The Liberal Party itself could not unite on reform, the Whig² side of the party opposed reform and the more radical Liberals favoured it; Disraeli wanted to exploit this weakness and hope to strengthen the Reform Bill’s support within the Commons. It was in fact the more radical Liberals which ensured the bills passing as they helped in the amendments made to it which became increasingly radical near the end of the House of Commons process, the House of Lords of course would not oppose the bill. By using members of the Liberal Party against itself Disraeli was able to split the party further, making it weaker in parliament, and to pass the second bill he presented with much less opposition than the first. In truth Disraeli performed an adept bit of political tactics; by presenting a more moderate reform bill in the commons and using the radical Liberals to make amendments that radicalised the Act he was able to get the bill past the Whigs and still have the Act he wanted in the end. This was a calculated move and a radical reform bill would be the best tool to use to aggravate an already disputing party; The Second Reform Act was used as a means to exploit weaknesses already present in the Liberal Party and those weaknesses were certainly not unknown, or in “the dark”, to the Conservatives.
The Conservative Party presented a bill to which the changes that it made would not really affect the Tory Party’s chances of being elected. The Second Reform Act was a less radical reform than it at first appears. The Act added 1.1 million voters to the previous total of 1.4million, almost doubling the electorate; the real trick to the Act was that most of the new votes were created in borough constituencies where the Liberals were most popular and only created more Liberal voting people – thus the Liberal Party did not gain any more constituencies. The borough constituencies only gained 45% more voters whereas the counties gained 135%. By passing the reform act the Conservatives hoped that a lot of the working class might change their opinion of the Tories and, if they were lucky, the Tories would gain a few seats from the snide redistribution.
“At best, therefore, the Conservatives would gain, at worst they would not lose.” adapted from Lee 1994.
In this way the Tories put an element of faith into The Second Reform Act, but it certainly was not “A leap in the dark”, it was a precisely calculated and cunningly devised plan to pull wool over people’s eyes.
It is also believed that agitation from reformist groups had pushed the issue of reform to such a violent state that whoever passed a reform act, one must be passed. The National Reform Union (NRU) and the Reform League were created in 1864 and 1865 respectively, both were reformist agitation groups dedicated to pressurising the government into reform. The NRU was a wealth group formed by middle class activists and had the support of such famous influential groups as Marx’s ‘First International’ and the Social Democratic Foundation; on the other hand the Reform League had more members than the NRU and thus they worked together to cause much popular pressure. In 1866 100,00 people rallied in Hyde Park to demonstrate for Reform, the protestors clashed with police and at it’s pinnacle cause a lot of pressure for more democratic changes to be made to the constitution. In this way it was not surprising that the Conservatives presented a reform bill, as it was likely that any party in power would be forced to pass reform. A popular cry for democracy was also held. The American Civil War and Italian Unification had inspired a new era of democracy where the old, decadent English exclusivity of politics must come to an end. The Conservatives were the party presented as those who ‘preserved privilege’ then why did they contribute to this radical and new ideal? The terms of the Act show that it was not actually far reaching enough to make massive changes to Britain as a whole – thought the Liberal Party would still be seen as the working class party, the Tories would still be seen as the appealing party to the wealthier people in society. The Tory Party knew what they were doing in presenting an apparently radical bill and were only appeasing the popular pressure groups at this time with political trickery, the thought of fairness and democracy did not enter the minds of these politicians and the bill was certainly not the unprecedented act of generosity which Lord Derby’s statement implies that it is.
Though the in the passage through parliament Disraeli did not entirely know what to expect and although the effect the Act would have on politics in Britain was not entirely clear, it was certainly less than “A leap in the dark”. Disraeli and Lord Derby tried to appear to be making an unpredictable move of generosity and democracy when it was in fact a quite cunningly devised plan to consolidate the Tory electorate and destroy opposition from the Liberal Party.
¹ American Civil War was fought over slavery and democracy. Italy recently unified and the spirit of democracy was also fought for there. Historians and novelists wrote inspired books about democracy and this had influenced some British MPs.
² Whig is the term used to refer to the older, more traditional Liberals who were more in favour of Laissez-faire and such policies that did not involve working-class or any radical politics.
