3 ms·

Despite the potential similarities in wealth, the difference in background did make a difference. This is because the bourgeoisie of this period were heavily in

Despite the potential similarities in wealth, the difference in background did make a difference. This is because the bourgeoisie of this period were heavily influenced by the progressive and radical literature and pamphlets of their time. The main parties in English politics of this period were between the Liberal party (which was a fusion of old Whigs and new radicals) and the Tori/Conservative party which was aligned with nobility. One of their main disagreements was whether the mass populace should be "advanced" through welfare or whether they should be left to their traditional roles and rungs in society. Many bourgeoisie who had gained their wealth through the early industrial period joined the Whigs and they left a tradition which brought many of the next generation into the Liberal party. This of course aligned with their own interests. A healthy and educated workforce was critical to their ambitions. Though I do think in general they were motivated by a certain amount of ideological good will. The Tori and Conservative parties in England did not just oppose state welfare. They often opposed industrialization as it was the foundation of their opponents' power and it creates potential for shifts in the roles of individuals in society. Interestingly this creates a persistent confusion to this day wherein Americans don't understand why the "conservative" party in England is not 1:1 a party for business as it is in America. As they have a historical interest in opposing some development and supporting conservation.

Dracophoenix 4y ago
> The Tori and Conservative parties in England did not just oppose state welfare. They often opposed industrialization as it was the foundation of their opponents' power and it creates potential for shifts in the roles of individuals in society. I was of the opinion that British conservatives at the time viewed state welfare as a form of noblesse oblige. Burke and Disraeli both argued for a paternalistic state in which every man was made to serve others for the sake of Empire, Church, and State.
- buchoo 4y ago
  There's also more nuance than that, in that the Liberals' position changed substantially over time. Gladstone's party was one that very much believed in lowering taxes and lowering state expenditure, with the idea that the individual knew best how to allocate resources and would only be stifled by the fetters of government. This cutting back of the economic role of the state was the "Retrenchment" part of the Liberal slogan "Peace, Retrenchment and Reform". It was the New Liberals, at the turn of the 20th century, who split with the old Liberalism and turned the party into one that supported rudimentary state welfare. Furthermore, it is not as simple either as saying that the Tories "aligned with nobility". The Whigs were a very aristocratic bunch — just look at the government that passed the Reform Act 1832.[0] In fact, the Whigs enjoyed greater support among the high aristocracy: "Among the very greatest landowners, those who held at least 10,000 acres worth at least £10,000 per year, the proportion of Liberals increases."[1] Overall, the divide between the Tories and the Whig element of the Liberals in the 19th century can be hard to nail down or understand precisely because it doesn't easily correlate with any one factor, such as religion (they were nearly all Anglican, but some had sympathy for nonconformists), social origin (they were largely drawn from landowners, but there were various ranks among them) or ideology (although things tended to be more clean-cut there — there's a reason nonconformist industrialists sided with the Whigs rather than the Tories), but seems rather to have been a combination of these things and more, including family tradition; and the Whigs themselves have been seen as a conservative element who simply had the pragmatism to enact such reform as would allow them to preserve their dominant position in society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grey,_2nd_Earl_Grey#Lord_Grey's_ministry,_November_1830_%E2%80%93_July_1834 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grey,_2nd_Earl_Grey#Lo... [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-0206.2013.00311.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-0206...

Dracophoenix 4y ago

> The Tori and Conservative parties in England did not just oppose state welfare. They often opposed industrialization as it was the foundation of their opponents' power and it creates potential for shifts in the roles of individuals in society. I was of the opinion that British conservatives at the time viewed state welfare as a form of noblesse oblige. Burke and Disraeli both argued for a paternalistic state in which every man was made to serve others for the sake of Empire, Church, and State.

buchoo 4y ago
There's also more nuance than that, in that the Liberals' position changed substantially over time. Gladstone's party was one that very much believed in lowering taxes and lowering state expenditure, with the idea that the individual knew best how to allocate resources and would only be stifled by the fetters of government. This cutting back of the economic role of the state was the "Retrenchment" part of the Liberal slogan "Peace, Retrenchment and Reform". It was the New Liberals, at the turn of the 20th century, who split with the old Liberalism and turned the party into one that supported rudimentary state welfare. Furthermore, it is not as simple either as saying that the Tories "aligned with nobility". The Whigs were a very aristocratic bunch — just look at the government that passed the Reform Act 1832.[0] In fact, the Whigs enjoyed greater support among the high aristocracy: "Among the very greatest landowners, those who held at least 10,000 acres worth at least £10,000 per year, the proportion of Liberals increases."[1] Overall, the divide between the Tories and the Whig element of the Liberals in the 19th century can be hard to nail down or understand precisely because it doesn't easily correlate with any one factor, such as religion (they were nearly all Anglican, but some had sympathy for nonconformists), social origin (they were largely drawn from landowners, but there were various ranks among them) or ideology (although things tended to be more clean-cut there — there's a reason nonconformist industrialists sided with the Whigs rather than the Tories), but seems rather to have been a combination of these things and more, including family tradition; and the Whigs themselves have been seen as a conservative element who simply had the pragmatism to enact such reform as would allow them to preserve their dominant position in society. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grey,_2nd_Earl_Grey#Lord_Grey's_ministry,_November_1830_%E2%80%93_July_1834 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Grey,_2nd_Earl_Grey#Lo... [1] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-0206.2013.00311.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1750-0206...