^{page 351 note 2} Times, 11 April 1848.

^{page 352 note 1} The above is based upon the standard interpretation of 10th April, 1848. In an article entitled Chartism in the Year of Revolutions, in: Modern Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 1, Winter, 1952–1953, pp. 25–33Google Scholar, Mr. John Saville has suggested a number of important corrections to this account. However, he does not deny that there was a direct confrontation between the organised workmen and the Government which resulted in a “defeat” for the former. Holyoake, G. J., Bygones Worth Remembering, 1 (1905), pp. 73–83Google Scholar, had already questioned the generally received version of these events. [In the case of books, place of publication is London, unless otherwise stated.]

^{page 352 note 2} Times., 21 February and 24 February 1865.

^{page 352 note 3} Miner and Workman's Advocate, 19 August 1865.

^{page 353 note 1} “Let us once be able to maintain by the force of intellect and truth our rights as workmenin that House, and depend upon it we shall rise in the sociale scale…‥” Address by the Reform League “To the Trades Unionists of the United Kingdom”, no date – but in George Howell's hand, “first issued in June 1865 a few weeks before the General Election”. This “Address” is pasted into the front of the second volume of Minutes of the General Council of the Reform League, Howell Collection, Bishopsgate Institute, London. Herein after referred to as H.C.

^{page 353 note 2} Pari. Debates, 3rd Series, cxxxii (12 March 1866), 107&109.

^{page 353 note 3} ibid. (26 April 1866), 2104.

^{page 353 note 4} Beesly, E. S., The Liberal Majority, in: Workman's Advocate, 27 January 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 5} For this split see, for example, A Word in Reply to Jones, Ernest Mr on the Reform Bill, in: Commonwealth, 21 April 1866Google Scholar. Also Jones' letter in same issue.

^{page 354 note 1} Harrison, F., The Government Defeat, in: Bee-Hive, 23 June 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 2} This was recalled as the occasion of the riots, Daily-News, 6th May 1867.

^{page 354 note 3} Times, 25 July 1866.

^{page 354 note 4} Marx, K. to Engels, F., 27 June 1866Google Scholar. (Marx, and Engels, on Britain [1954], p. 496Google Scholar.)

^{page 354 note 5} Holyoake, G. J., Sixty Years of an Agitator's Life, vol. ii (1893), pp. 186–190Google Scholar. But as to Holyoake's reliability see Schoyen, A. R., The Chartist Challenge (1958), p. 269, fn. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 6} Lang, A., Life of the Earl of Iddesleigh (1891), p. 161.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 1} Harrison, F., Order and Progress (1875), p. 184, fn.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 2} ibid.

^{page 355 note 3} Leno, J. B., Aftermath (1892), p. 71.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 4} Mill, J. S., Autobiography (1875), pp. 290–1.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 5} Beales, E., letter in Times, 28 July 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 1} Maxwell, H., The Eatl of Clarendon, vol. 1 (1913), pp. 321–2.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 2} Monypenny, W. F. and Buckle, G. E., Life of Benjamin Disraeli, vol ii (1929), pp. 183–5.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 3} Cited by Taylor, P. A. M.P., Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxiv (7 August 1867), 2134.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 4} Marx, K. to Engels, F., 27 July 1866Google Scholar. (Marx, and Engels, on Britain, 1954, p. 496Google Scholar).

^{page 357 note 1} Beesly, E. S., The Trial of Mr. Eyre, in: Bee-Hive, 18 August 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 2} ibid.

^{page 357 note 3} Beesly, E. S., The Prosecution of Governor Eyre, in: Commonwealth, 20 October 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 4} Physical Force, in: Commonwealth, 15 December 1866.

^{page 357 note 5} Alfred Austin's reply, on behalf of the First Commissioner, to Hartwelts, R. letter of 17 November 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 6} Beesly, E. S., Reform Constables, in: Bee-Hive, 25 November 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 7} Minutes Executive Cmttee, Reform League, 23 November 1866Google Scholar. (H.C.)

