Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

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

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Jape said:
Well given British history in this period and the fact Arthur 'Right of Genghis Khan' Wellesley is the Tory boss in the Lords, no I don't! Perhaps once Wellington shuffles off this mortal coil more sensible minds will see the inevitable.
Click to expand...

Well, Genghis Wellington did support Peel's stance on the Corn Laws – and the circumstances here are about as dire, if not moreso. That said, I don't wish to reveal everything that will be in the update now, so I'll reiterate that the bill will face opposition, and there will be serious repercussions within government as a result of its proposal.
 
DensleyBlair said:
Well, Genghis Wellington did support Peel's stance on the Corn Laws – and the circumstances here are about as dire, if not moreso. That said, I don't wish to reveal everything that will be in the update now, so I'll reiterate that the bill will face opposition, and there will be serious repercussions within government as a result of its proposal.
Click to expand...

Catholic Emancipation anyone?
 
Tanzhang (譚張) said:
Catholic Emancipation anyone?
Click to expand...

Naturally, Wellington will be challenging all who don't agree with the bill to a duel, during which he shall fight each member of the opposition at once, with nothing but a small turnip and a pair of custom made boots. ;)

It can definitely be said that the Iron Duke had it in him to sway towards liberalism when the time necessitated such. What's more controversial about the whole thing, I think, is the fact that we have a serious chance of increasing the franchise dramatically about thirty years early. And thirty years is a long time in politics – never mind British politics!
 
DensleyBlair said:
Naturally, Wellington will be challenging all who don't agree with the bill to a duel, during which he shall fight each member of the opposition at once, with nothing but a small turnip and a pair of custom made boots. ;)
Click to expand...

No cannons? :(

It can definitely be said that the Iron Duke had it in him to sway towards liberalism when the time necessitated such. What's more controversial about the whole thing, I think, is the fact that we have a serious chance of increasing the franchise dramatically about thirty years early.
Click to expand...

People do tend to be more sympathetic to causes which relate to themselves or their experiences in some way, and Wellington was just as human as the rest of us. I'd argue that his upbringing in Ireland, his first-hand experience in Irish affairs and so on were more of a motivation than any ideological tendency towards occasional liberalism. The fact remains though, on that issue he was certainly somewhere to the left of the High Tories, let alone Genghis Khan!
 
Tanzhang (譚張) said:
No cannons? :(
Click to expand...

7f7f430334008de5959930a2ac9b205f_zpsd45cec27.jpg


:D

People do tend to be more sympathetic to causes which relate to themselves or their experiences in some way, and Wellington was just as human as the rest of us. I'd argue that his upbringing in Ireland, his first-hand experience in Irish affairs and so on were more of a motivation than any ideological tendency towards occasional liberalism. The fact remains though, on that issue he was certainly somewhere to the left of the High Tories, let alone Genghis Khan!
Click to expand...

Indeed. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that Wellington had any real liberal sympathies (I think the most liberal thing he probably did in his life was dance an impromptu flamenco upon hearing the news of Napoleon's abdication, ;)) yet the signs are definitely there that he wasn't all "unflinching ultra-Tory". Indeed, he was known to disappoint them on a few occasions.

Make of that what you will. ;)
 
How come Melbourne is Whig party leader in both the Lower and Upper Houses? Or are those different Viscounts of Melbourne?

Now, I'm afraid I can't give any real feedback regarding the politics going on (being utterly ignorant towards British politics), but I was pleasantly surprised to hear that Victoria was a Liberal reformist. I guess that's the reason why people talk about her, still. One wonders, though; why would an obviously Whig 10-year old girl be the favoured heir of a Tory king?

Also, Dutchmen were mentioned twice. Once as being the US President. This chapter was a good chapter ;)
 
Gen. Marshall said:
How come Melbourne is Whig party leader in both the Lower and Upper Houses? Or are those different Viscounts of Melbourne?
Click to expand...

