Andrew Lipson

Main Menu

• Benthem vs. Spencer
• Positive Liberty vs. Negative Liberty
• Reform Act
• Links
• Conclusion

Introduction

            At the onset of the nineteenth century, an age old form of Liberalism was gaining momentum in the politically advanced countries of western Europe.  Governments, which were still dominated by the upper classes and aristocracy in countries like England and France, were viewed with mistrust by the bourgeoisie and masses, and were therefore kept in check in the regulation of the people’s lives.  Governmental power was to be feared, for it had always been associated with oppression and manipulation.  Advocates of this laissez-faire policy used powerful and passionate rhetoric, explaining that true freedom could never be established with the omnipresent interjecting influence of government.  The idea that liberty could only exist with the passive and minimal activity of the government was termed “negative liberty.”  The economist Herbert Spencer wrote many essays on the necessity of a laissez-faire policy in order to allow society and capitalism to weed out the unfit and continue the natural “progression” of mankind.  This argument, called social Darwinism, appealed to the new developing class in Europe, the bourgeoisie, who were then leading the Industrial Revolution, gaining capital and status at an unprecedented rate.  As time past though, there emerged a new type of Liberalism, which sought government intervention in order regulate capitalism and extend the vote.  The concept of “positive liberty” was growing rapidly amongst the lower classes and concerned bourgeoisie, who were witnessing the exploitation of the industrial worker.  Industrialization had left many entrepenuers unchecked, and their cruel exploitation of the lower classes was seen in the growing level of poverty stricken homes and slums in the cities of England.  Malnourishment, unsanitary conditions, and inhumane work conditions for the laboring class led to a movement much like the Progressive Era in the late nineteenth century United States.  An age of Reform began in England seeking to give representation to the growing underprivileged class, thus allowing them to create legislation to protect and improve their conditions.  Inside the confines of Parliament in Britain, there was much dispute about how much representation should given to the lower classes of England.  Old elitist sentiments existed in both the House of Commons and especially in the House of Lords despite the growing pressure to enfranchise the enormous silent part of the nation.  Benjamin Disraeli, a prominent member of the House of Commons and one time Prime Minister, stepped forth with a seemingly bold plan to extend to the vote to many who had previously been denied it before.   Disraeli helped write and pass the Reform Bill of 1867, yet its apparent ambiguity led to decades of disputes and painstaking processes in order to extend the vote.  Disraeli was a conservative englishman living in an age of radical reform regarding ancient class disputes and the role of government in the lives of the people it governed.  The alliances Disraeli made with the aristocracy in order to gain support against the laissez-faire advocating middle-class, caused him to write and legislate an intentionally vague document, which resulted in an untimely delay in the enfranchisement of the suffering industrial worker.  His true intentions seemed to be to improve the living conditions of the lower classes, yet the deeply imbeded elitist views of his parliamentary allies led him to write a frustrating and originally ineffective document.