Pemilihan Umum 1895

Pemilihan Umum 1895

Partai-partai politik

Jumlah Suara

%

anggota parlemen

1,894,772

49.1

411

1,765,266

45.7

177

44,325

1.0

0

Nasionalis Irlandia

152,959

4.0

82


41e. Pemilihan 1896

Segalanya tampak jatuh pada tempatnya bagi kaum Populis. James Weaver membuat pertunjukan yang mengesankan pada tahun 1892, dan sekarang ide-ide Populis sedang dibahas di seluruh negeri. Kepanikan tahun 1893 adalah krisis keuangan terburuk hingga saat ini dalam sejarah Amerika. Ketika garis sup tumbuh lebih besar, begitu pula kemarahan pemilih pada sistem saat ini.

Ketika Jacob S. Coxey dari Ohio menggiring 200 pendukungnya ke ibu kota negara untuk menuntut reformasi pada musim semi 1894, banyak yang mengira sebuah revolusi sedang terjadi. Iklim tampaknya ingin berubah. Yang dibutuhkan kaum Populis hanyalah calon Presiden yang menang pada tahun 1896.

Orator anak laki-laki

Ironisnya, orang yang membela platform kerakyatan tahun itu berasal dari Partai Demokrat. William Jennings Bryan adalah kandidat yang tidak mungkin. Seorang pengacara dari Lincoln, Nebraska, keterampilan berbicara Bryan termasuk yang terbaik dari generasinya. Dikenal sebagai "Orang Biasa yang Hebat," Bryan dengan cepat mengembangkan reputasi sebagai pembela petani.

Ketika ide-ide Populis mulai menyebar, pemilih Demokrat di Selatan dan Barat memberikan dukungan yang antusias. Pada konvensi Chicago Demokrat pada tahun 1896, Bryan menyampaikan pidato yang membuat karirnya. Menuntut koin perak gratis, Bryan berteriak, "Jangan menyalibkan umat manusia di atas salib emas!" Ribuan delegasi menyuarakan persetujuan mereka, dan pada usia tiga puluh enam, "Bocah Orator" menerima nominasi Demokrat.

Dihadapkan pada pilihan yang sulit antara menyerahkan identitas mereka dan melukai tujuan mereka sendiri, Partai Kerakyatan juga menominasikan Bryan sebagai kandidat mereka.

Kandidat Tetap di Rumah


William McKinley tidak terlihat oleh publik pada tahun 1896, meninggalkan kampanye untuk pesta dan poster-poster mewah seperti ini.

Pesaing Partai Republik adalah William McKinley, gubernur Ohio. Dia mendapat dukungan dari pendirian timur yang kaya. Di balik layar, seorang industrialis Cleveland kaya bernama Marc Hanna bertekad untuk melihat McKinley terpilih. Dia, seperti banyak dari kelasnya, percaya bahwa koin perak gratis akan membawa kehancuran finansial ke Amerika.

Menggunakan kekayaan dan kekuasaannya yang besar, Hanna mengarahkan kampanye berdasarkan ketakutan akan kemenangan Bryan. McKinley berkampanye dari rumahnya, meninggalkan politik untuk peretasan partai. Bryan merevolusi politik kampanye dengan meluncurkan upaya penghentian peluit nasional, membuat dua puluh hingga tiga puluh pidato per hari.

Ketika hasilnya akhirnya dihitung, McKinley telah mengalahkan Bryan dengan selisih suara elektoral 271 banding 176.

Memahami 1896

Banyak faktor yang menyebabkan kekalahan Bryan. Dia tidak dapat memenangkan satu negara bagian di Timur Laut yang padat penduduknya. Buruh takut ide perak gratis sebanyak bos mereka. Sementara inflasi akan membantu petani yang terlilit hutang dan membayar hipotek, inflasi dapat merugikan pekerja pabrik yang membayar upah dan membayar sewa. Dalam arti, pemilihan turun ke kota versus negara. Pada tahun 1896, pasukan kota menang. Kampanye Bryan menandai terakhir kalinya sebuah partai besar berusaha memenangkan Gedung Putih dengan secara eksklusif mencari suara pedesaan.

Perekonomian tahun 1896 juga mengalami peningkatan. Seandainya pemilihan terjadi di jantung Kepanikan tahun 1893, hasilnya mungkin akan berbeda. Harga pertanian meningkat pada tahun 1896, meskipun lambat. Partai Populis berantakan dengan kehilangan Bryan. Meskipun mereka terus mencalonkan calon, sebagian besar keanggotaan mereka telah kembali ke partai-partai besar.

Namun, ide-ide itu bertahan. Meskipun masalah perak gratis mati, pajak penghasilan yang lulus, pemilihan langsung senator, inisiatif, referendum, penarikan kembali, dan pemungutan suara rahasia semuanya kemudian diberlakukan. Isu-isu ini tetap hidup oleh pembawa standar reformasi berikutnya &mdash the Progressives.


Partai Unionis Liberal: Sebuah Sejarah

Perpecahan dalam partai Liberal pada tahun 1886 yang timbul dari konversi Gladstone ke penyebab pemerintahan dalam negeri Irlandia adalah titik balik dalam politik Inggris. Kaum Liberal yang, dalam satu atau lain bentuk, telah menjadi partai dominan pemerintahan selama setengah abad sebelumnya menghabiskan semua kecuali tiga dari 20 tahun berikutnya dalam oposisi, ketika aliansi partai Liberal Unionis yang memisahkan diri dan Konservatif memenangkan kemenangan telak di tiga dari empat pemilihan umum. Mengingat dampak signifikan mereka pada perjalanan sejarah politik Inggris, adalah luar biasa bahwa, sampai volume Dr Cawood muncul, tidak ada studi yang diterbitkan secara lengkap tentang Liberal Unionists.

Mungkin ada beberapa penjelasan untuk ini. Tesis PhD Universitas Chicago tahun 1956 Gordon L. Goodman tentang partai Liberal Unionist mungkin telah menciptakan kesan bahwa topik tersebut telah selesai. Namun karya Dr Goodman tetap tidak diterbitkan dalam bentuk buku, dan karena itu hanya dapat diakses oleh para sarjana yang lebih gigih di bidang ini. Ketertarikan sejarawan dengan sosok penting dan penuh teka-teki Joseph Chamberlain, Liberal radikal yang berubah menjadi imperialis dan sekutu Tory, mungkin telah memadati studi tentang partai yang ia bantu dirikan. Fakta bahwa Liberal Unionis sejak awal beraliansi dengan partai Konservatif yang akhirnya menggolongkan mereka mungkin telah menurunkan sejarah partai ke subplot belaka dalam politik Konservatif. Tentu saja untuk waktu yang lama ada kecenderungan untuk melihat perpecahan Liberal Unionis sebagai, dalam ungkapan Goodman, 'Pemberontakan Whig' (1), kaum Liberal aristokrat yang kaya, merasa tidak nyaman dengan radikalisme partai mereka yang meningkat dan menyadari bahwa kepentingan mereka yang sebenarnya berbaring dengan Konservatif. Robert Ensor dalam volume klasiknya Oxford History of England melihat perpecahan Liberal Unionis sebagai memperkenalkan pembagian kelas ke politik partai yang sebelumnya tidak ada. menentang pidato kelas, dengan demikian berusaha untuk meragukan motif mantan rekan sesatnya.

Sejarawan yang lebih baru, dari tahun 1970-an dan seterusnya, telah mempertanyakan pandangan ini, melihat Liberal Unionists lebih dimotivasi oleh ideologi daripada kelas. Christopher Harvie telah menyoroti oposisi yang luar biasa terhadap pemerintahan dalam negeri Irlandia di kalangan akademisi Liberal pada tahun 1886. W.C. Lubenow telah menunjukkan kurangnya korelasi antara latar belakang kelas anggota parlemen Liberal dan posisi mereka dalam RUU aturan rumah Gladstone. Jonathan Parry dan T. A. Jenkins masing-masing berpendapat bahwa gaya kepemimpinan Gladstone, religiusitasnya yang berlebihan, dan kesediaannya untuk menuruti kehendak massa bertentangan dengan pandangan yang lebih sekuler dan rasionalis dari banyak kaum Liberal. Dukungannya terhadap pemerintahan dalam negeri dilihat oleh mereka yang menolak mengikuti jejaknya sebagai penyangkalan terhadap upaya pemerintah Liberal selama 50 tahun sebelumnya untuk mendamaikan Irlandia Katolik dengan Persatuan.(3) Namun, studi ini berfokus pada sikap anggota parlemen dan akademisi daripada organisasi partai, propaganda dan pemilihan, dan mereka tidak mengambil cerita di luar perpecahan 1886. Oleh karena itu, volume Dr Cawood dapat mengisi celah yang signifikan dalam penelitian yang dipublikasikan, dan membuat kasus yang kuat bagi Liberal Unionis sebagai kekuatan politik yang berbeda dan vital, setidaknya sampai tahun 1895 ketika mereka memasuki koalisi dengan Konservatif.

