him so long as his Ministry brought forward no Bill
for a further expansion of the franchise. In the
unwillingness to make any further adventure toward
an expanded democracy Palmerston was wholly at one
with Derby. Of like opinion, though less strongly
so, was Russell, whose popular nickname, “Finality
John,” gained by his assertion that the Reform
Bill of 1832 was England’s last step toward
democracy, sufficiently indicates his stand on the
franchise question. In fact every member of the
Cabinet belonged to the “Conservative-Liberal”
group, though with shades of political faith, and
none were really Liberals—far less Radicals.
The outspoken Radicals in Parliament, like John Bright,
and his friend Cobden, who had refused to take office
under Palmerston, gave a lukewarm support to the Ministry,
but would not pledge themselves to steadfast adherence.
They had hopes of Gladstone, believed that he would
ultimately come into their group, but meanwhile watched
with anxiety his delighted immersion, as indeed Palmerston
desired it, in the details of financial management
to the exclusion of other questions.
The matter of ministerial and general British attitude
toward democracy as affecting British policy during
the American Civil War will be considered in a later
chapter. In the spring of 1861 it had not become
a clear-cut British opinion and did not, so far as
historical evidence can determine, affect early governmental
policy toward America. The outstanding feature
of the British Government in 1861 is that it was made
up of various so-called “Liberal” elements,
the representatives of each of which carried on the
business of his own department much as he pleased.
Palmerston’s was, of course, the deciding opinion,
whenever he cared to express it, but this he did but
rarely. His great concern was to keep his all-star
associates running smoothly together and thus to give
no occasion for parliamentary criticism and attack.
It followed that Russell, eight years the junior of
Palmerston, was in foreign affairs more powerful and
independent than is customary. Indeed the Government
was at times spoken of as the “Palmerston-Russell
Ministry.” These two were the leaders of
the team; next came Gladstone and Cornewall Lewis,
rivals of the younger generation, and each eager to
lead when their elders should retire from harness.
Gladstone’s great ability was already recognized,
but his personal political faith was not yet clear.
Lewis, lacking his rival’s magnetic and emotional
qualities, cold, scholarly, and accurate in performance,
was regarded as a statesman of high promise[127].
Other Cabinet members, as is the custom of coalitions,
were more free in opinion and action than in a strict
party ministry where one dominating personality imposes
his will upon his colleagues.
Print
Word
PDF
