Why did a minority Tory government end up passing a far more reaching measure of parliamentary reform in1867, than its minority liberal predecessor in 1866?

Authors Avatar

Why did a minority Tory government end up passing a far more reaching measure of parliamentary reform in1867, than its minority liberal predecessor in 1866?

After the death of the Liberal leader Palmerston in 1865, Lord John Russell replaces him as P.M. Palmerston was opposed to any types of reform and wanted to maintain the old parliamentary system, but Russell however was enthusiastic in the on the notion of parliamentary reform, he wanted the franchise extended to “respectable”   literate god fearing men.

However even prior to Pam’s death, there were indications that the Liberal Party were edging towards reform like for example the work of John Bright a Birmingham MP who had achieved a bonds between the working and middle classes that hadn't been achieved anywhere else – this further showed that working classes could be respectable and deserving of the vote.

In 1866 Gladstone proposed his Reform Bill, not very radical terms - increase franchise 200,000 in boroughs and 170,000 in the counties - redistribution of seats proposed calculated to give more of an advantage to the Liberals, however the bill did have weakness which meant it excluded the poorest householders i.e those whose property had a an annual rate of £6 or less.

Join now!

The Liberal Reform Bill was published in 1866 and proposed lowering the franchise to £7 in boroughs and £14 in the counties, with votes also for £10 lodgers. Minor redistribution of seats proposed. Most redistribution to go to the counties, with 26 extra seats - 6 entirely new boroughs proposed with 4 more seats for London, 5 more for large English and 3 more for large Scottish boroughs. The government was defeated 315-304 in the commons on a hostile amendment which lead to the fall of government as without the full backing of the liberal party the bill could ...

This is a preview of the whole essay