^{page 357 note 8} Trevelyan, G. M., Life of John Bright (1913), p. 364.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 1} Jephson, H., The Platform: Its Rise and Progress, vol. ii (1892), p. 451.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 2} Blackwood's, , January 1867, p. 132.Google Scholar

^{page 358 note 3} Clode's, Charles M.confidential memorandum of 20 December 1866 (Home Office stamp, 2 February 1867), H.O. 45Google Scholar.O.S. 8060.

^{page 358 note 4} General Peel to Walpole, S. H., 20 February 1867Google Scholar (H.O. ibid.).

^{page 358 note 5} Reserve Force Bill, war office solicitors, 23 February 1867 (H.O. ibid.)

^{page 359 note 1} Punch, 16 February 1867.

^{page 359 note 2} Opinion of Law Officers of the Crown, 28 January 1867 on “Individual Petitions in Favour of Reform”. (H.O. 45.O.S. 7854).

^{page 359 note 3} A proposal for a “People's Parliament” had been discussed as early as 29 September 1865. It was raised again and rejected on 12th October 1866 (Minutes of General Council, Reform League [H.C.]). With respect to a General Strike, at a delegate meeting on 27 February 1867 it was resolved that “Unless a satisfactory prospect is held out in Parliament of the working classes being universally enfranchised upon the principles of the Reform League, it will be necessary to consider the propriety of these classes adopting a universal cessation from labour until their political rights are conceededrdquo;. (Minutes of General Council, Reform League [H.C.].) George Potter, leader of the London Working Men's Association and manager of the Bee-Hive, took up this threat in a speech in Trafalgar Square. He posed the issue as either household suffrage (sic) with a lodger franchise or else a week's cessation from labour aiming at a complete stop being put to all traffic and all business. Times, 4 March 1867. The far fiercer temper which the Reformers were displaying at the beginning of 1867 is evidenced by the need for appeals to avoid all expressions “involving in the slightest degree any indication of physical force”. Minutes, General Council of the Reform League, 20 April 1867 (H.C).

^{page 360 note 1} Mill, J. S. to Cremer, W. R., 1 March 1867Google Scholar, in: Elliot, H. S. R., The Letters of John Stuart Mill, vol. ii (1910), pp. 77–9.Google Scholar

^{page 360 note 2} Minutes of the Hyde Park sub-Committee of the Executive Cmttee of the Reform League, 20 April 1867. (In E.C. Minute Book [H.C.].)

^{page 360 note 3} Times, 2 May 1867.

^{page 360 note 4} Minutes General Council of Reform Leage, 1 May 1867 (H.C).

^{page 361 note 1} Pari. Debates 3rd series, clxxxvi (3 May 1867), 1929–33 and also debate of 14 June 1867, clxxxvii, 1886–1906.

^{page 361 note 2} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxvi (3 May 1867). See particularly speeches by Denman (1982–3), Selwyn (1981–2), and Neate (1964–6).

^{page 361 note 3} Working Man, 4 May 1867.

^{page 361 note 4} Pari. Debates 3rd series, clxxxvi (3 May 1867), 1972.

^{page 361 note 5} Times, 4 May 1867.

^{page 362 note 1} Times, 6 May 1867.

^{page 362 note 2} Times, 2 May 1867.

^{page 362 note 3} Working Man, 4 May 1867.

^{page 362 note 4} Commonwealth, 4 May 1867.

^{page 362 note 5} Minutes of the Executive Committee of the Reform League, 6 May 1867 (H.C.).

^{page 363 note 1} Bradlaugh, C., Reform or Revolution, n.d. (1867?; 8 pp.).Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 2} Standard, 6 May 1867.

^{page 363 note 3} Times, 7 May 1867.

^{page 363 note 4} Daily News, 7 May 1867. (There was as usual, an enormous difference in the estimates made of the numbers present. The top figure was 250,000—500,000, the lowest 20,000).

^{page 364 note 1} Rev. Sharman of Bradford reported in National Reformer, 12 May 1867.

^{page 364 note 2} Times, 7 May 1867.

^{page 364 note 3} Bee-Hive, , 11 May 1867.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 4} Reynold's, Newspaper, 12 May 1867.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 1} Minutes of the General Council of the Reform League, 8 May 1867 (H.C.).

^{page 365 note 2} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxvii (9 May 1867), 217.

^{page 365 note 3} ibid., 250–1.

