Part 3, Chapter I
III, I: The National Party
Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 1853-1865, First Leader of the National Party
Joseph Chamberlain stood upon the dispatch box on last time. He was aware, he said to Charles Dilke in 1874, his future Leader of the Senate, "the Britons will not adore me forever", just after he was first appointed as Prime Minister. How right he was. He, of course, wouldn't admit it was his last time, but all who gathered in the chamber, and the throngs who packed the viewing gallery, had booked an appointment expecting a funeral. He grasped his monocle, inhaled, and spoke. The Mood in the country had changed, and his last roll of the dice had failed. He lived and died by the people's will, and even though he believed that he continued to serve, even those on his government benches had smelt the decay. His opposite, Henry Campbell-Bannerman, was not in an ecstatic, nor did he gloat in any way. In a sense, everyone but him knew he had misjudged the Commons, the States and his Executive Council.
"You will excuse me, Mr Speaker, if I am a little out of practice. I have returned from South Africa in my service to this nation, but I am bound to say that my disciplines for the service and respect to this chamber are a little rusty. As the Member for Dublin, who issued a Private Members Bill on provisions for Educations for the States, and the Member for Chelsea who introduced the Temperance Options Bill, and the Member for Manchester who introduced the Local Finance Bill, I say this. These things may matter to you and your constituents, as the happiness and wellbeing of the people in these matters in South Africa, Canada and Australia would require the same interrogation and debate. But their concerns matter not to you, and your concerns matter not to them. I compel this House to turn the debate to the Bill I present to you today, which concerns our Imperial Policy, and I would say, Mr Speaker, that everything which affects their interests as well as yours, has for them, as it ought to have for us, supreme importance. Our Imperial policy is vital to them and vital to us. Upon that Imperial Policy, and upon what could be done today, depends that the tremendous issue whether this great Empire of ours is to stand together, one free nation, if necessary against all the world, or whether it is to fall apart, as some threaten in the house to break our Union of States apart. To fall into selfishness, with the commonweal falling into the distance of view. I believe this Bill, Mr Speaker, may bring us the ever perfect union that we could now seek."
He would lose the vote. He would, the next night, after an 18-hour debate, lose a motion of no confidence that would once again split the party he led in two. Then, he would attempt to bend his own rules and seek a double dissolution of a Parliament he created. 1903 was a real rollercoaster for him. It also brought the end of a quite extraordinary period of political domination by a man whom it seemed had a spell on the people of this island. He shape-shifted, he always arrived with a new gang, but he wouldn't be able to beat this one. When he entered the public consciousness in 1869, few would have predicted his impact on the Empire he adored, but it was exit stage left for Chamberlain, who burned one too many bridges in his time in Number 10. Watching amongst the crowds was his son, Premier of Mercia, Austen Chamberlain who would soon come to dominate the landscape of British Politics the way he had done. His allies, Alfred Milner, John Gorst, and Arthur Balfour would stand by him but Britain wouldn't. Britain would go to the polls after Chamberlain sought a rare double dissolution of Parliament - something he had only done once before since he first became Prime Minister, some 29 years prior. Many believed now that he had personally profited from a war in South Africa, an accusation he vehemently denied, but the criticism that he had managed to deflect his entire career simply couldn't be ignored any further. Socialists now openly demanded his resignation, Irish Republican Trade Unions threatened a general strike and many were refusing conscription for service to South Africa. Many in the House were simply amazed that he had not understood the mood of the public. A faint cry could even be heard of crowds outside the Chamber, held off by Metropolitan Police baying for the Prime Minister's blood. Chamberlain heard the cries, and in all of this he later told Austen, he could only remember his first Radical meeting in Birmingham, in 1864.
Chamberlain had attended the meeting on the recommendation of his Unitarian Minister, as they were advocating against the National Government's plan for policing. The Second Liberal Era, epitomised by the National Party and its progress had given that word, "Liberal", no meaning at all to be perfectly honest, as the various factions in Parliament melted into the National Party soon after the formation of the Palmerston Government. Irish Nationalists, who advocated the continuation of the Order system, an Irish Tory, presented the only real opposition in Parliament, other than a few token Labour and Independent candidates allowed through the Registrars claws - usually after a lengthy High Court case. When Disraeli accepted the position of Chancellor in the Palmerston Government, the Liberal-Conservatives meshed with the Whigs and the Economic Liberals to form a new Liberal-Tory Party, which sealed off political reform and pursued fierce economic reform, uniting the middle and upper classes together. There hadn't been a national opposition movement or party for some time, since the 1852 election, but the feeling of Palmerston's mortality had awoken a desire for change. In London in 1864, the Progressives, a coalition of Social Reformers and Trade Unions, had won control of the Order and began to propose policies to the Governor like a ten-hour day for Metropolis staff, free education and cheaper transport, they found themselves dissolved. The dissolution and subsequent suspension of the Order had brought Chamberlain out. As a businessman in the city, known as the "Screw King" but more importantly as a Unitarian, the state of the territories streets and alleyways, slums and smog-stained roads concerned him and he wished to do something about it. He also believed that the Orders, the sole victory of the Democrats from the Reformist Ascendency, were the sole body able to implement free education to all - something that was, at this stage, his primary goal. The National Government's failure to intervene on this matter, leaving education to individual churches and charitable organisations and most importantly the Orders, was just one of the many grievances a new generation began to express during the latter years of Palmerston's reign and Chamberlain was just one of several influential people growing unenthused for the one true doctrine of Liberalism. A greater tendency to utilise Parliamentary Supremacy, and a vice-like grip on the Senate and a compliant party regime of Registrars, Executive Council and Cabinet members, Lords, Lords Senators and Lord Senators-to-be (wink, wink), meant that the spoils system was truly rampant from the period of Aberdeen's departure and the formation of Palmerston's first Ministry. This renewed sinecure, this rampant waste and the vicious repercussions of Crimean and the Raj meant there was a renewed appetite for Radicalism in the country. Radicalism had been pushed to the edges of power since Duncombe's disastrous campaign as Prime Minister, and to understand their rise of power and Chamberlain's rise alongside it, you must go back to the day that Robert Peel, Prime Minister, was killed in an accident.
After Peel's death, Lord Senator Aberdeen was approached by the Queen to form a new Executive Council and Cabinet, which he accepted with glee, resigning his seat in the Senate and taking up a seat in the Commons to adhere to conventions. Discussions about his cabinet saw Lord Senator Russell become Foreign Minister as Lord Senator Grey, who was to become Chancellor of the Exchequer wouldn't serve in the cabinet if Palmerston was made Foreign Minister. Palmerston was compensated with a role at the head of the Home Office, however. Palmerston had dominated Foreign Policy, quietly and decisively holding the Foreign Office in his grasp during many of the unstable 1830s and 1840s - dominating the Foreign Policy landscape with Peel taking a more active affair in the domestic scene. Just before Peel's death, Palmerston had been embroiled in an affair in which he had nearly started a war with Greece over a British subject, Don Pacifico - annoying fellow European powers Russia and France, who shared protectorate status, with Britain, for Greece. The Liberal Grandees of the Senate, where Palmerston sat and where the majority of foreign affairs was discussed, presented a motion to the chamber:
That, while the House fully recognizes the right and duty of the Government to secure to Her Majesty's subjects residing in foreign states the full protection of the laws of those states, it regrets to find, by the correspondence recently laid upon the table by Her Majesty's command, that various claims against the Greek government, doubtful in point of justice or exaggerated in amount, have been enforced by coercive measures directed against the commerce and people of Greece, and calculated to endanger the continuance of our friendly relations with other powers.
