To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

1859 United Kingdom general election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1859 United Kingdom general election

← 1857 28 April – 18 May 1859 (1859-04-28 – 1859-05-18) 1865 →

All 654 seats in the House of Commons
328 seats needed for a majority
  First party Second party
Leader Viscount Palmerston Earl of Derby
Party Liberal Conservative
Leader since 6 February 1855 July 1846
Leader's seat Tiverton House of Lords
Last election 377 seats, 64.8% 264 seats, 33.5%
Seats won 356 298
Seat change Decrease21 Increase34
Popular vote 372,117 193,232
Percentage 65.8% 34.2%
Swing Increase1.0% Increase0.7%

Colours denote the winning party—as shown in § Results

Prime Minister before election

Earl of Derby

Prime Minister after election

Viscount Palmerston

The 1859 United Kingdom general election returned Liberal Party to a majority of seats (356 out of 654) in the House of Commons. The Earl of Derby's Conservatives formed a minority government. but despite having made small overall gains in the election, Derby's government was defeated in a confidence vote by an alliance of Palmerston's Whigs together with Peelites, Radicals, and the Irish Brigade. Palmerston subsequently formed a new government from this alliance which is now considered to be the first Liberal Party administration.

There is no separate tally of votes or seats for the Peelites. They did not contest elections as an organised party but more as independent Free trade Conservatives with varying degrees of distance from the two main parties.

It was also the last general election entered by the Chartists, before their organisation was dissolved. As of 2024, this is the last election in which the Conservatives won the most seats in Wales,[1] as well as being the last election to date in which the Conservative Party took less than a third of the vote in England.

The election was the quietest and least competitive between 1832 and 1885, with most county elections being uncontested. The election also saw the lowest number of candidates between 1832 and 1885, with Tory gains potentially being the result of a lack of opposition as much as a change in public opinion.[2] According to A.J.P. Taylor:

the government which Palmerston organized in June 1859 was a coalition of a different kind: not a coalition of groups which looked back to the past, but a coalition which anticipated the future. Had it not been for Palmerston himself—too individual, too full of personality to be fitted into a party-pattern—it would have been the first Liberal government in our history. Everything that was important in it was Liberal—finance, administrative reform, its very composition: the first government with unmistakable middle-class Free Traders as members.[3]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    3 560 727
    43 254
  • The Election of 1860 & the Road to Disunion: Crash Course US History #18
  • 2019 General Election Briefing from The Wales Governance Centre
  • Why does Labour always win in Wales? Explaining 100 years of single party dominance.
  • The Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats - Professor Vernon Bogdanor FBA CBE
  • Englishness: The Political Force Transforming Britain