Ada keengganan awal di antara banyak penentang Liberal dari pemerintahan dalam negeri untuk memutuskan hubungan dengan partai Liberal Gladstone. Dr Cawood mendemonstrasikan keengganan kepemimpinan Hartington pada tahun 1886, dan lambatnya perkembangan organisasi partai setidaknya selama paruh pertama parlemen tahun 1886–1992, dengan partai yang baru dibentuk tersebut dilanda masalah seperti pembelotan penyelenggara pertamanya, FW Maude, kembali ke partai Liberal Gladstonian dan kurangnya dampak dari surat kabarnya yang layak tetapi hampir tidak dapat dibaca, Liberal Unionis. Situasi ini tidak terbantu oleh Joseph Chamberlain yang mempertahankan organisasinya sendiri, National Radical Union (kemudian National Liberal Union), terpisah dari Hartingtonite Liberal Unionist Association. Selain itu, banyak anggota parlemen Liberal Unionis yang moderat memandang rendah pertumbuhan kaukus partai, sangat mementingkan mempertahankan penilaian politik mereka sendiri dan enggan mengotori tangan mereka dengan urusan organisasi partai yang berantakan.

Hal ini mulai berubah setelah tahun 1889, menyusul restrukturisasi organisasi pusat partai, dan meskipun sudah terlambat untuk menghindari hasil yang mengecewakan pada pemilihan umum tahun 1892, pada tahun 1895 mesin partai cukup efektif untuk memberikan kontribusi penting bagi partai. Kemenangan telak dalam pemilihan Unionis. Hal ini terutama terjadi di daerah di mana sejumlah besar anggota parlemen Liberal telah membelot ke Liberal Unionis pada tahun 1886. Benteng Birmingham Joseph Chamberlain adalah contoh paling terkenal dari keberhasilan Liberal Unionis lokal, tetapi West of Scotland dan Cornwall juga merupakan daerah di mana partai menjadi mitra senior daripada junior dalam aliansi Unionis. Dr Cawood juga menyoroti hubungan yang seringkali sulit antara kedua partai Unionis di tingkat konstituen, dengan pertengkaran di berbagai konstituen mengenai partai mana yang memperebutkan kursi parlemen. Dalam beberapa kasus diperlukan campur tangan para pemimpin nasional untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan. Aliansi Unionis tidak semuanya berjalan mulus.

Secara ideologis, Liberal Unionists tampaknya merupakan kombinasi yang tidak mungkin, terdiri dari elemen-elemen partai Liberal yang paling sering bentrok satu sama lain selama pemerintahan 1880–5. Sampai batas tertentu, perpecahan ini berlanjut di dalam partai baru, karena kesederhanaan, perpecahan, dan antusiasme untuk reformasi sosial. Namun Dr Cawood dengan meyakinkan berpendapat bahwa setidaknya ada dua prinsip pemersatu penting Liberal Unionisme, yang diwarisi dari Liberalisme pertengahan Victoria. Ini adalah, pertama, komitmen terhadap supremasi hukum Pemikir utama partai, ahli hukum A. V. Dicey, mengidentifikasi dorongan nasionalis Irlandia untuk melanggar hukum untuk tujuan politik sebagai keberatan utama terhadap aturan dalam negeri. Liberal Unionists percaya pada konstitusi liberal Inggris dan bahwa kemajuan politik, di Irlandia dan di tempat lain, harus terjadi dengan metode konstitusional. Kedua, Liberal Unionists percaya bahwa mereka adalah bentuk politik rasional, berdasarkan komitmen, seperti yang dikatakan Dr Cawood, 'evolusi politik dari ketakutan, ketidaksetaraan, dan reaksi menuju kepercayaan, kebebasan, dan kemajuan'. Banyak dari mereka menetapkan toko besar oleh gagasan karakter, percaya pendekatan mereka terhadap politik menjadi 'jantan' daripada daya tarik 'feminin' Gladstone untuk emosi populer.

Untuk sebagian besar dekade pertama keberadaan partai, para pemimpin dan aktivis partai sangat ingin menekankan identitas Liberal mereka yang berkelanjutan, melihat diri mereka sebagai pembawa obor Liberal yang sebenarnya, dan percaya, seperti yang sering dilakukan oleh partai-partai yang memisahkan diri, bahwa partai lama mereka telah pergi. mereka daripada sebaliknya. Ironisnya, mengingat adopsi reformasi tarif Joseph Chamberlain kemudian, mereka bersatu dalam upaya menentang oleh beberapa Konservatif di awal 1890-an untuk menghidupkan kembali dukungan untuk proteksionisme. Berbeda dengan Konservatif, mereka menunjukkan keengganan (yang kadang-kadang mereka atasi) untuk memainkan kartu sektarian, anti-Katolik dalam perdebatan tentang aturan rumah. Dan tentu saja Joseph Chamberlain terus memperjuangkan reformasi sosial, meskipun dia memodifikasi retorikanya dari bahasa konflik kelas dan 'tebusan' menjadi rekonsiliasi antar kelas sosial.

Oleh karena itu Dr Cawood membuat kasus persuasif untuk Liberal Unionis sebagai kekuatan politik yang benar-benar independen dalam aliansi Unionis, tidak berarti sandi belaka untuk partai Konservatif. Namun dalam pandangan saya dia mendorong kesimpulannya lebih jauh daripada yang dibenarkan oleh bukti yang disajikan di sini, dengan cara yang mengurangi keseluruhan argumennya. Misalnya, menulis tentang bidang kekuatan parlementer Liberal Unionis, ia berkomentar:

Kemenangan Liberal Unionis di Bury, seperti di Birmingham, Cornwall dan Skotlandia, berutang segalanya pada komitmen mereka pada prinsip-prinsip Liberal yang teguh dan sama sekali tidak ada pada aliansi dengan Konservatif.

Ini memperluas kredibilitas melampaui titik puncak. Memang benar, itu berarti bahwa Liberal Unionis di tempat-tempat ini tidak memperoleh keuntungan sama sekali dari Konservatif yang tidak mencalonkan diri melawan mereka dan membiarkan sekutu baru mereka bebas melawan Liberal Gladstonia. Tentunya Unionis Liberal mendapat manfaat setidaknya sampai tingkat tertentu (lebih mungkin cukup banyak) dari dukungan Konservatif! Untuk mengambil contoh Bury kursi ini dimenangkan tipis pada tahun 1885 oleh Liberal Sir Henry James dengan Konservatif hanya 189 suara atau 2,4 persen di belakang. Kembali tanpa perlawanan pada tahun 1886, James memenangkan kemenangan yang nyaman pada tahun 1892. Namun ayunan ke Unionis, meskipun mengesankan, tidak berbeda secara dramatis dari yang diperoleh oleh kandidat Konservatif di tempat lain di Lancashire. Dan ketika dia mundur pada pemilihan umum tahun 1895, dia digantikan oleh seorang kandidat Konservatif yang menang dengan selisih yang sama. Ini jauh dari kursi di mana Konservatif tidak lagi penting. Posisi serupa mengenai bidang lain yang dikutip dalam kutipan di atas. Tidak diragukan lagi Liberal Unionists menarik pemilih yang berada di luar jangkauan Konservatif, tetapi dukungan pemilih Konservatif tidak diragukan lagi membuat perbedaan juga untuk kesuksesan mereka. Kita tidak dapat mengetahui berapa banyak kursi yang mungkin dimenangkan oleh Liberal Unionis dalam sistem partai tiga arah yang asli, tetapi tanpa dukungan yang dijamin dari kemenangan pemilih Konservatif akan jauh lebih sulit untuk dicapai.

Demikian juga, saya skeptis terhadap argumen Dr Cawood mengenai kemenangan telak Unionis dalam pemilihan umum 1895 bahwa 'itu adalah Liberal Agenda serikat pekerja yang meyakinkan pemilih massa', khususnya program sosial Chamberlain. Kandidat Liberal pada saat itu tidak melihatnya seperti ini – mereka menyalahkan terutama pada upaya salah arah Sir William Harcourt dalam reformasi kesederhanaan pelarangan (atau 'veto lokal'), perlawanan yang lebih merupakan Tory daripada tujuan Liberal, dan terhadap skeptisisme pemilih yang terus berlanjut tentang pemerintahan dalam negeri.(4) Tidak diragukan lagi, perpecahan yang jelas di antara para pemimpin Liberal juga tidak banyak membantu. Dr Cawood mengutip contoh penjelajah dan jurnalis terkenal H. M. Stanley, yang memenangkan kursi Lambeth Utara sebagai Liberal Unionist, sebagai bukti kemenangan kandidat dengan menekankan reformasi sosial dalam kampanyenya. Tetapi hasil Stanley sangat sejalan dengan ayunan yang dicapai oleh kandidat Konservatif di tempat lain di London. Mungkin Konservatif juga menekankan masalah sosial, tetapi lebih banyak bukti diperlukan sebelum kita dapat menyimpulkan bahwa pertanyaan seperti itu menentukan dalam menentukan hasil pemilihan.