These grandees, Grey and Russell included, passed the motion, considered a slap on the knuckles for nearly plunging Britain into a conflict. Palmerston, however, was unmoved and John Arthur Roebuck, an opposition member from the Radicals proposed a counter-motion vindicating him. In this all-night debate, Palmerston spoke for five hours, defining the rights of the Roman Citizen to walk around the world unharmed, and the principle applying to all British subjects. He won the debate and won over Gladstone and Peel in the process. He was assured of his ascendency that would see his foreign policy enclave continue unabridged. But then tragedy struck, Peel was dead, and his replacement was heavily influenced by the Liberal Clique in the Senate to shake things up, and move Palmerston to the Home Office after his embarrassment in the Ionian Islands. Moving Palmerston would help usher in a new period in less confrontational, and fundamentally more liberal foreign policy. But this insistence on stability and accountability in the foreign office was not for the time. The Don Pacifico Affair had been the beginning of a new, more confrontational period on foreign policy brought on by a wave of revolutions in 1848. These toppled the regime in France, where the Monarchy was abolished and Prince-President Louis Napoleon ruled the Second French Republic. Prince Metternich's iron grip over European Diplomacy was ended and German Unification was attempted and then aborted at the Frankfurt Parliament - Radicals were disenfranchised and disappointed by the lost dreams of a generation, much as those in 1842 in Britain were disenfranchised by the gains made over the previous decades. While the famine directed much of the attention away, and with the Young Irelander Insurrection being the only minor skirmish on British soil, the factors that led to the revolutions in Europe were not missing from the Islands. Revolutionary pressure had been spent through 1832 and 1842, and the General Strikes aftermath was to see further recrimination for Trade Unionism. Church and state piled weight behind anti-Unionism, and just as with radicalism and reformism in the 1830s, Catholics and Nonconformists were once again bore the brunt for the blame of Trade Unionism, as Unitarians and Catholics provided much of playbook for organising power and formed a significant proportion of its leadership - movements like the Cooperative Movement were similarly frowned upon. As Liberalism meant a divorce of the Church from economic and political matters, the retention of the churches pressure in social matters proved a useful tool for the Palmerstonian Ministers in this time and especially during Gladstone's rule in the latter stages of the dominance. The dual forces of Duncombe's Government and Peel's Government had meant that anti-Radicalism had overtaken traditional City & Country, King & Parliament divides within British Politics. Most adhered to Free Trade, most accepted Universal Suffrage and most understood the need for Britain to be a presence, but not a hindrance, on the European Concert of Power. Economic modernisation and progress was the primary goal for the nation, through the Church of Free Trade. This was guarded by a fiercely non-interventionist Senate, which differed from the House in several ways, but most notably in that its composition was older, and more affected by the Napoleonic conflict and its aftermath - it guided foreign policy (and indeed contained the main military personnel at that time) and with the House dealing with less domestic policy and more foreign affairs, Aberdeen thought that Palmerston's abrasive style would alienate the Upper House, while Russell was a known moderate and would be more in tune with the Senates composition.
But when a crisis developed in Crimea, brought on by the Russians attempted intervention in the Ottoman Empire, Aberdeen and Russell's command of the diplomatic situation that ensued curtailed the legitimacy of his Government and very quickly Palmerston began to intervene in debates in the Senate about the issue advocating for more decisive action, and when he began to be supported by the House, tense talks about the Government's handling of the crisis after the invasion of the Danubian Principalities by Russia, where British and French soldiers could only watch as the Russians rolled over the territory, brought the issue of Aberdeen's competence, and the competence of the Government to run the affairs of the War. That, combined with a series of damning articles in the Press, lead to Disraeli, forming the last of the Tory opposition mustering 130 or so, mostly Ulster Unionists opposed to Butt's administration, put together enough support in the Commons to force a motion of no confidence in 1853, under a year since the Liberals were returned with nearly two-thirds of the seats in the House. The Liberals in the Commons, who wanted greater action and now, had broken with the Senate, non-interventionalist Liberals who wanted the war to be contained and supported Russell. Rather than risk another General Election, Victoria decided to appoint just about every but Palmerston as Prime Minister before relenting and asking him to nominate an Executive Council he made himself, much to the displeasure of Victoria Foreign Minister as well. He was briefed with forming an all-Parliamentary cabinet by Victoria, who distrusted factionalism in the Parliament, so he approached Benjamin Disraeli, leader of the Tories in the Commons, to join as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Gladstone, who didn't trust Disraeli, withdrew his name from consideration and grew increasingly bitter against Disraeli. The Conservatives, as was under Disraeli, then ceased to be. The agricultural elements, mostly in the Senate, and most who didn't agree with the Palmerston Government from the right were considered "True" Tories, but these were few in number and led by Derby, who was purposefully excluded from the Coalition by Palmerston for his opposition to Free Trade, who wanted to confine the Executive Council to just Disraeli not to include these "True" Tories from the Senate. Palmerston referred to the government as an "all-Party Government" rather than the Liberal Government to acknowledge the input of the former Liberal-Conservatives, Conservatives and even Radicals, with William Molesworth, former Foreign Minister, returned to cabinet. Palmerston named a smaller war cabinet made of his Executive Councillors, and attempted to build a consensus amongst the varying factions in Parliament by promoting the former leader of the Conservatives and their Leader in the Senate, Earl Derby and Disraeli, into his Executive Council of 7 men, with John Russell returned as Home Minister and Earl Senator Lincoln, who was Minister for War, but Derby refused. Another lexicon change occurred also, with Palmerston naming his Executive Council ministers as "Secretaries of State" to distinguish them from non-Executive Ministers. Therefore, the Secretary of State, an older fashioned term associated with the pre-Parliament Act lexicon became the by-word for Executive Minister.
7th Executive Council
President of the Council, Prime Minister, Secretary of State for the Foreign Office, Leader of the Senate - Lord Senator Palmerston, Whig
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Leader of the House - Benjamin Disraeli, Liberal-Tory
Vice President of the Council - Lord Senator Hartington, Whig
Secretary of State for War Office - Earl Senator Lincoln, Liberal-Tory
Secretary of State for the Home Office - Lord Senator John Russell, Liberal-Tory
Secretary of State for the Colonies - Sir William Molesworth, Independent Radical
President of the Board of Trade - Lord Senator Granville, Liberal-Tory
The result was a disaster for the Peelite nucleus of the Liberal party in the Commons since Peel's second period as Prime Minister advocating for for a new technocratic and economically liberal future for the country. Peace and reform was no match for a conflict over religion and the technocratic government of Aberdeen was ill-prepared for the war and the faction as a whole took the brunt of the criticism of its poor planning and execution was directed at the "Friends of Peel" at the heart of the Liberal government. Palmerston's decision to include the former protectionist Tories was only made possible by Disraeli's admission to the Commons in 1852 that the Tory policy had now accepted Free Trade - Peelites, especially Gladstone, didn't accept that they had accepted Free Trade and many were still seething from the personal insults thrown during the Free Trade debates. This led to many of the Peelites moving into roles in Provincial Administrations. In March 1854, George Campbell would accept the offer to become Lord Secretary of HM Government in Scotland (HMGIS), fulfilling the role for three years, in a period he described as characterised in his diaries as 'a blissful vacation from all the shouting'. Sidney Herbert accepted a role in the Metropolitan Government as Treasurer and undertook a transformation in the capital's finances, even so much as a hearing, through gritted teeth, Disraeli praising his work in April 1859 when he left.
But the most famous example was, of course, William Gladstone, who in his fume at the appointment of Disraeli accepted the role of Chief Secretary to the Governor of Northumbria, Lord Brougham, leading the Northumbrian Order. He replaced with understated Matthew Talbot Baines and even said upon his appointment that he "considered the role a brief sojourn until he was removed from the Treasury" - no need to describe who 'he' was referring to, but his stay would indeed be longer, keeping him here for the best part of two and a half years, and he would return to the North later in his career, but would always keep his seat of South Lancashire. He also accepted the treasury role, to enable the construction of a sound financial footing for the Province, and in true Gladstonian style, also accepted the Presidencies of the Northumbrian Boards of Trade and Education - it was here that he intended to have the most effect. The Province was in decent shape but had a reputation for 'politicking' down South, a pejorative term for 'soft' practices by Brougham, such as allowing all who wanted to stand to be on the ballot. This had led to the unseemly sight for many in Westminster of workers in the Northumbrian Order, and indeed in the First Order, many of the appointed members refused to attend due to having to share the assembly with the workers. The First Order were mainly drawn from the Local Lords, miffed that the House had been abolished and they could only meddle in the affairs of Education and Poor Reform and not Church and State, held a misery view of the process and despite provision being made for a quorum of both elements of both Orders in the original act, it was quietly abolished due to the low attendance in a series of provincial reforms in early 1850 after a Senate report. As Gladstone's legislation, he admitted a great disappointment at seeing the boards, which were designed to be a fine balance between the aristocracy, the middle-class and the commons, with the First and Second Order, so “miserably empty”. Brougham's strict adherence to universal candidacy and suffrage meant that the United Trades controlled a significant number of seats, and Joshua Hobson, the Speaker of the Order, was generally in opposition to the undemocratic nature of the acts. This brought him in direct competition with the author of the Acts. Gladstone wrote, "the newspapers here in York, especially the Herald and General Advertiser, makes it seem that there if a dual set between myself and the Honourable Speaker of the Order, I was unaware of the bad feeling for which I had perambulated, and was equally unaware of the strong feelings the politicians within the Order, and the wider community had in its dealings and the scrutiny of the Administration in the Province." Newspapers in the Northern cities were amongst the freest in the Kingdom, with Courts hamstrung by personal interventions by the Governor in numerous Provincial hearings, including a series before the 1842 General Strike on Northern Star journalists, gossip and unsubstantiated stories would often plague much of the "gutter press", primarily in poorer cities, due to an almost complete absence of censorship.
