Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/478

 464 History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1859-1865. of his addresses to the electors of South Lancashire proved ; but it was more distinctly felt and more openly expressed by Liberal politicians of all sections, and especially by those of the most advanced school. The general result of the elections was to increase the Liberal majority, and to strengthen the position of the minister. The Times calculated that the Liberal gains were fifty-seven, and the losses thirty-three, showing an increase of twenty-four, equal to forty-eight on a division. The full num- bers it gave as Liberals, 367 ; Conservatives, 290, or a majority of seventy-seven.* McCalmont's " Poll Book " gives Liberals, 361 ; Conservatives, 294 ; majority, 67. Either of these totals would show a good working majority, and if it had been a victory gained on clear political lines, there would have been ample means in the hands of the Government to secure a sound progressive policy. Unfortunately, this was not the case ; a considerable number of the majority were Liberal only to the extent of preventing the accession to power of the Conservatives, and were prepared to check any active reform legislation. To this extent the party was Palmerstonian rather than Liberal, a fact which soon became painfully evidentf For the master into whose hands the new Par- liament was willing to place almost unrestricted power, was fated never to exercise it. Palmerston died on the i8th of October, and his death closed the period of political compro- mise and inaction. There was now to be that conflict of opinions which is the sign of real national life, and it was a contest which, whatever might be the result of the first campaign, could end only in one of two ways, either in the victory of Radical principles or in national weakness and decay. t There were, however, nearly 170 members who had never sat before, and who were to some extent untried. Many of these were Radicals, among them being Mr. Trevelyan, Mr. Fawcett, and Mr. Samuel Morley.
 * The Times, July 25, 1865.