-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Do not give Enewald his cue, Densley. We shall all regret it if you do.
I get the impression that he would have showed up a long time ago if he had any plans of ever doing so.
I'm not sure making states is that viable, to be honest. At this point, the only statesi can create (off the top of my head) are Gibraltar and Malta. It is only 1860, though, so this will likely change in the future, but I'm not sure I'll ever reach the point where, say, the whole of Canada can be made into a state.
That said, there is no reason why I can't mod things in (or rather, attempt to mod things in
) should any Imperial Federation League-type body gain enough traction...This is very true.
I do hope so! These election posts are one of my favourite parts of your AAR
Thank you for your kind words. I am indeed doing GCSEs at the moment – I'm halfway through them, in fact, though thanks to Mr. Gove I'm yet to do a single exam which actually means anything...
As for the election updates, I'm glad you enjoy them. Sometimes they can be a bit tedious to write, but it's always refresh to have a new government at the end of them.
I hope they will prove every bit as exciting as you imagine.
Thanks Terra. I hoes you enjoy the actual coverage (whenever it appears...)
We're not here for the manifestoes, Densley. Get on with the campaign!
Damnable ingrates...
I'm hoping I can find time to prepare the next update soon.
Wonderful! I'll see what I can do about providing one, then.
Go Irish Repeal Party!
This election should be good (though most of yours are
Most!?
As for the Repealers, they will certainly need all of the support they can get.
As hinted at, work on the debates hasn't started yet. This is largely down to the fact that I've been occupied with creating artwork and trying to cram in as many social calls as possible before jetting off abroad on Sunday. I'm hopeful of at least getting some work done before then, though if all else fails (and should I be so inclined) I'm told that there is WiFi where I'm going.
Until then!
I fully expect your writings of debates to be as enthralling as Burke vs. Paine or Disraeli vs. Gladstone, or for us Americans, Hamilton vs. Jefferson! But I have no doubt that you will deliver such!
Roll on the hustings.
Although it pains me to admit it, 'personality politics' has put me off Landsdowne and the Whigs. He looks like a mummy!
The Honorable Lord reminds me of what Dorothy Parker said about President Coolidge when she found out he was dead: "How can they tell?"
Until Pam puts some steel into the Liberal spine I'll have to go with Aberdeen. Partly because I bet on him, never change a horse mid-stream and all that...
Although it pains me to admit it, 'personality politics' has put me off Landsdowne and the Whigs. He looks like a mummy!
The Honorable Lord reminds me of what Dorothy Parker said about President Coolidge when she found out he was dead: "How can they tell?"
Until Pam puts some steel into the Liberal spine I'll have to go with Aberdeen. Partly because I bet on him, never change a horse mid-stream and all that...
I really like the manifestos, it gives a nice bit of weight to the coming election. Now onwards!
I fully expect your writings of debates to be as enthralling as Burke vs. Paine or Disraeli vs. Gladstone, or for us Americans, Hamilton vs. Jefferson! But I have no doubt that you will deliver such!
As enthralling, hopefully. Probably not as significant, though.
Thank you for your encouragement, as ever.
I guess a mummy beats a mongoose, then? Said mongoose should indeed be propping up the Liberal spine soon enough, though don't disregard Lansdowne just yet. And while your continued support of Aberdeen is noted, I will note that we're to so much as mid-stream, but in a different stream altogether.
Oh, and Dorothy Parker is brilliant.
Thanks Dr. Gonzo. It's nice to know that they're enjoyed.
I'm afraid I still can't give a date (or even a temporal region) for the next update, though I'll try to get to work on it as quickly as possibly.
Until then!
I think it will have to take the debates to fully convince me on this one. Or maybe I'll just root for Repeal!
Did you know, Dorothy Parker's pain threshold when drunk was numerous attacks with a bat on thighs and calves and when sober it was harsh words.
John Wayne can be reduced to tears by a noogie while Ira Glass can "withstand removal of eyes, every tooth, each finger, one knuckle at a time, and still break his bond to slay his tormenter".
Back OT: Moar election!
John Wayne can be reduced to tears by a noogie while Ira Glass can "withstand removal of eyes, every tooth, each finger, one knuckle at a time, and still break his bond to slay his tormenter".
Back OT: Moar election!