It was here that he would set about his reformist zeal. He approached the Speaker, Joshua Hobson, and proposed debates on Education and Health Legislation, with the Elementary Education (Northumbria) Ordinance. He proposed that every County make a register of the schooling provision to monitor shortfalls in the places available. If shortfalls occurred, then a School Board would be created for the County Authority with the ability to grant funds from the public purse, managed by a 'provincial rate' paid by businesses, split between Counties and the Provinces/States, and a block grant to the Provincial Authorities, managed from the Treasury. The plan was due to cost more than the Northumbrian Treasury would receive that year, so Gladstone would have to request additional funds from the Chancellor, Disraeli. He would simply not do this, so envisioned a scheme to encourage industrialists and business owners to fund schooling. He allowed expenditure on private education to be deducted from rates to fund the project. A smaller proportion of the Northumbrian budget would be spent on Education, as private businesses were encouraged to invest in local education. This contribution system worked well into the 1860s, and with the Institutions created by Brougham in the 1840s, meant that Northumbrian school children were educated at an extremely high rate. This was made possible by support from the United Trades block, which Joseph Hobson had managed to position, through the Order, as a position of influence. While the idea of Hobson was to have the Orders gradually transform into a State Legislature of sorts, headed by an Executive Council whose advice the Governor was bound to act upon, including the use of the Police (reserved for the Governor) and the passage of Ordinances. Hobson would continue to advocate throughout his career, but he formally endorsed Gladstone in 1853. Hobson's endorsement of the marked the end of the United Trades movement, which began to support the administration of Gladstone. Brougham, Talbot-Baines and now Gladstone all believed that the Orders were for the process of raising issues, providing non-binding advice and approving a budget, which was considered a convention after the Budget Crisis in the plenary session. Gladstone understood, however, the growing influence of public support, and with United Trades candidates being elected in droves in industrial areas on County Councils, especially in West Yorkshire, and the movement spreading to Wales and Mercia, that co-opting these trade organisations would bring large support amongst Industrial workers, who were a growing part of the electorate. By 1853, economic structural change was occurring in the British Isles, and labour was moving from agriculture to industry, with the combined weight of the gradual transformation of industry in Britain since the late 1790s to an industrialised model and vast improvements in efficiency in agriculture, meant labour was bound to come across. Urban male workers accounted for 15% of the population nationally but hadn't unified under a single political movement since Thomas Duncombe, except in Northumbria, where the number was 23%, with pro-Trade Union workers on the docks in Liverpool, Manufacturing Plants in Manchester, Shipbuilding in Newcastle and Heavy Woollen Mills in West Yorkshire alike beginning to unify under one political faction. Gladstone feared the presence of another class-based party and was well aware of the history of non-compliance in the past. Lord Governor Brougham had shielded the Province from much mire in Westminster, where he was repeatedly called in front of the Senate Select Committee for the attendance of these organisations, described by one MP as "Spencean in Nature", in the governing process. Brougham understood the need to maintain rights that the people in the region had fought for in 1831 and again in 1842, and disrupting the political system, or cracking down on political crimes could light another fuse. Most incurred him to use his seizure of candidature powers, which could strike a candidate off the ballot, but he repeatedly refused.
Gladstone's time in Northumbria from 1853-57 allowed him to develop a differing strategy from Palmerston's worldview. To understand the difference is to see the company kept in this time. Palmerston shifted the political compass and drew in talent from all over. Disraeli considered him the Leader of the Conservative Party, the heir to Peel, finally uniting the Whigs, like Russell and traditional Tories like Derby, who was appointed President of the Board of Control in 1853, but they were united in ending the instability caused by the arrival of the Radicals, who were significantly smaller and only occupied anywhere from 45-50 seats in each Parliament, and were behind the total posted by the Irish Nationalists. From the inside, it was political bliss and the 'truce' became part of the common lexicon of the Parliament. This truce between Traditional Whig and Traditional Tory was held together by an insistence at the control of the Government for a coalition of the wealthy interests of the nation, a lack of desire for further political reform and an understanding that further political reform would be equated with Republicanism, and an adherence to free trade, although Palmerston, for the benefit of his Tory Ministers, put the issue to the backburner after Disraeli had accepted the principle of Free Trade on behalf of the Conservatives in 1852. While this didn't quell protectionist interests, the issue wasn't raised again in Parliament until... we'll get to that. As I said early, after 1852, both the Conservatives and the Whigs viewed Palmerston as their own, at worst half and half, and after Disraeli accepted the position in the cabinet, both the Tories and Whigs considered Palmerston their leader. While I've exclusively referred to the Palmerstonian Party as 'Liberal' as that was the party of Peel, the Liberal party in Parliament was in opposition to the Tory/Conservative party in the Commons and Senate. For this 'Liberal' party, that is not the case. A.J.P Taylor refers to the group of MPs and Senators that surrounded Palmerston in this time to be the 'Liberal-Tories' or 'Whig-Tories' - a mesh of both political belief systems. Palmerston was not a true liberal in the outright sense of the word, although he did have Liberal tendencies, and his cabinet was not liberal outside of the constraints of its adherence to free trade and economic liberalism, although it did have some Liberal ministers, like Molesworth, who would remain in the coalition for now. This coalition between the Commercial Class and Aristocracy protected their interests from the perceived threat of the working classes, especially in the aftermath of the turbulent 1840s. Gladstone however had begun to see the utility of the working man - 'Pam' as Palmerston would come to be known, would learn the ways of the common man himself: he won six general elections - the last not long before his death, and unified factions and working-class support in a similar fashion to Peel, but Palmerston would use Foreign Policy and Patriotism to further his cause, while Gladstone would use domestic policy. Further to this, Palmerston's Premiership was divided into two equally important sections; an initial period focusing on foreign policy (1852-1860), which was successful and a later period of domestic policy (1860-1865) which sowed division after his death.
His first period was characterised by the conflict that brought him to power - the Crimean War. Foreign Policy defined his time as Prime Minister, with the rush to isolate the Russian Bear setting the tone for later strategic decisions. The spectre of Russophobia had whipped Britain into a sense of duty to stop the advance from the East. It was not concerned with its weak naval power, but its strong standing army and the mass of Russian soldiers as a force, whipped up by expanding press, meant support for Palmerston's strong will for the war was solid. The perception of the slow decline of the Ottoman Empire, and the need to stem Russian expansion into the East fuelled British interest in the conflict. It drew them into an alliance with the ascendant Napoleon III in France, whom the British were equally mistrustful as the Russians, especially in regards to their vast military advancements in such a short time under the namesake of the last Frenchmen to arm so readily and play power politics so freely, and the Sardinians, who had empirical aspirations of their own, looking to unify the Italian peninsular. While the war was eventually fought out to a bloody yet satisfying victory for the allies, who stopped the Russian bear from overreaching into the Near East, it was the largest war the continent had faced since the Napoleonic Wars, and perhaps Russia's greatest hurt was caused by the failure of Austria, it's a long-term ally, to come to its rescue - intervening on the side of the Allies. This would not be forgotten. Palmerston's early period in office would be defined by the Crimean War, a war inherited and badly prepared for by the Aberdeen administration, who lacked the know-how that Palmerston would have brought to proceedings. He readily used this to his advantage. With the war still raging, Palmerston even managed to delay the dissolution of Parliament to continue the effort, waiting a full two years, by repealing the clauses of the Parliament Act and allowing a majority vote in favour of extension 'in times of crisis. In March 1856, however, a treaty was signed. The very little territory had been handed over, the Danubian Principalities were nominally returned to the Ottomans, but were in practice independent. The Great Powers secured the integrity of the Ottoman Empire also. The Treaty of Paris would lie the blame at Russia's feet - but in practice, Austria would lose out from the next 15 years of diplomacy. Much was lost, little was gained.