Penulis, saya pikir, telah menyerah pada godaan terus-menerus bagi para peneliti untuk melebih-lebihkan pentingnya dan kekhasan subjek mereka. Dia mengutip pernyataan terkenal Lady Bracknell di Oscar Wilde's Pentingnya Bersungguh-sungguh bahwa ‘[Liberal Unionists] dihitung sebagai Tories. Mereka makan bersama kami. Atau datang di malam hari bagaimanapun juga'. Tapi dia melihat komentar ini sebagai indikasi bahwa Liberal Unionists 'tetap Liberal, jadi tidak akan diundang untuk makan malam'. Tentunya, bagaimanapun, kata kunci di sini adalah 'dihitung sebagai Tories'. Jika seseorang ingin menarik kesimpulan politik dari dialog ini, mungkin saja, seperti halnya Liberal Unionis yang mengizinkan nyonya rumah Tory untuk memperluas lingkaran sosial mereka, mereka mungkin juga telah membantu partai Konservatif untuk meningkatkan kumpulan pemilih potensialnya. Dalam pengertian itu, pentingnya Liberal Unionis adalah bahwa, dalam kemitraan dengan Konservatif, mereka memberikan perlawanan terhadap pemerintahan dalam negeri Irlandia sebuah citra sebagai penyebab nasional, di atas kepentingan kelas dan bagian, yang layak untuk dikorbankan dengan loyalitas politik tradisional. Ada banyak hal dalam buku Dr Cawood yang menunjukkan bahwa dia akan setuju dengan ini, dan saya hanya menyarankan bahwa dia akan lebih baik membiarkannya begitu saja daripada mengulur-ulur puding.

Demikian pula, meskipun itu adalah hal yang kurang penting, judul buku itu melebih-lebihkan isinya yang sebenarnya. Pembaca yang tidak bersalah mungkin berasumsi bahwa ini adalah sejarah lengkap partai dari tahun 1895 hingga penggabungan dengan Konservatif pada tahun 1912. Namun 17 tahun terakhir sejarah partai dibahas dalam satu bab yang cukup singkat yang lebih banyak dibaca sebagai catatan tambahan yang diperpanjang. dari bagian tubuh utama buku. Hal ini sebagian dibenarkan oleh meningkatnya konvergensi kedua partai setelah Liberal Unionis memasuki pemerintahan koalisi dengan Konservatif pada tahun 1895. Ada banyak lagi yang bisa dikatakan tentang sisa sejarah partai daripada yang disertakan di sini. Judulnya tentu saja merupakan pilihan penerbit daripada penulisnya – saya perhatikan bahwa tesis Phd Universitas Leicester yang mungkin menjadi dasar buku ini berjudul 'Partai yang Hilang: Liberal Unionisme 1886–95'. Itu akan menjadi judul yang lebih akurat untuk buku ini juga.

Ada beberapa kesalahan yang seharusnya diperbaiki. Ini mungkin kesalahan yang disayangkan bahwa kalimat pertama dari bab satu mengacu pada karya Gerald padahal seharusnya adalah Gordon Goodman, tetapi kesalahan lain terlihat seperti kecerobohan. Misalnya, Program Newcastle dari Partai Liberal disetujui pada tahun 1891, jadi penolakan Liberal Unionis terhadap sosialisme pada Januari 1890 secara definisi bukan merupakan tanggapan terhadapnya (hal. 67). Sejarawan Irlandia dan anggota parlemen Liberal Unionis W. E. H. Lecky adalah seorang Protestan sehingga kepatuhannya pada partai bukanlah tanda bahwa partai itu menarik dukungan dari para intelektual Katolik Roma (hal. 44). Dan Gladstone tidak pensiun dari jabatan perdana menteri sampai tahun 1894, jadi RUU Kewajiban Pengusaha tahun 1893 bukanlah tanda Rosebery yang menunjukkan arah baru bagi partai Liberal (hal. 98). (Bagaimanapun, RUU itu lebih terkait dengan Asquith, sekretaris dalam negeri).

Terlepas dari pertengkaran ini, dan ketidaksetujuan saya dengan unsur-unsur kesimpulan penulis, akan sangat tidak sopan untuk mengakhiri ulasan ini dengan catatan negatif. Ini adalah buku penting yang memberikan kontribusi signifikan bagi pemahaman kita tentang politik partai Inggris akhir abad ke-19. Ini ditulis dengan gaya yang jelas dan mudah diakses yang membuatnya menjadi bacaan yang menyenangkan. Ini berhasil terlibat dengan historiografi yang ada sambil memperluas pemahaman kita tentang subjek sejarah yang diabaikan. Penulis dan penerbit khususnya harus dipuji atas ilustrasinya, termasuk contoh selebaran dan poster Liberal Unionist yang memberikan kesan kuat tentang bagaimana partai benar-benar terlibat dengan pemilih. Selain menjadi karya yang berharga dalam dirinya sendiri, buku Dr Cawood, diharapkan, akan menghidupkan kembali minat di antara para peneliti sejarah dalam studi tentang partai Liberal Unionist.


PEMILIHAN UMUM DAN PERUBAHAN POLITIK 1895 DI AKHIR VICTORIAN INGGRIS

Sejak tahun 1960-an, politik periode 1860 hingga 1906 mendapat banyak perhatian, terutama oleh sejarawan dari Partai Konservatif. Secara keseluruhan, telah dikatakan bahwa keberhasilan pemilihan Konservatif selama periode ini adalah pencapaian 'negatif'. Melalui pemeriksaan pemilihan tahun 1895 artikel ini mempertanyakan argumen ini. Ini menunjukkan bahwa sifat daya tarik Unionis dan faktor-faktor di balik kinerja mereka dalam pemilihan umum pada periode ini telah terlalu disederhanakan sejak karya kuantitatif perintis James Cornford. Analisis isi dari alamat pemilihan kandidat Liberal dan Unionis disajikan untuk memahami isu-isu kampanye, rincian lengkapnya dapat ditemukan di lampiran artikel ini. Pesan Liberal terbukti lebih koheren, dan pesan Unionis lebih positif, daripada yang biasanya diasumsikan. Metodologi Cornford juga ditantang, dan pendekatan alternatif (dan lebih sederhana) disarankan. Dikatakan bahwa pada tahun 1895 secara umum tidak ada korelasi terbalik antara suara Konservatif dan jumlah pemilih, atau antara suara Konservatif dan perubahan daftar pemilih. Dan meskipun organisasi partai sangat penting bagi keberhasilan Unionis, tampaknya hanya ada sedikit bukti dari rencana menyeluruh untuk menekan jumlah pemilih dan jumlah pemilih yang terdaftar.


BIBLIOGRAFI

Luis Robalino Davila, Orígenes del Ekuador de hoy, jilid. 7 (1969).

Linda Alexander Rodríguez, Pencarian Kebijakan Publik: Keuangan Pemerintah di Ekuador, 1830–1940 (1985), khususnya. hlm. 44-52, 88-92.

Frank MacDonald Spindler, Ekuador abad kesembilan belas (1987), khususnya hal. 147-169.

Bibliografi Tambahan

Ayala Mora, Enrique. Historia de la revolución liberal ecuatoriana. Keluar: Corporación Editora Nacional, 2002.

Cardenas Reyes, Maria Cristina. José Peralta y la trayectoría del liberalismo ecuatoriano. Quito: Ediciones Banco Central del Ekuador, 2002.

Iglesias Mata, Dumar. Eloy Alfaro, Condor de América. Manabí, Ekuador: Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, 2003.

Nez, Jorge. La revolución alfarista de 1895. Quito: Centro para el Desarrollo Social, 1995.

Linda Alexander RodrÍguez

Kutip artikel ini
Pilih gaya di bawah ini, dan salin teks untuk bibliografi Anda.

"Revolusi 1895." Ensiklopedia Sejarah dan Budaya Amerika Latin. . Ensiklopedia.com. 17 Juni 2021 < https://www.encyclopedia.com > .

"Revolusi 1895." Ensiklopedia Sejarah dan Budaya Amerika Latin. . Diakses pada 17 Juni 2021 dari Encyclopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/revolution-1895

Gaya kutipan

Encyclopedia.com memberi Anda kemampuan untuk mengutip entri referensi dan artikel menurut gaya umum dari Modern Language Association (MLA), The Chicago Manual of Style, dan American Psychological Association (APA).

Dalam alat "Kutip artikel ini", pilih gaya untuk melihat bagaimana semua informasi yang tersedia terlihat saat diformat menurut gaya itu. Kemudian, salin dan tempel teks tersebut ke dalam daftar pustaka atau daftar karya yang dikutip.


Kematian Justin McCarthy, Novelis & Politisi

Justin McCarthy, nasionalis Irlandia dan sejarawan Liberal, novelis dan politisi, meninggal pada 24 April 1912. Dia adalah Anggota Parlemen (MP) dari tahun 1879 hingga 1900, mengambil kursinya di House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain dan Irlandia.

McCarthy lahir di Cork, County Cork pada 22 November 1830, dan dididik di sana. Dia memulai karirnya sebagai jurnalis pada usia 18 tahun di Cork. Dari tahun 1853 hingga 1859 ia berada di Liverpool, sebagai staf Waktu Harian Utara. Pada Maret 1855, ia menikahi Charlotte Ailman. Pada tahun 1860 ia pindah ke London, sebagai reporter parlemen untuk Bintang fajar, di mana ia menjadi editor pada tahun 1864. Ia berhenti dari jabatannya pada tahun 1868 dan, setelah tur mengajar di Amerika Serikat, bergabung dengan staf Berita harian sebagai pemimpin-penulis pada tahun 1870. Dalam kapasitas ini ia menjadi salah satu penegak politik liberal yang paling berguna dan dihormati saat itu. Dia memberi kuliah lagi di Amerika pada tahun 1870–1871 dan pada tahun 1886–87.

