"The role of Disraeli was the most important in the achievement of Parliamentary Reform in 1867." How valid is this view?
The representation of the People Act in 1867, more commonly known as the Reform Act of 1867 or the Second Reform Act was a piece of British legislation that enfranchised the urban male working class in England and Wales. The 1867 Reform Act was the second major attempt to reform Britain’s electoral process – the first being the 1832 Reform Act. It was not just the role of Disraeli but one must also take consideration to popular pressure and take note of the role of the middle class and working class radicals, the importance of the Reform League and union, the importance of Hyde Park Riots and that of other important political figures such as Gladstone, Derby and Russell and the importance of different political parties; the Conservative and Liberal Party.

The passage of the Reform Act resulted in; The 1867 Reform Act enfranchised 1,500,000 men. All male urban householders and male lodgers paying £10 rent a year for unfurnished accommodation got the right to vote. The act all but doubled the electorate. 52 seats were redistributed from small towns (less than a population of 10,000 such as Chichester, Harwich and Windsor) to the growing industrial towns or counties. Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester saw their representation increase from 2 MP’s to 3 MP’s. The University of London was also given a seat. The counties of Cheshire, Kent, Norfolk, Somerset, Staffordshire and Surrey were all given 6 MP’s instead of 4.
There had been earlier attempts of passing such Reform Acts within the 1860’s by Lord John Russell in March 1860; this was to reduce the qualification for the franchise to £10 in the counties and £6 in towns, effecting a redistribution of seats. However his attempts were squandered by Britain’s most powerful politician of all time, Lord Palmerstone who was against any form of change and also in favour of increasing the number of people who could vote. However on the death of Lord Palmerstone, the Prime Minister in July 1865, allowing Earl Russell to become the next Prime minister. Following on from this Russell once again tried to persuade parliament had been pro to accept the reforms that had been proposed in 1860. Russell wanted to give the vote to the Respectable working men, but would have excluded unskilled workers and the poor. The measure received little support in Parliament and was not passed before Russell’s resignation in June 1866. The bill however split the Liberal party, into those who supported the bill being the right that moved ahead and those who opposed it, these were named the Adullamites who were more conservative and resulted in siding with the Conservatives party to defeat the bill. In both instances the Conservative party including that of the great Benjamin Disraeli were against the idea of Reform and therefore opposed it. William Gladstone the new leader of the Liberal party made it clear that like Earl Russell he was too in favour of increasing the number of people who could vote. Although the Conservatives had opposed previous attempts of a reform, Lord Derby’s new government were now sympathetic to the idea. Lord Derbies Chancellor of the Exchequer was Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli was concerned with the idea that the Conservative party might be seen as a party that did not favour reform. He feared that he accolade that would be associated with reform might go to the liberal party. If the Conservatives introduced such a reform then they would get the credit for it. Therefore Disraeli was important in the passage of the second reform act as he believed that for the conservatives to become successful, they would have to inherit ideas, such as reform in order to gain a larger political support base. Through this Disraeli and the conservatives introduced a bill that was far more far-fetched that most politicians had expected. Russell’s idea to extend the franchise to include the working men was widened by far as it included most men who lived in an urban area. Disraeli believed that the men allowed the vote would thank the conservatives for their new found political status and in return give their political loyalty to the Tories. In this he was correct as the Conservatives won the 1874 election, and with it the Second Reform Act of 1867 was passed. Therefore Disraeli was important in having the drive and ambition to extend the Conservatives support and political success, in having the urge to drive the political party forward in which to do so, to pass the reform act. Without this political sight of this pass way to success, then the reform act may not have been passed. He was a significant individual in seeing that he needed to completely change what the Conservatives believed in, in which to induce success on the party itself. Without this sight, knowledge and intelligence, the reform act wouldn’t have even been considered, and with the Liberal party split the reform act would never have achieved the sufficient amount of support needed.

However it was not only the work of the Conservatives and that of their very own Benjamin Disraeli, other outside pressure groups mounted on the pressure in which to have the second reform act passed.