Despite the strategic victory, British opinion on the war was outraged. A cultural anti-war movement grew in Britain against the conflict, fuelling a fierce anti-war movement that centred around the largest press contingent ever sent to a conflict. Stories about the incompetent running of the War, the uncleanliness of the hospitals, which propelled Florence Nightingale to the fore of the public attention through her campaign to be allowed to travel to the British Army camps to improve conditions. Newspapers such as The Times would run pages and pages on battle reports, particularly the bloody Battle of Balaclava in 1854, when catastrophic commanding miscommunications between Lord Senator Raglan and Lord Lucan, in charge of Light Brigade, led to massive losses, with only 190 of the 670 men surviving as they attacked to collect guns that weren't there. The Charge of the Light Brigade became a part of the lore of the Crimean War and its aftermath. William Howard Russell of The Times was scathing in his criticism: "Our Light Brigade was annihilated by their rashness, and by the brutality of a ferocious enemy". The nature of the press meant that news drip-fed to the masses, with nearly a month between the battle and the controversy at home. Palmerston palmed the criticism to Aberdeen, who sent the country into war when unprepared. Not everyone was convinced. Russell would write later: "our only call is for REINFORCEMENTS, no matter how the Executive Council and Cabinet decides on the matters, or considers the problem solved now the Premier has changed. Not a day not an hour, should be lost in compensating for this delay by the most vigourous and energetic action. We must not hope for 16,000, or even 20,000 men that the PREMIER and LORD RAGLAN seemed so arduous that he was not to leave a single combatant behind." Despite this clamour, Palmerston's desire and drive to win the war, combined with a hostile Russophobia in the press, led to fierce support for Palmerston's policy. After the invasion of the Danubian territories, Aberdeen had spent his political capital and the rule of the Liberal Senators would be replaced with a rule led by a Senator (Palmerston would join the Commons in 1854 after a search to find a seat) but represented by Disraeli in the Commons, signalling a key change away from the non-interventionist line of the Liberals in the Senate. Disraeli felt that Empire was the way to secure the prosperity of the country as a whole. Despite this assumption, there was noted a sea-change in the public perception of war, diminishing the glorious nature of the battle and coming to terms with the realism of war and the brutality of the conflict. Nightengale, Russell and co, who covered and brought public attention to the war, brought with it a new distaste for the gorier details of conflict: disease, brutality and death formed the greatest part of this conflict for the first time. While Palmerston and (to a lesser extent) Disraeli were popular with the voters, the mood did change in the Election of 1856.
This election was possibly the first 'khaki election', with the voters polling just a month after the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Palmerston's unifying government and his overwhelming popularity in the Commons led to his grouping, which included such diverse figures as Disraeli, Molesworth, Russell and Granville, spanning the political divide had transformed the nature of Parliamentary politics. While he used the term All-Party before the election, during the election use of the terms "Centre" or "National" began to circulate into the lexicon more aggressively around candidates in support of Pam's ministry. Palmerston represented the Centre of British Politics at the time, and to his right, bitter and beaten Tories and to his left, bitter and beaten Radicals both watched as he swayed masses upon masses to his government. Palmerston also got supremely lucky. With the election scheduled for early November, Palmerston was allowed to show the cleavage between him and his opponents to the voters. In October, the Chinese seized a British ship with a Chinese crew. Harry Peakes, the Cantonese British Consul, was irked by the tearing down of the Union Jack from the ship despite the ship being unregistered. Peakes argued this was an overstepping of boundaries, the tearing down of the flag was disrespectful and deserved retribution - which was delivered with an attack on the Chinese Commissioner, Ye Mingchen's palace and the surrounding area. Ye retaliated, launching a campaign against British ships. This came in the middle of tensions around the Opium Wars, and Palmerston's policy of protecting British interests at all costs, meant to the surprise of nearly all in the chamber, most notably Disraeli, he voiced his support for Peakes but lost a censure motion after a furious backlash from the more non-interventionist Government supporting MPs, especially in the formerly Moderates who were the most non-interventionalist members in the coalition. The small numbers of Tories voted with the Government, with a near-uniform Imperialist resolve. Palmerston realised a rightward shift, expelling the left of his coalition, would be best to secure a more resilient majority. So Palmerston made in his defence of Peakes in a particular tone - he insinuated that "anti-English feelings" contributed to opposition to the actions of Peakes - making nationalism the key divisional point between the two camps.
1856 Election Results
Pro-Administration (Palmerstonian) 376 (+95)
Whigs/Liberals 252
Liberal-Tory 124
Anti-Administration 239 (-95)
Tory 68 (-99)
Radicals 94 (+34)*
Irish Nationalists 59 (-27)
Confederates 11 (-2)
Working Man's 8
Crossbench 36 (+19)
Independents 36 (+19)
In the election itself, and while Pam had called the mood of the electorate, more so than the anti-Peakes camp, the opposition to the so-called "gunboat diplomacy" that characterised Palmerston's foreign policy (throughout his career in the Foreign Office from 1832) coalesced into a revival for Radicalism on both of the traditional camps, Whig and Tory. Members on the left and right began to drift to a measured radical revival. While in 1857 they would fall supremely short of a majority and there was large support for Pam's policies, Radicals gained alongside Pam's grouping, with the Liberal party completely replaced by the National Government's supporters. In Ireland, supporters of Palmerston's government made gains at the expense of both traditional Tories and Irish Nationalist seats, despite Butt's continued popularity as Irish Chief Secretary. While the results are hard to quantify, as with many of the elections after 1846, the majority was clearly in favour of Palmerston's Government. Palmerston's lieutenants, Grenville and Disraeli, disliked each other immensely but were united in their pursuit of forming a more solid infrastructure in the Commons for the overwhelming support for Palmerston's Government. Most importantly, on the advice of Disraeli, Palmerston resigned his seat in the Senate (he was due to be rotated regardless) and take up a seat in the Commons. Disraeli and Grenville organised a meeting three days after the election on 12th November 1856 at the Willis Rooms, St James Street to gather supporters of the Administration. A London Times report spoke of the contents of the meeting;
Whigs, Tories meet to support the candidacy of Palmerston as Premier
A meeting of the Government's supporters was held yesterday afternoon at Willis's Rooms and was attended by 315 gentlemen, representing the various sections of that party. The proceedings were opened by Lord Palmerston, who observed that the issue upon which Her Majesty's Government had dissolved Parliament was not the question of Reform, or any other matter of legislation, but simply and solely whether they possessed the confidence of the country. He believed that the election had given a conclusive answer to that question and that it was the business of the National party to determine whether or not to accept the challenge which had been given them. He believed it more manly, more straightforward course to do so and briefly sketched out the terms of the proposed programme for gaining renewed confidence in the present Government, which he stated that Mr Disraeli and Mr Hanbury were respectfully willing to propose and second, should the meeting deem it advisable for them to do so. His Lordship dwelt on support for the situation on the continent, and the Government had met within their endeavours to continue to hold the confidence of the Councils of Europe upon so momentous that of peace and war, could not be trusted in the hands of Radicals and Ultras with the conduct of our foreign relations. He also insisted strongly on the duty of maintaining strict neutrality and said that the desires of Lord Derby, in his speeches in the Senate; and declared that he could not foresee any circumstance which would render the hostile intervention of England necessary.
Lord John Russell next addressed the meeting and, after strong insisting a Tory-Radical Government would be dangerous and unconstitutional, expressed his desire to support the National Government of Lord Palmerston, in the event that the noble Lord be called upon to form an Administration; or to avail himself of his assistance in the vent of his being required to conduct the affairs of the country himself. His Lordship, the Senator adverted in the course of his speech to the state of the National Government, and expressed his opinion that in the event of a National Government being formed it was essential that the two great sections of the party, the Whigs and Tories, should each be represented in it.
Lord Palmerston explained that, in his opinion, nothing was so conducive to the interests of Europe and the preservation of peace as the maintenance of a strict alliance between England and France.
Mr M Milnes and Mr Lindsay then addressed the meeting, which shortly after separated.
The meeting is now regarded as the transformation of the party in support of Palmerston into the National Party, formed in the centre of British Politics. Each of the Executive Council in the upcoming administration was present, and Palmerston knew he had the support of a further 60 or so members who would sit on the Government benches. The Party was primarily a party of foreign policy, reflecting the lower amount of social policy passing through Parliament since the foundation of the Orders, and supported the aggressive, posturing neutrality of Palmerston ("gunboat diplomacy"), the desire to move past decisions of Reform, and towards using Government to protect British Interests, while accepting reform had taken place. Undercurrents within the National Party desired to pursue a "National Policy" of centralisation and unification of services back under Parliament, most notably Disraeli who felt the Orders and Provincial Reform disturbed the natural balance of the constitution - and wished to centralise among other things policing. The Governors, more Radical on the whole, were a thorn in the side for central Government and had in Northumbria, Mercia, Scotland and Ireland, managed to pursue social agendas that Parliament was unable to match - attracting working-class voters in abundance. While rural workers supported Pam and a large number of urban workers were also on board, Urban workers across the North split their allegiance between Radical administrations in their Orders, now coordinated by former Peelites like Gladstone, and supporting Palmerston as a National Government. Victoria would invite Palmerston to form an Executive Council and Cabinet a few days after the meeting in the Willis Rooms and the contribution of Palmerston to the National cause is unparalleled. Palmerston's ideology of strong British Nationalism and defence of British interests united people across the political divide, Whig and Tory alike. His position between the two parties, his roles within Government's of both colours and the unilateral support for Free Trade across much of England, Scotland Wales and Ireland meant he could stretch across the spectrum and unite warring factions against Ultra Tories on the right, and Ultra Radicals on the left. But the even-handed coalescence with Radical voters, spurred by the collapse of the United Trades into the Radical camp once again, meant that there was a united and powerful body of MPs ready to oppose the Government. In the usual fashion, they lacked a leader - but they would gain a unifying figure to rally behind in the course of Palmerton's second term.