^{page 365 note 4} ibid., 227.

^{page 365 note 5} ibid., 228.

^{page 365 note 6} ibid., 233.

^{page 366 note 1} Saturday Review, 11 May 1867.

^{page 366 note 2} Times, 6 May 1867.

^{page 366 note 3} Saturday Review, 11 May 1867.

^{page 366 note 4} Carlyle, T., Shooting Niagara, in: Macmillan's Magazine, August 1867, p. 324.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 5} Times, 8 May 1867.

^{page 367 note 1} Prince Bismarck replied to a resolution of congratulations to the people of North Germany on securing vote by ballot and full representation: Minutes of the General Council of the Reform League, 22 May 1867. At the next meeting, 29 May, it was recorded that Garibali had accepted the office of Honorary President of the League (H.C.).

^{page 367 note 2} Minutes of the General Council of the Reform League, 22 May 1867 (H.C.).

^{page 367 note 3} ibid., 23 July 1867.

^{page 367 note 4} Jephson, op. cit., pp. 467–9.

^{page 367 note 5} Times, 24 July 1866 and 8 May 1867.

^{page 367 note 6} Pari. Debates, 3rd series clxxxvii (6 May 1867), 38–41.

^{page 368 note 1} Cox, H., A History of the Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867 (1868), p. 201.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 2} Pari. Debates, 3rd series. clxxxvii (17 May 1867), 717.

^{page 368 note 3} Ibid, (20 May 1867), 800–1.

^{page 368 note 4} Trevelyan, op. cit., p. 375.

^{page 368 note 5} Neither of the standard histories, Woodward, The Age of Reform (Oxford 1937) nor Briggs, The Age of Improvement (1959), mention 6th May. Paul, H., A History of Modern England, iii, 1905, p. 83Google Scholar misses the significance of the event by writing as if Walpole had merely warned the public against attending the meeting and as if the Prime Minister had said in advance that nothing would be done to prevent it.

^{page 368 note 6} Park, J. H., The English Reform Bill of 1867 (New York 1920), p. 128.Google Scholar

^{page 368 note 7} By John, Bright, who asserted that Peterloo had left an animosity that still endured; Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxvi (3 May 1867), 1957Google Scholar. Also by Bradlaugh, C. in his speech in the Park, National Reformer, 12 May 1867.Google Scholar

^{page 369 note 1} Standard, 6 May 1867, citing the Saturday Review.

^{page 370 note 1} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxvii(9 May 1867), 221–2.

^{page 370 note 2} ibid., 226.

^{page 370 note 3} Briggs, A., Victorian People (1954), p. 285.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 1} Walpole, S., The History of Twenty Five Years, vol. ii (1904), p. 197.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 2} Times, 3 May 1867.

^{page 372 note 1} Harrison, F., Order and Progress (1875), pp. 182–185Google Scholar. (Reprinted from the Fortnightly Review for April 1868).

^{page 372 note 2} Parliamentary Reform, Quarterly Review, April, 1865, pp. 562–3.

^{page 373 note 1} ibid., pp. 570–1.

^{page 373 note 2} Hart, J. M., The British Police (1951), p. 34Google Scholar. —Much of the expansion may have been concentrated in the last years of the decade.

^{page 374 note 1} Quarterly Review, October 1867, pp. 542–3.

^{page 374 note 2} Marx, K. to Engels, F., 27 July 1866Google Scholar. (Marx, and Engels, on Britain, 1954, p. 495Google Scholar.)

^{page 375 note 1} The Conservative surrender, in: Quarterly Review, October 1867, p. 556.

^{page 375 note 2} Parl. Debates, jrd series, clxxxii (12 April 1866), 1149.

^{page 376 note 1} ibid., 221–2.

^{page 376 note 2} Bryce, J., The Historical Aspect of Democracy, in Essays on Reform (1867), p. 272.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 1} ibid., p. 66. (Lord Houghton, On the admission of the working classes as part of our social system and on their recognition for all purposes as part of the nation.)

^{page 377 note 2} Martin, A. P., Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Robert Lowe, Viscount Sherbrooke, vol. ii (1893), p. 255.Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 3} Carnarvon's Memorandum on Reform, 8 November 1866, Cabinet Notes 1866–7, 99–108 (Carnarvon Papers, P.R.O.).

