Notes INTRODUCTION 1. W. Bagehot, The English Constitution, R. Crossman (ed.) (London, 1963) p. 158. 2. G. Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England (London, 1965) p.208. 3. Gladstone memo, n.d. (? 12 April 1855) Gladstone Mss. 44745, fol. 203. 4. Kitson Clark, Making of Victorian England, pp. 210-11. 5. See G. H. L. LeMay, The Victorian Constitution (London, 1979) pp. 17-39; L. B. Namier, 'Monarchy and the Party System', in Per­ sonalities and Power (London, 1955); J.P. Mackintosh, The British Cabinet (London, 1962); A. S. Foord, 'The Waning of the Influence of the Crown', EHR, 62 (1947) pp. 484-526. 6. Bagehot, The English Constitution, p. 158. 7. See A. Mitchell, The Whigs in Opposition 1815-30 (Oxford, 1967); A. Aspinall, Lord Brougham and the Whig Party (London, 1972); J. Cannon, Parliamentary Reform (Cambridge, 1972); J. Derry, Charles James Fox (London, 1972); E. Smith, Whig Principles and Party Politics (Manchester, 1976); N. Gash, Reaction and Reconstruction in English Politics 1832-52 (Oxford, 1965); A. D. Kriegel (ed.) The Holland House Diaries (London, 1977); and L. Mitchell, Holland House (London, 1980). 8. See N. Gash, Mr. Secretary Peel (London, 1961) p. 9; and J. C. D. Clark, 'A General Theory of Party, Opposition and Government, 1688-1832', HJ, 23:2 (1980) pp. 307-11. 9. In I. D. C. Newbould, 'Whiggery and the Dilemma of Reform: Liberals, Radicals, and the Melbourne Administration, 1835-9', BIHR, 53 (1980) pp. 229-41, the Whigs' embarrassment of purpose is kindly interpreted as an attempt at compromise. The translation of an opposition tradition into government policy, however, was an obligation calculated to distress. 10. See N. Gash, Sir Robert Peel (London, 1972) and Reaction and Reconstruction by the same author. See also G. I. T. Machin, Politics and the Churches in Great Britain 1832-1868 (Oxford, 1977); R. Blake, The Conservative Party from Peel to Churchill (London, 1970); Lord Butler (ed.) The Conservatives: A History of their Origins to 1965 (London, 1977); D. Southgate (ed.) The Conservative Leader­ ship 1832-1932 (London, 1974; and R. Stewart, The Foundation of the Conservative Party 1830-1867 (London, 1978). 11. SeeN. Gash, Sir Robert Peel (London, 1972) pp. 283-4; N. Gash, 280 Notes 281 'Peel and the Party System, 1830-50', TRHS, 5th series (1950) pp. 47-59; A. B. Hawkins, 'Lord Derby and Victorian Conservatism: A Reappraisal', forthcoming Parliamentary History Yearbook. 12. See Gash, 'Peel and the Party System', p. 56. 13. This was Namier's observation as developed by Richard Pares, King George III and the Politicians (Oxford, 1953). 14. N. Gash, Aristocracy and People: Britain 1815-1865 (London, 1979) p. 163. See also D. E. D. Beales, 'Parliamentary Parties and the "Independent" Member, 1810-1860', in R. Robson (ed.) Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain (London, 1967) pp. 1-19; D. Close, 'The Formation of a Two-Party System in the House of Commons Between 1832 and 1841', EHR (1969) pp. 257-77; H. Herrington, 'Partisanship and Dissidence in the 19th century House of Commons', Parliamentary Affairs (1968) pp. 338-73; D. Large, 'The Decline of the "Party of the Crown" and the Rise of Parties in the House of Lords 1783-1837', EHR (1963) pp. 669-95; F. O'Gorman, 'The Problem of Party in Modern British History: 1725-1832', Govern­ ment and Opposition (1981) pp. 447-70. See J. C. D. Clark, 'A General Theory of Party, Opposition and Government, 1688-1832', HJ, 23:2 (1980) pp. 295-325, for an important discussion of the development of successive party systems after 1688 and their atten­ dant conventions of rhetoric and behaviour. 15. See T. L. Crosby, Sir Robert Peel's Administration 1841-46 (Newton Abbot, 1970); and R. Stewart, The Politics of Protection: Lord Derby and the Protectionist Party, 1841-1852 (Cambridge, 1971). 16. See Stewart, Foundation of the Conservative Party, pp. 128-46. In a consciously revisionist argument, R. H. Cameron, 'Parties and Politics in Early Victorian Britain', Canadian Journal of History, 13:3 (1979) pp. 375-93, alights on the discrepancy between rhetoric and senti­ ment and suggests that party leaders differed little and, ideologically, differed over means rather than ends. The discerning of consensus is astute. But the perception of political positions was framed within a deliberately adversarial rhetoric which was itself a reality shaping intent and behaviour. 17. See G. A. Cahill, 'Irish Catholicism and English Toryism', Review of Politics, 19 (1957) pp. 62-76. 18. As well as works cited above, the following articles contain much of value: W. 0. Aydelotte, 'The Country Gentlemen and the Repeal of the Corn Laws', EHR, 82 (1967); G. Kitson Clark, 'The Electorate and the Repeal of the Corn Laws', TRHS, 5th series, 1 (1951); and M. Lawson-Tancred, 'The Anti-League and the Corn Law Crisis of 1846', HJ, 3 (1960). 