Joseph Chamberlain stood upon the dispatch box on last time. He was aware, he said to Charles Dilke in 1874, his future Leader of the Senate, "the Britons will not adore me forever", just after he was first appointed as Prime Minister. How right he was. He, of course, wouldn't admit it was his last time, but all who gathered in the chamber, and the throngs who packed the viewing gallery, had booked an appointment expecting a funeral. He grasped his monocle, inhaled, and spoke. The Mood in the country had changed, and his last roll of the dice had failed. He lived and died by the people's will, and even though he believed that he continued to serve, even those on his government benches had smelt the decay. His opposite, Henry Campbell-Bannerman, was not in an ecstatic, nor did he gloat in any way. In a sense, everyone but him knew he had misjudged the Commons, the States and his Executive Council.
"You will excuse me, Mr Speaker, if I am a little out of practice. I have returned from South Africa in my service to this nation, but I am bound to say that my disciplines for the service and respect to this chamber are a little rusty. As the Member for Dublin, who issued a Private Members Bill on provisions for Educations for the States, and the Member for Chelsea who introduced the Temperance Options Bill, and the Member for Manchester who introduced the Local Finance Bill, I say this. These things may matter to you and your constituents, as the happiness and wellbeing of the people in these matters in South Africa, Canada and Australia would require the same interrogation and debate. But their concerns matter not to you, and your concerns matter not to them. I compel this House to turn the debate to the Bill I present to you today, which concerns our Imperial Policy, and I would say, Mr Speaker, that everything which affects their interests as well as yours, has for them, as it ought to have for us, supreme importance. Our Imperial policy is vital to them and vital to us. Upon that Imperial Policy, and upon what could be done today, depends that the tremendous issue whether this great Empire of ours is to stand together, one free nation, if necessary against all the world, or whether it is to fall apart, as some threaten in the house to break our Union of States apart. To fall into selfishness, with the commonweal falling into the distance of view. I believe this Bill, Mr Speaker, may bring us the ever perfect union that we could now seek."
He would lose the vote. He would, the next night, after an 18-hour debate, lose a motion of no confidence that would once again split the party he led in two. Then, he would attempt to bend his own rules and seek a double dissolution of a Parliament he created. 1903 was a real rollercoaster for him. It also brought the end of a quite extraordinary period of political domination by a man whom it seemed had a spell on the people of this island. He shape-shifted, he always arrived with a new gang, but he wouldn't be able to beat this one. When he entered the public consciousness in 1869, few would have predicted his impact on the Empire he adored, but it was exit stage left for Chamberlain, who burned one too many bridges in his time in Number 10. Watching amongst the crowds was his son, Premier of Mercia, Austen Chamberlain who would soon come to dominate the landscape of British Politics the way he had done. His allies, Alfred Milner, John Gorst, and Arthur Balfour would stand by him but Britain wouldn't. Britain would go to the polls after Chamberlain sought a rare double dissolution of Parliament - something he had only done once before since he first became Prime Minister, some 29 years prior. Many believed now that he had personally profited from a war in South Africa, an accusation he vehemently denied, but the criticism that he had managed to deflect his entire career simply couldn't be ignored any further. Socialists now openly demanded his resignation, Irish Republican Trade Unions threatened a general strike and many were refusing conscription for service to South Africa. Many in the House were simply amazed that he had not understood the mood of the public. A faint cry could even be heard of crowds outside the Chamber, held off by Metropolitan Police baying for the Prime Minister's blood. Chamberlain heard the cries, and in all of this he later told Austen, he could only remember his first Radical meeting in Birmingham, in 1864.
Chamberlain had attended the meeting on the recommendation of his Unitarian Minister, as they were advocating against the National Government's plan for policing. The Second Liberal Era, epitomised by the National Party and its progress had given that word, "Liberal", no meaning at all to be perfectly honest, as the various factions in Parliament melted into the National Party soon after the formation of the Palmerston Government. Irish Nationalists, who advocated the continuation of the Order system, an Irish Tory, presented the only real opposition in Parliament, other than a few token Labour and Independent candidates allowed through the Registrars claws - usually after a lengthy High Court case. When Disraeli accepted the position of Chancellor in the Palmerston Government, the Liberal-Conservatives meshed with the Whigs and the Economic Liberals to form a new Liberal-Tory Party, which sealed off political reform and pursued fierce economic reform, uniting the middle and upper classes together. There hadn't been a national opposition movement or party for some time, since the 1852 election, but the feeling of Palmerston's mortality had awoken a desire for change. In London in 1864, the Progressives, a coalition of Social Reformers and Trade Unions, had won control of the Order and began to propose policies to the Governor like a ten-hour day for Metropolis staff, free education and cheaper transport, they found themselves dissolved. The dissolution and subsequent suspension of the Order had brought Chamberlain out. As a businessman in the city, known as the "Screw King" but more importantly as a Unitarian, the state of the territories streets and alleyways, slums and smog-stained roads concerned him and he wished to do something about it. He also believed that the Orders, the sole victory of the Democrats from the Reformist Ascendency, were the sole body able to implement free education to all - something that was, at this stage, his primary goal. The National Government's failure to intervene on this matter, leaving education to individual churches and charitable organisations and most importantly the Orders, was just one of the many grievances a new generation began to express during the latter years of Palmerston's reign and Chamberlain was just one of several influential people growing unenthused for the one true doctrine of Liberalism. A greater tendency to utilise Parliamentary Supremacy, and a vice-like grip on the Senate and a compliant party regime of Registrars, Executive Council and Cabinet members, Lords, Lords Senators and Lord Senators-to-be (wink, wink), meant that the spoils system was truly rampant from the period of Aberdeen's departure and the formation of Palmerston's first Ministry. This renewed sinecure, this rampant waste and the vicious repercussions of Crimean and the Raj meant there was a renewed appetite for Radicalism in the country. Radicalism had been pushed to the edges of power since Duncombe's disastrous campaign as Prime Minister, and to understand their rise of power and Chamberlain's rise alongside it, you must go back to the day that Robert Peel, Prime Minister, was killed in an accident.
After Peel's death, Lord Senator Aberdeen was approached by the Queen to form a new Executive Council and Cabinet, which he accepted with glee, resigning his seat in the Senate and taking up a seat in the Commons to adhere to conventions. Discussions about his cabinet saw Lord Senator Russell become Foreign Minister as Lord Senator Grey, who was to become Chancellor of the Exchequer wouldn't serve in the cabinet if Palmerston was made Foreign Minister. Palmerston was compensated with a role at the head of the Home Office, however. Palmerston had dominated Foreign Policy, quietly and decisively holding the Foreign Office in his grasp during many of the unstable 1830s and 1840s - dominating the Foreign Policy landscape with Peel taking a more active affair in the domestic scene. Just before Peel's death, Palmerston had been embroiled in an affair in which he had nearly started a war with Greece over a British subject, Don Pacifico - annoying fellow European powers Russia and France, who shared protectorate status, with Britain, for Greece. The Liberal Grandees of the Senate, where Palmerston sat and where the majority of foreign affairs was discussed, presented a motion to the chamber:
That, while the House fully recognizes the right and duty of the Government to secure to Her Majesty's subjects residing in foreign states the full protection of the laws of those states, it regrets to find, by the correspondence recently laid upon the table by Her Majesty's command, that various claims against the Greek government, doubtful in point of justice or exaggerated in amount, have been enforced by coercive measures directed against the commerce and people of Greece, and calculated to endanger the continuance of our friendly relations with other powers.