^{page 377 note 4} Monypenny and Buckle, op. cit., p. 191.

^{page 377 note 5} Trevelyan, G. M., Life of John Bright (1913), p. 363.Google Scholar

^{page 378 note 1} See above, p. 357.

^{page 378 note 2} The Ministerial Resolutions, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, March 1867, pp. 381–2.

^{page 378 note 3} ibid., p. 387.

^{page 378 note 4} Cecil, G., Life of Robert Marquis of Salisbury, vol. i (1921).Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 1} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxvii, (13 May 1867), 417 (Grant Duff).

^{page 379 note 2} ibid., (20 May 1867), 81 o (Bailie Cochrane).

^{page 379 note 3} Monypenny and Buckle, op. cit., p. 274.

^{page 379 note 4} Leslie, Stephen, On the Choice of Representatives by Popular Constituencies, Essays on Reform (1867), p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 5} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxiii, (27 April 1866), 16.

^{page 380 note 1} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxii, (12 March 1866), 37.

^{page 380 note 2} ibid., 38.

^{page 380 note 3} Speech of Edmond Beales, Esq., M.A., President of the Reform League, At the Meeting of St. Hall, Martin's, In Support of the League (1865), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

^{page 380 note 4} Pari. Debates 3rd series, clxxxii (23 April 1866), 1891–7.

^{page 381 note 1} Ibid,(19 April 1860), 1657–8.

^{page 381 note 2} Ibid,(16 April 1866), 1392–4.

^{page 381 note 3} ibid. (16 April 1866). 1464–76. (These remarks by Sir Hugh Cairns dearly express the fear that workmen would follow Bright in seeking abolition of the law of primogeniture.)

^{page 381 note 4} For an excellent account see Hobsbawm, E. J., The Labour Aristocracy in 19th century Britain, in: Saville, J. (editor), Democracy and the Labour Movement (1954), pp. 201–239.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 5} “I am bound to say that our definition (of the working man) is a large definition.” Pari. Debates, ibid., 36.

^{page 382 note 1} H. L. Mensel to Carnarvon, 26th October 1866. Carnarvon Papers, op. cit., 71–75.

^{page 382 note 2} Cabinet 21 November 1866, Carnarvon's Memo, Carnarvon Papers, op. cit., 110.

^{page 382 note 3} Memo of conversation with Bagehot on Reform, 2 November 1866, Carnarvon Papers, 89–90.

^{page 382 note 4} Punch, , 15 December 1866Google Scholar. (See cartoon.)

^{page 382 note 5} See Symons, J. C., Tactics for the Times as Regards the Condition and Treatment of the Dangerous Classes, London, 1849, p. IGoogle Scholar. “Every country has its dangerous class. It consists not only of criminals, paupers and persons whose conduct is obnoxious to the interests of society, but of that proximate body of the people who are within reach of it! contagion, and continually swell its number.” (My emphasis.)

^{page 382 note 6} J. Bryce, op. cit., p. 273.

^{page 383 note 1} Bell, op. cit., p. 320.

^{page 383 note 2} Leeman, G., M.P. Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxii (26 April), 2127.Google Scholar

^{page 383 note 3} Jones, E. to Marx, K., 25 February 1865Google Scholar. (Micro-film from Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute Moscow. Courtesy of Mrs. D. Thompson.)

^{page 384 note 1} Bell, A. D. Dr, in his unpublished thesis, The Reform League from its origins to the Reform Act of 1867 (D. Phil., Oxford 1961), has shown (p. 157)Google Scholar that of the 114 branches of the League in London only 27 were in the East End. There were 23 south of the Thames. Hobsbawm, op. cit. p. 204 points out that in 1871 the Engineers, Bricklayers, Carpenters and Masons unions had 10 branches in the East End, but 31 south of the Thames. Since membership of these unions was confined entirely to members of the labour aristocracy the relatively higher number of East End branches of the League provides a rough guide to the extent of its infusion with ‘plebeian’ elements. However, the main conclusion to be drawn from a study of the geographical distribution of the London branches of the League is that it relied heavily upon the same stratum as that which belonged to the “newmodel” unions.

