favour, concerted by Mr. Bright, Sir James Graham, and other members of the opposition.' It was clear that, however great their intrinsic weakness, they were safe until their opponents had composed their differences. Early in the following session, this reconciliation was accomplished; and all sections of the Liberal party concurred in a resolution fatal to the ministerial Reform Bill.2

merston's

Ministers appealed in vain to the country. Their Lord Palown distinctive principles were so far lost, that they second were unable to rely upon reactionary sentiments against 1859. constitutional change; and having committed themselves to popular measures, they were yet outbidden by their opponents. They fell3; and Lord Palmerston was restored to power, with a cabinet representing, once more, every section of the Liberal party.

The fusion of parties, and concurrence or compro- Fusion of mise of principles, was continued. In 1859, the Con- parties. servatives gave in their adherence to the cause of Parliamentary reform; and in 1860, the Liberal administration which succeeded them, were constrained to abandon it. Thirty years of change in legislation, and in social progress, had brought the sentiments of all parties into closer approximation. Fundamental principles had been settled: grave defects in the laws and constitution had been corrected. The great battlefields of party were now peaceful domains, held by all parties in common. To accommodate themselves to public opinion, Conservatives had become liberal: not

E-sential

difference between

tives and

to outstrip public opinion, ultra-Liberals were forced to maintain silence, or profess moderation.

Among the leaders of the Conservatives, and the leaders of the ministerial Liberals, there was little dif Conserva- ference of policy and professions. But between their respective adherents, there were still essential diversities of political sentiment. The greater number of Conservatives had viewed the progress of legislation,-which they could not resist, as a hard necessity: they had accepted it grudgingly, and in an unfriendly spirit,— as defendants submitting to the adverse judgment of a court, whence there is no appeal. It had been repugnant to the principles and traditions of their party; and they had yielded to it without conviction. “He that consents against his will, is of the same opinion still;" and the true Conservative, silenced but not convinced by the arguments of his opponents, and the assent of his leaders, still believed that the world was going very wrong, and regretted the good old times, when it was less headstrong and perverse.

On the other hand, the Liberal party, which had espoused the cause of liberty and progress from the beginning, still maintained it with pride and satisfaction,--approving the past, and hopeful of the future,— leading public opinion, rather than following it, and representing the spirit and sentiment of the age. The sympathies of one party were still with power, and immutable prescription: the sympathies of the other were associated with popular self-government, and a progressive policy. The Conservatives were forced to concede as much liberty as would secure obedience and contentment: the Liberals, confiding in the people, favoured every liberty that was consistent with security and order.

sections of

At the same time, each party comprised within itself Various diversities of opinion, not less marked than those which each party. distinguished it from the other. The old constitutional Whig was more nearly akin to the Liberal Conservative than to many of his democratic allies. Enlightened statesmen of the Conservative connection had more principles in common with the bold disciples of Sir Robert Peel than with the halting rear-rank of their own Tory followers.

Such diversities of opinion, among men of the same parties, and such an approach to agreement between men of opposite parties, led attentive observers to speculate upon further combination and fusion hereafter. A free representation had brought together a Parliament reflecting the varied interests and sentiments of all classes of the people; and the ablest statesmen, who were prepared to give effect to the national will, would be accepted as members of the national party, by whom the people desired to be governed. Loving freedom and enlightened progress, but averse to democracy, the great body of the people had learned to regard the struggles of parties with comparative indifference. They desired to be well and worthily governed, by statesmen fit to accept their honourable service, rather than to assist at the triumph of one party over another. Having traced the history of parties, the principles Changes in by which they were distinguished,-their successes and ter and ordefeats, their coalitions and separations,-we must ganisation not overlook some material changes in their character and organisation. Of these the most important have arisen from an improved representative system, and the correction of the abuses of patronage.

the charac

of parties.

When parliamentary majorities were secured by Former ascombinations of great families, acting in concert with of great

sociations

families.

the crown, and agreeing in the constitution of the government, the organisation of parties was due rather to negotiations between high contracting powers, for the distribution of offices, honours, and pensions, than to considerations of policy, statesmanship, and popularity. The crown and aristocracy governed the country; and their connections and nominees in the House of Commons were held to their party allegiance, by a profuse dispensation of patronage. Men independent of constituents naturally looked up to the crown and the great nobles, the source of all honour and profit. Long before the representation was reformed, the most flagrant abuses of parliamentary patronage had been corrected. Offices and pensions had been reduced, the expenditure of the civil list controlled, and political corruption in many forms abated.2 But while a close representative system continued, parties were still compacted by family connections and interests, rather than by common principles and convictions. The Reform Acts modified, but did not subvert, this organisation. The influence of great families, though less absolute, was still predominant. The constitution had been invigorated by more popular elements: but society had not been shaken. Rank and ancestral

1 A spirited, but highly coloured, land. In those barterings and borsketch of this condition of parties, rowings we never hear the name of appeared in Blackwood's Magazine, the nation: no whisper announces No. 350, p. 754. "No game of whist that there is such a thing as the in one of the lordly clubs of St. people; nor is there any allusion, in James's Square was more exclu- its embroidered conclave, to its insively played. It was simply a terests, feelings, and necessities. question whether his grace of Bed- All was done as in an assemblage ford would be content with a of a higher race of beings, calmly quarter or a half of the cabinet; carving out the world for themor whether the Marquess of Rock- selves, a tribe of epicurean deities, ingham would be satisfied with with the cabinet for their Olymtwo-fifths; or whether the Earl of pus." Shelburne would have all, or share his power with the Duke of Port

2 See supra, Vol. I., 312-330; also, Ch. IV.

property continued to hold at least their fair proportion of power, in a mixed government. But they were forced to wield that power upon popular principles, and in the interests of the public. They served the people in high places, instead of ruling them as irresponsible masters.

then a

profession.

A reformed representation and more limited patron- Politics age have had an influence, not less marked, upon the organisation of parties, in another form. When great men ruled, in virtue of their parliamentary interest, they needed able men to labour for them, in the field of politics. There were Parliaments to lead, rival statesmen to combat, foreign ministers to outwit, finances to economise, fleets and armies to equip, and the judgment of a free people to satisfy. But they who had the power and patronage of the crown in their hands, were often impotent in debate,-drivellers in council,-dunces in writing minutes and despatches. The country was too great and free to be governed wholly by such men; and some of their patronage was therefore spared from their own families and dependents, to encourage eloquence and statesmanship in others. They could bestow seats in Parliament without the costs of an election: they could endow their able but needy clients with offices, sinecures, and pensions; and could use their talents and ambition in all the arduous affairs of state. Politics became a dazzling profession,-a straight road to fame and fortune. It was the day-dream of the first scholars of Oxford and Cambridge, Eton, Harrow, and Westminster. Men of genius and eloquence aspired to the most eminent positions in the government: men of administrative capacity, and useful talents for business, were gratified with lucrative but less conspicuous places in the various