He isn't, actually. Lord John Russell is leader in the Commons, though Melbourne is the overall leader. In this period, the prime minister didn't always come from the Commons as they do today. Neither did the leader of the party, who was often just the de facto most influential member across the both houses.

Now, I'm afraid I can't give any real feedback regarding the politics going on (being utterly ignorant towards British politics), but I was pleasantly surprised to hear that Victoria was a Liberal reformist. I guess that's the reason why people talk about her, still. One wonders, though; why would an obviously Whig 10-year old girl be the favoured heir of a Tory king?
Click to expand...
Agnatic-Cognatic Primogeniture pays no attention to political beliefs. ;)

It isn't so much that Victoria was a liberal reformist – though she was certainly a known Whig. It's more the case that she actually did have an incredibly string relationship with Melbourne, and would therefore probably stretch further for him than for others. That said, when one takes into account all of the reforms passed during her reign, you can't exactly call her an Ultra-Tory.

Also, Dutchmen were mentioned twice. Once as being the US President. This chapter was a good chapter ;)
Click to expand...

If you count Van der Weyer as being Dutch, then we had a few the update before last, as well. ;)
 
Victoria and Melbourne were exceptionally close: she went as far as to view him as the father she never had, according to Lady Longford. Victoria herself was actually more conservative than liberal, but for much of her early life she was strongly influenced by whiggish figures, namely Melbourne and Albert. (who was very much a liberal Whig.)
 
Apologies, but there shan't be an update this weekend. Blame the fact that I spent £50 in Waterstone's yesterday on two books about 19th century politics. That, and family visits, Aston Villa vs. Manchester United and French and chemistry revision. Oh, and the AARlander. ;)

In any case, the election campaign update is probably about half done. I'm hoping to have it finished next weekend, and then I should be able to get the rest of the election done soon thereafter. I've played on until late 1841, and things get Micky exciting, so stay tuned.

Also, the Repeal Association don't seem to want to appear in-game for me. I've set them as forming on 1840.1.1, but they're still not here nearly two years later. If anyone has any ideas, I'd be very grateful to hear them.
 
DensleyBlair said:
Also, the Repeal Association don't seem to want to appear in-game for me. I've set them as forming on 1840.1.1, but they're still not here nearly two years later. If anyone has any ideas, I'd be very grateful to hear them.
Click to expand...

First, check your commons file to make sure that the brackets, spelling and spacing are correct.
 
DensleyBlair said:
Well, Genghis Wellington did support Peel's stance on the Corn Laws – and the circumstances here are about as dire, if not moreso. That said, I don't wish to reveal everything that will be in the update now, so I'll reiterate that the bill will face opposition, and there will be serious repercussions within government as a result of its proposal.
Click to expand...

Ah well that's economics, on 'ideological' battlegrounds Wellington was happy to plant his flag, be it by denying Emancipation or bombarding up start Arabs.
 
Tanzhang (譚張) said:
First, check your commons file to make sure that the brackets, spelling and spacing are correct.
Click to expand...

All looks fine. Any other ideas?

Jape said:
Ah well that's economics, on 'ideological' battlegrounds Wellington was happy to plant his flag, be it by denying Emancipation or bombarding up start Arabs.
Click to expand...

This being the same Duke of Wellington who fought a duel so that the Lords would pass the Catholic Emancipation Act? ;)
 
Pity on the Expansion of the Franchise Act failing in the House of Lords, but the reign of Queen Victoria makes up for it :wub:
 
Terraferma said:
Pity on the Expansion of the Franchise Act failing in the House of Lords, but the reign of Queen Victoria makes up for it :wub:
Click to expand...

Well, that story isn't over just yet. Melbourne will get one more shot at reform.

Victoria's arrival is good news, though. I tend to think of her coronation as where the game really starts.

Jape said:
Ah, I meant Reform naturally!
Click to expand...