^{page 384 note 2} Harrison, F., Order and Progress (1875)Google Scholar. “There is no greater break in our class hierarchy than that between the lowest of the propertied classes and the highest of the non-propertied classes” (p. 171). “Perhaps throughout all English society there is no break more marked than that which in cities divides the skilled from the unskilled workmen” (p. 274). The first judgement was originally made in April 1868, the second in March 1874. Harrison reprinted both without apparently detecting the inconsistency.

^{page 384 note 3} Kovalev, Y. V., An Anthology of Chartist Literature (Moscow 1956), pp. 174–6.Google Scholar

^{page 384 note 4} Theatre Royal Astley's “Don't Stop, Let Progress Be the Word”, Sung by Miss Nellie Nisbett, Reform League Miscellaneous Papers (H.C.).

^{page 385 note 1} Jones, W. D., Lord Derby and Victorian Conservatism (Oxford 1956), p. 323.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 2} Earl of Wemyss and March, Memories 1818–1912, vol I (1912). Printed for private circulation. (Courtesy of the present Earl of Wemyss.)

^{page 385 note 3} Lewis, C. J., Theory and Expediency in the Policy of Disraeli, in: Victorian Studies, March 1961, p. 252.Google Scholar

^{page 385 note 4} Jephson, op. cit., p. 418.

^{page 386 note 1} Morley, J., Life of Gladstone, vol ii (1903), p. 133.Google Scholar

^{page 386 note 2} Parl. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxii (19 April 1866), 1683.

^{page 386 note 3} ”He was not afraid of the working classes, but he should not like to see the House of ommons filled with Feargus O'Connors; yet that Gentelman was looked up to as agreat oracle in Yorkshire”, J. Hardy (Dartmouth), Pari. Debates, 3rd series (13 March 1866), clxxxii, 237.

^{page 386 note 4} ibid. (16 April 1866), 1438–50 (A. H. Layard).

^{page 386 note 5} Odger was attacked for a speech in which he argued that one of the objects of Reform must be to help agricultural labourers who were trying to live on 8/–a week. See Lowe (13 March 1866) 152 and Cranborne on the same evening 233. Beesly had expressed the belief that recasting our institutions would before long supersede the question of reforming them. For this he was attacked by Lowther (16 April 1866) 1403 and by Cairns on the same evening (1490). Layard (1457–8) (16 April 1866) and Goschen, (23 April 1866)Google Scholar 1970 ridiculed the idea of making the working men responsible for the opinions of a Professor who had been educated at Oxford. However, on 26 April 1866, Lowe returned to the attack on “inspired apostles of a new Religion of Humanity” (2078). All in Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxii. Beesly defended himself in the Spectator, 21 April 1866. For his attitude to Reform and Parliamentary Government see my Beesly, E. S. and Marx, Karl, International Review of Social History, vol. iv, pts. 1&2, 1959.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 1} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxii (16 April 1866), 1453 (A. H. Layard).

^{page 387 note 2} “A clever writer in the Fortnightly Review has lately been picking out for special eulogy all the most contemptible tricks and hypocrisies of the British Constitution. To cheat the masses …‥is in this gentleman's eyes the crowning proof of political sagacity. Some kinds of education seem to be worse than none at all.” Beesly, E. S., Spectator, 14 April 1866.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 3} The Conservative Surrender, Quarterly Review, October 1867, pp. 535–4.

^{page 387 note 4} Goldwin, Smith, The Experience of the American Commonwealth, Essays on Reform (1867), p. 220.Google Scholar

^{page 387 note 5} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxii (13 April 1866), 1278.

^{page 388 note 1} Cracroft, B., The Analysis of the House of Commons, Or Indirect Representation, Essays on Reform (1867), p. 187.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 2} Ibid, p. 181.

^{page 388 note 3} Gazette, Pall Mall, cited in Blackwood's The Progress of the Question, July 1867, p. 120.Google Scholar

^{page 388 note 4} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxii (13 April 1866), 1257.