God knows they need the support. Thanks to the fact that Ireland is actually doing pretty well for once, fewer people will likely be inclined to vote their way.
Thanks for the comment as ever.
Did you know, Dorothy Parker's pain threshold when drunk was numerous attacks with a bat on thighs and calves and when sober it was harsh words.
John Wayne can be reduced to tears by a noogie while Ira Glass can "withstand removal of eyes, every tooth, each finger, one knuckle at a time, and still break his bond to slay his tormenter".
Back OT: Moar election!
Funnily enough, I did not know that. That said, laughter is supposed to increase one's pain threshold, so it doesn't surprise me.
As for the election: hopefully I can get something for you soon.
Thanks to everyone for their comments, as ever. They're always greatly appreciated.
Just to give you all an update, I am back in the UK and once again fully furnished with a computer and such. Seeing as it's currently raining I also have much less of a desire to spend my days doing nothing but enjoying the warm, Lycian climes. Therefore, I'm hoping that I can get a decent amount of work done and finish the campaign update. As it stands, the newspaper roundup is done, and the polls are halfway there (I just need to make up some numbers.) I've also figured out which debates I'll be covering, so all that's really left to do is write the things. I should get that done some time this week.
The anticipating for reading an enthralling debate is palpable! And maybe, how the newspapers and greater British media decides to cover it!
And maybe, how the newspapers and greater British media decides to cover it!
God knows they need the support. Thanks to the fact that Ireland is actually doing pretty well for once, fewer people will likely be inclined to vote their way.
Thanks for the comment as ever.
No problem, I don't comment much as I should. I am still reading, even if I do just lurk!
Edit: To my embarrassment, I may have posted a message similar to this before - if so, I apologise! I really ought to put aside time for reading!
Last edited:
The anticipating for reading an enthralling debate is palpable!
I can tell you with the utmost certainty that a look at the media is more than a maybe.
As long as you're commenting, you could be copying and pasting a set response for all I care!
Lurking's no problem. I can relate to being too busy and so forth to actively follow an AAR, so I'm hardly going to berate you for not always being able to find something to comment on. Just as long as you pop in to say hi every now and then.
Of course, the fact that you have made similar remarks two electoral cycles in a row is probably an indicator of how dire the Repealer plight is, more than anything!
I'm aiming to have the update finished tomorrow, once I've made all of the graphics (by which I mean "the graphic") and so on.
Until then!
If "the graphic" is even nearly as brilliant as that Ireland map you posted some time ago, I'll read the entire update. Yes, all of it.
All I read is updateupdateupdate.
And all is well.
BTW, info about the pain threshold of prominent Americans comes from the satirical Onion guide to all known knowledge. Wonderful book; I know now two cities in Idaho's names and references to protractors in pop culture.
And all is well.
BTW, info about the pain threshold of prominent Americans comes from the satirical Onion guide to all known knowledge. Wonderful book; I know now two cities in Idaho's names and references to protractors in pop culture.
If "the graphic" is even nearly as brilliant as that Ireland map you posted some time ago, I'll read the entire update. Yes, all of it.
Well, I'm not sure about that. I'd like to think that you read all of the updates in their entirety anyway, though.
In that case, stay tuned.
A bit of both, I guess. What I meant to convey was that there is only one, rather than that it is especially good or anything.
Update in t minus 10, 9, 8...
1851 General Election: The Campaigns
The Press
By the time the elections of 1851 rolled around, newspaper editors would wait hungrily for the announcement of Parliament's dissolution. Hustings season had over the past decade proved a period of dramatically increased sales for the country's many publications, with every citizen able to read the titles on his local candidates' manifestos desperate to hear the latest news or electoral scandal. Even those unable to vote – the newly literate working classes – were eager for the latest news, as was largely evidenced by the swell of publications offering some sort of electoral coverage by the century's midway mark. While the traditional and respected nationwide papers were not challenged in their dominance of the market, a new avenue of coverage provided by the those less journalistically reputable news-sheets would quickly prove very popular with the common man. In particular, the relatively young News of the World latched onto the hustings bandwagon to great effect in 1851, though drew in crowds not so much for its astute and urbane analysis of political developments, but more for its sensationalist (and largely conservative) editorial lines and thorough reporting of candidates' sexual peccadilloes. The nationwide group did see a more respectable addition to its ranks in the form of the Examiner, however, which, unusually for a paper with a national circulation, ran an editorial line that espoused a form of intellectual radicalism. Marketing itself as "a Sunday paper, on politics, domestic economy, and theatricals", the Examiner had grown up publishing the work of literary figures such as Byron, Shelley and Keats. By the elections of 1851 it had matured into something of a more conventional national publication, though remained unusual in its unwavering loyalty to the radical cause. This was good news for Radical leader John Bright, who, with the renewed confidence of the Northern Star, went into the hustings season with the support of two highly influential newspapers.