CCUS18 Election 1860 Hi I’m John Green; this is Crash Course US History and today we discuss one of the most confusing questions in American history: What caused the Civil War? Just kidding it’s not a confusing question at all: Slavery caused the Civil War. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, but what about, like, states rights and nationalism, economics-- Me from the Past, your senior year of high school you will be taught American Government by Mr. Fleming, a white Southerner who will seem to you to be about 182 years old, and you will say something to him in class about states rights. And Mr. Fleming will turn to you and he will say, “A state’s rights to what, sir?” And for the first time in your snotty little life, you will be well and truly speechless. intro The road to the Civil War leads to discussions of states slavery, and differing economic systems...specifically whether those economic systems should involve slavery, and the election of Abraham Lincoln, specifically how his election impacted slavery, but none of those things would have been issues without slavery. So let’s pick up with the most controversial section of the Compromise of 1850, the fugitive slave law. Now, longtime Crash Course viewers will remember that there was already a Fugitive Slave Law written into the United States Constitution, so what made this one so controversial? Under this new law, any citizen was required to turn in anyone he or she knew to be a slave to authorities. And that made, like, every person in New England into a sheriff, and it also required them to enforce a law they found abhorrent. So, they had to be sheriffs and they didn’t even get little gold badges. Thought Bubble, can I have a gold badge? Oh. Awesome. Thank you. This law was also terrifying to people of color in the North, because even if you’d been, say, born free in Massachusetts, the courts could send you into slavery if even one person swore before a judge that you were a specific slave. And many people of color responded to the fugitive slave law by moving to Canada, which at the time was still technically an English colony, thereby further problematizing the whole idea that England was all about tyranny and the United States was all about freedom. But anyway the most important result of the fugitive slave law was that it convinced some Northerners that the government was in the hands of a sinister “slave power.” Sadly, slave power was not a heavy metal band or Britney Spears’s new single or even a secret cabal of powerful slaves, but rather a conspiracy theory about a secret cabal of pro-slavery congressmen. That conspiracy theory is going to grow in importance, but before we get to that let us discuss Railroads. Underrated in Monopoly and underrated in the Civil War. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Railroads made shipping cheaper and more efficient and allowed people to move around the country quickly, and they had a huge backer (also a tiny backer) in the form of Illinois congressman Stephen Douglas, who wanted a transcontinental railroad because 1. he felt it would bind the union together at a time when it could use some binding, and 2. he figured it would go through Illinois, which would be good for his home state. But there was a problem: To build a railroad, the territory through which it ran needed to be organized, ideally as states, and if the railroad was going to run through Illinois, then the Kansas and Nebraska territories would need to become state-like, so Douglas pushed forward the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act formalized the idea of popular sovereignty, which basically meant that (white) residents of states could decide for themselves whether the state should allow slavery. Douglas felt this was a nice way of avoiding saying whether he favored slavery; instead, he could just be in favor of letting other people be in favor of it. Now you’ll remember that the previously bartered Missouri Compromise banned slavery in new states north of this here line. And since in theory Kansas or Nebraska could have slavery if people there decided they wanted it under the Kansas-Nebraska Act despite being north of that there line, this in practice repealed the Missouri Compromise. As a result, there was quite a lot of violence in Kansas, so much so that some people say the Civil War really started there in 1857. Also, the Kansas Nebraska Act led to the creation of a new political party: The Republicans. Yes, those Republicans. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So, Douglas’s law helped to create a new coalition party dedicated to stopping the extension of slavery. It was made of former Free-Soilers, Northern anti-slavery Whigs and some Know- Nothings. It was also a completely sectional party, meaning that it drew supporters almost exclusively from the free states in the North and West, which, you’ll remember from like, two minutes ago, were tied together by common economic interests and the railroad. I’m telling you, don’t underestimate railroads. By the way, we are getting to you, Dred Scott. And now we return at last to “slave power.” For many northerners, the Kansas Nebraska Act which repealed the Missouri Compromise was yet more evidence that Congress was controlled by a sinister “slave power” group doing the bidding of rich plantation owners, which, as conspiracy theories go, wasn’t the most far-fetched. In fact, by 1854, the North was far more populous than the South--it had almost double the South’s congressional representation--but in spite of this advantage, Congress had just passed a law extending the power of slave states, and potentially--because two new states meant four new senators--making the federal government even more pro-slavery. And to abolitionists, that didn’t really seem like democracy. The other reason that many northerners cared enough about Kansas and Nebraska to abandon their old party loyalties was that having them become slave states was seen as a threat to northerner’s economic self-interest. Remember the west was seen as a place where individuals--specifically white individuals--could become self-sufficient farmers. As Lincoln wrote: “The whole nation is interested that the best use be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of free white people. They cannot be, to any considerable extent, if slavery is planted within them. New Free States are places for poor people to go to and better their condition.” So, the real question was: Would these western territories have big slave-based plantations like happened in Mississippi? Or small family farms full of frolicking free white people, like happened in Thomas Jefferson’s imagination? So the new Republican party ran its first presidential candidate in 1856 and did remarkably well. John C. Fremont from California picked up 39% of the vote, all of it from the North and West, and lost to the Democrat James Buchanan, who had the virtue of having spent much of the previous decade in Europe and thus not having a position on slavery. I mean, let me take this opportunity to remind you that James Buchanan’s nickname was The Old Public Functionary. Meanwhile, Kansas was trying to become a state by holding elections in 1854 and 1855. I say trying because these elections were so fraudulent that they would be funny except that everything stops being funny like 12 years before the Civil War and doesn’t get really funny again until Charlie Chaplin. Ah, Charlie Chaplin, thank you for being in the public domain and giving us a much-needed break from a nation divided against itself, discovering that it cannot stand. Right so part of the Kansas problem was that hundreds of so called border ruffians flocked to Kansas from pro-slavery Missouri to cast ballots in Kansas elections, which led to people coming in from free states and setting up their own rival governments. Fighting