• Brainly User
*wanted a nation with a govt based on the majoity population.
*supported woman movements to vote
*opposed privilege of rich
*dislike the concentration of power in hands of few
*opposed radicals and liberals
*in 18th century opposed the change but change their mind to have a change.
*According to them, the past should be respected and change should b a slow process

Liberals:- In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice. In common with socialism and conservatism, it emerged from the conjunction of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, and the political revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Liberalism retains a faith in the possibilities of improvement in present social conditions, which is related to the idea of progress widely accepted in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. That idea embraced the prospects for developments in knowledge, in welfare, and in morality. Although the confidence in the prospects for progress in some of these respects has now diminished (see post-modernism), liberalism retains an ameliorative ambition. The Enlightenment also shaped liberalism's perception of human agency, conceived as (at least potentially) rational and responsible. The political revolutions in France and America disclose an ambiguous heritage. The emphasis placed on equal rights remains, and this is the fundamental form of equality most liberals would aim to achieve. On the other side, liberalism has been pictured by its critics as infected with bourgeois values, those appropriate to the position of the emerging class of capitalists in present industrial society.

Apart from the concern with equality of rights and amelioration, liberalism has focused on the space available in which individuals may pursue their own lives, or their own conception of the good. The immediate threat to this ‘space’ was considered to be the arbitrary will of a monarch, leading liberals to consider the proper limits of political power. They explored the relationship between legitimate power and consent, and the characteristics of the rule of law. Other threats were seen in religious intolerance and the power of public opinion, or social intolerance. In a general way, liberalism has tried to define the line to be drawn between the public and the private, an approach which has several key components.

The first is the project of describing the peculiar features of political power, in contrast to the power which might be held or exercised in private domains. Locke, for example, devoted considerable attention to the distinctions to be drawn between the power of a master over a servant, the power of a master over a slave, paternal power, and the power of a husband over a wife, on one side, and political power, on the other. None of those ‘domestic’ power relations illuminated the nature of political power, which was legitimate if, and only if, the governed consented to it. That power was to be directed at the public good, limited by its purposes and regulated by settled and known law. This notion of limited government has been in the centre of liberal concerns: the rule of lawseparation of powers, constitutionalism, emphasis on civil liberties, for example, are consequences of a desire to restrict political power to what is conceived to be its proper domain.

A second aspect of the limitation of government has been an emphasis on the autonomy of the economic realm, and a defence of private property. This characterization, however, needs to be treated with caution. Liberals have not always been enthusiastic proponents of a laissez-faire policy, not least because they have recognized that a market system is not capable of guaranteeing the conditions of its own existence. Again, while private property has generally been supported as providing a bulwark against state power, allowing some prospect of independence, many liberals have been concerned about the effects of concentrations of private property. It has been a common, but not wholly justified, complaint against liberal thought that it takes insufficient notice of the effects of private power as a consequence of its concern to limit public power.

I don't know about conservatives sorry.
2 5 2

1) Liberals wanted a nation which tolerated all region. 2) Liberals opposed the uncontrolled power of dynastic rulers. 3) They wanted to safeguard the right to individual against government. 4) They argued for a representative, elected parliamentry government. Subject to laws interrupted by a well trained judiciary that was independent of rulers and officials. 5) But they were not 'Democrates', they did not believe in universal adult franchise. 6) They felt of property mainly should have the vote, they also did not want the not for women


1) Radicals wanted a nation in which government was based on the majority of a country's population. 2) Mainly supported women's sufferagate movements. 3) Unlike liberals, they opposed the privilages of great landowners and wealthy factory owners, they were not against the existence of private property but disliked concentration of property in the hands of a few.


1)Conservatives were opposed to radicals and liberals after the french revolution, however, even conservatives had opened their demand of the need for changes. In earlier eighteenth century, Conservatives had been "Generaly opposed to the idea of change". 2) By the ninteenth century, they accepted that some change was inevitable but believed that the past had to be respected and change has to be brought about through a slow process.