You may have a point there. ;)
 
DensleyBlair said:
All looks fine. Any other ideas?
Click to expand...

Have a look in Notepad ++ just to make absolutely sure. Make sure that the spelling is consistent for policies with those used for other parties' policies (so for instance, use interventionism instead of interventionist) and that you really have edited the right commons file. (Embarrasing note: It once took me half an hour to realise that the reason a certain custom party wasn't showing up in PDM was because I edited the vanilla file!) Do you have the Steam version or no, BTW?

If all else fails, attach your commons file and I'll take a look at it.
 
ABiographyofGreatMenBanner_zpse159fabf.jpg


1840 General Election: The Campaigns

Background

One would be forgiven for thinking that the 1840 general election would be a clean cut affair. Indeed, Melbourne and his Whigs went onto the campaign trail safe in the knowledge that they not only had the support of the new queen (who, though a known Whig, was most likely favourable to the Whig cause thanks to her exceptionally close relationship with Melbourne) but were also able to claim a large amount of confidence borough about by the recent tide of liberalism that had washed over the nation. One could even go as far as to say that a certain air of complacency sat alongside Melbourne, Palmerstone and Russell, et al, at the Whiggish high command in the Reform Club. If one were to look in on proceedings at the Whig headquarters in the early months of 1840, one would be easily forgiven for forgetting how slim the margin by which theo party held the Commons actually was. Only two years earlier, Melbourne had been given an unexpected reminder of just how hot on his heels Peel actually was. By the time he set out on the hustings once again, it appeared that he had still not learnt his lesson. The party was experiencing their most successful period since the Napoleonic Era, and, as far as Melbourne was concerned, this would only continue into the next four years and beyond. To a Whig in 1840, even envisaging a time in which the opposition was anything other than a study in various shades and tints of blue was about as absurd as the idea of television or lighthearted radio comedy. Those varying shades of blue, however, were not sitting idly by and hoping the election would not be too much of a whitewash.

For the beleaguered Conservative party, the charismatic Sir Robert Peel was their greatest hope since the electorate of Britain realised that military brilliance does not always translate into a firm political nous and rejected Wellington during the Reform Crisis. Peel, though nearing 52 by the time of the elections, was a noted orator, and commanded the respect of the Tories well, being a key figure in the reformation of the party six years prior when they became the Conservatives. He was acutely aware of the need for change – the need to dispel the traditional image of the Conservatives as haughty aristocratic types who flogged deer and hunted servants. Peel had already effectively radicalised the party in 1834 when he reluctantly admitted that he would reform should a desire be explicitly present. Earlier, when he had voiced his opinion on the subject of electoral reform, he had concluded that reform was not so necessary that national security was dependent on its passing. In the few months since that declaration, reformist sentiment in Britain had grown almost exponentially, and the time was nigh for the Conservative stance on the matter to be reconsidered. Much to the worry of the Whigs, Peel was fast becoming an acceptable candidate for those reformist voters who were growing suspicious of Melbourne's ever-more-radical leanings. Going into the campaigning season, the gap between the two parties was closer than it had been in a long while. Who would assume their places in the governmental benches come July was anybody's guess.

A Display of Unity?

There was, however, some cause for concern in each camp. Seemingly since time immemorial the British system of party politics had functioned via the faction system – namely, although there were only two parties, prominent and influential members would carry enough clout to be able to head sub-groups within the parties (notable past examples being the Whig Foxites and Pittites). During the past decade, however, this system had slowly phased out in favour of a stricter, more rigid true party political state of affairs. Gradually, the party leader was able to exercise more control over his party as dissident factions petered out.

By 1840, this arrangement had begun to be tested. Though it is true that both parties went into the campaigning season relatively unified, Melbourne's bill had been divisive for both camps. In the governmental benches, many more conservative Whigs were beginning to question just how far towards the "radical" end of the spectrum the prime minister was willing to shift. In Peel's camp, the Tory leader's only lukewarm rejection of the reform was leading many to worry whether he may actually, should they win (which, as ultra-Tories with nothing but disdain for the Jacobins currently in power and an enduring belief that they were always right, was a given) relent and expand the franchise.