McCarthy pertama kali terpilih menjadi anggota Parlemen pada pemilihan sela pada tanggal 4 April 1879, ketika ia kembali tanpa perlawanan sebagai Anggota Parlemen Liga Aturan Rumah untuk County Longford. Dia terpilih kembali tanpa lawan sebagai Parnellite Home Ruler pada tahun 1880, dan ketika konstituensi dua kursi Longford dipecah menjadi dua divisi di bawah Redistribusi Kursi Act 1885, dia terpilih sebagai anggota Partai Parlemen Irlandia untuk kursi tunggal yang baru. Divisi utara Longford. Lawannya satu-satunya, seorang Konservatif, hanya memenangkan 6% suara.

Pada pemilihan umum 1886, ia kembali tanpa lawan di Longford Utara, tetapi juga berdiri di Londonderry City, di mana ia dinyatakan kalah dari kandidat Aliansi Unionis Irlandia dengan selisih tipis 1778 suara berbanding 1781. Namun, hasilnya kemudian dibatalkan pada petisi dan McCarthy memilih untuk duduk di Derry City. Selama kontroversi perceraian seputar Charles Stewart Parnell pada November 1890, Perdana Menteri Inggris William Ewart Gladstone mengungkapkan peringatan, yang diberikan kepada McCarthy sebagai perantara, bahwa jika Parnell mempertahankan kepemimpinan Partai Parlemen Irlandia, itu berarti kekalahan pemilihan berikutnya, akhir aliansi mereka dan Aturan Rumah. Ketika rapat pemilihan pimpinan partai tahunan diadakan akhir bulan itu, ancaman itu entah bagaimana tidak disampaikan kepada para anggota, yang memilih kembali pemimpin Partai Parnell.

Setelah pertemuan bersejarah lebih lanjut dari anggota parlemen Partai Irlandia pada awal Desember, Parnell menolak untuk pensiun dan Partai terpecah. McCarthy menjadi ketua kelompok Anti-Parnlite, Federasi Nasional Irlandia, selama satu tahun pada tahun 1891-1892. Nasionalismenya adalah jenis yang sedang dan teratur, dan meskipun perbedaan pribadinya membuatnya menjadi ketua selama pertikaian partai pada periode ini, dia sama sekali tidak aktif sebagai pemimpin politik.

Pada pemilihan umum tahun 1892, McCarthy kembali berdiri di Longford Utara dan di Kota Derry. Di setiap kursi ada kontes dua arah antara McCarthy Anti-Parnlite dan kandidat Unionis, tetapi kemenangan tipis Unionis di Derry tidak dibatalkan, dan McCarthy duduk untuk North Longford, di mana ia memenangkan lebih dari 93% suara. Dia dikembalikan tanpa lawan untuk North Longford pada pemilihan umum tahun 1895, dan mundur dari Parlemen pada pemilihan umum tahun 1900.

Dikatakan bahwa panggilan sejati McCarthy adalah sastra. Publikasinya yang paling awal adalah novel, beberapa di antaranya, seperti Saxon yang Adil (1873), Dear Lady Penghinaan (1875), Nona Misanthrope (1878), dan Donna Quixote (1879), mencapai popularitas yang cukup besar. Karyanya yang paling penting adalah Sejarah Zaman Kita Sendiri, yang membahas periode antara aksesi Ratu Victoria dan Diamond Jubilee-nya. Dia memulai Sejarah Four Georges (1884–1901) dan paruh kedua ditulis oleh putranya, Justin Huntly McCarthy.

Justin McCarthy meninggal pada usia 81 di Folkestone, Kent, Inggris pada 24 April 1912.


- PEMILIHAN UMUM, 3895.…

PEMILIHAN UMUM, 3895. atau &mdash&mdash&mdash ro TEE ELEKTOR SWANSEA (DIVISI KOTA). GE^Tr.RMBN &mdash Saya menyapa Anda sebagai kandidat yang ingin mewakili Kota Swansea di Parlemen. dan dalam meminta Anda untuk kehormatan suara Anda untuk posisi penting seperti itu, i. ingin mengosongkan pandangan saya pada beberapa pertanyaan yang sekarang menarik perhatian, meninggalkan eter untuk dibahas pada pertemuan saya'?, yang saya undang setiap pemilih. Saya berperilaku di negara yang lebih besar, lebih buruk daripada di Inggris yang lebih kecil. Suatu bangsa tidak bisa diam, ia harus maju atau mundur dalam perlombaan, dan saya menganggap bahwa kemakmuran materi negara ini akan maju dengan mendorong maju dan mempertahankan tradisi yang saya jiobie, yang telah membentuk &diamsjouoirv ini yang terbesar pengaruh peradaban yang pernah dikenal dunia, oleh karena itu, sangat penting bagi saya untuk menerapkan kebijakan luar negeri yang konsisten, dan i. pengembangan judicioa3 & bull & pound harta kita dan perdagangan luar negeri. Tujuan ini tidak dapat dicapai jika kita tidak memiliki Pemerintah yang kuat di dalam negeri, dan saya yakin bahwa Pemerintah Indonesia lebih kuat dalam tujuan dan tindakannya3 daripada Pemerintah seperti yang telah menjabat selama tiga tahun terakhir. Sebagai oae yang kepentingannya terikat erat: cp dengan distrik penting ini dan sebagai anggota badan-badan yang secara langsung terlibat dalam perdagangan, saya tidak bisa acuh tak acuh terhadap perkembangan Swansea, dan saya berani menyarankan bahwa catatan waktu kecil memberikan keyakinan yang meyakinkan. bukti bahwa perbaikan kondisi & banteng ( kelas pekerja telah evei' memiliki simpati saya yang paling dalam. Sebuah tindakan untuk amandemen undang-undang yang berkaitan dengan tanggung jawab majikan untuk saya kecelakaan untuk pekerja mereka harus mendapat dukungan saya J. am mendukung Pendidikan Teknis yang diperluas di kota, dan, Anda terpilih, akan melakukan yang terbaik untuk mendapatkan hibah pemerintah untuk tujuan tersebut. Saya akan memilih RUU yang memperpanjang kekuasaan & tuan tanah banteng tl.) memberikan sewa abadi, alih-alih ef untuk 99 tahun, seperti yang terjadi saat ini ) di bawah Akta Tanah yang Ditetapkan, dengan opsi, jika penyewa menginginkannya, atau membeli j frseuolda mereka sendiri, dengan kata lain, saya mendukung Pemberi Waralaba Sewa. l -hall juga vo'e untuk RUU yang memberikan kekuasaan Negara untuk membantu kelas pekerja dalam pembelian tempat tinggal mereka sendiri. Saya hampir tidak menunjukkan betapa besar keuntungan bagi para pekerja untuk memperoleh pinjaman3 dari Negara Bagian dengan bunga efektif yang jauh lebih rendah daripada yang harus mereka bayar sekarang. I Sementara mendukung matang dan hati-hati refone Gereja. Saya menentang I. tindakan apa pun yang dianggap secara serius merusak kegunaan organisasi keagamaan yang besar ini, dan saya sangat mencela pengalihan ke penggunaan dana sekuler yang sekarang diterapkan untuk tujuan keagamaan apakah dana ini dikelola oleh Gereja atau oleh Koncoaforxtista . Saya siap untuk mendukung seluas dan dermawan ukuran pemerintahan sendiri lor Irlandia a' kita sendiri dapat menikmati dan eniv akan menetapkan bahwa saya tidak cenderung untuk menghancurkan integritas Kekaisaran besar ini. Hidup saya telah dihabiskan di tengah-tengah Anda, dan saya telah berusaha semaksimal mungkin agar dapat berguna bagi tetangga saya. Tidak ada yang saya katakan sekarang akan menambah pengetahuan Anda tentang saya, dan satu-satunya harapan saya adalah bahwa p saya? tgtwerk telah sedemikian rupa sehingga pantas mendapatkan I &bullonfidecuu dan harga diri Anda. t am, Hambamu yang Taat. H T. PILL.W'v-LLEVYELYN. Saya OJ" 1895.