An overview of the allegiances of the press at the time.
For their part, the established nationals remained in lockstep with their declarations from four years prior, with both the Times and the Observer following Peel's free trade acolytes once again. The (Manchester) Guardian remained devotedly Whiggish, as did the main Scottish papers – with both the Scotsman and the Herald renewing their subscriptions to the Whig manifesto. With the advent of wider interest in the elections, and as previously touched on earlier, many regional publications also chose to display their colours for the general election. In London, the Evening Standard took a decidedly Conservative stance, supporting Lord Derby's protectionist principles and offering the capital's citizenry an alternative to the almost unanimously free trade Fleet Street media. Similarly, Scottish regionals did their bit to ensure that the country's press wasn't wholly without opposition. In Aberdeen, the Journal provided a deeply Conservative viewpoint for the newspaper buying public, while the Courier in Dundee offered a slightly more moderate stance, throwing its (admittedly little) weight behind Aberdeen and his Peelites. Lord Lansdowne did secure one final victory, however, as the Belfast News Letter (a misnamed publication which had a circulation comprising of the whole of Ireland) came out in his favour, running a heavily unionist editorial line.
The Hustings
Naturally, the greatest side-effect of the boom in election coverage came in the form of coverage of the parties' campaigns that was faster and more in-depth than ever before. The reports by local news-sheets now belonged firmly in the 1840s. The 1850s would see an explosion of national coverage for debates and rallies (even in their admittedly nascent form,) with bigger publications shipping junior writers off to nearby debates and transmitting the results across the country. Obviously, this meant that the effect of the press now had a greater impact than ever before on the outcome of the elections – where voters would previously only be able to judge a party on the strength of their local candidate and his views, they could now ascertain whether or not the local hopeful represented the party line. This saw a powerful new tool enter into the political ring ready for use by the great and good of Westminster, with parties now especially mindful of their approach to debates, lest an unfortunate incident threaten to derail their campaign.
Stamford
The first contest[1] which solicited the attention of the wider press was notable not so much for any great drama or oration – indeed, the seats were uncontested – but more because of who was standing. Lord Derby's Conservative party were not in a good way by 1851, having suffered the ignominy of a short lived, and frankly embarrassing government in the lead up campaign, and so had to take advantage of all the safe seats that they could reasonably expect to maintain. It was for this reason that the two seats offered in the constituency of Stamford were invaluable. Stamford, a quaint market town near Lincolnshire's south west border, had returned only one non-Tory MP since before the Glorious Revolution[2]. Derby therefore seized upon the opportunity to have two of his most prominent colleagues returned without hassle – likely as a reaction to the unexpected hiccough in his 1847 campaign when Lord George Bentinck had been defeated. The two men in question, Charles Manners (more commonly known by his courtesy title as Lord Granby) and John Charles "J. C." Herries, were, in truth, not as important as Lord Derby may have liked to imagine. Between them, they could boast only a few minor positions' worth of cabinet experience (save for Herries' fleeting stint at the Exchequer between 1827-28) and were neither the most prominent figures within their own party. In reality, they owed their statuses to their positions as unwavering protectionists, and an experiment of Derby's put into action after the elections of 1847.
The Marquess of Granby as depicted in Vanity Fair.
