A Biography of Great Men – A History of Britain: 1836-1935 [HoD 3.03]

[awnman]

This is an amazing AAR. One thing you really have a knack for is getting me to understand just why Britain got so obsessed with the Corn Laws. It was one of those major historicla political issues i never wuite understood along with American bi-metalism. Anyway subbed

 

[volksmarschall]

I should let you know Densley, although I'm sure you already know, I can't help but smile every time I read your updates! Your writing and apparent love of history, makes me think of myself back when I was your age!

And I am reinforced to think the future of British historical scholarship will continue once you get your PhD! (After all, even as a "Yankee" - British historians (and philosophers) line my book shelves... :glare: ) I'm sure I'll have something written by you one day!

 

[The B]

It's been great to see this AAR develop so far. Please don't be too cruel to the Māori.

 

[Tommy4ever]

I agree that you've really got to try out writing an IAAR at some point!

 

[Scrapknight]

I concur! In particular, a V2 UK IAAR would really be something to see.

I might suggest somewhere else, but we all know that only the UK has a chance

 

[DensleyBlair]

I've learned not to make promises you can't otherwise keep! Actually, I've learned that deadlines suck and I often get sidetracked from my work too easily and then have a grand review to make sure I have all my material together for my presentations the day or two before I submit everything...

So I'm going to hold you to the weekend post and if I don't see it Saturday or Sunday you'll have ruined my weekend!

I trust your weekend wasn't ruined?

Well written, I must say! I feel you would do good writing an IAAR, with this in depth political style

It's certainly a possibility for the future. Thanks for the comment, BR.

Radical Party! - Oh wait, wrong AAR!

Can you guess whose ideas about liberalism were in my mind as I write their manifesto?

Which he stole from me, who in turn stole it from Tommy, who probably stole it from somebody else...

Yeah. And that's something I make no bones about. United We Shall Remain is one of my favourite reads on these forums, so it's only natural I'd be inspired.

This is an amazing AAR. One thing you really have a knack for is getting me to understand just why Britain got so obsessed with the Corn Laws. It was one of those major historicla political issues i never wuite understood along with American bi-metalism. Anyway subbed

Welcome awnman! Glad to see you here.

The Corn Laws were definitely big at the time. In many ways, they helped and influenced a lot – from party politics to the common man. I dare say we haven't quite seen the back end of them yet.

I should let you know Densley, although I'm sure you already know, I can't help but smile every time I read your updates! Your writing and apparent love of history, makes me think of myself back when I was your age!

And I am reinforced to think the future of British historical scholarship will continue once you get your PhD! (After all, even as a "Yankee" - British historians (and philosophers) line my book shelves... :glare: ) I'm sure I'll have something written by you one day!

I may have to disappoint you there, I'm afraid – I'm currently actually set on architecture as a discipline. (Though that's no reason to stop writing about history, of course...) Unless you happen to like books about architectural design, I fear your bookshelves may be Densley-free.

It's been great to see this AAR develop so far. Please don't be too cruel to the Māori.

Actually, things will be looking up for them soon. In a way. You'll find out soon enough.

I agree that you've really got to try out writing an IAAR at some point!

I concur! In particular, a V2 UK IAAR would really be something to see.

I might suggest somewhere else, but we all know that only the UK has a chance

Thanks gentlemen! It's certainly a possibility – though whether a V2 UK one would be too much of a redux of this, I'm not sure. Maybe I'll look elsewhere...

---

Thank you all for your comments and insight, as ever. While we wait for the campaign update, does anyone have any initial predictions as to the election's outcome? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[LordTempest]

Thank you all for your comments and insight, as ever. While we wait for the campaign update, does anyone have any initial predictions as to the election's outcome? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

How on Earth can you expect us to predict the outcome of the campaign when we haven't even had the campaign update yet!? How did the debates go? What's the word out on the hustings? What do the papers say? We don't know but we gots to know!

