Revision Thread for Historical Investigations 2589, Gladstone and Disraeli

If it's not too much trouble for you, I would like to have those, please :smile:

Thanks a lot for being so so so helpful! :biggrin:

Reply 21

OP

Incoherence

If it's not too much trouble for you, I would like to have those, please :smile:

Thanks a lot for being so so so helpful! :biggrin:

Oh it's nothing lol.
That will be no problem, they'll probably be on here tomorrow evening. =)

Reply 22

OP

JoseReina

Hey Gemma, these notes are top. Thanks! I've been scanning through the past papers and just saw a tricky question; using the sources and own knowledge, assess the extent to which working class support was important to Gladstone's political success. I'm struggling to come up with a decent amount on conextual knowledge for this one- working class support was important, 'people's william' and all that. But, what were the limitaions? Who else did he appeal to which helped his success?

Ok, I'm going through my notes now and I'm going to try and work out an essay plan for both of those questions.

Using the sources and own knowledge, assess the extent to which working class support was important to Gladstone's political success. (I also have the sources for this paper, which is useful - for anyone else it is the January 06 paper)

Intro - In the nineteenth century, support from the working class was very important. Although it necessary that we understand the other elements of support that allowed Gladstone to succeed in his policies.

Para 1 - Terry Jenkins' 'The Liberal Ascendancy 1830-1886' which was published in 1994. (You need to give a quick comment about this, even if it seems pointless. You could mention that the following year was when Gladstone's final diaries were published, therefore Jenkins would have had less information and evidence to support his theories)

Jenkins argues that Gladstone misunderstood the reasons for his public support among the working class. Jenkins believes the the 'effect of his work as Chancellor of the Exchequer had been to reduce the effect of indirect taxation on the working class.'
Gladstone, according to T. Jenkins, did not believe the popularity from the working class was due to the rise in money they were receiving through his policies, but due to their 'moral worth' and appreciation of 'the need for low taxation and ...reduction in government expenditure'

A short analysis of this source would be arguing that it does not necessarily contradict with any of the other sources, although you could mention that T. Jenkins view partially contrasts to the view of Matthew, who believes that in Gladstone's ministry, economics was the most important element.

Para 2 - This extract is from Roy Jenkins' 'Gladstone' which was published in 1995 (the year of Gladstone's diaries being released).
Jenkins argues that Gladstone's popularity had sound reasons behind it and examines the means by which he achieved publicity.
Jenkins says that Gladstone 'gave' the working class 'prestige' through his speeches to the workers in their working class institutions such as the 'Free Trade Hall' in Manchester.
Jenkins also says that it seemed as though Gladstone was on the 'side' of the working class, giving them an initiative in politics.
This view links to Source D (from Partridge) as he believes that Gladstone thought that the working classes should be involved in the 'political process'.

Para 3 - This source is from Colin Matthew's 'Gladstone', published in 1999. Matthew (God! So many of these historians have similar names - I suppose that is helpful in a way lol) believes that Gladstone took care to ensure he had loads of publicity.
Matthew argues that his 'repeal of the Paper Duties in 1861' meant he was helping the papers and 'exploited this deliberately by sending details of his policies to journalists'.
This sort of hints at Gladstone manipulating his power to prove to people that he is helping people (doing what any other politician would do really). Matthew also comments on the fact that Gladstone could 'appear to be uninterested in publicity'.
This view is quite hard to interpret and I can't find many other opinions on Gladstone involved in publicity or anyth/ing like that. You mi[ght just have to analyse even more in depth to make up for that.

Para 4 - Partridge's 'Gladstone' was published in 2003. (This is quite a recent approach, therefore argue the reliability of it: it is a new view, Partridge was able to study all of the archives holding information on Gladstone. Although, the fact that it was written so recently could mean that the information is slightly skewed.)

Partridge argues that Gladstone sought and enjoyed the support from the working class. He apparently 'realised that cutting taxes...would make him a popular politician and that with popular support he would achieve his ambitions'.
This view makes Gladstone seem like a pragmatic character, one who only works for the working class to gain support so that he could further his other policies.
Partridge also goes on to say that Gladstone believed that the working classes, or at least the 'respectable men' should be involved the the 'political process' and 'have the vote'.
This links to Source B.