With Lord George Bentinck out of Parliament, Derby (then still Stanley) was forced to look to a new man to provide leadership in the Commons. The obvious candidate when one looked at the problem on experience and influence alone, was the rising star Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli, however, had one thing acting against him – namely, his appearance. A Sephardic Jew by ethnicity (though an Anglican convert in practice,) Disraeli's dark, foreign looks enamoured him of few in what was almost an exclusively ethnically British House of Commons. Add to this his shady past filled with debt, his alternative career as a dandyish author and his altogether parvenu-like air, he was not trusted by many – even those within his own party. Derby, therefore, was forced to consider other options, eventually bestowing power upon a triumvirate composed of Granby, Herries and, to the disdain of many, Disraeli[3]. This was not a solution which worked well. Indeed, it could be said that it didn't work at all. It was obvious form the very beginning the Disraeli was the dominant figure within the cabal, sidelining Granby and Herries frequently, certainly overshadowing them both and often simply ignoring them. Nonetheless, the charade remained active certainly until Peel's death, after which point the Protectionist Conservatives were forced to assume a more party-like image as opposed to simply being a group of maligned discontents headed by an ersatz alliance of influential people.
Lord Granby would prove the group's Crassus, becoming frustrated after years of being ignored by Disraeli coupled with his own belief that he was an inadequate "leader". He resigned from the triumvirate soon after Lord Aberdeen formed his government in July 1850, his departure being heated enough to warrant declining Derby's offer of a governmental post in the ill-fated Who? Who? Ministry[4]. Herries would stick it out with Disraeli, though the departure of Granby spelled the end for the experiment. After repeatedly coming into conflict with Disraeli, whose increasingly anti-protectionist leanings were a major source of contention for Herries, who would become the group's Pompey shortly before the fall of Aberdeen's government[5]. By the time Derby was asked to form a government, therefore, the stage was set for Disraeli, the Tories' Caesar, to come into his own.
Buckinghamshire
As it would happen, Disraeli's own contest with liberal challenger Charles Compton Cavendish (grandson of the 4th Duke of Devonshire, who had served as nominal Prime Minster between 1756-57[6]) was the next to take the fancy of the media – and the first to offer an actual debate. The two met on the hustings on the 28th August, only six days after the dissolution of Parliament, and promised an interesting spectacle – if not the most important contest politically. Disraeli, a man who spoke only when he had something witty or memorable to say, was largely expected to best his rather less flamboyant opponent, if not with actual policies, then certainly with his eloquent phrasing and general prestidigitation. These expectations were generally matched – something which occasioned mild outrage amongst the Whiggish press as Disraeli managed to shirk from giving definite answers on almost every issue presented for his consideration. The Tory made his way to the end of the evening having displayed a wonderful gift for words and a mild level of support for most of Derby's policies – notably protectionism, which, as the main dividing line between the governmental and opposition Conservatives, it was expected Derby's followers would defend at least somewhat convincingly. Disraeli, ever the contrarian, abandoned this idea during the debate, however, preferring not to tie himself down to the policy. This moderation would win him great acclaim amongst those previously disillusioned by the Stanleyites' policies (as well as their perceived general untrustworthiness brought on by their role on the ending of the Second Peel Ministry) though did not endear him at all to those at Knowsley Hall – Derby's family seat and often party headquarters[7].
The Rt. Hon. Benjamin Disraeli, shown here at a later date.
For his part, Cavendish did not perform poorly during the evening, often providing answers which would have easily bested a lesser opponent, though was overshadowed by Disraeli from start to finish. The perception that Disraeli was merely pandering to populist sentiment for entertainment value (which wasn't entirely false) did a great deal to push the more partial liberal media in favour of the Whig, though the real result could not be denied, however it may have been achieved. Disraeli was declared victorious by most of the media the following morning. For Derby, the news was a much needed shot in the arm to his previously lacklustre campaign record. Whatever his personal views on Disraeli's methods and ideas, he could certainly not deny that they has done him a very big favour.
City of London
Two days after Disraeli's crowd pleasing triumph in Buckinghamshire, the media's attention was focused on the capital as another controversial figure prepared to square up to his challenger on the hustings. The City of London constituency was home to the Whiggish Leader in the Commons Lord John Russell, though it would not be Russell to face the Tory hopeful (who, incidentally, was a Mr. John Masterman, a 70 year old member of the Tory rank and file under Lord Derby.) Instead, the Whig high command had decided that it would be Lionel de Rothschild who would take to the podium. The choice to highlight Rothschild's campaign was as bold as it was controversial. Rothschild, a practising Jew, had seen his career hindered by the inherent anti-Semitism of the British political machine at the time. In choosing to promote his campaign Russell, Lansdowne and co. were setting the scene for a new debate in British politics.
