If Lord Palmerston had lived a few years longer...

maverick

Banned
So, there's the possibility that had the Viscount Palmerston, Prime Minister between 1855 and 1855, and 1859-1865, lived a bit longer, the Reform Act of 1867 might not have passed. I say this because the Reform Act was first introduced in 1860 but failed due to Palmerston's opposition, and it then failed in 1866 due to the lack of enthusiasm with the bill and the strong Conservative-Adullamite opposition.

I wonder, what would have happened had the Lord Palmerston lived to 1867 or 1868?

Could the Reform Act not pass, and thus ensure a different result in the General Elections of 1868? Or would popular support for the bill come during Palmerston's premiership and be passed under his tenure? Perhaps a less ambitious version of the bill comes as a compromise?

And what would his continued Ministry be like, as opposed to the IOTL Russell Ministry (1865-1866) and Derby Premiership (1866-1868)?
 

maverick

Banned
I'm surprised people weren't more interested in this one.

So much for there being legions of Englishmen and experts on the 19th century.
 
I'm surprised people weren't more interested in this one.

So much for there being legions of Englishmen and experts on the 19th century.

Probably because there are too many people out there who like the idea of a restricted franchise, but don't want to look like they are supportive of the idea.:(
 

Japhy

Banned
Yes, I think Palmerston would be able to cancel the reform act. How bad can the rioting get though? Will it be so bad as to require the Army to deploy in London and other cities? Palmerston would be getting rather up there in years and could over react due to a lack of real understanding. It would be a rather inglorious end to his career there, and would speed in the arrival of the next generation of politicians who might have to overcompensate on liberal reform to calm the rioters.
 
Yes, I think Palmerston would be able to cancel the reform act. How bad can the rioting get though? Will it be so bad as to require the Army to deploy in London and other cities? Palmerston would be getting rather up there in years and could over react due to a lack of real understanding. It would be a rather inglorious end to his career there, and would speed in the arrival of the next generation of politicians who might have to overcompensate on liberal reform to calm the rioters.

I'm waiting for posters to denounce the idea that ex-slave black sharecroppers in Mississippi having voting rights in 1866 and industrial workers in Birmingham not having them was on the minds of the rioters.:rolleyes:
 

The Vulture

Banned
Probably because there are too many people out there who like the idea of a restricted franchise, but don't want to look like they are supportive of the idea.:(

I'm waiting for posters to denounce the idea that ex-slave black sharecroppers in Mississippi having voting rights in 1866 and industrial workers in Birmingham not having them was on the minds of the rioters.:rolleyes:

Do you mind explaining your position, because you're not making a lick of sense here.
 

Japhy

Banned
I'm waiting for posters to denounce the idea that ex-slave black sharecroppers in Mississippi having voting rights in 1866 and industrial workers in Birmingham not having them was on the minds of the rioters.:rolleyes:

Well these theoretical rioters would probably like the idea of a vote...
 
If Lord Palmerston had lived to 1867 or 1868 he would probably have been succeeded as Prime Minister by Earl Russell, as in 1865 in OTL. There would almost certainly have been legislation similar to the Reform Act 1867 in the late 1860s/early 1870s. But there would not have been a general election in 1868 because the Liberals had a majority of 80 over the Conservatives in the House of Commons after the general election of 1865.

There would be butterflies resulting from pushing forward the general election from 1868 to 1870 or 1871.
 
I say this because the Reform Act was first introduced in 1860 but failed due to Palmerston's opposition

Not true. From Palmerston and Parliamentary Representation, HC Bell (Journal of Modern History):

"Some half-dozen unpublished letters in the Russell papers and the Windsor archives show that Palmerston, in 1860, sincerely tried to secure a passage of a reform bill which was rejected by the house of commons mainly as being too liberal".

Palmerston also put forward his own reform bill in 1858 (details from the above source and confirmed in The Second Reform Movement, TF Gallagher, Albion).

"... Palmerston, in October 1857, outlined his personal wishes on the matter to Victoria.

The scheme which he submitted to the queen shows that his principles, and even his ideas of the concessions which could be made with propriety, had remained essentially unchanged. He still wished to confine the franchise to men of "intelligence and independence", and thought to do so by the establishment of a £2 suffrage in the counties, the retention of the £10 suffrage in the boroughs, and the adoption from Russell's plan of 1853 of "fancy" franchises for intelligent and independent members of the middle of working classes who could not qualify by the ownership or occupation of real estate. In deference to the wishes of a committee of cabinet to which he had referred his scheme, he agreed that a certain number of small boroughs should be disenfranchised and that some of their members should go to the largest towns."

The article goes on to explain that in his criticism of Derby's 1859 scheme, he had already abandoned these high limits on the franchise. Finally- to show that Palmerston is prepared to accept reform even before he's prime minister- an excerpt from "1848 and Parliamentary Reform", R Quinault (Historical Journal):
"Russell's 1854 Reform Bill was a substantial measure which attracted considerable support both in and out of parliament. Although the bill was criticised by Palmerston, even he was 'not averse to improvement in our representative system'."
 
Top