It must be noted that only the most radical of the dissatisfied spoke openly of defection – for the most part, the house was contented. Even Daniel O'Connell, Irish "liberator" and loyal Whig kingmaker was happy to stick with the government – or at least, as long as Melbourne kept up his reforming ways, which, for all intents and purposes, was looking likely. Naturally, his ultimate goal was the repeal of the Act of Union, something it was likely Melbourne had no intention of doing, though O'Connell was savvy enough to realise that, alone, his chances of success were infinitesimally smaller. Nevertheless, one could not help but feel that – for the first time in a long while – the threat of the House being rent asunder seemed a possibility. One thing was for sure. Come July and the new parliament, the actions of the new government would go a long way in dictating how long this would last.

The Manifestos

53260076a41a76005cf53184608e51ab_zps01b15b0d.jpg

William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne. Incumbent prime minister going into the elections, and Whig leader.

Whig Party

Leader and Prospective Prime Minister: William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne
Political Ideology: Classical Liberalism, Moderate Liberalism, Radicalism
Position on the British Political Spectrum: Centre to radical left
Party Colours: "Buff", orange and light blue; some more radical supporters prefer yellow; in Ireland, the light green of the Repeal Association is used

Economic Policy: The last parliament vindicated our party's policies once and for all. Only via government intervention were we not only able to overcome the economic difficulties of the Cottage Crises, but go on to prosper in the aftermath. A Whig government would also ensure the current tax structure is unaltered, while tariffs shall not be utilised. To this end, we would push to repeal the Corn Laws currently in place and open ourselves up to the international market. Freedom of trade shall not perish from this Earth!

Industrial Policy: The last five years have seen the continued, large-scale industrialisation of Britain, with many now working in factories and using railroads. The Cottage Crises proved how vulnerable the domestic system is, and we would therefore continue to push for development of our industrial heartlands, with the continued growth of the shipping industry in the north west a priority.

Colonial Policy: We have seen the great potential our North American holdings have in terms of economic development and bonuses, and would therefore oversee the expansion of our territory in Canada. Good relations must also be maintained with the Boer nations to prevent them from falling under the influence of malignant parties.

Defence Policy: The maintenance of our navy and armies are sentiamo factors in ensuring the sustainability of our colonial development. Though a Whig government would not massively increase the size of our forces, we would ensure that our military does not fall behind those of other nations.

Electoral Reform: is imperative.

Further Reform: is a possibility. Though we have no specific goals, a Whig government would remain ever open to the idea of reform.

e6a167cd1eaf696d05c81479bf2ff221_zps31c0c1d8.jpg

Sir Robert Peel, Bt. Leader of the Conservative Party.

Conservative Party

Leader and Prospective Prime Minister: Sir Robert Peel, Bt.
Political Ideology: Centrism, Traditional Conservatism, Toryism, Ultra-Toryism
Position on the British Political Spectrum: Centre to hard right
Party Colours: Light blue; older and more traditional supporters often prefer dark blue or indigo; many in the more liberal wing prefer sea green

Economic Policy: The Cottage Crises proved just how damaging letting our capitalists run rampant can be for our economy. We need to ensure our industrial leaders, though still allowing them freedom to invest in their own ventures, can be reigned in should the need arise. The government must not relinquish their right to intervene in the economy. A Conservative government would ensure any further economic crises are nipped in the bud via careful government intervention before they are allowed to grow out of hand.

Industrial Policy: Under a Conservative government, Britain's expanding industry would be allowed to continue, with a special continued focus on encouraging the shipping industry developing in the north west.

