[kalys]

I've got this caricature (http://www.philaprintshop.com/images/hbjohnbull.jpg) to comment but as I'm a French student I really have difficulties to understand the picture. I have identified the different characters and their political parties. But I don't know how to organise my "plan". I would say something something like: a criticism of Peel policy towards the Reform bill of 1832, The impact of the French revolution on the reform bill, the hesitation of England... I really don't know how to organise it.
Could you help me please.

Thank you.

[MrJohnDClare]

You are right that it is an attack upon the Reform Act of 1832, but it is not Peel, but Grey, that it is attacking.
Grey, you will remember, supported electoral reform. He is shown with the scissors, wanting to cut away a lot of the aristocrats' power, but he is reassuring John Bull (representative of the British public) that this is all very modern and such as they have on the continent. Note the pejorative word 'theoretical'.
The british constitution is shown as a pair of trousers, which is to be given a new cut.
Behind John Bull, aristocrats regret the passing of the old ways, compare the new proposal to the 'sans-culottes' of the French Revolution, and claim that the new way is not 'cord du roy' (the king was said to be prepared to force through the bill) but 'fustian' (a rough mixture of cotton and wool cloth worn by the common people).
John Bull himself - the British public - is represented as acknowledging that the new trousers may be cut more according to modern times, but worrying that they might not be as comfortable as before - a sign that the cartoonist believed that electoral reform might suit the current demands, but feared that it would damage the nation.

The cartoon is a Conservative comment on the Whig proposals to referm the electorate.
It is one-sided and subjective, and it attacks the ideas by:
1. comparing them to ideas in revolutionary Europe
2. saying they will be 'less comfortable' than the previous arrangements
3. characterising them as 'theoretical' and 'mere fashion'.
4. overstating the extent of the changes, which were comparatively small.

In England, we teach our pupils to answer questions like these in three sections to assess the reliability of the cartoon:
In section one, compare the interpretation of the cartoon to the actual facts as you know them.
In section two, find out about the artist and assess the reliability of the provenance
In a conclusion, put the ideas from the two sections together to come to a judgement about the reliability of the interpretation

[kalys]

Thank you very much for your answer

[kalys]

What do you mean when you say 'they regret the passing of the old ways'? I don't understand this expression

[A Finemess]

It means that the aristocrats were unwilling to change and preferred the powers they had in the old days to the changes planned by Grey and put into practice in the Reform Act.

[kalys]

I'm sorry but I don't understand cord de roy. I know it is a kind of rigged form of velvet but I don't see the link with the King.

[MrJohnDClare]

kalys, on Dec 1 2008, 06:09 PM, said:

I'm sorry but I don't understand cord de roy. I know it is a kind of rigged form of velvet but I don't see the link with the King.

Corduroy is a ribbed cloth:

It was very popular in the 1960s!

The word 'corduroy' comes from the French: 'corde du roy' (meaning: 'king's cloth').

Remember that the 'point' of the cartoon is that it is representing the new constitution as new-cut trousers.
The artisto to the right is saying that he had been assured that the new trousers were 'corduroy' (ie high-quality, fit for a king - and approved by the king) but now he sees them they are mere 'fustian' (low quality/ working class).
In the same way, the cartoonist is saying that the new consitution/voting rights were supposed to be high-quality and approved by the king - but to the upper classes they just seem to have let the lower classes take over the government.