Maybe the opposition in Britain changes the government. This included some progressive opinion formers, significant sections of the working class and a middle aged lady name of Victoria
Unlikely. Palmerston suffered a Vote Of No Confidence in 1864 which he narrowly survived, but the cause for calling it was that he had been insufficiently belligerent over the Danish-Prussian War.Maybe the opposition in Britain changes the government. This included some progressive opinion formers, significant sections of the working class and a middle aged lady name of Victoria
The opposition includes progressive opinion formers? The opposition in 1862 is the Conservative party: granted, they'd introduced a reform bill in 1859, but I doubt anybody would class the Fourteenth Earl of Derby and Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil as progressive. In case you hadn't noticed, John Bright and Richard Cobden voted for Palmerston in that 1864 no-confidence motion, largely because it was a choice between Palmerston or the Tories.Maybe the opposition in Britain changes the government. This included some progressive opinion formers, significant sections of the working class and a middle aged lady name of Victoria
Whipping aside, Palmerston could probably survive a motion of no-confidence on the votes of pro-South Liberals like John Arthur Roebuck, William Schaw Lindsay, and William Gregory, plus the Conservatives (who, we're told, were all rabidly pro-South):To make it clear - in the Trent War situation at the least, this is not a war over slavery or over supporting a slave state. It's a war over violation of British neutral rights, and the anti-slavery faction in Britain considers the Union hypocritical and far too preachy over antislavery for what they've been actually doing (which is to keep slavery except for enemy slave holders - something the British were using as a tactic in the 1770s!)
Britain was NOT a Democracy. Probably 70% of men and 100% of women were voteless.
We cannot be certain of the state of public opinion.
A significant proportion of the UK establishment (which certainly hated democracy) sympathised with the treasonous rebels who had refused to accept a lawful election.
In this case there was no ban post so one presumes the ban-ee was a sockpuppet of an ex-member...
Here's what I think they had in each port around 5th January 1862, including tenders to Coastguard ships but excluding tenders to training ships (which could still have been fitted with weapons for port defence) and gunboats preparing in the steam reserve.As an incidental aside, the British approach to the job of coast defence was, in addition to forts, to handle it with a fairly substantial fleet.