Colonial Policy: Britain must continue to assert her rightful place as the greatest nation of all by spreading her territories overseas. Foci would lie in Canada and the Indian subcontinent – areas ripe for further exploration and settlement. The Boer nations must continue to be entertained, though we must be careful not to inhibit ourselves should we wish to prosecute further, more definite actions in the future.

Defence Policy: Britain's military is a great and mighty institution, and must be maintained. Military action would be focused on the Subcontinent, while we would not be averse to expanding our home guard should this wave of radicalism in the country grow violent.

Electoral Reform: is probably unnecessary. Popular demand for reform has been exaggerated by the Whigs! The people of Britain are, for the most part. content with the current system – a Conservative government would ensure that this system is retained.

Further Reform: is also unnecessary. The Whigs made fools of themselves by listening to those radicals who shouted the loudest, rather than the silent majority. Britain does not desire drastic reform, and neither does she need drastic reform. The current order of things functions perfectly well, and as such should not be altered.

The Hustings

Though the tradition of the campaign trail was well established in Britain at the time, the idea that candidates would actually have to put in considerable amounts of work to win their seat was relatively new. Previously, rival candidates would simply be selected by their party to stand in the constituency, then wait until the polls closed to find out who the voters favoured – if, indeed, the seat was contested at all. Though Grey's reform bill had done much to combat rotten boroughs, the practise of wealthy and influential patrons effectively gifting seats to favoured young prodigies by way of their support in the election was still commonplace. There were also many seats where only one MP would stand, making voting nothing more than a formality. Nonetheless, where there was a contest, the 1840 elections often saw debates staged – with local people (enfranchised or otherwise) attending what were often little more than impromptu slanging matches conducted during hustings in which the rival candidiates would, after having settled matters regarding sexual proficiency and the circumstances surrounding their respective births, debate issues and policies.

In the more prominent and well known constituencies, these Meetings were made more formal, with organised timings and coverage in the national press. Candidates in these larger constituencies – or, indeed, those of specific interest to the population (and therefore journalists eager to sell a few copies of their paper) – were now able to espouse policy to the masses like never before, turning general elections – previously oddly provincial occasions – into truly national affairs.

1840Newspapers_zpscbbf7808.png

The 1840 elections saw the British press dramatically increase the amount of coverage given to the parties' campaigns and candidates' debates. Though most papers did try to retain a degree of neutrality when reporting on day-to-day news, many were less sticky about hiding allegiances during the elections, with some papers even explicitly endorsing parties.

Largely throughout the campaign, the journalistic focus rested on five main debates, during which the main points of the parties respective manifestos were discussed. The first of these five was held in the Welsh constituency of Montgomeryshire – a constituency notable for being a general poltical backwater. Despite this, the debate held on the snowy evening of January 22nd is generally seen as the real start of the campaign season. Mr. Charles Williams-Wynn, an MP of dubious party loyalty consistent only in his association with the long-since-defunct "Grenvillites", was pitted against Mr. Edward Parry, an incongruously hard-core Conservative. Nominally a Whig candidate, Williams-Wynn was soon asked about his stance on the importance of religion in the United Kingdom by one of the more politically astute members of the crowd (many of those in attendance being farmers or labourers without the vote treating the debate as if it were a football match.) The nominal Whig in his reply maintained his continued faith in the existing state of affairs, notably reaffirming his support for Catholic emancipation, having supported the original Catholic Emancipation Act just over ten years prior[1]. Parry, on the other hand, gave a masterful performance in misjudging the prevailing mood of a room, and delivered an impassioned speech calling for the return to a state based on the values of the Anglican faith. Though not an especially religious or liberal area, the people of Montgomeryshire did not take well to the Conservative candidate's views, and heckled and jeered throughout his performance. Needless to say, the Whigs were deemed to have achieved a victory by the morning press.