These grandees, Grey and Russell included, passed the motion, considered a slap on the knuckles for nearly plunging Britain into a conflict. Palmerston, however, was unmoved and John Arthur Roebuck, an opposition member from the Radicals proposed a counter-motion vindicating him. In this all-night debate, Palmerston spoke for five hours, defining the rights of the Roman Citizen to walk around the world unharmed, and the principle applying to all British subjects. He won the debate and won over Gladstone and Peel in the process. He was assured of his ascendency that would see his foreign policy enclave continue unabridged. But then tragedy struck, Peel was dead, and his replacement was heavily influenced by the Liberal Clique in the Senate to shake things up, and move Palmerston to the Home Office after his embarrassment in the Ionian Islands. Moving Palmerston would help usher in a new period in less confrontational, and fundamentally more liberal foreign policy. But this insistence on stability and accountability in the foreign office was not for the time. The Don Pacifico Affair had been the beginning of a new, more confrontational period on foreign policy brought on by a wave of revolutions in 1848. These toppled the regime in France, where the Monarchy was abolished and Prince-President Louis Napoleon ruled the Second French Republic. Prince Metternich's iron grip over European Diplomacy was ended and German Unification was attempted and then aborted at the Frankfurt Parliament - Radicals were disenfranchised and disappointed by the lost dreams of a generation, much as those in 1842 in Britain were disenfranchised by the gains made over the previous decades. While the famine directed much of the attention away, and with the Young Irelander Insurrection being the only minor skirmish on British soil, the factors that led to the revolutions in Europe were not missing from the Islands. Revolutionary pressure had been spent through 1832 and 1842, and the General Strikes aftermath was to see further recrimination for Trade Unionism. Church and state piled weight behind anti-Unionism, and just as with radicalism and reformism in the 1830s, Catholics and Nonconformists were once again bore the brunt for the blame of Trade Unionism, as Unitarians and Catholics provided much of playbook for organising power and formed a significant proportion of its leadership - movements like the Cooperative Movement were similarly frowned upon. As Liberalism meant a divorce of the Church from economic and political matters, the retention of the churches pressure in social matters proved a useful tool for the Palmerstonian Ministers in this time and especially during Gladstone's rule in the latter stages of the dominance. The dual forces of Duncombe's Government and Peel's Government had meant that anti-Radicalism had overtaken traditional City & Country, King & Parliament divides within British Politics. Most adhered to Free Trade, most accepted Universal Suffrage and most understood the need for Britain to be a presence, but not a hindrance, on the European Concert of Power. Economic modernisation and progress was the primary goal for the nation, through the Church of Free Trade. This was guarded by a fiercely non-interventionist Senate, which differed from the House in several ways, but most notably in that its composition was older, and more affected by the Napoleonic conflict and its aftermath - it guided foreign policy (and indeed contained the main military personnel at that time) and with the House dealing with less domestic policy and more foreign affairs, Aberdeen thought that Palmerston's abrasive style would alienate the Upper House, while Russell was a known moderate and would be more in tune with the Senates composition.
But when a crisis developed in Crimea, brought on by the Russians attempted intervention in the Ottoman Empire, Aberdeen and Russell's command of the diplomatic situation that ensued curtailed the legitimacy of his Government and very quickly Palmerston began to intervene in debates in the Senate about the issue advocating for more decisive action, and when he began to be supported by the House, tense talks about the Government's handling of the crisis after the invasion of the Danubian Principalities by Russia, where British and French soldiers could only watch as the Russians rolled over the territory, brought the issue of Aberdeen's competence, and the competence of the Government to run the affairs of the War. That, combined with a series of damning articles in the Press, lead to Disraeli, forming the last of the Tory opposition mustering 130 or so, mostly Ulster Unionists opposed to Butt's administration, put together enough support in the Commons to force a motion of no confidence in 1853, under a year since the Liberals were returned with nearly two-thirds of the seats in the House. The Liberals in the Commons, who wanted greater action and now, had broken with the Senate, non-interventionalist Liberals who wanted the war to be contained and supported Russell. Rather than risk another General Election, Victoria decided to appoint just about every but Palmerston as Prime Minister before relenting and asking him to nominate an Executive Council he made himself, much to the displeasure of Victoria Foreign Minister as well. He was briefed with forming an all-Parliamentary cabinet by Victoria, who distrusted factionalism in the Parliament, so he approached Benjamin Disraeli, leader of the Tories in the Commons, to join as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Gladstone, who didn't trust Disraeli, withdrew his name from consideration and grew increasingly bitter against Disraeli. The Conservatives, as was under Disraeli, then ceased to be. The agricultural elements, mostly in the Senate, and most who didn't agree with the Palmerston Government from the right were considered "True" Tories, but these were few in number and led by Derby, who was purposefully excluded from the Coalition by Palmerston for his opposition to Free Trade, who wanted to confine the Executive Council to just Disraeli not to include these "True" Tories from the Senate. Palmerston referred to the government as an "all-Party Government" rather than the Liberal Government to acknowledge the input of the former Liberal-Conservatives, Conservatives and even Radicals, with William Molesworth, former Foreign Minister, returned to cabinet. Palmerston named a smaller war cabinet made of his Executive Councillors, and attempted to build a consensus amongst the varying factions in Parliament by promoting the former leader of the Conservatives and their Leader in the Senate, Earl Derby and Disraeli, into his Executive Council of 7 men, with John Russell returned as Home Minister and Earl Senator Lincoln, who was Minister for War, but Derby refused. Another lexicon change occurred also, with Palmerston naming his Executive Council ministers as "Secretaries of State" to distinguish them from non-Executive Ministers. Therefore, the Secretary of State, an older fashioned term associated with the pre-Parliament Act lexicon became the by-word for Executive Minister.
7th Executive Council
President of the Council, Prime Minister, Secretary of State for the Foreign Office, Leader of the Senate - Lord Senator Palmerston, Whig
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Leader of the House - Benjamin Disraeli, Liberal-Tory
Vice President of the Council - Lord Senator Hartington, Whig
Secretary of State for War Office - Earl Senator Lincoln, Liberal-Tory
Secretary of State for the Home Office - Lord Senator John Russell, Liberal-Tory
Secretary of State for the Colonies - Sir William Molesworth, Independent Radical
President of the Board of Trade - Lord Senator Granville, Liberal-Tory
The result was a disaster for the Peelite nucleus of the Liberal party in the Commons since Peel's second period as Prime Minister advocating for for a new technocratic and economically liberal future for the country. Peace and reform was no match for a conflict over religion and the technocratic government of Aberdeen was ill-prepared for the war and the faction as a whole took the brunt of the criticism of its poor planning and execution was directed at the "Friends of Peel" at the heart of the Liberal government. Palmerston's decision to include the former protectionist Tories was only made possible by Disraeli's admission to the Commons in 1852 that the Tory policy had now accepted Free Trade - Peelites, especially Gladstone, didn't accept that they had accepted Free Trade and many were still seething from the personal insults thrown during the Free Trade debates. This led to many of the Peelites moving into roles in Provincial Administrations. In March 1854, George Campbell would accept the offer to become Lord Secretary of HM Government in Scotland (HMGIS), fulfilling the role for three years, in a period he described as characterised in his diaries as 'a blissful vacation from all the shouting'. Sidney Herbert accepted a role in the Metropolitan Government as Treasurer and undertook a transformation in the capital's finances, even so much as a hearing, through gritted teeth, Disraeli praising his work in April 1859 when he left.
But the most famous example was, of course, William Gladstone, who in his fume at the appointment of Disraeli accepted the role of Chief Secretary to the Governor of Northumbria, Lord Brougham, leading the Northumbrian Order. He replaced with understated Matthew Talbot Baines and even said upon his appointment that he "considered the role a brief sojourn until he was removed from the Treasury" - no need to describe who 'he' was referring to, but his stay would indeed be longer, keeping him here for the best part of two and a half years, and he would return to the North later in his career, but would always keep his seat of South Lancashire. He also accepted the treasury role, to enable the construction of a sound financial footing for the Province, and in true Gladstonian style, also accepted the Presidencies of the Northumbrian Boards of Trade and Education - it was here that he intended to have the most effect. The Province was in decent shape but had a reputation for 'politicking' down South, a pejorative term for 'soft' practices by Brougham, such as allowing all who wanted to stand to be on the ballot. This had led to the unseemly sight for many in Westminster of workers in the Northumbrian Order, and indeed in the First Order, many of the appointed members refused to attend due to having to share the assembly with the workers. The First Order were mainly drawn from the Local Lords, miffed that the House had been abolished and they could only meddle in the affairs of Education and Poor Reform and not Church and State, held a misery view of the process and despite provision being made for a quorum of both elements of both Orders in the original act, it was quietly abolished due to the low attendance in a series of provincial reforms in early 1850 after a Senate report. As Gladstone's legislation, he admitted a great disappointment at seeing the boards, which were designed to be a fine balance between the aristocracy, the middle-class and the commons, with the First and Second Order, so “miserably empty”. Brougham's strict adherence to universal candidacy and suffrage meant that the United Trades controlled a significant number of seats, and Joshua Hobson, the Speaker of the Order, was generally in opposition to the undemocratic nature of the acts. This brought him in direct competition with the author of the Acts. Gladstone wrote, "the newspapers here in York, especially the Herald and General Advertiser, makes it seem that there if a dual set between myself and the Honourable Speaker of the Order, I was unaware of the bad feeling for which I had perambulated, and was equally unaware of the strong feelings the politicians within the Order, and the wider community had in its dealings and the scrutiny of the Administration in the Province." Newspapers in the Northern cities were amongst the freest in the Kingdom, with Courts hamstrung by personal interventions by the Governor in numerous Provincial hearings, including a series before the 1842 General Strike on Northern Star journalists, gossip and unsubstantiated stories would often plague much of the "gutter press", primarily in poorer cities, due to an almost complete absence of censorship.
