In favour of what Robert Blake says, the conservatives had not been in power for ten years and were seeking for a comeback which would give Disraeli and the conservative party good motive to want to pass an act in order to regain power. The Liberals had previously failed in passing a Reform act. So it would be in the conservative’s best interest to pass a Reform act. This would show the conservatives as s stronger party than the Liberals as they were able to succeed where the Liberals failed.
On the other hand, however beneficial the second reform act was to the conservative party we can’t ignore Disraeli’s aims very early on in his political career. We know that Disraeli dedicated his early political career to passing a Reform act and had a large interest for it. We know this from Disraeli’s writing where he communicated his passion for passing a reform act. Therefore we can say that it was not Disraeli’s sole aim to establish the conservative party through a second reform act but was merely a positive outcome from what Disraeli had set out to achieve from the beginning.
However there is strong evidence to suggest that the conservatives wanted to outdo the liberals by gaining an advantage over the Liberals, passing a reform act would do this. Despite Disraeli’s so called passion for passing a reform act we can argue it was simply propaganda leading up to the establishment of the conservative party through a Reform act. This would have been a sure fire way to secure a position in government.
The origin of the statement also highly suggests that it is of high validity. The statement is a General sweeping statement taken from a book entitled “ The conservative party from peel to Thatcher”, suggesting that the statement is merely for informative purposes. We also know that Robert Blake has devoted a lot of his time and life in studying Disraeli making him very credible. He is known for writing a brilliant bibliography of Disraeli and there is also a lot of evidence to suggest what Blake says is true. Another point is the book was published in 1985, which is a secondary source, which shows Robert Blake had a lot of time to reflect and analyse sources in order to reach a solid conclusion of Disraeli’s motives for passing the Reform Act.
Alternatively Disraeli’s interest at the beginning of his political career for passing a reform act could very well be genuine. His writing supports this idea and therefore we can say that Disraeli could have been a genuine social reformer.
Another argument that supports what Robert Blake is saying is that the second Reform act was originally the Liberals idea therefore we can say it was A stolen idea and was merely used to the advantage of Disraeli and his party.
In my opinion I believe that Disraeli’s motives are clear and that the evidence that Disraeli passed the reform act to establish the conservative party is stronger than that he was a genuine social reformer. I believe that Disraeli’s real interest was to establish the party and the way to do that was through a Reform act so of course he would show passion and interest towards it. I conclude that Disraeli was not a genuine social reformer. I believe he was an opportunist who used a previous governments failed act in order for his party and his career to flourish. Therefore from the evidence I can confidently say that I believe Disraeli was not a genuine reformer and that Robert Blake’s interpretation of Disraeli’s motives is a valid and accurate one.
Kirsty Knibb 6e