eventually broke out and more than 200 people were killed. In fact, in 1856, pro-slavery forces laid siege to anti-slavery Lawrence, Kansas with cannons. One particularly violent incident involved the murder of an entire family by an anti-slavery zealot from New York named John Brown. He got away with that murder but hold on a minute, we’ll get to him. Anyway, in the end Kansas passed two constitutions because, you know, that’s a good way to get started as a government. The pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution was the first that went to the U.S. Congress and it was supported by Stephen Douglas as an example of popular sovereignty at work, except that the man who oversaw the voting in Kansas called it a “vile fraud.” Congress delayed Kansas’ entry into the Union (because Congress’s primary business is delay) until another, more fair referendum took place. And after that vote, Kansas eventually did join the U.S. as a free state in 1861, by which time it was frankly too late. Alright so while all this craziness was going on in Kansas and Congress, the Supreme Court was busy rendering the worst decision in its history. Oh, hi there, Dred Scott. Dred Scott had been a slave whose master had taken him to live in Illinois and Wisconsin, both of which barred slavery. So, Scott sued, arguing that if slavery was illegal in Illinois, then living in Illinois made him definitionally not a slave. The case took years to find its way to the Supreme Court and eventually, in 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, from Maryland, handed down his decision. The Court held that Scott was still a slave, but went even further, attempting to settle the slavery issue once and for all. Taney ruled that black people “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” So...that is an actual quote from an actual decision by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Wow. I mean, Taney’s ruling basically said that all black people anywhere in the United States could be considered property, and that the court was in the business of protecting that property. This meant a slave owner could take his slaves from Mississippi to Massachusetts and they would still be slaves. Which meant that technically, there was no such thing as a free state. At least that’s how people in the north, especially Republicans saw it. The Dred Scott decision helped convince even more people that the entire government, Congress, President Buchanan, and now the Supreme Court, were in the hands of the dreaded “Slave Power.” Oh, we’re going to do the Mystery Document now? Stan, I am so confident about today’s Mystery Document that I am going to write down my guess right now and I’m going to put it in this envelope and then when I’m right I want a prize. All I ever get is punishment, I want prizes. Okay. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I already did that. And then I get rewarded for being right. Alright total confidence. Let’s just read this thing. And then I get my reward. “I look forward to the days when there shall be a servile insurrection in the South, when the black man … shall assert his freedom and wage a war of extermination against his master; when the torch of the incendiary shall light up the towns and cities of the South, and blot out the last vestige of slavery. And though I may not mock at their calamity, nor laugh when their fear cometh, yet I will hail it as the dawn of a political millennium.” [1] I was right! Right here. Guessed in advance. John Brown. What? STAN! Ohio Congressman Joshua Giddings? Seriously, Stan? AH! Whatever. I’m gonna talk about John Brown anyway. In 1859, John Brown led a disastrous raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, hoping to capture guns and then give them to slaves who would rise up and use those guns against their masters. But, Brown was an awful military commander, and not a terribly clear thinker in general, and the raid was an abject failure. Many of the party were killed and he was captured. He stood trial and was sentenced to death. Thus he became a martyr to the abolitionist cause, which is probably what he wanted anyway. On the morning of his hanging, he wrote, “I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.” Well, he was right about that, but in general, any statement that begins “I-comma-my-name” meh. And, so the stage was set for one of the most important Presidential elections in American history. Dun dun dun dun dun dahhhhh. In 1860, the Republican Party chose as its candidate Abraham Lincoln, whose hair and upper forehead you can see here. He’d proved his eloquence, if not his electability, in a series of debates with Stephen Douglas when the two were running for the Senate in 1858. Lincoln lost that election, but the debates made him famous, and he could appeal to immigrant voters, because he wasn’t associated with the Know Nothings. The Democrats, on the other hand, were--to use a historian term--a hot mess. The Northern wing of the party favored Stephen Douglas, but he was unacceptable to voters in the deep South. So Southern Democrats nominated John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, making the Democrats, the last remaining truly national party, no longer truly a national party. A third party, the Constitutional Union Party, dedicated to preserving the Constitution “as it is” i.e. including slavery, nominated John Bell of Tennessee. Abraham Lincoln received 0 votes in nine American states, but he won 40% of the overall popular vote, including majorities in many of the most populous states, thereby winning the electoral college. So, anytime a guy becomes President who literally did not appear on your ballot, there is likely to be a problem. And indeed, Lincoln’s election led to a number of Southern states seceding from the Union. Lincoln himself hated slavery, but he repeatedly said that he would leave it alone in the states where it existed. But the demographics of Lincoln’s election showed Southerners and Northerners alike that slave power--to whatever extent it had existed--was over. By the time he took office on March 1, 1861, seven states had seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. And the stage was set for the fighting to begin, which it did, when Southern troops fired upon the Union garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor on April 12, 1861. So, that’s when the Civil War started, but it became inevitable earlier--maybe in 1857, or maybe in 1850, or maybe in 1776. Or maybe in 1619, when the first African slaves arrived in Virginia. Cuz here’s the thing: In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney said that black Americans had quote “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” But this was demonstrably false. Black men had voted in elections and held property, including even slaves. They’d appeared in court on their own behalf. They had rights. They’d expressed those rights when given the opportunity. And the failure of the United States to understand that the rights of black Americans were as inalienable as those of white Americans is ultimately what made the Civil War inevitable. So next week, it’s off to war we go. Thanks for watching. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. Our script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The show is written by my high school history teacher, Raoul Meyer, and myself. Our associate producer is Danica Johnson. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Usually every week there’s a libertage with a caption, but there wasn’t one this week because of stupid Chief Justice Roger Taney. However, please suggest captions in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course US History and as we say in my hometown of nerdfighteria, don’t forget to be awesome. election 1860 - ________________ [1] Quoted in Goldfield p. 119