PARLIAMEN KABUPATEN LAUT-J…

DIVISI PARLEMEN KABUPATEN LAUT, LICTORS,&mdash Setelah diminta untuk membela isien ini, yang pada dasarnya adalah Konstituensi Pekerja Industri, dan yang selalu diwakili oleh seorang pebisnis praktis, dan diyakinkan akan kerajaan dan Bupati mayoritas ifears, saya memberanikan diri untuk menawarkan jasa saya. memiliki pengalaman buruk yang besar, tidak hanya dalam urusan bisnis nary sehubungan dengan usaha tambang batu bara, tetapi juga sebagai »r dari berbagai otoritas publik lokal. khususnya sebagai anggota Dewan Kabupaten &bullganshire sejak didirikan. j oleh karena itu, mengenal baik tidak hanya Divisi ini, tetapi, juga, 3 seluruh Kabupaten&mdashapertanian serta istriai. Saya terutama tertarik pada penjelajahan Perdagangan dan Industri, dengan pengaturan ulang Perjanjian dengan negara lain yang salah, dan dengan pengembangan yang lebih lengkap dari Sumber Daya Rumah o'«n dan sumber daya kami, akan melakukan semua dalam kekuasaan saya untuk menemukan solusi, masalah "pengangguran", dan akan memeriksa RUU Kewajiban Pengusaha, Delapan rs Bit!. Dewan Konsiliasi Bunuh, yang saya tutup menyelamatkan Negara dari kejahatan en, ion dan pekerja, anak-anak istri mereka. 1 menganjurkan sebuah sistem ) me Aturan di mana-mana yang akan dalam hal ini kekuasaan untuk menangani secara lokal dengan minuman keras Yaitu, dan memungkinkan kita di Wales untuk melestarikan persediaan air terutama untuk penggunaan Kerajaan. Untuk memanfaatkan sumber daya sebaik-baiknya dengan mempromosikan perkeretaapian ringan dan r. Untuk menciptakan ladang pertanian kecil dengan keamanan kepemilikan untuk taroucr dan dengan demikian menghentikan perpindahan buruh tani ke distrik tambang batu bara dan pelat timah yang sudah padat, menetapkan minium emas Welsh yang, di lain waktu menyatakan pendapat mendiang Chan. nf the Exchequer, telah menjadi kepentingan onsiderabSe. Penghijauan Lahan Limbah saat ini, yang luasnya mencapai 5 hektar. akan secara aktif mendukung legislasi di U&bull Kesetaraan Beragama dan Penerapan Persepuluhan untuk Tujuan Nasional, Lisi House of Lords, One Man Vote, dan Reform of the Poor-law, untuk memberikan ketentuan yang terhormat bagi orang tua kita. dan .Sangat miskin. saya, Tuan-tuan, hamba Anda yang patuh, R HALL MEDLEY. .Jy 6, 1835.

PEMILIHAN ULANG, 1365.

PEMILIHAN ULANG, 1365. DIVISI PARLEMEN KABUPATEN vVANSEA, yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, diangkat sebagai Pemilihan. by Mr. Ernest Hall Hedley, of ?chim, Pontardawe, a Candidate at the e Election, Hereby Give Notice that in of the provisions of tho Act 46 and 47, 51, the said Candidate will not Lc erable er account !.i»e for any payment service rendered, geods supplied, or nscs ioc.trred by any person asting or ain.i to act on his behalf unless such !ered, goods supplied, or expenses v perse-7i acting or claiming to ollf have been previously ting under my hands or ia appointed sub-agent acting of hi* authority. ..tlWIii COiiDFN THOMAS. las-chambers, Ne 3329

GENERAL ELECTION. 1895.

GENERAL ELECTION. 1895. TO THE ELECTORS OF THE UNITED BOROUGHS OF CARMARTHEN AND LLANELLY. GEXTLIMEST,&mdash In response to an urgent request from Car- marthen and I.laneliv, I have decided toa»ain contest this Constituency, and now beg to Oiler myself for election as your member. My opinions with respect to Disestablish- ment and Disendowment, and all other political questions now in issue are the same as when I had the honour or' representing I, you before in Parliament. I The only difference ot epiniou which arose between some of my supporters and myself in 1886 was with regard to the Government of Ireland, I am still in favour of the fullest extension of local government to England, I Ireland, Scotland and Waies, but I object to the setting up of rival parliaments to that at Westminster. Specially interested as I am in the staple industry of the constituency&mdashthe manufac- ture of tli1-pla.tes--I am anxious to see the trade consolidated, not by interference with the wage-standard of 1874, but by regulating the supply according to the law of demand. The crying evil in the trade at present seems te me to be over-production. If employer and employed would only combine, through a Board of Control, or some equivalent method, jjreat good. I feel assured, would result. In the interests of trade, it is of the utmost importance that wo should have a Govern- ment, such as the present, whose ioreign and colonial policy will be to maintain the present markets for British goods, and to open fresh markets, so as to provide regular employment for our manufacturing population. It is scarcely necessary for nm to say that my sympathy is with the reasonable demands ef Labour. My actions in the past have proved that I am in favoar of a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. I refer with satisfaction to the Act for the Preferential Payment of Wages, which I was instrumental in passing through Parliament. I shall cive hearty support to any wisely- considered scheme of Old Age Pensions. but so as not to interfere with the splendid work now being carried on by the Friendly Societies throughout the country. I am in favour of the Taxation of Royalties and Ground Rents. I am also 1n favour of Leasehold Enfranchise- ment When last in Parliament, I introduced a Bill with that object. If I am elected, mv best services will be at your disposal, and I trust that my know- ledge of the district, and my experience of the Tinpiate Trade and of Harbour matters generally, will enable me to fully represent your interests. I am, Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, JOHN JONES JENKINS. Llaneliy, 10th July, 1895.

GENERAL ELECTION. 1895.

GENERAL ELECTION. 1895. TO THE ELECTORS OF THE MID- DIVISION OF THE COUNTY OF GLAMORGAN. GSNTLBMEN,&mdash Having been uaaniaaoudv invited by the Unionist Party in this Division to stand the Unionist Party in this Division to stand I as a Candidate at the approaching Pariir. I mentary Election, and being a resident in tie district and deeply interested in its welfare I place myself at your disposal. ¡ I am opposed to the Disestablishment and I Disendowment of the Church, I will vote for the equitable distribution of public money to all PubUf School?, vnether denominational or unde- nor^mational. I upheld the House of Lords as being the only means of checking hasty and ill-con- sidered legislation, and ef securing an appeal I to the judgment of the people. I believe in a firm Foreign Policy, which alone secures the safety of our commerce abroad, and enables us to take advantage of fresh outlets for our manufactures. I am in favour of strengthening our rela- tions with the Colonies, believing the Imperial Unity is our true source of strength. The Armv and Navy must be maintained in a high state of efficiency as an assurance for the security of our supplies of food and raw materials, I am strongly opposed to any scheme ef Home Hule which would terd to separate Ireland from England, or be likely to place tbe House ei Commons under the domination of any Irish faction. I am deeply sensible of the depression in trade and agriculture which has been so acute during the last few years, and am c-on- -> 1 vinced that it calls for immediate attention. I consider that good can be done by the restriction of the influx of destitute aliens so as to find increased employment fer our own pcor. I beiieve in temperance, but should offer opposition to any attempt to interfere with the liberties of the people&mdashor to deprive an honest innkeeper of his trade without com- pensation. I I would support an Employers' Liability Bill, granting compensation to Working Men ) for accidents in the ceurss of their employ- ment, but I would give them at the same time the libert y of choice to make better terms with j their Employers if they wish by private arrangement, thus avoiding the expense and delay attendant upon legal proceedings. I I am in favour of a reform by which the period of quahficatien would be reduced, and the voting power more equitably distributed I than it is at present. I consider the time is ripe for the intredac- tion of some Reform in the Poor Laws, dis- unguiahFng between tho honest and indus- trious, so that those who through old age or accident are unable any longer to make a living, should be provided with Pensions. 1 hope to see a continuation of the policy of I the last Conservative Government by still further reducing, if not altogether abolishing the Duties on the necessaries of the Working Classes. Should you elect me as your representative I will serve you to the best of my abilities, I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your obedient Servant, JOHN EDWARDS-VAUGUAN. JOHN EDWARDS-VAUGUAN. I Rheola, Neath, 8th July, 1895.

GENERAL ELECTION, 1395,

gENERAL ELECTION, 1395, X TO THE ELECTORS OF THE GOWER DIVISION. GENTLEMEN,&mdash 1 again, by invitation of an over- whelming majority, consent to place myself in nomination as a Candidate for your suffrages at the ensuing Parliamentary Election. My public career in and out of Parliament j on behalf of the cause of Labour, and of National and Liberal Politics is well-known to you and as I shall have frequent oppor- tunity of stating to you in detail my views en the social, industrial, and political issues of the (.ay, I feel sure that you will deem it needless on niv part to extend this customary and formal address. I wish to expressly add that as the repre- sentative of a pre-eminently working-class constituency such F.S yours, 1 shall always- if honoured by election for the third time&mdash regard the claims of Labour as paramount to I all Party or personal considerations I am, Your obedient Servant, DAVID RANDELL. Central Committee Rooms, I 19, Alexandra-road, Swansea, July 10th, 1895,

THE POST BAG.