The second of these significant debates was held in Tamworth, Sir Robert Peel's constituency and home territory. Staged on a particularly cold mid February evening in the local Guild Hall, Peel pitted his (somewhat infamously lacking) debating skills against the Whig candidate, a backbencher of little note by the name of Mr. Jonathan Mordaunt. On his home turf, Peel – possibly needless to say – enjoyed the sympathy of the assembled audience, and his blunt manner of speech (he prided himself on his status as a middle class, "self made" man[2]) we're overlooked as Mordaunt – by far the better orator of the two – was left to flounder. Peel, drawing largely upon what was quickly becoming the standard example of a successful use of interventionist policies – the Cottage Crises, delivered an address championing the right of governments to intervene in the economy should things go awry. Being a reasonably large town in the industrial heartland of the Midlands, the people of Tamworth had experienced the Cottage Crises first hand, and were therefore deeply pleased by Peel's speech. His plain, almost drab manner and "middle class" origins only added to his appeal amongst the crowd, who – as he spoke of hardships endured by cottage workers – felt a sincerity, a true concern for the livelihood of these people that seemed to emanate from him. Mordaunt, on the other hand, held more liberal[3] economic views, favouring the Laissez Faire system. His speech was, to say the least, somewhat ill-time. Having just been passionately stirred against the recklessness of certain capitalists functioning without constraints, the audience were not best disposed towards Mordaunt's proposition that the country's return to such a system. The next morning, Peel was declared the victor, and the Conservatives were awarded their first real campaign victory by the press.

The third debate in which the press took great interest occurred in mid March in Gloucester. The area had, traditionally, been a Whig stronghold, with the party often using the safer constituencies in the area to ensure notable members of government retained their seats. One such example was in the constituency of Stroud, where the Whigs fielded Lord John Russell as their candidate. Lord Russell was the Leader of the Commons prior to the election, and considered by many to be one of the "true" Whigs – not adopting any shades of moderation or radicalism.

40ae9565f579b5795caa5d587a698f06_zps68e88ca0.jpg

Lord John Russell. A "true" Whig and incumbent Leader of the Commons.

Going into the election, Gloucestershire had largely been left untouched by industrialists, and many still worked in the small-scale cottage industry. Many therefore survived on subsistence wages only – if even that, and would often go hungry in the event of a market downturn. This was by no means a state of affairs unique to Gloucestershire, with many poor labourers, farmers and artisans struggling to even buy staple foods such as bread and corn. For years, the price of corn had been artificially inflated via the notoriously mercantile "Corn Laws", which put a large tariff on imported corn to encourage people to buy from domestic markets instead of favouring cheaper, foreign cereals. Largely, they worked, and British corn farmers enjoyed little to no foreign competition – though the laws, perhaps inevitably, were not all good. In placing steep tariffs on foreign imports, the price of corn and other cereals shot up, leaving those not working in the factories – and therefore without a consistent wage – helpless if the market was bad. Similarly, this meant that industrialists and landowners were forced to increase wages in order to cover their workers' food costs, reducing profits for much of the country. When a member of the audience asked the candidates their opinions on the laws, therefore, the assembled journalists pricked up their ears.

Lord Russell gave his reply first, and, being a fervent Whig, his reply was to be expected. He denounced the laws and encouraged free trade, which – though he was no economist – he argued would have a positive effect on the British economy, largely basing his argument on the fact that, without the laws, profits in industry and amongst landowners would be higher. His Conservative opponent, a local gentlemen by the name of William Villiers, was set in his beliefs that the Corn Laws were a great help to domestic agrarian industry, and should therefore be maintained. Russell retorted pithily, questioning his opponent "and why should we aid the survival of an industry that is already dying?" Despite the fact that many of those in the audience were employed in said "dying" industry, the Whig received a rapturous applause. The next morning, the Whigs were deemed to have been victorious in the debate.