Can you guess whose ideas about liberalism were in my mind as I write their manifesto?

Did you really write it? Or did Enewald?

 

[DensleyBlair]

How on Earth can you expect us to predict the outcome of the campaign when we haven't even had the campaign update yet!? How did the debates go? What's the word out on the hustings? What do the papers say? We don't know but we gots to know!

Do you wish to tell me that the electorate of the United Kingdom have absolutely no concept of the idea of a "gut feeling"?

Did you really write it? Or did Enewald?

How did you guess?

 

[Zorro]

Whig Party

If this was an IAAR .

 

[Jape]

The Stanleyite-Peelite split won't do the Tories much good, however Vicky 2 elections don't really work like the real world. For the sake of the reforming spirit here's hoping the Radicals come back into the fold quick sharp.

 

[Terraferma]

Great profile and preview on the upcoming election, looking forward to the next segment.

 

[volksmarschall]

I may have to disappoint you there, I'm afraid – I'm currently actually set on architecture as a discipline. (Though that's no reason to stop writing about history, of course...) Unless you happen to like books about architectural design, I fear your bookshelves may be Densley-free.

You can always go the Walter Benjamin route and talk about "art and art history" There's also architectural history (yes, this is a field of historical study) that I have some background training in with my Islamic studies...

Yet, one of my best friends from High School went into architecture - so I guess that means you're in good company!

 

[DensleyBlair]

Whig Party

If this was an IAAR .

A man after my own heart!

The Stanleyite-Peelite split won't do the Tories much good, however Vicky 2 elections don't really work like the real world. For the sake of the reforming spirit here's hoping the Radicals come back into the fold quick sharp.

Indeed. The split has created some interesting scenarios in game – which, I will be honest, I'm largely ignoring. The overall election result will reflect what happened in game, thought the actual percentages will differ to make them a bit more appropriate.

Great profile and preview on the upcoming election, looking forward to the next segment.

Thanks Terra! I hope the campaign update will be to your satisfaction.

You can always go the Walter Benjamin route and talk about "art and art history" There's also architectural history (yes, this is a field of historical study) that I have some background training in with my Islamic studies...

Yet, one of my best friends from High School went into architecture - so I guess that means you're in good company!

I have a very nice book on architectural history, in fact, if not entirely academic – The Great Builders by Kenneth Powell. Maybe you will have something by me after all?

---

Next update is nearly done. I just need to finish the debates and add the finishing touches, which shouldn't take too long once I get a chane to have a good crack at it at the weekend.

Also, the ACAs are back! For all those interested in voting (and, though it would be greatly appreciated, please don't feel you have to vote for this AAR ) the Victoria thread can be found here. Avindian's signature will take you to the central ACA thread once you're in the Vicky section, should you wish to vote in more than one sub-forum – which I highly encourage you all to do.

 

[Jape]

Agree on the elections thing. I stick to in-game results but the actual tallies can be ridiculous. I've had parties grab 80% of the vote in one election and collapse to 5% come the next and then jump up to 30% within a year. Dramatic rises and falls make for good AARs but it can get bizarre after a point.

 

[volksmarschall]

I have a very nice book on architectural history, in fact, if not entirely academic – The Great Builders by Kenneth Powell. Maybe you will have something by me after all?

Well, I have a very diverse collections of books, so I wouldn't be surprised if you write something of the sort if it winds up in one of my bookshelves!

 

[DensleyBlair]

1847 General Elections: The Campaigns

The Press

As during the previous general election seven years earlier, the press would play a key part in deciding how the parties would fare come polling day. Getting a newspaper on your side was vital (and still is today) for any party wishing to make more than just ripples in the pool of politics, and support from a publication with a large readership could be the difference between a landslide victory and a crushing defeat – both at a local level and beyond. Traditionally, the Whigs enjoyed the privileged status of being the favourite amongst the press, being able to count upon the numerous liberal publications in the country as a solid support base. Lord Russell embarked on the hustings safe in the knowledge that he had three papers on his side – the (Manchester) Guardian, the Scotsman and the Herald, the latter two representing the not-inconsiderable support received by the Whigs in Scotland.

