meaning that it is neither here nor there. This reliable source strongly supports the conclusion with support from sources 4 where both sources speak strongly about the failures of the government to control the violence.

Sources four written by the same person as sources three and criticizes the reform bill and “any minister who ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Sources four written by the same person as sources three and criticizes the reform bill and “any minister who takes it as his first principle that he will not be ‘ousted’”. This shows Lord Cranborn criticizing the way that the ministers are giving in to the masses through fear of violence, but what he is saying could be to get a Gladstone and the content of the speech might not be entirely accurate. Cranborn asserts that it was “the mobs who beat down the palings of Hyde Park” who converted his party to reform. He opposed reform as ministers would become “the slaves of the majority” and would be “driven” by the electorate. The significances of this source it that it shows Cranborn and two other ministers are resigning over this reform bill because of the weakness of the government, but the real reason could be just to defy is own party. The source was written in a very angry tone making the context in which it was written to be exaggerated but the sources is still trustworthy enough to support the question.

Source five lists the failures and problems of 1815-1914, the source says “In 1917 the Russian revolution would provide a chilling model of what happened when direct action was taken to its logical conclusion” this is a clear statement showing the fear of a revolution in Britain at the time, the sources also goes on to 1910-14 when unrest was caused by the alienation of the enfranchised which caused even more problem through fear of violence at the time. Behagg asserts that the 1918 Representation of the peoples Act was passed because of the (a both quote) in Russia in 1917. All this evidences supports the conclusion that reform was influences by fear of violence. As this sources is some one opinion and was written in 1991 whether it is 100% reliable or not could effect as to whether it is credible enough to support the question.

Sources six suggests that women got the vote in 1918 not because of the 1918 Reform Act but because of the militancy brought about by the women which led to them getting the vote. All this was because politicians grew anxious to enfranchise more men “as many had lost their qualifications by moving for war services” Pugh says that it was World War One not the Russian revolution which led to the 1918 reform Act. He also refers to “the scheme of parliament reform in 1917”, implying that plans for parliamentary reform were on the agenda before the Russian revolution, all this leads to that fact that it was the fear of violence that caused reform in the end and not the need for change. As this sources is some one opinion and was written in 1994 whether it is reliable or not will effect as to whether it is credible enough to support the question, the evidences suggests that it is reliable but does not fully support the question

Each sources provides a clear pattern of how violence over the century had influenced reform but was not always the cause of it. The sources do support the conclusion to the extent that they do provide evidences to suggest that reform was undertakes to prevent violence but reform did occur when their was no threat of at all. Which shows that there was the fear of violence’s.

History