Para 5 - This paragraph will contain your own argument (think of it like there is another source to analyse, but it's your own writing) You can argue whatever you want really, as long as you have the evidence to back it up.

My argument would be that Gladstone did not really have much of the working class support, and I would support this through:

- The weak 1866 Reform Bill, which didn't even get passed.
- The fact that so many of his reforms during the period of 1868-74 caused divisions amongst the working class and in the sub-sections of society.
- The fact that Gladstone himself claimed that he was an 'out and out inequalitarian' proves that he did not care for the working classes.
- His run as Chancellor had given him a head-start in politics, people trusted him because he was good with money.
- He was popular amongst the Liberals as well, and the aristocracy.

Although of course, it's never as simple as that, is it?
I have to counter my argument, because obviously my opinion just isn't worth any historical merit.

You have to argue that it was due to the working class that he was successful.

I've given some examples on the previous page about him helping the working class, and gaining support from them. You could argue that his visit to Naples in the 1850s embedded in him a belief in free trade, which Feuchtwanger (1989) believes led him to an urge to extend the franchise. You could also throw in Biagini's view (1992) that Gladstone believed greatly in 'individual freedom and free trade'.

Conclusion Ah, the best part of an essay in my opinion. Just argue your case again, with a little counter-argument. Something like 'Gladstone's success may have been due to the support of the working class because blah blah blah, yet it could still be argued that he was successful due to blah blah blah'.

I hope that this helps you. I'll put up a plan for the other question soon x

Reply 23

What questions do you guys think will come up this time? I scanned through the past papers briefly and realised that there are hardly repeats (or maybe I just didn't check it correctly. haha).

And speaking of past papers, Gemma_08, I got the 3 emails you sent me already! Thanks! :smile:

xx

Reply 24

OP

Oh that's cool, no worries :smile:

About what will come up, I think it's going to be something to do with foreign/imperial policy. There's quite a lot they can ask you on though, whether it's Gladstone or Disraeli.

I'm also going to revise the 1867 Reform Act inside out, because I think there's a good chance of that coming up.

Reply 25

Oh darn, I hardly remember anything on foreign and imperial policies!!! Need to revise that more for the next few days really. lol.

I can't exactly rem what came out in Jan though. Something about reforms, I think? and their contributions? If so, I won't put that much attention on those then since it came out in Jan already.

Reply 26

OP

Yeah, the Jan paper was to do with Gladstone's social reforms, and Disraeli and the Eastern Question I think, although I'm not entirely sure.

Yeah, I think I'm going to focus on foreign/imperial policy quite heavily.

Reply 27

JoseReina

With regards to te Reform Act, what exactly are you going to learn in detail Gemma? The factors which led to it? I'd find an essay quite hard on it to be honest because its not really a good 'debate' question but for the sources it'd be perfect.

Reply 28

Just took a look at the Jan paper from my teacher and for the source question, it was about Disraeli's social reforms. The essay questions were about how Gladstone shaped the Liberal Party and Disraeli and the Eastern Question...

Reply 29

OP

JoseReina

With regards to te Reform Act, what exactly are you going to learn in detail Gemma? The factors which led to it? I'd find an essay quite hard on it to be honest because its not really a good 'debate' question but for the sources it'd be perfect.

With regards to the Reform Act, I am probably going to look at the lead up to it and the after effects of it, as opposed to the Act itself.

Why Gladstone's proposed Bill of 1866 failed, why Disraeli was able to pass the Act a year later, and why he wanted to pass it (because it was a radical Liberal proposal, and a Conservative passed it through government). And after this, what did it mean for the future of both parties.
Not forgetting that I will need a lot of historian's opinions on it as well.

Incoherence

Just took a look at the Jan paper from my teacher and for the source question, it was about Disraeli's social reforms. The essay questions were about how Gladstone shaped the Liberal Party and Disraeli and the Eastern Question...