Russell was not the only one with a presence in the media, however, with Peel able to count upon the backing of both the Times and the Observer – the latter being the only major paper to switich their allegiance from 1840, having previously been pro-Whig.[1] Vitally for Peel, who performed admirably in the prior elections, this equated to a larger share of the press than in 1840 – a very good omen for his party.

Perhaps the biggest surprises within the press world came from further up north. The (Manchester) Guardian, though based in city famed for it's radical economic policies, had long shunned the previously disorganised nascent Radical movement in favour of the safer Whigs. Even with the formal formation of the Radical Party at the beginning of the year, the paper chose to stick to their guns, supporting Russell's campaign. The Radicals under John Bright – prospective MP, aptly enough, for Manchester – were, however, supported by the little-known Northern Star – a radical news-sheet dedicated to the furthering of leftist politics in the United Kingdom. In 1840, the Star had been content with pushing a quasi-independent, pro-reform agenda – not wishing to bow down to the decidedly moderate Whigs. With the formation of the Radicals, however, the newspaper now a viable, organised group to who they could give their support. The Radicals' cause was gaining traction – something the established political parties did not take too lightly. Only time would tell, however, whether or not the support of a minor radical newsletter would impact the coming campaigns.

An overview of the papers' allegiances.

The Hustings

Carrying on from a trend set seven years earlier, the papers eagerly gave coverage to the more prominent debates of the campaign season. Coverage began in mid January, when Whig leader Lord John Russell took on a Peelite rival candidate from the podium in his constituency of the City of London. Going into the debate, both men had one thing in common – they had taken the bold step of challenging a new constituency. Russell's switch was largely a display of confidence in his voters, his cushy seat in Stroud having been a secure constituency for the Whigs for the past few decades. He therefore went into the debate harbouring a certain sense of unease. The new seat, while mixed in its historic allegiances, was marginally pro-Tory and the Whig leader's challenger – a backbencher of little note by the name of John Masterman – was eager to seize the current ill feelings towards the Stanley government.

Russell's passionate deliveries proved popular with the London Liberals.

For most of the evening, Russell was able to coast his way through a selection of easy questions with a standard selection of pithy remarks and liberal tub-thumping. Masterman, meanwhile held his own reasonably – or rather, as reasonably as one can when one is pitted against the incumbent prime minister, who, regardless of exact preferences, did command some gravity amongst the crowd. The most notable question of the debate came from a local trader looking for clarification on the parties' respective economic policies. Russell responded quickly with an impassioned defence of the free market, arguing that any Whig government that saw fit to regulate the market after abolishing the Corn Laws would be hypocritical. In a room of wealthy traders, bankers and businessmen, this was received with great acclaim. Masterman's answer certainly did not live up to his name, and was received only by a few lukewarm ripples of applause from the more hard-Tory elements in the room (even if they would likely have had nothing but disdain for both candidates.) When the morning papers were delivered the next day, it was Russell's name printed in the prime position.

The next big debate occurred in Tamworth – Sir Robert Peel's constituency since 1830 and a safe seat for at least one member of the Peel family since 1790. No one predicted any upsets this year, but the papers sent reporters nonetheless – if only to satisfy the public's desire for stories, however mundane, about those in the public eye. Peel's opponent for the debate, which was scheduled for early February, was the unknown Edward A'Court, a Stanleyite Conservative of little repute. The atmosphere between the two men – one a veteran statesman well regarded by his constituents, the other a scoundrel defector who had helped bring down Peel and done little since – was tense, to say the least, and no love was lost during the proceedings.

The former Prime Minister maintained a solid presence in his home constituency.

