To outsider and also to many at home Britain appeared a model community capable of resolving internal conflicts without resort to excessive force or revolution. Britain, by the norms of other nations, enjoyed high degrees of social cohesion and national unity built on consent and cooperation between the governed and the ruling order.
This sense of community survived despite the economic difficulties of the period, troubles in Ireland, labor unrest, imperial problems, religious tensions and a hard-fought political contest between competing fractions.
By the turn of the nineteenth century the country had become a mass democracy, though not one founded on the universal suffrage. It was a heavily urbanized community based increasingly on distribution and professional services for economic success.
The United Kingdom population grew by almost a third in the last three decades of the nineteenth century, a higher growth rate than for 1841 – 1871, though here the rate is influenced by the Irish famine and its aftermath.
The growth of real GNP was impressively high throughout the whole Victorian period, and especially the Later Victorian time. It had more than doubled in the period to 1871 and, in spite of growing anxieties about Britain’s weakening competitive position it nevertheless managed an 83 per cent increase to 1901. Consequently, national product per capita also exhibited a steady growth.
If anything, there were many indications in the pre-1867 heritage to suggest that change in Britain would generate much more turbulence than was experienced by the late Victorians. In the large number of respects the period is remarkable”.
There should be a report too, exactly like in the lesson one. The probable topic could be such an event as the “Rise of the professions”:
“A phenomenon which gathered considerable pace in the Later Victorian period was the emergence of a substantial and powerful professional groups, or classes, -though the latter, perhaps, is not quite the right word – within the British middle class. The emergence of the large group of professional occupations was naturally a function of more global developments in the nineteenth-century Britain: the growth maturation of the world’s first modern capitalist economy; an increasing, and an increasingly prosperous, population, together with it’s concentration in urban settlements; and the diversification of the industrial structure, with an increased emphasis upon the service sectors.
The growing urbanization of the United Kingdom also contributed to the rise of the professions. From the ranks of the expanding “urbanized” group came not only those who retained non-industrial tasks of the traditional professional occupations – religion, law, medicine and education – but also those who helped to professionalise other occupations connected with the demands of the post-industrial world: accounting, surveying, civil and mechanical engineering, and so on. The “rise of the professions”, then, was very much part, and a key part, of the growth of the middle class and the emergence of what has been termed the “service class”.
Numbers in the population group which can be entitled “professional occupations and their subordinate services” in the United Kingdom are found to rise from 345000 in 1861 to 515000 in 1881 and 735000 in 1901, an increase of 113 per cent, 1861 – 1901.
One should pay attention to the implications for Britain of the rise of a professional culture. The professions, though growing, remained numerically small, about 4 per cent of the labor force by the year 1900. But there is abundant evidence to suggest that this group wielded a disproportionate amount of influence in the Later Victorian society. In well-known among the British researchers formulation, professionals, by esposing the ideal of the educated gentleman, helped to perpetuate the pre-industrial distinction between the gentlemen and the players. With the former predominating, this encouraged the incorporation of industrialists into a refashioned elite.
As a result, the professions, being numerically small, still expanded their numbers and economical influence and came to dominate the economic, social and political life of the country.
The question is how did the professions manage to achieve their exalted station? It is supposed that they did so because the state lent them authority, specialist services being deemed essential to the efficient running of the society.
Areas of increased state responsibility such as, for example, public health required specialized knowledge. In turn the state permitted individual professions to manage their own internal affairs, to control entry and enforce standards of competence and behaviour. The professions, for their part, posited claims to privileged status on the posession of exceptional responsibility and respectability as evidenced by the requirements of training, qualifying examinations and obedience to the canons of controlling bodies.
The professions provided the vital bridge between the dignified and efficient sections of the community. They formed the cornerstone of a refashioned social and political hierarchy, a new elite which managed the state effectively. The potential British dissidents found themselves deprived of the support and leadership of the bulk of the professional middle class, which preferred its position as a group accorded financial and occupational recognition by the existing state.
The rise of the professions pointed both forwards and backwards: backwards in that professionalisation failed to shake off the trappings of aristocratic values; forwards in that it encouraged a greater degree of government intervention in the economy, the hallmark of the modern twentieth-century state.”
Finally, there should be a listening comprehension since all the listening exercises are extremely useful anyway. It would be also useful to follow it with writing an essay on the Victorian Period in whole or any particular theme which can be picked out by a pupil. Here’s an example of the text for listening comprehension:
Although few could define closely what the “Constitution” was at that time, it did simply a set of values as much as a list of precise rules and regulations. At the cornerstone of the “Constitution” were the monarchy, Parliament and an avowedly impartial judiciary. Parliament, and especially the House of Commons and Cabinet, were the center of government – the places where change was discussed, formulated and presented to the nation at large.
Possibly at no other time did the House of Commons play so central a role in the political system – it was at this time a focus of public attention, the chief forum for argument and and the legitimate instrument to initiate reforms. Outsiders like Irish nationalists, nonconformists, trade unionists and women accepted that the House of Commons was the appropriate forum to air grievances and demands. That concurrence helps explain the stability of the nation – though it was a consensus which could only be maintained so long as the whole community through the House of Commons showed itself responsive to people’s aspirations.
Dignified organs such as the monarchy and the House of Lords were essential because they enjoyed recognition and legitimacy. Under the cloak of the dignified elements, the efficient instruments of governance – the House of Commons and Cabinet – were able to conduct the affairs of state.
A great deal of stability in the United Kingdom of the Late Victorian time came from its electoral system.
There was an intense debate about who was allowed to vote and how the franchise was to be exercised. The electoral system introduced during the Late Victorian period succeeded in satisfying both the aspirations of the “responsible” working classes for political recognition and the desire of the governing classes for stability. Many people on the eve of the Reform Act of 1867 had doubted that the two aims could be reconciled. The electoral system which emerged provided a formula for expression of strong feelings while containing safeguards to ensure continuity and stability. It succeeded because major groups were not alienated from British institutions and the working class was united with its superiors in wanting a system that functioned smoothly, efficiently and most of all economically.
Britain, in consequence, was ale to maintain an electoral apparatus which was relatively cheap and enjoyed public confidence. Also, the stability of the United Kingdom was possible because the remodelled political elite chose to limit public competition for the favor of the masses and sought instead to ensure that the voters were incorporated into the existing political framework. Thus there was little attempt to exploit potential discontent for partisan ends. Britain was able to move from limited to house-hold suffrage during Victorian years without fundamentally disrupting the political fabric.
Much use can be derived from considering the question of stability of the political system from a local perspective.
A research carried out by John Garrard provides an observation that both the Liberal and the Conservative parties adapted rapidly to the challenge of the enfranchisement. They created powerful and all-encompassing organisations to produce acceptable political behaviour in the new votes. Parties were an instrument of social cohesion for they built up a total culture which met many of the social and psychological requirements of the community.
It is doubtful that the development of a complete political culture was apparent in the Liberal and Conservative parties of the Late Victorian era and did not have to await the coming of the Labor party. Local leaders reacted quickly and appropriately to the prospect of an enlarged electorate. These leaders used political activity to enlarge and consolidate their own standings in society while at the same time contributing organization and respectability to the electoral process.
National and local political activities were linked. Political parties were an important element in the rise of the urban elites. Through parties the working class was persuaded of the legitimacy and responsiveness of existing British institutions.”