try, 1858. These parties had agreed in a single vote against the min ister; but their union in the government of the Lord Derby's country was inconceivable. The Conservatives, second minis therefore, as the strongest party, were restored to power, under the Earl of Derby. The events of the last few years had exemplified the fusion of parties in the gov ernment, and their combination, on particular occasions, in opposition. The relations of all parties were disturbed and unsettled. It was now to be seen that their principles were no less undetermined. The broad distinctions between them had been almost effaced; and all alike deferred to public opinion, rather than to any distinctive policy of their own. The Conservatives were in a minority of not less than one hundred, as compared with all sections of the Liberal party;1 and their only hopes were in the divided councils of the opposition, and in a policy which should satisfy public expectations. Accordingly, though it had hitherto been their characteristic principle to resist constitutional changes, they ac cepted Parliamentary Reform as a political necessity; and otherwise endeavored to conform to public opinion. For the first session, they were maintained solely by the disunion of their opponents. Their India Bill threatened them with ruin; but they were rescued by a dexterous manoeuvre of Lord John Russell. Their despatch disapproving Lord Canning's Oude proclamation imperilled their position; but they were saved by the resignation of Lord Ellenborough, and by a powerful diversion in their favor, 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 1 Quarterly Rev., civ. 517. 2 Ann. Reg., 1858, ch. iii.; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cxlix. 858. party concurred in a resolution fatal to the Ministerial Reform Bill.1 ston's second ministry, 1859. Ministers appealed in vain to the country. Their own Lord Palmer distinctive principles were so far lost, that they were unable to rely upon reactionary sentiments against constitutional change; and having committed themselves to popular measures, they were yet outbidden by their opponents. They fell; and Lord Palmerston was restored to power, with a cabinet representing, once more, every section of the Liberal party. Fusion of parties. The fusion of parties, and concurrence or compromise of principles, was continued. In 1859, the Conservatives 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 battle-fields of party were now peaceful domains, held by all parties in common. To accommodate themselves to public opinion, Conservatives had become liberal: not to outstrip public opinion, ultra-Liberals were forced to maintain silence or profess moderation. Essential between Con Among the leaders of the Conservatives, and the leaders of the ministerial Liberals, there was little differdifference ence of policy and professions. But between their servatives and respective adherents, there were still essential diLiberals. versities of political sentiment. The greater number of Conservatives had viewed the progress of legislation which they could not resist as a hard necessity: they 1 Supra, Vol. I., 360. It was moved by Lord J. Russell, and supported by Lord Palmerston, Mr. Bright, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir James Graham, and Mr. Cardwell. - Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cliii. 405. 2 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cliv. 416. 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, favored every liberty that was consistent with security and order. party. At the same time, each party comprised within itself diversities of opinion, not less marked than those Various secwhich distinguished it from the other. The old tions of each 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 honorable service, rather than to assist at the triumpl of one party over another. Changes in Having traced the history of parties, the principles by which they were distinguished, their successes and the character defeats, their coalitions and separations, we must and organization of not overlook some material changes in their charparties. acter and organization. Of these the most important have arisen from an improved representative system, and the correction of the abuses of patronage. When parliamentary majorities were secured by combinations of great families, acting in concert with the sociations of Crown and agreeing in the constitution of the gov ernment, the organization of parties was due rather to negotiations between high contracting powers, for the distribution of offices, honors, and pensions, than to considerations of policy, statesmanship, and popularity. The Crown and aristocracy governed the country; and their connections Former as great families. 1 A spirited, but highly colored, sketch of this condition of parties, appeared in Blackwood's Magazine, No. 350, p. 754. "No game of whist in one of the lordly clubs of St. James's Square was more exclusively played. It was simply a question whether his grace of Bedford would be content with a quarter or a half of the cabinet; or whether the Marquess of Rockingham would be satisfied with two fifths; or whether the Earl of Shelburne would have all, or share his power with the Duke of Portland. In those barterings and borrowings we never hear the name of the nation: no whisper announces that there is such a thing as the people; nor is there any allusion, in its embroidered conclave, to its interests, feelings, and necessities. All was done as in an assemblage of a higher race of beings, calmly carving out the world for themselves, a tribe of epicurean deities, with the cabinet for their Olympus." 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 honor 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. 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 organization. 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 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. Politics then A reformed representation and more limited patronage have had an influence, not less marked, upon the organization of parties, in another form. When a profession. great men ruled, in virtue of their parliamentary interest they needed able men to labor for them in the field of politics. There were Parliaments to lead, rival statesme to combat, foreign ministers to outwit, finances to economize fleets and armies to equip, and the judgment of a free peo ple to satisfy. But they who had the power and patron age 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, tr 1 See supra, Vol. I., 293-312; also, ch. iv. |