Yeah, I thought it was something like that. Hmm, so that means that social/domestic policies could come up for either of them(including the 1867 Reform Act). Their rises to power, perhaps foreign policy (on a wider scale) and even the 1874 election.

What do you guys reckon?

Reply 30

Hmmm, I think the Reform Act is one of those topics that they hardly bring up on the essay questions so it might be possible that it'll come out this time. And for the documents, they've been doing a lot of reform questions for the past few years so if they're planning to make a slight change this year, perhaps something concerning foreign policies might come out? No idea really. That was just a random prediction that I thought of. haha.

Reply 31

JoseReina

what essay could you do though on the reform act? it seems to me that its perfect as a source q because there's just enough mateiral for good source evaluation whereas for an essay I do doubt whether there's enough. Also, I predict something on Disraeli's rise to power as June 08 had Gladstone's/conversion to Liberalism. Possibly on his imperialism too. I doubt social refrom will figure.

Reply 32

OP

Mm, I don't know. I think it seems pretty pointless to guess what will come up lol. I mean, you look at it logically, and we could probably think of three topics they would ask about, but tbh those exam boards are seriously unpredictable. It could be anything really.
I think I am just not going to focus too heavily on what came up in Jan.

Reply 33

ohmysofly

Cheers Gemma your revision notes are amazing! I think ive covered most of the content areas, but i havent been able to successfully adapt to the A2 requirements...getting lower than wanted marks in my essays. Could you give me some help on incorporating historians views, debate, evaluating etc please? Cheers x

Reply 34

Um yeah, if it's possible, I hope you could outline the structure for the essay question, please? 'cos I'm not really sure whether I'm doing it the right way or not when it comes to the essay part. I'm fairly fine with the sources question though.

Reply 35

OP

ohmysofly

Cheers Gemma your revision notes are amazing! I think ive covered most of the content areas, but i havent been able to successfully adapt to the A2 requirements...getting lower than wanted marks in my essays. Could you give me some help on incorporating historians views, debate, evaluating etc please? Cheers x

Yeah sure no problem, are you talking about the source question or the essay question?

Incoherence

Um yeah, if it's possible, I hope you could outline the structure for the essay question, please? 'cos I'm not really sure whether I'm doing it the right way or not when it comes to the essay part. I'm fairly fine with the sources question though.

Yeah sure, I'm going to use the January 2007 paper as an example. (I'm also using the OCR Mark Scheme - they're really helpful, you should check those out if you haven't already http://www.ocr.org.uk/Data/publications/mark_schemes_2007/L_A_Level_History_MS_Jan_07.pdf)

To what extent was Gladstone’s defeat in the 1874 election the result of disappointment with the legislative programme of his ministry of 1868-1874?

The main debate here (according the the mark scheme) is 'the role of various factors leading to Gladstone's defeat in 1874'.
I would say the most important thing to do in this essay is to make sure that you let the examiner know that there are two equal arguments for this question.

Introduction - In this part of the essay, it is vital that you mention the two conflicting arguments and a few historians with schools of thought on this topic. Like I said in the page before, it would be cool to start off an essay with a quote, and with this one you could use Gladstone's 'borne down in a torrent of gin and beer'.

For example: Some historians argue that the defeat of the Liberals in 1874 was due to the weak reforms of the Liberal party, however others argue that it was due to Disraeli's popular speeches of 1872 etc.
Vincent (1966) believes that it was because of the external circumstances at the time.

Para 1 - This paragraph is to argue the theory that it could have been due to Gladstone's unpopular Liberal policies. Disraeli stated that the Liberals were 'exhausted volcanoes'. A good focus on this paragraph would be referencing to the Licensing Act in 1872, which was incredibly unpopular amongst the working classes. Another unpopular policy of Gladstone's ministry around this time would be the Irish Universities Bill, where Gladstone's proposal was defeated. Yet another unpopular policy was the 1870 Education Act, which caused opposition from non-conformists.

Essentially, the unpopularity of their policies caused them to lose support from working and middle classes, and they also caused divisions in the party.

