Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.
Sir: The great debate on the ministerial measure for extending the franchise came to a close in the Commons at 4 o’clock this morning, with a division on the motion of Lord Grosvenor, which in a very full house gave a majority of only five to the government. A report of the remainder of the debate, in the London Times, will be transmitted to you herewith.
Under such circumstances, it is scarcely possible that the ministry can hope to carry the measure through its further stages. The impression is that it may persevere until some unfavorable amendment shall so fix the position of the dissenting members of their own party as no longer to permit of a doubt in regard to it.
The only question, then, will be, whether Lord Russell will resign, or recommend a dissolution of the Parliament.
The probabilities are that he will prefer the former course, as the most effective in the end, whilst it will throw the responsibility of the latter upon any combination that may succeed him; for, whatever may be the weakness of the present ministry, it is plain that it has succeeded in embodying the great majority of the liberal party in its ranks, whilst the deserters must in the end take their position with its opponents.
It is true that hopes are entertained by the latter of organizing a new combination, under the lead of Lord Clarendon or some other liberal of conservative tendencies, and embracing the greater part of the followers of Lord Derby, [Page 113] represented by his son, Lord Stanley. By this new organization, formed somewhat after the pattern of the whilom party in France of the “juste milieu,” it is hoped that the odium of antiquated toryism may be avoided on the one hand, whilst on the other a heavy embankment may be raised against the growing power of reform, and Mr. Bright as its exponent.
With Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright and their respective friends in opposition, I can see no prospect of durability for any such project. It is scarcely to be imagined that Lord Clarendon would consent to commit himself to any policy which must depend for its success upon the party with which he has no real connection, and in opposition to that with which he has so long been associated; neither is it at all likely that the comparatively small number of the discontented could make good the loss of moral support which he would suffer by a separation from the character and connection of the old and the new liberals. If Lord Clarendon should not be disposed to undertake such a responsibility, I do not perceive any other of the whig statesmen able to assume it.
The only natural alternative is an appeal to Lord Derby himself, and his friends, reinforced by the body of disaffected whigs, who will be obliged ultimately to merge themselves into his ranks. Such is probably the next step that will follow; but this can scarcely be a successful movement in the face of the majority of the present Parliament, unless, indeed, they should be brought to consent to accept nearly every liberal measure, with, perhaps, the exception of the reform of the franchise. Past experience rather justifies the notion that under the lead of Lord Stanley, known to differ little with his opponents on most points, such a result might be arrived at; but if it were, the end would only be again so far to strengthen the true liberal interest, as practically to accelerate their permanent recovery of power. Mr. Gladstone appears, therefore, not likely to be very far wrong in the prediction with which he closes his eloquent speech.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.