Summary
Politics in Great Britain at this time can be summed up as a grand--and
unresolved--debate between classical liberalism, represented by William
Gladstone, and interventionist conservatism, represented by Benjamin
Disraeli. (Note: These political terms have essentially no resemblance
to their modern usage, so as we trace the story of England at this time, try to
forget the modern definitions of "liberal" and "conservative".)
Though Gladstone began his career as a Tory (the nickname for members of the
Conservative Party), he became the leader of the Liberal Party and a champion of
classical liberalism, the economic and political philosophy that opposed state
intervention in economic affairs, supported free trade, competition, and
individual initiative as the key to success. This philosophy was, above all, an
attack on privilege--on the aristocrats, on the Anglican Church. Liberals
believed that talent alone should dictate a man's advancement in the world.
Under Gladstone, Britain abolished tariffs, cut defense spending, lowered taxes,
kept budgets balanced, reformed the civil service into a merit-based promotion
system, and made elementary education available to and mandatory for everyone.
While Gladstone advanced a liberal version of England's future, Disraeli
advocated a different view, known as conservatism. Supported by an odd
coalition of great privilege and the agrarian poor, the Conservative Party
pushed for state intervention in the economy on behalf of both the disadvantaged
and the landed elite. Both supported tariffs because they helped British
agriculture and British domestic industries. While Disraeli was prime minister,
the government passed through the following changes:
1. Factory Act of 1875, setting a maximum of a fifty-six hour workweek.
2. Public Health Act, establishing a sanitary code.
3. Artisans Dwelling Act, defining minimum housing standards.
4. Trade Union Act, permitting picketing and other peaceful labor tactics.
As power in parliament switched back and forth, depending upon who was able to
craft the more effective voter coalition, England remained insulated from the
revolutions and popular uprisings that plagued Europe from 1830-1848, and took
considerable pride in that fact. Victorian England was on the road to great
strength, maintained by its unparalleled peace at home.
The question remains, however: Why was there no revolutionary uprising in Great
Britain? After all, Britain was ruled by an aristocratic or bourgeois elite
that excluded democrats, radicals, and workers; further, the government was not
fully representative, since in 1832, only 20 percent of the population could
fulfill the property qualifications to vote. As explained by historian Mark
Kishlansky, England experienced no revolution because its ruling elite, of
common background and education, was able to change and adapt to the shifting
needs and opinions of modern society.
The Liberals represented the economic and political wishes of the British
bourgeoisie--industrial (to some extent), merchant, and professional--and the
Conservatives represented the conservative elements of society. Granted,
everyone else in society was excluded from voting and, thus, direct
representation; however, in many cases, both parties responded to the needs of
workers and the poor, most notably the Conservatives. The essential difference
between the ruling elites in Britain and those on the Continent was their common
background and common philosophy. In Prussia and France, nobles were dedicated
to the preservation of their privilege by birthright alone; in England, nobles
were dedicated to the preservation of the rights of Englishmen. Granted, to
them, "Englishmen" meant fellow nobles and the wealthy; however, the different
perspective in terms of rights rather than privilege was more conducive to
allowing the English aristocrats to understand liberal demands in the 1840s and
respond to them with political and gradual change.