Para 2 - This is the counter-argument that it was because of Disraeli's growing popularity that the Liberals lost. The historian Watts argues that Disraeli's popularity was due to his clever tactics used in opposition and especially focuses on his refusal to take over when Gladstone resigned in 1873, thus making Gladstone's government look incredibly weak.
You could also look at Disraeli's speeches of 1872 in Crystal Palace and Manchester, and how they undermined Gladstone's ministry because Disraeli accused him of endangering national institutions. His speeches made him look in control of the Conservative Party. He also improved the organisation of the Party, so that he looked like a very strong leader.
Evans argues that some counties in Britain were traditionally Conservative, so Disraeli just reinstated the old Conservative roots of the country, however, they were also able to get votes from former Liberal counties as well.

Para 3 There is room here for another argument here such as Feuchtwanger's belief that the growing divisions in the Liberal party caused the defeat. There was a large split between the radicals and the Whigs, Gladstone did not do much to mend this, although according to Hamer (1972) Gladstone's main aim was to unify the party.
Also, mention all of the Acts/Bills that could have split the party and supports Feuchtwanger's argument.

Another argument, stated by the mark scheme says, 'Candidates may well argue that Gladstone was unlucky and that the disestablishment of the Irish church and his moral attitude to foreign affairs deserved the
plaudits of the electors.'

Conclusion In the mark scheme, it states that 'an overall judgement needs to be reached'. State your opinion (without use of personal pronouns) and a small summary of what has been said.

And hopefully, you have yourself an A grade.

To summarise:

Intro- What you will be talking about
Para 1 - Using own knowledge - one argument
Para 2 - Same as Para 1 - second argument
Para 3 (if applicable) - last argument.
Conclusion - What you've said in the essay.

Try all the way through to contradict what you have said using evidence and historians opinions - That's what gets you the higher marks.

Reply 36

ohmysofly

Coolcool cheers. Yeh i was talking about essay question. One thing i still dont get though...in the paragraphs throughout the essay do you just state the arguments that historians have come up with, and then conclude with your personal judgement at the end? OR, do you assess the different views in each paragraph?

I.e. in the first paragraph: argument that Gladstone moved from Tory to Liberal because of hatred of Disraeli. Do i just state the reasons why this would be true and leave it at that? OR do i come to a conclusion by the end of the paragraph? e.g. yes because he could not bear to be in the same government as Disraeli.

Cheers x

Reply 37

ohmysofly

I hope you understand what i mean btw! if not let me know lol x

Reply 38

OP

ohmysofly

Coolcool cheers. Yeh i was talking about essay question. One thing i still dont get though...in the paragraphs throughout the essay do you just state the arguments that historians have come up with, and then conclude with your personal judgement at the end? OR, do you assess the different views in each paragraph?

I.e. in the first paragraph: argument that Gladstone moved from Tory to Liberal because of hatred of Disraeli. Do i just state the reasons why this would be true and leave it at that? OR do i come to a conclusion by the end of the paragraph? e.g. yes because he could not bear to be in the same government as Disraeli.

Cheers x

Yeah I understand what you mean lol.

Using that example, your first paragraph would be:

Gladstone moved from Tory to Liberal because of the feud with Disraeli, and you use the arguments and historians that you have for that, however you could also argue against yourself slightly, then go onto that argument in the next paragraph. Give a short sentence in summary of what you have said.

At the beginning of every paragraph argue a statement, by the end conclude it.

It could be argued that Gladstone became a Liberal due to his hatred of Disraeli (give examples and historians - the bulk of your paragraph). Although it could perhaps be equally true that Gladstone became a Liberal because of his visit to Naples in the 1850s (as Feuchtwanger believes)
Essentially, it is possible that Gladstone became a Liberal because of his new found belief in liberalism, although it seems more likely that he became Liberal because he could not get along with Disraeli.

Then, your next paragraph would be about Gladstone's actual belief in liberalism.

I really hope that helps, if it doesn't just get back to me, and I'll try to explain more helpfully. x

Reply 39