1859 United Kingdom general election
Party Candidates Votes
Stood Elected Gained Unseated Net % of total % No. Net %
  Liberal 465 356 −21 54.43 65.80 372,117 −0.2
  Conservative 394 298 +34 45.57 34.17 193,232 +0.3
  Chartist 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 151 −0.1

Regional results

Great Britain

Party Candidates Unopposed Seats Seats change Votes % % change
Liberal 392 157 306 314,708 66.6
Conservative & Peelites 327 160 245 157,974 33.4
Chartist 1 0 0 151 0.0
Total 720 317 551 Same position 472,833 100
Party Candidates Unopposed Seats Seats change Votes % % change
Liberal 330 109 251 307,949 67.1
Conservative & Peelite 286 129 209 152,591 32.9
Chartist 1 0 0 151 0.0
Total 617 238 460 Same position 460,691 100
Party Candidates Unopposed Seats Seats change Votes % % change
Liberal 44 34 40 5,174 66.4
Conservative & Peelite 17 11 13 2,616 33.6
Total 61 45 53 Same position 7,790 100
Party Candidates Unopposed Seats Seats change Votes % % change
Conservative & Peelite 18 14 17 2,767 63.6
Liberal 18 14 15 1,585 36.4
Total 36 28 32 Same position 4,352 100


Party Candidates Unopposed Seats Seats change Votes % % change
Irish Conservative & Peelite 67 36 53 35,258 38.9
Liberal 73 26 50 57,409 61.1
Total 140 62 103 92,667 100


Party Candidates Unopposed Seats Seats change Votes % % change
Conservative & Peelite 6 6 6
Total 6 6 6 Same position 100

See also


  1. ^ Scully, Roger (4 May 2017). "Why Wales decided to forgive the Tories". The Spectator. Retrieved 4 May 2017.
  2. ^ Hawkins, A. (18 June 1987), Parliament, Party and the Art of Politics in Britain, 1855–59, p. 377, ISBN 9781349089253
  3. ^ A. J. P. Taylor "Lord Palmerston", History Today (1951) 1#7 pp 35-41 at p. 39


External links

This page was last edited on 8 March 2024, at 13:45
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.