^{page 388 note 5} B. Cracroft, op. cit., p. 173, refers to an ex-governor of the Bank of England who declared that he was related to thirty other Members of the House all of whom were sitting with him at that time. One imagines that Cracroft would be suitably gratified to learn of the impressive kinship ties of contemporary governors of the Bank of England; see Wilson, C. S. and Lupton, T., The Social Background and Connections of “Top Decision Makers”, in: The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, Vol. xxvii (1959). PP. 30–51Google Scholar. Cracroft p. 162 et seq. tried to demonstrate the socially exclusive character of the House of Commons by reference to its educational background and argued that Reform would make little difference to this. He gives the following figures for the House of Commons elected in 1865. The figures in brackets relate to the House elected in 1951 and are taken from Ross, J. F. S.. Elections and Electors, 1955, p. 415Google Scholar et seq. Public School Boys, 429 (321); Eton, 105 (81); Harrow 52 (24); Oxford 136 (141); Cambridge 110 (89). In interpreting these figures it has to be remembered that in 1865 the House was larger than it is now and numbered 652 Members. Although the social composition of the undergraduate population has been greatly altered, it is believed that 80% of the boys at Eton today are the sons of fathers who also went to Eton. (See Sunday Times, 13 August 1961.)

^{page 389 note 1} Lord Houghton, op. cit., p. 59.

^{page 389 note 2} G. Cecil, op. cit., p. 170.

^{page 389 note 3} A. P. Martin, op. cit., pp. 313–4.

^{page 390 note 1} Pari. Debates, 3rd series clxxxii (26 April 1866), 2099 (Lowe).

^{page 390 note 2} Ibid, (13 March 1866), 233 (Cranborne).

^{page 390 note 3} Pari. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxvii (20 May 1867), 802–3.

^{page 390 note 4} Marx, K. to Engels, F., 1st May 1865Google Scholar, op. cit., p. 494.

^{page 390 note 5} Marx, K. to Kugelmann, L., 9th October 1866Google Scholar, Marx, /Engels, , Sel. Corr. (1956), p. 223.Google Scholar

^{page 390 note 6} Marx kept up a close correspondence with Ernest Jones during the early stages of the agitation, but there is no evidence that he was aware that political forces of a fighting kind came on the scene in July 1866. Indeed, he expressed doubt as to whether they had. (See his reply to George Howell in the Secular Chronicle, 4 August 1878. He never attempted a sustained analysis of the Reform Question nor did he refer to the debate on the nature of Revolution which went on during it. Yet this debate provided a valuable test of the perspicacity of the “class enemy”. Marx, had he bothered with it, would have been forced to allow that Cranborne had some correct insights. There was much discussion on the relation between “base” and “superstructure”. Thus, progressives like Leslie Stephen complained that it was “too common to argue as though constitutional arrangements created, instead of giving effect to, the existing social forces…‥” Lowe tried to rebut this type of reasoning, but was not at his most lucid. (Parl. Debates, clxxxvii [20 May 1867], 788–790.)

^{page 390 note 7} Parliamentary Reform, Quarterly Review, April 1865, p. 574.

^{page 391 note 1} Parl. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxii (26 April 1866), 2078.

^{page 391 note 2} Harrison, F., Order and Progress (1875), p. 221Google Scholar. Being a lecture of March, 1868.

^{page 391 note 3} Harrison, F. to Hadwen, Mrs., 3 March 1866, F. H. Papers, L.S.E. Box 1.Google Scholar

^{page 391 note 4} Harrison, F. to Beesly, E. S., (6?) May 1867Google Scholar, F. H. Papers, L.S.E. Box 1.

^{page 391 note 5} See my Professor Beesly and the Working Class Movement, in Essays in Labour History, ed. Briggs, A. and Saville, J. (1960), pp. 205–241.Google Scholar

^{page 392 note 1} Parl. Debates, 3rd series, clxxxvii (20 May 1867), 788–799,

^{page 392 note 2} Briggs, A., Age of Improvement (1959), p. 515.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 1} Duff, M. E. Grant, Notes from a Diary 1851–1872, Vol. 11 (1897), p. 119.Google Scholar

^{page 393 note 2} Parliamentary Reform, Quarterly Review, April 1865, p. 564.

^{page 393 note 3} Pari. Debates, 3rd series(13 April 1866), 1238.