It was here that he would set about his reformist zeal. He approached the Speaker, Joshua Hobson, and proposed debates on Education and Health Legislation, with the Elementary Education (Northumbria) Ordinance. He proposed that every County make a register of the schooling provision to monitor shortfalls in the places available. If shortfalls occurred, then a School Board would be created for the County Authority with the ability to grant funds from the public purse, managed by a 'provincial rate' paid by businesses, split between Counties and the Provinces/States, and a block grant to the Provincial Authorities, managed from the Treasury. The plan was due to cost more than the Northumbrian Treasury would receive that year, so Gladstone would have to request additional funds from the Chancellor, Disraeli. He would simply not do this, so envisioned a scheme to encourage industrialists and business owners to fund schooling. He allowed expenditure on private education to be deducted from rates to fund the project. A smaller proportion of the Northumbrian budget would be spent on Education, as private businesses were encouraged to invest in local education. This contribution system worked well into the 1860s, and with the Institutions created by Brougham in the 1840s, meant that Northumbrian school children were educated at an extremely high rate. This was made possible by support from the United Trades block, which Joseph Hobson had managed to position, through the Order, as a position of influence. While the idea of Hobson was to have the Orders gradually transform into a State Legislature of sorts, headed by an Executive Council whose advice the Governor was bound to act upon, including the use of the Police (reserved for the Governor) and the passage of Ordinances. Hobson would continue to advocate throughout his career, but he formally endorsed Gladstone in 1853. Hobson's endorsement of the marked the end of the United Trades movement, which began to support the administration of Gladstone. Brougham, Talbot-Baines and now Gladstone all believed that the Orders were for the process of raising issues, providing non-binding advice and approving a budget, which was considered a convention after the Budget Crisis in the plenary session. Gladstone understood, however, the growing influence of public support, and with United Trades candidates being elected in droves in industrial areas on County Councils, especially in West Yorkshire, and the movement spreading to Wales and Mercia, that co-opting these trade organisations would bring large support amongst Industrial workers, who were a growing part of the electorate. By 1853, economic structural change was occurring in the British Isles, and labour was moving from agriculture to industry, with the combined weight of the gradual transformation of industry in Britain since the late 1790s to an industrialised model and vast improvements in efficiency in agriculture, meant labour was bound to come across. Urban male workers accounted for 15% of the population nationally but hadn't unified under a single political movement since Thomas Duncombe, except in Northumbria, where the number was 23%, with pro-Trade Union workers on the docks in Liverpool, Manufacturing Plants in Manchester, Shipbuilding in Newcastle and Heavy Woollen Mills in West Yorkshire alike beginning to unify under one political faction. Gladstone feared the presence of another class-based party and was well aware of the history of non-compliance in the past. Lord Governor Brougham had shielded the Province from much mire in Westminster, where he was repeatedly called in front of the Senate Select Committee for the attendance of these organisations, described by one MP as "Spencean in Nature", in the governing process. Brougham understood the need to maintain rights that the people in the region had fought for in 1831 and again in 1842, and disrupting the political system, or cracking down on political crimes could light another fuse. Most incurred him to use his seizure of candidature powers, which could strike a candidate off the ballot, but he repeatedly refused.
Gladstone's time in Northumbria from 1853-57 allowed him to develop a differing strategy from Palmerston's worldview. To understand the difference is to see the company kept in this time. Palmerston shifted the political compass and drew in talent from all over. Disraeli considered him the Leader of the Conservative Party, the heir to Peel, finally uniting the Whigs, like Russell and traditional Tories like Derby, who was appointed President of the Board of Control in 1853, but they were united in ending the instability caused by the arrival of the Radicals, who were significantly smaller and only occupied anywhere from 45-50 seats in each Parliament, and were behind the total posted by the Irish Nationalists. From the inside, it was political bliss and the 'truce' became part of the common lexicon of the Parliament. This truce between Traditional Whig and Traditional Tory was held together by an insistence at the control of the Government for a coalition of the wealthy interests of the nation, a lack of desire for further political reform and an understanding that further political reform would be equated with Republicanism, and an adherence to free trade, although Palmerston, for the benefit of his Tory Ministers, put the issue to the backburner after Disraeli had accepted the principle of Free Trade on behalf of the Conservatives in 1852. While this didn't quell protectionist interests, the issue wasn't raised again in Parliament until... we'll get to that. As I said early, after 1852, both the Conservatives and the Whigs viewed Palmerston as their own, at worst half and half, and after Disraeli accepted the position in the cabinet, both the Tories and Whigs considered Palmerston their leader. While I've exclusively referred to the Palmerstonian Party as 'Liberal' as that was the party of Peel, the Liberal party in Parliament was in opposition to the Tory/Conservative party in the Commons and Senate. For this 'Liberal' party, that is not the case. A.J.P Taylor refers to the group of MPs and Senators that surrounded Palmerston in this time to be the 'Liberal-Tories' or 'Whig-Tories' - a mesh of both political belief systems. Palmerston was not a true liberal in the outright sense of the word, although he did have Liberal tendencies, and his cabinet was not liberal outside of the constraints of its adherence to free trade and economic liberalism, although it did have some Liberal ministers, like Molesworth, who would remain in the coalition for now. This coalition between the Commercial Class and Aristocracy protected their interests from the perceived threat of the working classes, especially in the aftermath of the turbulent 1840s. Gladstone however had begun to see the utility of the working man - 'Pam' as Palmerston would come to be known, would learn the ways of the common man himself: he won six general elections - the last not long before his death, and unified factions and working-class support in a similar fashion to Peel, but Palmerston would use Foreign Policy and Patriotism to further his cause, while Gladstone would use domestic policy. Further to this, Palmerston's Premiership was divided into two equally important sections; an initial period focusing on foreign policy (1852-1860), which was successful and a later period of domestic policy (1860-1865) which sowed division after his death.
His first period was characterised by the conflict that brought him to power - the Crimean War. Foreign Policy defined his time as Prime Minister, with the rush to isolate the Russian Bear setting the tone for later strategic decisions. The spectre of Russophobia had whipped Britain into a sense of duty to stop the advance from the East. It was not concerned with its weak naval power, but its strong standing army and the mass of Russian soldiers as a force, whipped up by expanding press, meant support for Palmerston's strong will for the war was solid. The perception of the slow decline of the Ottoman Empire, and the need to stem Russian expansion into the East fuelled British interest in the conflict. It drew them into an alliance with the ascendant Napoleon III in France, whom the British were equally mistrustful as the Russians, especially in regards to their vast military advancements in such a short time under the namesake of the last Frenchmen to arm so readily and play power politics so freely, and the Sardinians, who had empirical aspirations of their own, looking to unify the Italian peninsular. While the war was eventually fought out to a bloody yet satisfying victory for the allies, who stopped the Russian bear from overreaching into the Near East, it was the largest war the continent had faced since the Napoleonic Wars, and perhaps Russia's greatest hurt was caused by the failure of Austria, it's a long-term ally, to come to its rescue - intervening on the side of the Allies. This would not be forgotten. Palmerston's early period in office would be defined by the Crimean War, a war inherited and badly prepared for by the Aberdeen administration, who lacked the know-how that Palmerston would have brought to proceedings. He readily used this to his advantage. With the war still raging, Palmerston even managed to delay the dissolution of Parliament to continue the effort, waiting a full two years, by repealing the clauses of the Parliament Act and allowing a majority vote in favour of extension 'in times of crisis. In March 1856, however, a treaty was signed. The very little territory had been handed over, the Danubian Principalities were nominally returned to the Ottomans, but were in practice independent. The Great Powers secured the integrity of the Ottoman Empire also. The Treaty of Paris would lie the blame at Russia's feet - but in practice, Austria would lose out from the next 15 years of diplomacy. Much was lost, little was gained.