The Reform League originated from the Universal League for the Material Elevation of the Industrious classes, to build a pressure group purely focusing and concentrating on manhood suffrage. As a result the Reform League was established on the 23rd February 1865. Support grew substantially for the League around the time of the 1866 reform bill and meetings were held in pubs all over the London. It was positioned on the left-wing of a broader based national movement that built up rapidly over the winter of 1865-1868. William Gladstone introduced a bill of reform in March 1866; however it proved disastrous on all levels and was deeply opposed. An MP named Robert Lowe stirred the fire by describing the working class as “impulsive, unreflecting, violent people” guilty of “venality, ignorance, drunkenness and intimidation.” Deeply disappointed with the reform bill, the Reform League organised a demonstration in Trafalgar Square. This was help on the 29th June 1866, with its size and violence mounting higher that many had expected, increasing shock and terror across all of London. The League had devised their own programme of what they demanded to be included within the real and truly reflecting the needs and desires of the working class, in which they performed speeches refusing to accept anything that did not included these demands made by the Reform League. This was significant in the Reform bill being passed as it showed that the idea of reform had sparked a huge amount of support and belief, showing that something had to be done before a crisis broke out. The idea of a pressure group increasing violence and inducing an opposition to the reform act not being passed crated enough support for the government to question their actions.
The Trafalgar Square meeting were swiftly followed by a larger meeting held at Hyde Park on the 23rd of July 1866. The meeting was declared illegal and a police notice was issued to stop the protest/ meeting, which was all down to the Home Secretary of the Conservative Party, Spencer Horatio Walpole. The Reform League thought otherwise and had the drive and determination to continue with the meeting. The March or procession was headed my John Bedford Leno and his brother, the procession so vast that it stretch from Bond street all the way down to Holborn. This was of great significance in showing that this cause (the Reform Act/Bill) had so much pressure and desire behind it, showing that some sort of action had to be taken to extend the franchise. The use of this pressure group and the vast numbers that partook in the protest had significant impact on the bill being passed in 1867. When the procession came to Marble Arch, it was controlled and confronted by a line of policemen and the gates of Hyde Park were chained. To protect the grounds, 1600 constables on foot and on horse guarded marble arch. The Reform League demanded to continue and to be let in, in which they signified that they had intentions of breaking through, which by the police officers were laughed at. John Bedford’s friend noticed the railings would stand no pressure and so he and the masses swayed them backwards and forwards, resulting in the railings falling in. This was significant in showing the passion and drive for the Reform act as thousands of supporters of the Reform league group flooded into Hyde Park. This was followed by two other sections of the procession breaking through the police lines, one in Knightsbridge and the other from Park Lane. Not only did members of the procession join in but many by-standers sympathetic to what the protestors were fighting for, also joined in to show their feelings towards the cause. The police were overwhelmed by the masses and those in support of reform and the reform League itself. It was estimated that around 200,000 people invaded the Park. Despite troubles with the police, the meeting carried on as planned and was held under the reformers tree. The “Hyde park Railings affair” was widely reported and made the Reform League’s leaders house names. They were in demand to speak and communicate at public meetings and demonstrations across the from this widespread event witnessed an increase in support of the Reform League. Over the next few months the Reform league sought success at the Birmingham demonstration and opened up new branches, one of them to be formed in the Midlands.
This demonstration conducted by a powerful pressure group shows that it was not only that of individuals such as Disraeli that helped pass the Reform act of 1867 but it was also down to the increasing pressure put on the government, in demand of change of the electorate and the extension of the franchise. Without these pressure groups the Reform Act may have been prevented in the House of Lords or House of Commons. With its increased support and its famous event, the Reform League was a significant factor in applying enough pressure, and showing the government that it was an issue that needed answering, and in this effectively impacted the result that led to the reform act being passed.

Disraeli and Gladstone are two major characters in the struggle for the 1867 Reform Act, however I also believe that it is not only these two individuals that contributed to the passing of the bill but the rivalry itself that contributed to its success. Gladstone a converted Liberal encouraged moderate changes like a reduction in the householder’s qualification from £10 to £7. Disraeli a moderate Conservative embraced more expansive reform for political advancement rather than as an extension of suffrage. It was Disraeli’s hope that an enlarged electorate would vote Conservative as a reward or loyalty for their new political privilege. Although many historians forget to acknowledge the connection that was between Gladstone and his initial attempt at reform with the bills final shape. True credit for that passage of the 1867 Reform Bill lies with Disraeli and Gladstone. The Reform bill was created and passed out of the political infighting as opposed to popular opinion. An examination of the rivalry between the two political figures raises the question of what the Reform Act would have looked like without these two political figures. Therefore credit has to be awarded to both Gladstone and Disraeli in which their drive and ambition for both of their parties to succeed resulted in the passage of the 1867 Reform Act.
In conclusion I believe that Disraeli played a significant part in the passage of the 1867 are form Act in the fact that he had the drive and determination to completely change the basic principles of the Tory party in order to progress the Conservatives in gaining a wider or larger support base. It shows his political sight to introduce the Act in order to benefit his own party, without this sight and knowledge, the Act may not have been passed. However it was to only the work of Disraeli that meant that the Act was passed, the importance of the Reform League in rallying up mass support for the cause sowed parliament that this was an issue that needed to be addressed immediately. The use of several dens such as the meetings in Trafalgar Square and Hyde park reflected this support, to get across the idea that working men wanted the extension of the franchise. the Reform league and the work they performed showed that a more radical change was needed, forcing individuals such as Disraeli and Gladstone to act sooner and more radically than they may have previously expected. and of course we must not forget the earlier work of Russell and Gladstone and of course the importance of he utter rivalry between Gladstone and Disraeli in forcing the result of the 1867 Reform League.