^{page 394 note 1} Park, J. H., The English Reform Bill of 1867 (New York 1920)Google Scholar is the best example of eclecticism. It is also one of the best and fullest accounts. Park inclined to the view that the bill was the result of public opinion as stirred up partly by economic and social conditions, partly by the Reform League, partly by John Bright, partly by trade unions. It was also partly the result of party competition and, in particular, the calculations of Disraeli (pp. 232 et seq.). Gillespie's, F. E.useful Labor and Politics in England, 1850–1867, (Durham, North Carolina, 1927)Google Scholar is in the same tradition, but attaches less importance to Tory statesmanship.

^{page 394 note 2} Jones, W. D., Lord Derby and Victorian Conservatism (Oxford 1956), p. 326.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 3} Rothstein, T., From Chartism to Labourism (1929), p. 187Google Scholar. Morton, A. L. & Tate, G., The British Labour Movement (1956), pp. 118–121.Google Scholar

^{page 394 note 4} In practice, Marx himself did not entirely neglect the importance of “party”. As early as 1855 he foresaw that “a real change might come about only under a Tory Government” (Marx, & Engels, on Britain [1954], p. 406Google Scholar). But most of his followes prefer to recall only his grander over-simplifications. See, for example, Fox, R., The class struggle in Britain, n.d. (1932), p. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 1} Dickinson, G. Lowes, The Development of Parliament During the Nineteenth Century (1895). P. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 2} ibid. p. 84.

^{page 395 note 3} It is not only historians who have followed Lowes Dickinson. One of the best and most influential textbooks in political philosophy contains the following passage: “The extensions of the franchise in nineteenth century Britain were carried out by parties outdoing one another in the search for votes, rather than pursuing the interests of the propertied classes which financed them. Those classes have unquestionably lost many of their former advantages as a direct result of this competition.” This highly simplified and misleading account occupies a crucially important position in a chapter devoted to “Democracy”. (Benn, S. I. and Peters, R. S., Social Principles and the Democratic State [1959], p. 339.Google Scholar) Is it wise of our educational reformers to assume that a knowledge of the second law of thermodynamics is more important than a knowledge of the second Reform Act?

^{page 395 note 4} Herrick, F. H., The Second Reform Movement in Britain, in: Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 9, 1949, p. 178.Google Scholar

^{page 395 note 5} It has been shown that Bright and Beales did “consider” violence, although they did not encourage it. Leno, J. B., The Aftermath (1892), p. 71Google Scholar alleges that at the meeting with Cleusart in July, 1866 at which he (Leno) was present, Odger spoke in favour of violence.

^{page 395 note 6} Herrick, F. H., The Reform Bill of 1867 and the British Party System, in: Pacific Historical Review, vol. iii, p. 223–4.Google Scholar

^{page 396 note 1} ibid. p. 229–230.

^{page 397 note 1} Tholfsen, Trygve R., The Transition to Democracy in Victorian England, in: International Review of Social History, Vol. vi, 1961, pt. 2, pp. 226–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar, provides a useful corrective to the narrowly “political” interpretations of Reform. However, the tensions, conflicts and inconsistencies which characterised the mid-Victorian Labour Movementtend to be obscured by his emphasis upon the way in which workmen acted out roles prescribed for them by middle class radicalism.

^{page 397 note 2} Briggs, A., Victorian People (1954), p. 281.Google Scholar

^{page 397 note 3} ibid., p. 295.

^{page 397 note 4} In discussing Disraeli's response to Hodginson's amendment, Briggs only cites that part of Disraeli's phrase which refers to Gladstone. (See Briggs, A., The Age of Improvement, 1959, p. 511.Google Scholar)

^{page 398 note 1} Monypenny, W. E. and Buckle, G. E., The Life of Benjamin Disraeli (1929 New Edition), vol ii, p. 187 and p. 191.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 2} ibid., p. 274.

^{page 398 note 3} ibid., p. 218.

^{page 398 note 4} ibid., p. 269.

^{page 398 note 5} Gathorne-Hardy, A. E., Gathorne-Hardy, , First Earl of Cranbrook (1910), Vol. I, p. 211.Google Scholar

^{page 398 note 6} ibid., p. 210