Peel opened in controversial, though apt, style, lambasting the Stanleyites as power-hungry and inept. A'Court responded by defending his master, Stanley, as holding legitimate grievances against Peel and accusing him of being out of touch with the electorate – a statement which the more experienced Peel threw right back at A'Court, playing to his home advantage with aplomb. By the time questions were opened up to the floor, it was clear in everyone's minds, as it had been from the beginning, that Peel had the edge. Indeed, many commented that the debate was only held at all for the spectacle. The lasting moment, however, came when an elderly soldier-turned-landowner (indeed, it is claimed that he was a veteran of the Napoleonic campaigns) asked the candidates what their respective views on defence were. Peel allowed his opponent to answer first, who delivered an answer wholly average aside from its concession that Peel's military action abroad had been one of his ministry's redeeming features. In this regard, Peel had worked the situation beautifully. "If the Honourable Gentleman feels my policies are best," he began, "why should he feel he can implement them better than I?" This received a rapturous applause, drowning out A'Court's piqued response. The next day, as had been apparent all along, Peel was declared the debate's victor.

For the third debate of note, the country's journalistic corps headed to King's Lynn, where Lord George Bentinck – a former Young Englander turned Stanleyite Leader in the Commons (Stanley having been quietly raised to the Lords as Baron Stanley of Bickerstaffe via a writ of acceleration after his resignation.) Lord Bentinck was the son of the 4th Duke of Portland known more for his luck at the races than his politics, though he was, by all means, a rising man in his party. The Stanleyites' reluctance to rally behind the Jewish Disraeli – the natural choice for Stanley's Leader in the Commons – was a blessing for Bentinck, whose status meant he was invited to take the position. His position, aside from bringing his name to the attention of a few more people, also meant that he was the most prominent Stanleyite contesting a seat in the election. His debate with perennial challenger for his seat – the Whig Thomas Redcliffe – was therefore seen to be noteworthy enough by the press to warrant the dispatching of reporters to Norfolk.

Lord George Bentinck had risen to prominence after becoming Stanley's leader in the Commons, though his footing in his new constituency was unsure.

Bentinck had occupied the seat since 1828, when he had entered Parliament as a Whig. Redcliffe had been challenging since the elections in 1837 with mixed success. It was therefore not as one-sided a match as it may have appeared prima facie, with Redcliffe often proving a worthy adversary and orator. Many local commentators tipped him to beat Bentinck in a surprise victory. For his part, he was able to defend his points and launch attacks on Bentinck's well for the debate's opening stages, ensuring the incumbent did not have an easy ride back to Parliament. The debate's most notable moment occurred midway through, when the candidates were questioned on their attitudes to colonial expansion. Redcliffe stuck firmly to the party line, espousing possible expansion in Canada and Australia, as well as giving the East India Company further powers to "intervene" where necessary in Indian affairs. Bentinck argued instead that the government should have a stronger voice in subcontinental affairs, arguing that the Secretary of State for the Colonies should be given responsibility for further expansion. For those assembled residents of the seaport town, shrewd expansion by experts in the area was the more inviting proposition, and Redcliffe was awarded an enthusiastic applause. To the surprise of many, it appeared that the Whig may finally have has his day. He was declared the victor in the next day's papers – the press dealing another blow to what was shaping up to be a decidedly lacklustre Stanleyite campaign.

The fourth debate saw the British press travel west to Cork, where Irish political giant Daniel O'Connell was preparing to debate a Tory challenger, Richard Longfield, formerly High Sheriff of County Cork and general local bigwig. It would in all likelihood be O'Connell's final election, going into the campaign at the age of 70. Having lead the Irish political movement for nearly 40 years, many in the country approached his imminent departure from the Commons with a certain trepidation, unsure as to whether the Repeal movement would be able to weather his absence. Longfield, a sprightly 45 by comparison, had previously been able to win the Cork County seat in the absence of a strong Repealer candidate. Many feared that this trend would increase when the core of the party eventually retired, leaving Ireland's political situation within Britain in question. Considering the wider context — namely the famine which had been raging, by the time O'Connell and Longfield met on the hustings, for nearly 18 months — the coming years in Irish politics would prove incredibly important.