Baron Lionel de Rothschild, whose plight was at the centre of the controversy surrounding the Jewish Question.
Rothschild had first been elected to Parliament in 1847 at a stage when the Christian oath required to be taken by all Members of Parliament effectively barred Jews and other non-Christians from taking their seats. Due to this oath, Rothschild was unable to assume his seat and enter Parliament. In order to allow him to take his seat, Russell set about drafting what eventually became the Jewish Disabilities Bill, which provided for Jews' entry to Parliament by allowing them to swear an amended oath. While this bill was supported by a large section of Parliament (mainly the liberal bloc plus some more moderate members of Peel's government of the day. The Stanleyites were largely unanimous in their disapproval, save for the notable exception of Benjamin Disraeli, who supported the bill for largely obvious reasons) the Lords quickly had it torpedoed. Attempts to reintroduce the bill in following sessions were unsuccessful, forcing Rothschild to vacate his seat and contest a by-election in the hope that a victory would strengthen his case. The gamble, as with most speculative ventures embarked upon by the Rothschilds, proved to be a sound one, and he once again secured a seat in the City of London in 1849. Again, Russell proposed his bill and the Commons voted in favour. The Lords, however, refused to budge. By 1851, four years after Rothschild had originally been elected, it was hoped that by giving coverage to what was really only the latest leg in a very protracted campaign the Whigs would be able to garner support for reform.
Ultimately, this is what they would achieve – though perhaps not in the way that they would have hoped. Rothschild and Masterman squared up to each other for what, essentially,was a debate between two rather minor members of the political world (discounting the controversy surrounding the former.) The actual content of the debate, therefore, was as to be expected; general party lines were kept to – most notably during an exchange on the merits of free trade versus protectionism (Masterman as a backbencher couldn't be said to be firmly in either camp, though generally followed his leader, Derby.) Things did not run so smoothly once questions were opened up to the audience, however. Being composed on that particular night of a mix of members of the liberal middle class and more conservative members of the lower classes who had come along for the spectacle, it was the latter group who provided the evening with its controversy quota. Using their chance to ask questions of the candidates to instead hurl anti-Semitic abuse at Rothschild, events soon turned sour, with opposing groups within the crowd soon directing slurs at each other. For their parts, neither Masterman nor Rothschild were overly thrown by the events unfolding before them, with the Tory even attempting to plead for calm (likely being aware that he was the only person in the room in a position to do so.) it would be a short while, however, before the troublemakers were ejected – certainly not before the assembled members of the tabloid press had managed to cobble together sensationalist pieces about liberals inciting a disquieting mood amongst the crowd.
Officially, the contest was declared a draw, though the press were by no means unanimous in this declaration. Many tabloids used the proceedings as an excuse to promote their conservative, repeal-sceptic editorial lines, while the liberal press (and the national press, it should be noted) generally took a more sympathetic view, using the abuse suffered by Rothschild as a cue to begin heaping pressure on the House of Lords and more actively advocating support for Russell's bill. Regardless, the Whigs had certainly achieved their initial aims: the Jewish question was no longer going to be ignored.
Oxford University
Events were much more prosaic at Oxford University, where William Gladstone faced competition from perennial protectionist challenger R. B. Marsham. Whereas little attention had been paid to the Oxford seat in 1847, Gladstone's personal campaign had only four years later become a matter of great importance for the press, dutifully attending a debate between the two hosted at the Oxford Union Society on the first of September. Having served with distinction as Chancellor of the Exchequer under both Peel and Lord Aberdeen, as well as the latter's leader in the Commons, the Liverpudlian was now very much a key man in the Liberal-Conservative movement. Many, therefore, were eager to see how he would defend his viewpoints against his Stanleyite challenger – not in the least because they would be able to hear the oratory skills for which Gladstone was quickly becoming renowned in action.
William Ewart Gladstone in the 1850s.