THE POST BAG. A speaker, at a meeting on Thursday night, made a good speech by readiag quotatio D6 from the Daily Post, A speaker, at a Liberal meeting last night, compares St. Mary's Church to a barn-which is a place where they stere grain. The competition for the Llandilo-Talyboat collectorship was so close that the chairman of tbe Guardians had to give It. casting vote for the fortunate one appointed, Mr. Warmington, Q.C., described Afr. David Randell last night as my conscience keeper on industrial questions." An arduous task, we should say, to keep a lawyer s con- science, A reverend gentlenan en the Board of Guardians suggest that Patsy Perkins should be engaged tj knock some of the gas out of the Rev. John Davies. During the discussion at the Guardians on the proposal that canvassing should be a dis. qualilication. Miss Brock said one candidate for an appointment waited on her, but all he could say was that he had called to make her acquaintance." A little dog whose brief and troublous history appeared in this column a few weeks ago has at last found its home in a bake- house. It is not certaiu whether the animal will again emerge into the outer world tied to a chain or tied up in portable packets of tasty morsels. A guardian said their forefathers used to be content with a simple wooden leg when necessary, but now people had advanced with the times and wanted an "artificial limb" when necessary to assit locomotion. So much fer the spread of education. The Rev. John Davies has perpetrated another bull. At the guardians' meeting yesterday he said, speaking of his fellow members, "To enjoy themselves at the Mumbles they go, but to come here and do the work they stay at home." (With compliments to the Nonconformist ministers of Swansea.) Bydd Xoncon. Jacks y Sabbath nesai Dros eu ven mewn politiciaeth, Penan c,ynta.f, ai1, ac ulaf Fyddpechodau Egiwysyddiaeth t'e fvdd Cew-ri pwipud Cymru JVlcvvn hwyl sanctaidd yn eanvassio Hardd olvgta-Jacks mewn gweddi Ar Miss Ladas a Sir Yisto. A writer in this month's Wales complains of the gross ignorance of Welsh place-names shown by Post Office officials in Wales. "La Belgium," he says, "it does not matter whether you write Antwerpen or Anvers, in Switzerland it does not matter whether you write Geneve or Genf or Ginevra, but in Wales, if you write Abertawe for Swansea you will probably get your letter back undelivered." The other night someone tried to "do" a well-known member of the Salisbury Club, who had undertaken the distribution of election leaflets. The Salisbury man offered a smart Radical a leaflet. The latter accepted it and tore it up immediately. Oh! said the isiperturbable distributor, "I shall just tell the school board man about you! What for ? was the astonished question of the other. Because you evidently cannot read! At the beginning of this century, Swansea* Cardiff. Neath, Llantrisant, Kenfig, Loughorj and Cowbridge were represent. ment by one member. The eandi. > U* general election in 1818 were Mr. D -n Lord P. J, H. C. Stuart, of Cardiff C latter while driving in the streets of Cardifi had his head cut bv a stone thrown at him. They ware not very complimentary in those days as the Dillwynites were known by the I term of Woodlice and were so called after one of the local leaders of the party. An election story which is always told at these times runs thus :&mdashAn elector who was I very fond of sheeps' heads sent his servant to a butcher to purchase one. Here is a very nice one," said the butcher, u A regular I Tory." M Ob, that will never do. You know my master is a Liberal." Of course he is," replied the knight of the cleaver, but I will soon settle that." And the butcher took the chopper, split the head open, and took out the brains. "Now," he said, "r think that will suit him." This yarn can be reversed to suit the occasion and the reader. On a recent Sunday a well-known farmer on the hill-top, Mount Pleasaat, Swansea I' was on his land when he saw four persons approaching. II Hi hi," he shouted, "you re trespassing here get off my land." "Ob, we were quite unaware ef that," replied one of the four gentleman. "Here, my good I man, 'it's all right here is a shilling for you." What," cried the enraged farmer, "you Rive me a shilling. "I'll give you the lend of £500 if you want it." And with that he bundled the four off his farm. Rumour I has it that two of the gentlemen in question were the assize judges. While Blondin was playing the mandolin in mid-air yesterday at the Hospital fete, some- one remarked that were he to serenade his beloved he would not need to do so froln the ground floor, but could Sing her songs of Araby" while balancing himself upon her mothers clothes line. The advantages of this method are obvicrU, but not always reliable. If adopted it n,)" bt lead to seme- thing like the following &mdash Scene I.&mdash"Our back yard last night" in Plasmarl, Cats on the roof engaged in friendlv overtures. Clothes line sus- pended on level with bedraom window. Moonlight over all. Enter Obadiah Jonca nimbly with concertina slung orerhis sbolder climbs post and crosses quietlv on clothes line to beneatn window. Sines "Dedouin Love Song," aad accom- panies himself on concertina, Exeunt cats in haste. O. J. (singing)&mdashPeeps into window, From the desert I tome t.() thee Door opens quietly below and bull-dog rushos out furiously.) O. J.&mdash(still singir.sr.) Under thy window ) stand And t.llto midnight ht'¡ulll'1Y- I)og.&mdashBow, bow, (tries to reach O.J. but fails.) O. J. takes high note. Exit deg in terror. Enter old man with stick. I love thee &mdash O.M.&mdashCome down from by there, will you or it's- &mdash O. J.&mdash" I love but thee wi'.h &mdash&mdash&mdash O. M.&mdashA couple of flips in the eyes you'll have. (Makes frantic efforts to reach O. J. with stick.) 0, thy window 100k and see O. M. (furiously).&mdashThis stick will be at your head in a minute. (Jumps at O. J.) O. J. .My passion aud O.M.&mdash My jingo (excitedlv) Til give you rhubarb. (Looks for a lcn«3i- stick.) U. J. unconcerned and swings ^irntily on ciothes- tue. O. 11, again fails to reach him. Clock, chimes two. Bedroom window opens and white form emerges. O. J. clasps it rap- turously. They struggle. White form.&mdashOo Oo You lien black- guard Can't you leave my daughter atone Policeman O. J. losos his balance and falls. O. Irf, rushes on him. Enter bulldog. Cats reappear above. Excursions, alarms. Curtain. SciiXE II.&mdashThe same. House in darkness. Bedroom window closed and blind drawn (Quietness restored. Clock chimes 2.30' tuter P.C. l Curtains 4.

OWANSEA DISTRICT PARLIAMEN-!…

OWANSEA DISTRICT PARLIAMEN-! 0 TAR Y" DIVISION. TO THE ELECTORS OF THE ABOVE ■DISTRICT. GSKTLSUEX.&mdash I tiy the Dissolution of Parliament to- day, I cease being the representative of this important constituency in the House of Commons, to which position I wa.s elected by your support and confidence, upon the eiova- to the peerage of the iate lamented Lord Swansea and th^ prospective farewell I addressed to you last ouiy explaining my reasons for retiring, now assume a practical term During the two years 1 have bad the honour of sitting in the House of Commons as your representative, I honestly and conscientiously have endeavoured to fulfil each and every pledge I *»ade you prior to my election, and I' 1 trust that my conduct in thus supporting all Liberal and industrial Measures brought before Parliament has met with your I approval. In now bidding you farewell, permit ma to i tender yon my grateful tbanka lor the mILD)

[No title]

acts of kindness you have shown towards me, and I beg to assure you that the severance of our tics as ConstItuents and Parliamentary Representative shall in no way affect the deep interest I have always taken in the welfare and prosperity of the Swansea District, and the rendering of such assistance as lies in my power iu the furtherance of the work of social and political progress. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Your ebedient Servant. WM. WILLIAMS. Maesvgwernen Hall, Morristoa, July 8th, 1895, [3318 I


The 1885 and 1886 general elections in Ireland

The general elections of 1885–6 can be regarded fairly as a milestone in modern Irish political history. In part their importance lies in the fact that they were fought under a new, much-widened franchise and that they witnessed the appearance of modern types of party organisation. In greater part, however, their significance arises because the forces of nationalism and unionism dominated the political scene for the first time in an unequivocal manner: at the same time strong links were established between political and religious divisions.
Conflict over nationalism was not new to elections in Ireland, but in the past there had been a wide range of political opinion and swings in popular support often occurred. In the 1850s and 1860s the political scene had been dominated by the Liberal and Conservative parties that accepted the United Kingdom framework. A majority of Irish MPs elected in 1874 supported home rule, but most Home Rulers elected in 1880 were more concerned with the land question than with home rule. Religious cleavages, of course, had impacted on earlier elections, but in the past the influence of religious division on politics was rarely clear-cut, with Conservatives, Liberals and Home Rulers all enjoying some cross-denominational support on particular occasions.

Prior to 1885, elections in Ireland had been restricted to those occupiers of property valued at £12 and over in the counties or at £4 and over in the parliamentary boroughs. The Franchise Act of 1884, however, extended the vote to all adult male householders who had paid their rates and were registered. Women continued to be disfranchised but at least most households in the country now had the vote. This resulted in a massive, over threefold, increase in the number of Irish electors, from 225,999 in 1884 to 737,965 in 1885. Rules were also introduced to limit the amount of money that a candidate or party could spend in the election campaign, which meant that in future constituency organisations would have to be run largely on a voluntary basis.
Such changes presented all the parties with the problem of dealing with an electorate that had not only grown in size but had widened its social character from a mainly well-off farmer base to include small farmers and labourers. In addition, throughout the country there was a heightened sense of political consciousness, aroused originally over the land question. Agrarian protest had undermined the landlords, who had traditionally played a key role in Irish politics. After the 1881 Tyrone by-election one observer commented: ‘The fact is the Protestants as well as the Roman Catholics do not want an Orangeman or even a Fenian if he is a gentleman or a landlord’. By 1885, thanks to several land acts, landlord–tenant relations were no longer a pressing issue, which meant that other divisions, such as between farmers and labourers, and between Protestant and Catholic, assumed new importance for the parties, as did interest groups and internal conflicts. The parties responded in different ways to these new challenges.