Despite the strategic victory, British opinion on the war was outraged. A cultural anti-war movement grew in Britain against the conflict, fuelling a fierce anti-war movement that centred around the largest press contingent ever sent to a conflict. Stories about the incompetent running of the War, the uncleanliness of the hospitals, which propelled Florence Nightingale to the fore of the public attention through her campaign to be allowed to travel to the British Army camps to improve conditions. Newspapers such as The Times would run pages and pages on battle reports, particularly the bloody Battle of Balaclava in 1854, when catastrophic commanding miscommunications between Lord Senator Raglan and Lord Lucan, in charge of Light Brigade, led to massive losses, with only 190 of the 670 men surviving as they attacked to collect guns that weren't there. The Charge of the Light Brigade became a part of the lore of the Crimean War and its aftermath. William Howard Russell of The Times was scathing in his criticism: "Our Light Brigade was annihilated by their rashness, and by the brutality of a ferocious enemy". The nature of the press meant that news drip-fed to the masses, with nearly a month between the battle and the controversy at home. Palmerston palmed the criticism to Aberdeen, who sent the country into war when unprepared. Not everyone was convinced. Russell would write later: "our only call is for REINFORCEMENTS, no matter how the Executive Council and Cabinet decides on the matters, or considers the problem solved now the Premier has changed. Not a day not an hour, should be lost in compensating for this delay by the most vigourous and energetic action. We must not hope for 16,000, or even 20,000 men that the PREMIER and LORD RAGLAN seemed so arduous that he was not to leave a single combatant behind." Despite this clamour, Palmerston's desire and drive to win the war, combined with a hostile Russophobia in the press, led to fierce support for Palmerston's policy. After the invasion of the Danubian territories, Aberdeen had spent his political capital and the rule of the Liberal Senators would be replaced with a rule led by a Senator (Palmerston would join the Commons in 1854 after a search to find a seat) but represented by Disraeli in the Commons, signalling a key change away from the non-interventionist line of the Liberals in the Senate. Disraeli felt that Empire was the way to secure the prosperity of the country as a whole. Despite this assumption, there was noted a sea-change in the public perception of war, diminishing the glorious nature of the battle and coming to terms with the realism of war and the brutality of the conflict. Nightengale, Russell and co, who covered and brought public attention to the war, brought with it a new distaste for the gorier details of conflict: disease, brutality and death formed the greatest part of this conflict for the first time. While Palmerston and (to a lesser extent) Disraeli were popular with the voters, the mood did change in the Election of 1856.
This election was possibly the first 'khaki election', with the voters polling just a month after the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Palmerston's unifying government and his overwhelming popularity in the Commons led to his grouping, which included such diverse figures as Disraeli, Molesworth, Russell and Granville, spanning the political divide had transformed the nature of Parliamentary politics. While he used the term All-Party before the election, during the election use of the terms "Centre" or "National" began to circulate into the lexicon more aggressively around candidates in support of Pam's ministry. Palmerston represented the Centre of British Politics at the time, and to his right, bitter and beaten Tories and to his left, bitter and beaten Radicals both watched as he swayed masses upon masses to his government. Palmerston also got supremely lucky. With the election scheduled for early November, Palmerston was allowed to show the cleavage between him and his opponents to the voters. In October, the Chinese seized a British ship with a Chinese crew. Harry Peakes, the Cantonese British Consul, was irked by the tearing down of the Union Jack from the ship despite the ship being unregistered. Peakes argued this was an overstepping of boundaries, the tearing down of the flag was disrespectful and deserved retribution - which was delivered with an attack on the Chinese Commissioner, Ye Mingchen's palace and the surrounding area. Ye retaliated, launching a campaign against British ships. This came in the middle of tensions around the Opium Wars, and Palmerston's policy of protecting British interests at all costs, meant to the surprise of nearly all in the chamber, most notably Disraeli, he voiced his support for Peakes but lost a censure motion after a furious backlash from the more non-interventionist Government supporting MPs, especially in the formerly Moderates who were the most non-interventionalist members in the coalition. The small numbers of Tories voted with the Government, with a near-uniform Imperialist resolve. Palmerston realised a rightward shift, expelling the left of his coalition, would be best to secure a more resilient majority. So Palmerston made in his defence of Peakes in a particular tone - he insinuated that "anti-English feelings" contributed to opposition to the actions of Peakes - making nationalism the key divisional point between the two camps.
1856 Election Results
Pro-Administration (Palmerstonian) 376 (+95)
Whigs/Liberals 252
Liberal-Tory 124
Anti-Administration 239 (-95)
Tory 68 (-99)
Radicals 94 (+34)*
Irish Nationalists 59 (-27)
Confederates 11 (-2)
Working Man's 8
Crossbench 36 (+19)
Independents 36 (+19)
In the election itself, and while Pam had called the mood of the electorate, more so than the anti-Peakes camp, the opposition to the so-called "gunboat diplomacy" that characterised Palmerston's foreign policy (throughout his career in the Foreign Office from 1832) coalesced into a revival for Radicalism on both of the traditional camps, Whig and Tory. Members on the left and right began to drift to a measured radical revival. While in 1857 they would fall supremely short of a majority and there was large support for Pam's policies, Radicals gained alongside Pam's grouping, with the Liberal party completely replaced by the National Government's supporters. In Ireland, supporters of Palmerston's government made gains at the expense of both traditional Tories and Irish Nationalist seats, despite Butt's continued popularity as Irish Chief Secretary. While the results are hard to quantify, as with many of the elections after 1846, the majority was clearly in favour of Palmerston's Government. Palmerston's lieutenants, Grenville and Disraeli, disliked each other immensely but were united in their pursuit of forming a more solid infrastructure in the Commons for the overwhelming support for Palmerston's Government. Most importantly, on the advice of Disraeli, Palmerston resigned his seat in the Senate (he was due to be rotated regardless) and take up a seat in the Commons. Disraeli and Grenville organised a meeting three days after the election on 12th November 1856 at the Willis Rooms, St James Street to gather supporters of the Administration. A London Times report spoke of the contents of the meeting;
Whigs, Tories meet to support the candidacy of Palmerston as Premier
A meeting of the Government's supporters was held yesterday afternoon at Willis's Rooms and was attended by 315 gentlemen, representing the various sections of that party. The proceedings were opened by Lord Palmerston, who observed that the issue upon which Her Majesty's Government had dissolved Parliament was not the question of Reform, or any other matter of legislation, but simply and solely whether they possessed the confidence of the country. He believed that the election had given a conclusive answer to that question and that it was the business of the National party to determine whether or not to accept the challenge which had been given them. He believed it more manly, more straightforward course to do so and briefly sketched out the terms of the proposed programme for gaining renewed confidence in the present Government, which he stated that Mr Disraeli and Mr Hanbury were respectfully willing to propose and second, should the meeting deem it advisable for them to do so. His Lordship dwelt on support for the situation on the continent, and the Government had met within their endeavours to continue to hold the confidence of the Councils of Europe upon so momentous that of peace and war, could not be trusted in the hands of Radicals and Ultras with the conduct of our foreign relations. He also insisted strongly on the duty of maintaining strict neutrality and said that the desires of Lord Derby, in his speeches in the Senate; and declared that he could not foresee any circumstance which would render the hostile intervention of England necessary.
Lord John Russell next addressed the meeting and, after strong insisting a Tory-Radical Government would be dangerous and unconstitutional, expressed his desire to support the National Government of Lord Palmerston, in the event that the noble Lord be called upon to form an Administration; or to avail himself of his assistance in the vent of his being required to conduct the affairs of the country himself. His Lordship, the Senator adverted in the course of his speech to the state of the National Government, and expressed his opinion that in the event of a National Government being formed it was essential that the two great sections of the party, the Whigs and Tories, should each be represented in it.
Lord Palmerston explained that, in his opinion, nothing was so conducive to the interests of Europe and the preservation of peace as the maintenance of a strict alliance between England and France.
Mr M Milnes and Mr Lindsay then addressed the meeting, which shortly after separated.
The meeting is now regarded as the transformation of the party in support of Palmerston into the National Party, formed in the centre of British Politics. Each of the Executive Council in the upcoming administration was present, and Palmerston knew he had the support of a further 60 or so members who would sit on the Government benches. The Party was primarily a party of foreign policy, reflecting the lower amount of social policy passing through Parliament since the foundation of the Orders, and supported the aggressive, posturing neutrality of Palmerston ("gunboat diplomacy"), the desire to move past decisions of Reform, and towards using Government to protect British Interests, while accepting reform had taken place. Undercurrents within the National Party desired to pursue a "National Policy" of centralisation and unification of services back under Parliament, most notably Disraeli who felt the Orders and Provincial Reform disturbed the natural balance of the constitution - and wished to centralise among other things policing. The Governors, more Radical on the whole, were a thorn in the side for central Government and had in Northumbria, Mercia, Scotland and Ireland, managed to pursue social agendas that Parliament was unable to match - attracting working-class voters in abundance. While rural workers supported Pam and a large number of urban workers were also on board, Urban workers across the North split their allegiance between Radical administrations in their Orders, now coordinated by former Peelites like Gladstone, and supporting Palmerston as a National Government. Victoria would invite Palmerston to form an Executive Council and Cabinet a few days after the meeting in the Willis Rooms and the contribution of Palmerston to the National cause is unparalleled. Palmerston's ideology of strong British Nationalism and defence of British interests united people across the political divide, Whig and Tory alike. His position between the two parties, his roles within Government's of both colours and the unilateral support for Free Trade across much of England, Scotland Wales and Ireland meant he could stretch across the spectrum and unite warring factions against Ultra Tories on the right, and Ultra Radicals on the left. But the even-handed coalescence with Radical voters, spurred by the collapse of the United Trades into the Radical camp once again, meant that there was a united and powerful body of MPs ready to oppose the Government. In the usual fashion, they lacked a leader - but they would gain a unifying figure to rally behind in the course of Palmerton's second term.
Last edited:
