'The Times,' and became sole manager at the death of the latter. The active management of the paper was, however, soon afterwards committed by him to the charge of Mowbray Morris, who from that time was generally spoken of as the manager. At an early stage of his management a serious difference arose between Walter and his father. 'Like most laymen of his age, the elder Mr. Walter distrusted the Oxford movement and never brought himself to understand it. Like most young men of open minds and generous sentiments, the younger Mr. Walter fell under its influence for a time, though probably in later years his attitude towards it was not widely different from that of his father. Hence when Mr. Walter was first associated with his father in the management of "The Times," a serious difference arose between them on this point—so serious, indeed, as to induce Mr. Walter, jun., to withdraw for a time from the counsels of the paper. In the end, however, the views of the son so far prevailed that a change came over the attitude of "The Times" towards the Tractarian movement and its leaders—a change which is noted in more than one passage in Newman's and Pusey's correspondence, and overtures were even made to Newman to become a contributor to the paper' (The Times, 5 Nov. 1894). These overtures came directly to nothing; but it is well known that Newman's brother-in-law, Thomas Mozley [q.v.], was for many years a constant contributor to the paper.
Walter was first returned to parliament for the borough of Nottingham in 1847 on 28 July, the day of his father's death. He had previously sought election for the constituency when his father was unseated, but was not successful. In 1847, however, the people of Nottingham, who had strongly sympathised with the elder Walter's determined opposition to the new poor law, resolved to elect his son, then unknown to them, as a mark of respect for his father. The borough was radical in sentiment; Walter was nominally a conservative, though a free-trader and virtually a Peelite. He did not offer himself as a candidate, and never canvassed or even visited the constituency, being detained at his father's bedside. But he was placed at the head of the poll, with a majority of four hundred over Feargus O'Connor [q. v.], who was returned as his colleague. He shortly afterwards visited the constituency and made his profession of political faith, which was that of a liberal-conservative. This attitude he maintained throughout his parliamentary career, sitting, however, in later years on the liberal side of the house, though 'he always belonged to the extreme right wing of the liberal party' (The Times, ut sup.) He was twice re-elected for Nottingham, each time as a liberal-conservative, in 1852 and 1857, though he stood unsuccessfully for Berkshire in the latter year. On 3 May 1859 he was returned as a liberal for Berkshire. Defeated for that constituency in 1865, he was again returned in 1868, and held the seat until he finally retired from parliament in 1885. From 1886 onwards his sympathies were strongly unionist, as were also those of 'The Times.' The attitude of both towards the Irish party and its leaders, especially Charles Stewart Parnell [q. v.], is a matter of history; but no materials are available for determining the respective shares of the paper and its chief proprietor in the treatment of this and other public questions of the day.
For this reason the internal history of 'The Times' during Walters management cannot be included in his personal biography. This was his own opinion. 'It was once suggested to him that the history of "The Times" ought to be written before it was too late, and that he alone was in possession of the materials necessary for the purpose. He reflected for a moment, and then said, "It would be profoundly interesting, but it is quite impossible; the thing can never be done"' (The Times, ut sup.) But the external history of the paper and of its relations to Walter is not without many features of interest. Walter's position in parliament was of course largely due to his known relation to 'The Times.' This relation was, however, studiously ignored by himself in all his public actions, and only on one occasion did he acknowledge it reluctantly, and under protest. During the debates on the Reform Bill in 1860, 'Mr. [Edward] Horsman [q. v.] … wished to fix upon Mr. Walter the personal responsibility for an article in this journal, which Mr. Horsman disliked, and which he thought insulting to the House of Commons. Moreover, to make matters worse, after giving Mr. Walter formal notice by letter that he intended to attack him, he thought better of it and kept silence; whereupon Mr. Walter, in a spirited speech, raised the question of privilege, and made a vigorous defence of the independence of the press, of the rights of anonymity, and of his own position. Mr. Horsman's long reply was generally thought to be feeble and ineffective' (The Times, ut sup.) On another occasion in 1864 an attack by Lord Robert Cecil (now Lord Salisbury) on the administration of Robert Lowe (afterwards Lord Sherbrooke) [q. v.] at the education office, which led to