The Home Rule Party

The Reform Club, Royal Avenue, Belfast, headquarters of the Ulster Liberals. (Industries of the North, 1891)

After the 1880 general election Charles Stewart Parnell had taken over the leadership of the Home Rule Party, but it remained a loosely organised body with ad hoc organisational structures in the constituencies and little discipline among members in parliament. In early 1885 it was reckoned that Parnell could count on the whole-hearted support of only some 20–30 MPs of his Home Rule group, and he had to deal with both radical nationalist elements and agrarian activists, in particular Michael Davitt. Parnell, however, was also head of the National League, which had been set up to harness agrarian and nationalist protest after the suppression of the Land League. During 1885 the home rule movement underwent fundamental change and growth under Parnell and the National League.
In common parlance the term ‘Home Ruler’ gave way to ‘Nationalist’. The National League provided an effective organisation through its local branches, which expanded rapidly in 1885 and were based in every Irish county. Timothy Harrington was the main individual responsible for organising these National League branches. County conventions selected parliamentary candidates, under the supervision of representatives from the organising committee of the league, which was controlled by Parnell. A pledge was introduced to bind the MPs together into a tightly disciplined party.
Thus, as Conor Cruise O’Brien has remarked, the home rule movement was transformed into a ‘well-knit political party of a modern type—effectively monopolising the political expression of national sentiment’. The National League embraced farmers and labourers and so helped to mitigate the effects of social division. Effective steps were taken to marginalise Davitt and any others who challenged the party leadership. For example, a number of National League branches loyal to Davitt were closed down, and a strong effort was made to prevent any of his supporters gaining a nomination.
Vital for this socially cohesive, countrywide organisation was the forging of a ‘very effective, if informal, clerical nationalist alliance’, as Emmet Larkin has called it. Acceptance of Catholic claims in educational matters in mid-1885 won the party leadership the public approval of the Catholic hierarchy, which had hitherto been suspicious of Parnell and his plans. Catholic clergy were now given the right to attend Nationalist conventions to select parliamentary candidates. It has been estimated that these conventions for all 32 Irish counties had an approximate average of 150 laymen and 50 priests. The clergy played a prominent part not only at these conventions but also in organising National League branches.
In the months preceding the election, candidates were selected for every constituency, except those Ulster divisions with a Protestant majority. The one exception was Mid-Armagh, where a Nationalist was put forward at the last minute to undermine the chances of a Liberal standing, as part of a private agreement with the local Conservative organiser not to run a candidate in South Armagh, where the Nationalist leadership feared a split nationalist vote. In the end, however, so successful was the party in capturing the nationalist electorate that only in two Irish divisions did an independent nationalist stand at the general election. In early October 1885 Parnell declared that the party platform would consist of a single plank, ‘the plank of legislative independence’.

Southern loyalists

In response to this nationalist reorganisation, the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union (ILPU) was formed in Dublin in May 1885 by a number of southern businessmen, landowners and academics. It sought to unite Liberals and Conservatives in the three southern provinces on a common platform of maintenance of the union. The ILPU also published pamphlets and leaflets that were distributed widely. The organisation was successful in preventing rivalry between Liberals and Conservatives, and in a number of cases candidates came forward in the general election simply as ‘loyalists’. A total of 54 of the southern seats were contested by anti-home rule candidates.

Ulster Liberals

In Ulster, however, appeals for unity between supporters of the union went unheeded, and the general election of 1885 involved not only contests between Nationalists and supporters of the union but also rivalry between Liberals and Conservatives. On the eve of the elections the Ulster Liberals, whose support lay chiefly with the tenant farmers and included mainly Presbyterians and Catholics, held nine seats. With an impressive headquarters at the recently built Reform Club in Belfast, they sought to develop new local divisional associations. This reorganisation had only limited success, particularly in relation to the new labouring voters, thanks in part to the identification of the Liberals with the farmers’ cause. Liberal candidates declared their support for the union and also called for further land reform.

Ulster Conservatives

Col. E.J. Saunderson—one of the leading figures in forging a single pro-union Irish party in early 1886. (Vanity Fair)

Before the 1885 general election the Conservatives held seventeen seats in Ulster. While they were widely regarded as the former landlord party, they had developed a number of county and borough Conservative associations, although these bodies had a limited popular appeal. During 1885, however, under the energetic efforts of E.S. Finnigan, a full-time party organiser based in Belfast, the Conservatives extensively reorganised. Finnigan helped to set up many divisional associations with strong local participation, especially in the key areas of Belfast and counties Down and Antrim. Conventions of these associations then chose candidates for the general election. In their speeches and addresses the Conservatives emphasised their support for the union.
A vital aspect of this reorganisation was the involvement of the Orange Order, which experienced growth in this period. Local lodges were given special positions in many of the new organisations. For example, speaking in Ballynahinch, Co. Down, on 7 May 1885, Finnigan described proposals to set up a broadly based local association: ‘the Orange association would have a well-defined position. The district master and district officers . . . would be appointed upon . . . each committee’. At this stage the Order was a minority movement among Protestants, but it embraced many of the recently enfranchised labourers and was therefore an important means of integrating industrial and agricultural workers into the Conservative Party.
Such arrangements went smoothly in counties Antrim and Down but ran into trouble in Belfast and counties Armagh and Londonderry, where Orange labourers felt that they were being given no influence in the new Conservative machine: in the latter areas they rebelled against local Conservative organisers and either forced them to accept candidates agreeable to them or, as in the case of two of the four Belfast seats, ran independent candidates of their own. In North Armagh the divisional Conservative association was forced to replace its preferred candidate of the attorney-general, John Monroe, with the local Orangemen’s choice of Col. E.J. Saunderson.

Wheeler-dealing and cross-voting

Because the Nationalists only put forward candidates in Ulster constituencies with a Catholic majority, this left an uncommitted nationalist vote which now became very important in the struggle between Liberals and Conservatives. In late October 1885 Mrs Katherine O’Shea wrote confidentially to the Liberal whip at Westminster, Lord Richard Grosvenor, conveying a promise from Parnell that he would secure the Catholic vote in three Ulster divisions for the Liberals if they adopted her husband, Capt. W.H. O’Shea, as a Liberal candidate in Mid-Armagh. O’Shea visited the constituency but locals refused to accept him (subsequently, in early 1886, Parnell persuaded the Nationalists of Galway to take O’Shea as their candidate in a by-election).
In the final run-up to the elections private deals were made between local Conservative and Nationalist organisers in several divisions in counties Armagh and Down to prevent any splits in their own ranks and to undermine the Liberals. On the eve of the general election Parnell made a public statement that declared that if Liberals voted for Nationalists in several key Ulster seats, such as Derry city, then Nationalists should back Liberals in certain divisions: if the Liberals failed to do so then Nationalists should vote against them.
Contested elections were held on different days over a period of two weeks starting on 26 November 1885. When it soon became clear that Liberals had not supported Nationalists in the specified seats, a number of Nationalist spokesmen, including John Dillon, announced that the Catholic vote in remaining constituencies with no Nationalist candidates should be given to the Conservatives.

1885 general election outcome

The outcome of the general election was a startling one compared to the results of 1880, when 63 Home Rulers, 25 Conservatives and fifteen Liberals were returned. The Nationalist Party won 85 seats throughout Ireland, plus a seat in Liverpool. In Ulster the party held seventeen of the 33 constituencies. Apart from two Dublin University seats held by Conservatives, pro-union candidates won no seats outside Ulster. In Ulster the Conservative Party took sixteen seats while the Liberals failed to win any, which left the former as the principle spokesmen for unionism. (These Conservative figures include two successful independent candidates in Belfast who were subsequently adopted by official Conservative associations.)
This outcome revealed a high degree of religious polarisation in politics. Protestant Nationalists such as Parnell, or Catholic pro-union supporters such as Daniel O’Connell, grandson of the Liberator and a loyalist candidate in South Kerry, were exceptions. Out of 85 Nationalists, 80 were Catholic. Apart from three Presbyterians and one

Print of Charles Stewart Parnell (standing) and his MPs in April 1886. (T.P. O’Connor, Memoirs of an Old Parliamentarian, vol. I, 1929)

Methodist, the rest of the eighteen Conservatives were members of the Church of Ireland most of the unsuccessful Liberal candidates in Ulster had been Presbyterians. Contrary to earlier trends against landlords, eight of those Conservatives came from a landed background and owed their election in part to the new labourers’ vote, which went to them rather than to the pro-farmer Liberals.
An analysis of the voting also reveals that the electorate had divided sharply along denominational lines throughout the country. It is clear that most Catholics who voted backed the Nationalist Party, except in some northern constituencies where there were no Nationalist candidates and where Catholics voted Conservative for tactical reasons. In perhaps as many as six divisions in Ulster last-minute Catholic support for the Conservative against the Liberal proved significant. Some Catholics continued to support the Liberal cause in north-east Ulster. In a few southern constituencies small numbers of Catholics may have voted for pro-union candidates.
It is also evident that nearly all Protestants who voted supported pro-union candidates. Although Protestants were around ten per cent of the population outside Ulster, they were too widely dispersed to win any seats. In South Londonderry alone is there evidence of a significant number of Protestants voting for a Nationalist candidate. This was partly because of the reputation of the Nationalist candidate, T.M. Healy, on the land question and partly because of efforts to give the National League organisation in the county a non-sectarian image. Within nine months a second general would be called which would serve to copper-fasten the outcome of the 1885 general election.

