London, July 8, 1864
Meanwhile our friends on this side are in the midst of a crisis. The failure of the Ministry to secure a settlement of the Danish question has been made the ground of a formal attack by the opposition with a view to a change of government. The debate has been going on with great vehemence ever since Monday, and it is to close tonight with a division on a motion of want of confidence. The most sanguine of the ministerial side do not now expect any majority strong enough to sustain them. They talk of two or four; but I should not wonder if it proved the other way. The result will be known in season for this steamer. The probability now is that Lord Palmerston will determine to take the sense of the country by dissolving the Parliament. This is most certainly the right course. For the present House is in no condition to uphold government of any kind. Should this prove to be the policy, the country will for the next two months go through the spasm of a vehemently contested election, almost exclusively on personal grounds. I cannot perceive that any issue has been raised on principle. If the Ministry have made mistakes in their foreign policy, they do not appear to have been such as to render a material variation from it likely, if the opposition should take their places. The dispute is all about words. Lord Russell has been rough and menacing in his tone. Admitting this to be just (and I am not prepared myself to say that he is the most soft-spoken of men), the only change demanded is a little more politeness. The benefit of this will enure to foreign countries, it is true; but I scarcely understand how it is likely to extend to events or acts. “Great Britain has no friends in the world,” people complain, who at the very same time indulge in a style of oratory towards foreign countries which goes clearly to show the reason why she has not any. If Great Britain indulges her fancy for abusing everybody it stands to reason that nobody will be grateful. The country however has no inclination on any side, as it would appear, to go further than to talk. Why then change the government, on a question of politeness? If Lord Russell has been brusque, let him amend his style and soften his manners, instead of giving place to another who will do no more.
The real difficulty is in the condition of the House of Commons itself, which furnishes no basis whatever on which a minister can do more than talk or write. If an appeal to the country should result in returning a working majority for any man or set of men, then would something substantial be gained. It is possible that Lord Palmerston’s personal popularity may secure this. He is the only really strong man in the public confidence left in England. But from what I gather, it is matter of serious doubt whether even he can do all that is needed. In the absence of any real issue, the reform bill has worked a state of the constituencies which gives no positive result to either side on a general election. If it should prove so on this occasion, then the last state of the patient will be worse than the first. . . .