19. H. E. Maxwell, Life and Letters of G. W. Frederick, Fourth Earl of Clarendon, 2 vols (London, 1913) I, pp. 265-7. See also, F. A. Dreyer, 'The Whigs and the Political Crisis of 1845', EHR, 80 (July 1965) pp. 514-37. 20. Gash, Reaction and Reconstruction, pp. 189-200; and J. Prest Lord John Russell (London, 1972) pp. 219-344. See T. F. Gallagher, 'The Second Reform Movement, 1848-1867', Albion 12:2 (1980) pp. 282 Notes 147-63, for a discussion of the vitality of the reform issue despite public indifference. 21. For a discussion of the changing political climate of the 1850s see M. Bentley, Politics without Democracy (London, 1984) pp. 143-63. 22. There exists only one substantial study of this neglected parliamentary group; J. H. Whyte, The Independent Irish Party, 1850-1859 (Oxford, 1958). 23. Russell to Panmure, 26 August 1851, Dalhousie Mss. GD45/8/632, fol. 62. See also C. S. Parker, Life and Letters of Sir James Graham, (London, 1907) II, pp. 132-135. 24. Roebuck to Graham, 20 July 1852, Graham Mss. Bundle 119. 25. Graham to Aberdeen, 6 August 1852, Aberdeen Mss 43191, cited in Parker, Graham, II, p. 172. 26. Clarendon to Cornewall Lewis, 1 September 1852, cited in Maxwell, Clarendon, I, p. 346. 27. Stanley Diary, 1 March, 1853, Stanley Mss. 920 DER (15) 43/3; see also Stanley to Disraeli, 28 January 1853, Hughenden Mss. B/XX/S/ 588. 28. See C. H. Stuart, 'The Formation of the Coalition Cabinet of 1852', TRHS, 5th series (1954) pp. 45-68. 29. Ostrogorski originally coined the phrase 'the golden age of the back­ bencher' in order to lament the contrasting restrictions of party discipline and an oppressive executive on individual conscience later in the century. M. Ostrogorski, Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties (London, 1902). Richard Crossman echoed this thought in his introduction to Bagehot's English Constitution by suggesting 'the existence of a solid centre, composed of the majority of solid, sensible, independent M.P.s, collectively able to unmake minis­ tries, to defy when necessary their own Whips, and above all to frustrate the growth of constituency government outside', R. Cross­ man introduction to Bagehot, The English Constitution, p. 40. This interpretation dangerously distorts Bagehot's own emphasis on party connection. Attacks on party 'amend parliamentary government by striking out the very elements which make parliamentary government possible. At present the majority of parliament obey certain leaders; what those leaders propose they support, what those leaders reject they reject', Bagehot, The English Constitution, p. 157. 30. 'Opposition Government', The Edinburgh Review, January 1855, p. 3; R. Cecil, 'Independent Voting and Parliamentary Government', The Saturday Review, 28 February 1857. 31. Graham to Ellice, 7 January 1859, Ellice Mss. 15019, fol. 46, cited in Parker, Graham, II, p. 365. 32. Gladstone to Northcote, 9 October 1856, Iddesleigh Mss. 50014, fol. 340. 33. Gladstone to Aberdeen, 13 March 1856, Aberdeen Mss. 44089. 34. Disraeli, 5 March 1857, Hansard, 3rd series, cxuv, 1897. R. E. McGowen and W. L. Arnstein in 'The Mid-Victorians and the Two Party System', Albion, 11:3 (1979) pp. 242-58, suggest a disillusion- Notes 283 ment with party during the mid-Victorian period based upon the comment of some Whig-Liberal journals of the period. Therein lies a danger. Political journals took their cue from parliamentary circum­ stance. The quiescent survival of Conservative Party connection, and the disorder of non-Conservative (Peelite, Whig, Liberal and Radical) connection after 1850 forced some sort of coherent response from a partisan journalism looked to for intelligent comment. As a result the Conservative journals (the Quarterly Review, Blackwood's and Fraser's Magazine) upheld the virtues of party even when, through the acerbic pen of Lord Robert Cecil and the inclinations of the Rev. Elwin, the Quarterly Review became the vehicle of anti-Disraelian sentiment. At the same time Whig-Liberal journals, floundering in the confusion attending the Whig-Liberal disarray, sought a coherent position in eulogising the welcome end of party government. The Edinburgh Review, Westminster Review, North British Review and Economist described a partisanship in extolling non-partisanship. A consensus of intelligent opinion was defined based upon Whig axioms of contempt for the Conservatives and fear of Radicalism. The shift such a delineation of commonsense entailed, from legislative to execu­ tive preoccupations, was astutely exploited by Palmerston after 1855. By 1865, however, when circumstances created the opportunity to celebrate distinct party cleavages, those same journals eagerly seized the moment. 35. The Queen to the King of the Belgians, 17 March 1852, cited in A. C. Benson and Viscount Esher (eds) The Letters of Queen Victoria, 3 vols, 1st series, (London, 1907) II, p. 464. Beales has observed that despite the disorganisation of political connection after 1846 'the true "non-party" man is hard to find'.