He did not disappoint. Inevitably, trade was an issue raised very soon after proceedings had begun, with the chair asking each of the candidates to clarify their opinions on the matter. Marsham spoke first, offering a moderately passionate speech about the benevolence of paternalism and the need to protect the interests of the British worker against "destructive foreign competition," receiving a polite patter of applause in reply. Gladstone, as was his wont, struck hard and fast at his opponent's claims, repeatedly rubbishing Marsham's defence of paternalism and demonstrating the detrimental effect of tariffs on the market – invoking the memory of Disraeli's recent budget proposal with great aplomb. If lacking the flair and refinement of the latter's own rhetoric, Gladstone's own moralising tone was nothing if not galvanising. One could easily ascertain how the rest of the debate would pan out from the applause alone – the crowd receiving his counterattack with great enthusiasm. This energetic tendency in his speech would lead to one more conservative writer reporting on the Union debate to comment that "here we have witnessed the birth of a dangerous demagogue," before adding "I pray God that he never reaches higher office than that which he has already occupied." Nonetheless, this was not a view shared by the majority of the press, and Gladstone was readily declared the victor of what had been retroactively billed as a contest between the forces of protectionism and free trade, proving once again how potent an issue trade had become by the mid-century.
County Limerick
After having witnessed Gladstone demolishing his protectionist opponent in Oxford, the national press soon moved on across the Irish Sea to report on proceedings as William Smith O'Brien faced his first contest as leader of the Repeal Party. Standing for the seat of County Limerick (a seat he had occupied and contested successfully since the Whig-Repeal pact in 1835) Smith O'Brien faced competition from the young unknown Mr. James Mornington, a Peelite hopeful[8]. In truth, in offering Mornington the seat to contest, Aberdeen and company were not doing him any favours. County Limerick had as strong a relationship with Whigs and the various Irish parties as Stamford did with Conservatives and Tories. Coming up against the popular and charismatic Smith O'Brien would do little to help him, either, and it was very much expected that the Repeal leader would win comfortably on his home ground. Nonetheless, on the 15th of September both men went into the debate full of vigour and with a keen hope to get one over his opponent.
Smith O'Brien was contesting a seat as leader of the Repeal movement for the first time.
Mornington held Smith O'Brien well throughout the contest, articulately countering points on the economy and electoral reform (which the Repealer felt was necessary, while Mornington was more lukewarm in his support.) The real point of contention, however, came when one audience member questioned the two candidates on whether they would like to see the implementation of any further reforming measures. Smith O'Brien struck first, delivering a rousing address on the evils of the Act of Union, announcing in no uncertain terms that he wished to see Ireland's position within the United Kingdom seriously re-evaluated. (While he refrained from expressing a desire for full independence, this was the implication given[9].) Shocking even the largely pro-Repeal crowd with his declaration, the address received a mixed reception – readily and enthusiastically rewarded by the more radical members of the audience, though more reluctantly applauded by the more moderate Repealers and Unionist sympathisers assembled. Mornington waited for the crowd to settle before delivering his response – a considered and articulate defence of the union, growing more confident along with the Peelite to climax by launching fresh and potent counterpoints at the Repealer. It was a slick debut, well appreciated by much of the audience via a warm burst of applause. Many of the assembled delegates from the press gave praise to the debutant as well, with much of the Anglo-centric media even going as far as to declare Mornington the victor – though this was likely only so that they could avoid printing Smith O'Brien's radical sentiments. It could not be denied that the contest was closely and well fought – almost exactly the scenario that the Repeal leader wished to avoid in what was his first defence of a seat as leader of the Irish bloc.
Manchester
John Bright's debate with the Whig Thomas Milner Gibson would prove similarly controversial, though for largely different reasons. Scheduled for the 20th of September, only two days before polling was to take place, the contest was not so much a divisive spectacle as had been witnessed at County Limerick, but rather a fervent display of oratory skill between two men united in their ideas. Indeed, both Bright and Milner Gibson were noted and prominent proponents of the free trade movement, also known for being generally supportive of the advancement of liberty of any kind. The latter was becoming increasingly renowned for his campaign for the freedom of knowledge, finding favour amongst many journalistic circles for his impassioned addresses on the subject both in and out of Parliament. Rather than go through the motions of a traditional debate, therefore, the pair decided via a gentleman's agreement to simply use the event as a means of furthering their mutual causes[10]. What followed was an evening of well-honed oration and rhetoric on the benefits of economic liberty and the inherent evils of protectionism. Those assembled were incredibly appreciative, applauding almost every utterance to come out of Bright's mouth.
Thomas Milner Gibson, Whiggish ally to Bright and his free traders.