The 1847 election campaign would prove to be O'Connell's last.

The debate was, as could be reasonably expected, a fiery encounter. The impassioned O'Connell, still fully in possession of a powerful rhetorical ability, stirred those watching into providing an equally powerful support. Longfield, despite his own Irish background, was not able to capture the mood, hampering his performance in round after round of questioning. Indeed, by the time a local farmer, clearly of radical leanings, asked the candidates for their respective views on what should be done to combat the famine, it appeared as if a major catastrophe was all that could stop O'Connell from running away with the debate and taking the seat with it. As fate would have it, such a catastrophe would occur. In front of the assembled crowd, "The Liberator", as he was known to the Irish people whom he represented, collapsed having suffered a sudden stroke. Horrified, the crowd — previously whipped up into a patriotic fury — were silenced, watching on as a local doctor rushed on to the hustings to see to the elderly candidate. There proved a small show of mercy in that O'Connell was still alive. The stroke has only been mild, though he was debilitated. Two days later, it was announced that he was withdrawing from the contest and retiring from politics. Longfield, after a relatively poor performance in the debate, had been handed the seat on a silver platter. It was O'Connell's name, however, on the front of the papers for the next few days as many wondered what lay in store for the Repeal movement sans their galvanising leader.

With polling taking place on the 4th of March, the final debate of note was scheduled for the eleventh hour, staged in Manchester three days before voting. The contestants were John Bright — former Whig turned leader of the new Radical Party — and the grandly-named Beresford D'Arcy, a Conservative backbencher of little note aside from his name. Unusually for a man recently raised to prominence as a party leader, Bright was contesting a new seat and, in doing so, risked hobbling his new party's presence in Parliament from the outset with his possible absence. This, however, was an unlikely scenario. Manchester, a constituency born of the revolutionary reforms of Grey's era, was firmly left leaning. Not one Conservative had been elected in the interim decade and a half, with notables such as William Ewart Gladstone, an established member of the Peelite haute cour, falling foul of the radical populace. Bright's chances, therefore, looked good to say the least.

The "Cottonopolis" of Manchester would prove a safe seat for the Radical left.

The Radical did not disappoint, with statement after statement of his being received with thunderous applause by the crowd. By no means was this simply down to running under a yellow banner, either, with Bright holding a reputation as a brilliant orator. His words inspired and galvanised in equal measure, with D'Arcy barely being able to sneak in a reply or statement in defence. Known especially for his economic views, the most notable part of what was really a one man show came when Bright was asked about his views on the economy by a member of the gathered audience. He responded in true Radical fashion: the free market, he argued, must not be impinged upon in any way. Governmental intervention must be eliminated and the state should be scaled back. It was a speech to convince even the most ardent of interventionists, with Bright liberally (in more way than one) using words like "freedom" and "liberty". Unsurprisingly, the following days papers lauded Bright as a champion of the people and declared him the debate's victor. One more radical news sheet went as far as not mentioning D'Arcy at all, merely running a story about the Radical's virtues. It was another good omen for the nascent party who were now hoping that their luck would continue into the polls.

Polls and Predictions

The election campaigns of 1847 were also notable for a rather significant first – that of opinion polling. From university debating societies and Fleet Street to the country's many inns and pubs, the apparent closeness of the election as well as the numerous parties and factions – something unprecedented in what was formerly a de facto two-party system – discussion raged as to who would prove the victor come March. With debates of this kind especially frequent in the Oxbridge universities' respective Union Societies, legend holds that – tired of daily discussions (or rather, partisan bickering) taking precedence over important, intellectually stimulating topics, a weary speaker at the Cambridge society exclaimed: "why don't we just vote and let the matter hang!" He got his wish. A ballot was then held, and the results recorded in the society minutes. The first opinion poll had been taken.