The next debate of note did not occur until late May, when a fiery verbal joust took place in Edinburgh between the two candidates. The Conservative – the Right Honourable Charles Cumming-Bruce – was pitted against Mr. Archibald Douglas, the Whig candidate in the area. Edinburgh had a long history of liberalism, home to many of the leading pro-Whig publications of the day, an Mr. Douglas had the audience firmly on his side for much of the debate, which if not for one incident, would most likely have passed unnoticed by all but those avid readers of the Edinburgh Review's back pages. About half way through proceedings, a member of the audience – apparently a radical separatist – posed a question to the candidates in which he asked their views on the position of Scottish citizens within the United Kingdom. Somewhat stunned by the radical nature of the question, and fully believing its asker to be a roguish troublemaker sort, Cumming-Bruce deflected the question and avoided giving a real answer, quipping "surely it matters little when you'd rather see a United Kingdom without Scottish citizens?" The crowd, incensed by the Tory's aloofness, awaited Douglas' answer – though, in truth, he could have just as well launched himself into a profane and vituperative attack on the audience members' respective mothers and their sexual capacities, the overriding sentiment being so firmly entrenched against the Tory. For his part, Douglas prattled off a rather standard, though suitably passionate speech in which he upheld the need for equality, though maintained that he saw little reason to amend the existing state of affairs. The next morning, the The Scotsman was quick to declare the Whigs victors in yet another oratorial triumph for the party. Going into the last of the "big five", it seemed like very little could derail the Whigs' campaign.

Perhaps predictably, the final debate to be given a substantial amount of attention by the press saw the incumbent prime minister, Lord Melbourne himself, square up against an opponent. Although as a peer Melbourne did not actually have to contest his seat, having the luxury of guaranteed entry into the Lords, he was pursuaded by many at Holland House[4] to prove himself on the hustings nonetheless. Westminster was eventually chosen as the venue, his opponent being the Conservative candidate, a Mr. Thomas FitzAlan. Though not noted for his oratory skill during his tenure as prime minister, Melbourne nonetheless was successful in displaying his intellectual capacity and political aims, largely keeping the crowd on his side – and even entertaining with a few, sporadic witty anecdotes. The centrepiece of the debate, however, was not so favourable for the Whig. When challenged for his decidedly diplomatic approach to colonialism, Melbourne's insistence on entertaining good relations with the Boer nations was quickly called into question by these more desirous of territorial expansion in the area. Melbourne's explanation (namely that, in establishing diplomatic relations, he was ensuring that no malicious foreign powers would be able to challenge Britain's position in the area) was accepted by many of the more fervent Whigs, though it was clear that he had lost his control over the audience. As soon as Mr. FitzAlan advocated returning to the Cape with rifles and cannons, the prime minister's chances of regaining the advantage were quashed. The following morning, Fleet Street declared the debate a draw, leaving the election very much open. Both parties had experienced a mixed campaign season, and, as the debating drew to a close and the election day drew closer, many began to speculate as to who would be in power come July. Very few, however, we're bold enough to call the election with any degree of confidence. Victory was still very much a possibility for both sides.


1: This bill, incidentally, was to be Wellington's only real concession to reform.
2: Considering the wealth his father possess from which he came, just how "self made" he was is debatable.
3: Though Laissez Faire wouldn't necessarily be considered left wing economics by today's standards, it is certainly to the left of interventionism (at least in terms of Vicky.)
4: The de facto Whig headquarters, and home to the Whiggish Fox family.​
 
If imitation is the greatest form of flattery, consider me suitably flattered by your wholesale ripoff of most affectionate tribute to United Shall We Remain. :)

As much as I enjoyed that last update (your summary of the five debates was IMO, far more interesting than anything I could come up with) I must however protest at your decision not to list the Manchester Guardian (as it was then known) by it's full name! Surely also The Times was a more partial newspaper then that it is now?

Though Laissez Faire wouldn't necessarily be considered left wing economics by today's standards, it is certainly to the left of interventionism (at least in terms of Vicky.)
Click to expand...

It's called Neoliberalism for a reason. Free Market Economics is liberal economics irrespective of whom today might espouse it, just as you say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back