Outside of the debating hall, however, not everyone displayed such a willingness to accept the evening's events. The local and national radical press, as was to be expected, commented favourably on the "debate" to great length and used the occasion as an excuse to print lengthy essays in support of the two candidates' ideas. The conservative press, however, were less supportive, with many of the more sensationalist tabloids choosing to depict both Bright and Milner Gibson, like Gladstone before them, as rampant demagogues and wild populists. This scaremongering would ultimately do little to knock the free trade campaign off-course, with a wide consensus of the media heralding the evening as an unblemished success and praising the two candidates on their choice to head into polling day in such a bold manner. (It should perhaps also be mentioned at this point that a wide consensus of the press were pro-free trade.)
Polls and Predictions
After nearly a month of candidates, campaigning and controversy, the papers once again made the transition from political journalism mode to quasi-academic speculation mode, continuing on the trend set in 1847 to compose and print opinion polls so that the masses could have an early look at how the parties' campaigns would ultimately pan out come polling day. Poll-mania continued and even grew yet again, with many publications getting in on the craze for the first time in 1851. Prominent and otherwise noteworthy polls are reprinted below.
(Note that 328 seats are needed for a majority.)
Cambridge Union
Whig: 334
Conservative: 210
Peelite: 76
Irish Repeal: 29
Radical: 5
Whig outright victory [majority of 6]
Oxford Union
Conservative: 325
Whig: 261
Peelite: 49
Irish Repeal: 14
Radical: 5
Conservative minority government [minority of 3]
The Times
Whig: 318
Conservative: 274
Peelite: 41
Radical: 11
Irish Repeal: 10
Whig-Peelite coalition (359 seats) [majority of 31]
The Examiner
Whig: 326
Conservative: 271
Peelite: 36
Radical: 12
Irish Repeal: 9
Whig-Radical coalition (338 seats) [majority of 10]
The Northern Star
Whig: 341
Peelite: 208
Conservative: 87
Radical: 12
Irish Repeal: 6
Whig outright victory [majority of 13]
The News of the World
Conservative: 337
Whig: 281
Peelite: 17
Irish Repeal: 16
Radical: 3
Conservative outright victory [majority of 9]
Final Remarks
As exemplified perfectly by the polls shown, the election, as was increasingly becoming a trend, looked set up for a tight conclusion. With the results now largely out of their hands, candidates and party leaders alike retreated to their clubs and country houses in preparation for the biggest event of the year's political calendar: polling day.
1: Obviously, this is not a term that is wholly applicable this specific case.
2: The Glorious Revolution, for any who don't know, was in 1688. By this point, Stamford had been returning Tory and Conservative MPs exclusively (where MPs were partisan) for 23 years. Also for those interested, the non-Tory in question was the Whig Charles Tennyson, uncle (and a poor one at that, by all accounts) to the decidedly more famous Alfred.
3: For his own part, and in our timeline, Derby would become a good ally of Disraeli's, though only by the 1860s. Most of the distrust came from those more rank and file Tories, and, as is perhaps to be expected, the Opposition.
4: He would instead become the Lord Lieutenant of Lincolnshire.
5: The split between Herries and Disraeli was so pronounced that the former would go on to refuse to assist the latter when he was framing the 1851 budget, denouncing it as "wild work".
6: I say "nominal" as the short-lived government (November 1756 to June 1757) was really dominated by Pitt the Elder. As First Lord of the Treasury, however, he could be seen as the de jure leader of government.
7: While many members still used the Carlton Club as a place to make plans and generally discuss policy, Knowsley was often used by Derby when discussing affairs with the highest echelons of the party. As a side note, most Peelites used the Conservative Club – a society for those Conservatives who had been rejected by the Carlton for whatever reason. As a result, it was generally seen as the Carlton's more moderate counterpart.
8: Mornington is a fictional character, precisely for the reasons outlined above. No candidates to the right of the Whigs seemed to ever contest the seat.
9: After all, that which the Repealers wish to see repealed is the Act of Union (1801).
10: This was something facilitated by the fact that the Peelites and Conservatives had by this stage effectively given up on the seats as being safely left-leaning. Therefore, it was likely that the two popular free traders would find themselves elected. I should also point out at this point that, while in 1847 I showed Manchester as only electing one member, I am reverting back to the historical two seat arrangement from here on in.