Cambridge Union Poll

Traditionally right wing when acting as a constituency[2], the university did differ in that it had the benefit of a not inconsiderable contingent of young members of the liberal upper middle class. Partisan sympathies were therefore tight, with a poll conducted at a meeting on the 23rd February giving the following results:

Conservative: 309
Whig: 299
Irish Repeal: 24
Stanleyite: 21
Radical: 3

Conservative–Stanleyite coalition [majority of 1]

Oxford Union Poll

The Oxford Union were traditionally somewhat more conservative even than their Cambridge counterparts, who did, at least, have a tradition of electing some moderate members. As a constituency, Oxford University had, in fact, never elected anyone other than a Tory or Conservative candidate. The results produced by their Union Society (it is often claimed by Cambridge that their counterparts in Oxford were copying them in conducting the poll, though this is likely apocryphal.) reflected this, with the following numbers gained:

Conservative: 346
Whig: 284
Stanleyite: 20
Irish Repeal: 4
Radical: 2

Conservative outright victory [majority of 17]

The Times Poll

Even newspapers got in on the sudden "poll-mania", as one decidedly uninspired writer described the craze, asking their readership to respond to a questionnaire printed on the back of the 27th February edition. Though the editorial staff were nominally Conservative supporters (if more left leaning ones) the paper's readership was not so set in their preferences. Indeed, the publication enjoyed a large audience in the more liberal parts of London, something reflected in the results of the poll:

Whig: 334
Conservative: 290
Stanleyite: 21
Irish Repeal: 19
Radical: 4

Whig outright victory [majority of 5]

The Northern Star Poll

Perhaps most surprising of the polls taken during the run up to polling day was that done by the Northern Star – the little-known radical news-sheet with a core readership in the industrial towns and cities of the North. As was to be expected, their poll was somewhat different to those taken by the "genteel" newspapers and societies of the South:

Whig: 319
Conservative: 281
Radical: 24
Irish Repeal: 20
Stanleyite: 12

Whig–Radical coalition [majority of 14]

Final Remarks

As the campaigns began to wind down, as was becoming increasingly common, leaders of all parties anxiously awaited the opening of the polls in the hope that they would prove benevolent. The results were now out of everyone's hands save the voters themselves, whom candidates across the country had been tirelessly canvassing for the past three months. From the established Whig and Tory party headquarters in London's Clubland to the Radical hubs in the North, people everywhere awaited the coming day with bated breath. As one minor Tory candidate noted dryly: "by this time tomorrow I shall know which bench I'll be siting on for the next few years". His sentiment, if not his levels of enthusiasm, were shared by many. The election had been tightly fought. Now all wanted to know who would emerge as victor.

---

1: Though traditionally left-leaning, the paper had apparently become disillusioned with Russell's fruitless attempts at reform – especially in the wake of the catastrophic "Unholy Ministry". The editorial staff therefore saw Peel's moderate reformist stance as a decent compromise.
2: As a constituency, only dons and post-graduates eligible under the Great Reform Act were able to vote. These people were generally far more conservative than the disenfranchised undergraduates.​

 

[Zorro]

What an interesting update, those debates were a great read. I think the Whigs will pull out the win.

 

[Terraferma]

hmy: Man that debate in Cork with O'Connell was shocking, it read pretty horrifying as well. Certainly it is the end of an era, he will be missed. I would imagine had this happened in the present the news, press and social media outlets would be on fire right about now with discussion and videos. Interesting and insightful update, always enjoy the format.

 

[The B]

Hmmm.... I predict a Whig victory too. *Puts down a fiver*

Although it would be interesting to see the Repeal movement getting some voice.

 

[NikoHoI3]

Amazing election update!

I am on the edge of my seat waiting for the election results. Let us pray for a Whigh-Radical coalition!