Events 1885–6

The Irish Nationalist parliamentary party was now in a very strong position at Westminster. All 86 members were pledge-bound to support the party under the leadership of Parnell. Nationalists held the balance of seats between the two major parties in the House of Commons. The Ulster Conservatives lacked such central control, but early in 1886 they decided to form a broad-based group, including supporters from other constituencies, to work together as a pro-union Irish party: the two leading figures were William Johnston and Col. E.J. Saunderson.
Early in 1886 Gladstone announced his support for home rule, and in April the first home rule bill was introduced but defeated, which resulted in another general election in mid-1886. Gladstone’s action caused a split among the Liberals. In Ulster the vast majority of Liberals became ‘Liberal Unionists’ and joined with the Conservatives, now usually known as ‘Unionists’, in a common pro-union front. A small group of pro-Gladstone supporters fought the elections as Gladstonian Liberals. A new organisation called the Irish Protestant Home Rule Association (IPHRA), which aimed to promote home rule among Protestants, also appeared. The single issue at the general election of 1886 was the question of the union.

1886 general election

At the new general election only 33 constituencies in Ireland were contested, compared with 79 in 1885 outside Ulster a mere seven divisions out of 68 saw a poll. In the three southern provinces a Nationalist candidate stood for each seat, making a total of 70 Nationalist candidates, of whom 62 were returned unopposed six Conservatives and two Liberal Unionists also stood.
Most Ulster divisions were contested. In seventeen of these contests, Unionists (former Conservatives) faced Nationalists (including six members of the IPHRA), while in five Liberal Unionists fought Nationalists. In five divisions Gladstonian Liberals opposed Unionists. The bulk of former Liberals in the main Unionist-dominated constituencies in the north-east played little part in the election, leaving the Unionist political organisations to be effectively controlled by the Conservative victors of 1885.
The outcome of the general election was that, overall, Nationalists won 84 seats, plus a seat in Liverpool. Outside Ulster they controlled the entire Irish representation, except for the two Dublin University seats. In Ulster Unionists won fifteen seats and Liberal Unionists two, a telling picture of the comparative strength of the former Conservatives and Liberals in the new Unionist movement. The Liberal Unionists would survive as a minor grouping within the unionist family until the full incorporation of the Liberal Unionists into the Unionist Party in 1911.
Viewed broadly, it is evident again that most Catholic voters supported Nationalist candidates and most Protestant voters backed Unionists or Liberal Unionists. There was some, but not significant, variation to this general picture. Liberal Unionist candidates attracted some Catholic votes, which made a small but important difference in a number of divisions. Some Protestants, perhaps around 3,000, voted for Gladstonian Liberals or Nationalists (including members of the IPHRA) in Ulster.

Konsekuensi

The political developments of 1885–6 had important consequences for the evolution of both Nationalism and Unionism in Ireland. These two years were a time of great political mobilisation and change. The question of the union moved to centre stage. Events were influenced both by changes in the franchise and electoral law and by the emergence of modern types of party organisation, local and central. The response of party leaders and organisations not only affected party fortunes but also influenced greatly the whole nature of politics to develop at this time. The new party structures had an influential bearing on the type of politics and society to emerge.
The decision by both the Nationalist and Unionist party leaderships to link their political movements to important sectional groups, such as the Catholic clergy and the Orange Order, was important to meet the challenges of 1885–6 and to win the elections in a convincing manner. At the same time this response meant that the two victorious parties had decisively strengthened the links between their respective movements and denominational divisions in society.
The new nationalist movement that emerged had support from throughout the island of Ireland, but in practice it represented only the Catholic community. There had been links in the past between Irish nationalism and Catholicism, but the events of the mid-1880s established such links in a very public and thorough way. Ironically, it was a Protestant leader of the Nationalist Party, Parnell, who was responsible for the ‘alliance’ of 1884–5 between nationalism and the Catholic Church that played a vital part in the electoral success of his party. Undoubtedly, as Emmet Larkin has argued, this link had democratic benefits in that it prevented the emergence of an all-powerful central party, but it also helped to strengthen the denominational character of nationalism.
The new Unionist movement was concerned with defending the union, but because of the events of 1885–6 it represented only Protestants and its main base was in Ulster. Outside of Ulster, unionism remained an influential but politically weak minority. Furthermore, this Ulster unionism was linked strongly to the former Conservatives, with their strong Orange links, rather than to the former Liberals, who had made some effort to encourage cross-denominational support for their unionist stance. Ironically, the tactical support given by Nationalists to Conservatives in 1885 played a vital role in the shift of power in the pro-union movement to Conservative and Orange elements. While the link between the Orange lodges and the new Unionist associations did introduce a populist, democratic element into unionist politics, it also served to reinforce the denominational nature of unionism.
These general elections were a milestone in the evolution of modern nationalist and unionist movements in Ireland. Party leaders, organisers and supporters created a new order of politics in which religious and nationalist/unionist divisions were firmly related. The fact that these developments occurred at the same time as the extension of the franchise to most households and the emergence of modern party organisations helps to explain why the outcome of these particular elections proved to have such lasting importance. Later events would influence the eventual settlement in Ireland in 1921–2, but the basic shape of the conflict, with its closely linked political and religious features, was established in this formative period.

Brian Walker is Professor in the School of Politics, International Relations and Philosophy at Queen’s University, Belfast.

Bacaan lebih lanjut:


Woman&rsquos Suffrage Movement

One issue on which Wisconsin was not progressive during these years was the right of women to vote. Progressive leaders who endorsed worker and consumer rights were reluctant to grant women suffrage because they knew their male supporters opposed it.

On November 4, 1912, Wisconsin men voted suffrage down in a state referendum two-to-one. When politicians blocked new suffrage referenda in 1913 and 1915, Wisconsin women threw their energy into the national cause instead. A suffrage amendment to the U.S. Constitution finally passed in 1919, and the Wisconsin Legislature became the first to ratify it, giving women the right to vote in federal elections. However, Wisconsin women would not be able to vote in state elections until 1934.


Sejarah

Tarrant County's roots lie in the 'Old West' and much of our heritage can be traced to the era of the cowboy and the cattle drives that passed through Tarrant County. Tarrant County is one of 254 counties in Texas which were originally set up by the State to serve as decentralized administrative divisions providing state services and collecting state taxes.

Tarrant County, one of 26 counties created out of the Peters Colony, was established in 1849. It was named for General Edward H. Tarrant, commander of militia forces of the Republic of Texas at the Battle of Village Creek in 1841. The village of Grapevine the Texas Ranger outpost of Johnson's Station (in what is now south Arlington) and Bird's Fort, a short-lived private fort just south of present-day Euless, were early areas of western civilization in the region.

General William Jenkins Worth

On the bluff where the Tarrant County Courthouse now stands, a military post was established in 1849 by a company of the 2nd U.S. Dragoons under the command of Major Ripley A. Arnold. The fort was named in honor of General William Jenkins Worth, a hero of the Mexican War and commander of United States forces in this region.

Historic Tarrant County Courthouse - Before and after remodel

The first county seat election was held in 1851 and the location receiving the most votes, a few miles to the northeast, became Tarrant County's first county seat, designated Birdville as required by the statute creating the county. After the military post closed in 1853 and the little towns of Fort Worth and Birdville grew, a fierce competition sprang up between them to be the seat of county government. A second special county seat election was held in 1856, when Fort Worth edged out Birdville by only a handful of votes. Fights and fatal duels ensued over the next four years by supporters of both locations. Finally, in 1860, another special election was held. This time, Fort Worth, by now the larger town, received 548 votes. The geographical center of the county, a compromise location, garnered 301 votes. Birdville tallied only four.

From as early as 1856, regular stagecoach service passed through Tarrant County, carrying mail and passengers from the east on to the frontier forts and the West Coast. By the 1870's, mail stagecoaches arrived and departed from downtown Fort Worth six days a week. From the close of the Civil War and through the late 1870's, millions of cattle were driven up the trail through Tarrant County (roughly following Interstate 35 West) to the railheads in Kansas. After the Texas & Pacific Railroad reached Tarrant County and Fort Worth in 1876, Fort Worth became the largest stagecoach terminus in the Southwest - a hub for rail passengers to continue their journeys west by stagecoach.

1895 Tarrant County Courthouse

The Tarrant County Courthouse, completed in 1895, is fashioned of pink granite from central Texas and took over two years to build. Upon completion, even though the project had come in almost 20% under budget, the citizens of the county were so outraged by the perceived extravagance that, at the next election, the County Judge and the entire Commissioners Court were voted out of office.

Today, Tarrant County has a population of over 1.8 million, more than 2,700 times larger than in 1850, when its inhabitants numbered only 664.

For more information on Tarrant County history, please visit the Tarrant County Historical Commission page or contact the Tarrant County Archivist.


Tonton videonya: 2018 թվականի դեկտեմբերի 9-ի Ազգային ժողովի արտահերթ ընտրությունների քվեարկության կարգը