through the partial remission of the Malt Tax in the approaching October. He went through his calculations again, and showed that the amount had been over rather than under-estimated. It had been said that he had

falsely represented the Caffre war as at an end, and he quoted a despatch of General Cathcart to show that he was right, and that he had the authority of that distinguished officer for his assertion. "The war of rebellion," the General had written, "may now be considered at an end." Mr. Goulburn had expressed his belief that the concession to the Sugar Trade of refining in bond, would produce a heavy loss to the revenue. Mr. Disraeli replied by entering into calculations, which proved that no loss whatever was likely to accrue. Coming to the House Tax, he sketched rapidly the various parts of our colossal system of taxation, which had now to be accommodated to the new policy of "unrestricted competition;" observed that the Government required some direct tax upon which to fix in order to carry out their project of financial reform, and retorted the charge of recklessness upon Sir Charles Wood-who had on one day proposed to double the Income and Property Tax, and on the next had come down to the House and announced that he had sufficient ways and means without it. In providing an amount of direct taxation for their purpose, the Government were guided by two principles-first, as regarded the Income Tax, to establish a distinction between realised and precarious incomes; and secondly, to enlarge the general basis of direct taxation. Believing that the House Tax was a reasonable, just, and beneficial measure, and that it would supply the necessary amount of direct taxation, they had to decide upon which group of indirect taxes they should operate, and they came to the conclusion that they should act upon those articles which came into the consumption of the people, and which were subjected to the heaviest imposts. He defended his selection of the Malt Duty against the various attacks made upon it, and expressed his opinion that, by the end of the year 1854, there would be a considerable surplus of income; whilst the public service might be improved and made more economical by judicious administrative reforms. The conclusion of his speech deserves attention:- "Some advice has been offered to me which I ought, perhaps, to notice. I have been told to withdraw my Budget. I was told that Mr. Pitt withdrew his Budget, and that more recently other persons have done so too. Now, I do not aspire to the fame of Mr. Pitt, but I will not submit to the degradation of others. No, Sir, I have seen the consequences of a Government not being able to pass their measures—consequences not honourable to the Government, not advantageous to the country, and not, in my opinion, conducive to the reputation of this House-which is most dear to us. I remember a Budget which was withdrawn and re-withdrawn and withdrawn again in 1848. What was the consequence of the Government existing upon sufferance? What was the consequence to the finances of this country? Why, that ignoble transaction respecting the commutation of the Window and Hous

Duty, which now I am obliged to attempt to readjust.... I know what I have to face. I have to face a coalition. The combination may be successful. A coalition has before this been successful. But coalitions, although successful, have always found this, that their triumph has been very brief. This I know-that England has not loved coalitions. I appeal from the coalition to that public opinion which governs this country-to that public opinion, whose wise and irresistible influence can control even the decrees of Parliament, and without whose support the most august and ancient institutions are but the baseless fabric of a vision.""

Mr. Disraeli sat down amidst cheering so hearty and so long continued that one might almost have imagined that the House of Commons had really risen to the height of his great argument, and had recognised its ruler. The hour had come and here was obviously the man. For a moment even the mediocrities who form the rank and file of every political party appeared to confess that a great man had risen in Israel. The cheering had been incessant and enthusiastic. Every sentence had told, and even veteran Whigs were taken by the enthusiasm and joined in the chorus of applause. But now came an incident of the debate which is worth 1ecalling. In the course of his speech Mr. Disraeli had spoken with some contempt of Sir James Graham-who will perhaps be remembered by posterity chiefly through Leech's caricature of "the dirty boy who was always getting into a mess,”—and had said of his opinions that he “regarded but did not respect them." No sooner had Mr. Disraeli sat down, than ineffable virtue, in the person of Mr. Gladstone, rose to rebuke him. With that air of superiority which he is so fond of assuming, Mr. Gladstone delivered himself of a school-masterish lecture, of which about onehalf was audible, the latter portion of his bitter and excited sentences being drowned in the outcries of his own and of the Tory party alike. Enough was said, however, to prove the existence of that intense exaspera→ tion of personal feeling which has uniformly characterised Mr. Gladstone's relations with his great and victorious rival. As regards the attack itself, nothing more need be said than that if Mr. Disraeli expressed his contempt for the onslaughts of Sir James Graham in terms somewhat too contemptuous, Mr. Gladstone rebuked that language in words which were scarcely parliamentary, and whose true character was fairly appreciated by the House. This personal attack he followed up by a reiteration of his onslaught on the Budget, which is now chiefly remarkable as showing how wonderfully the aspects of great questions change when those who consider them leave the ranks of the Opposition for the Treasury bench.

Well intentioned though it may have been, it may be doubted whether Mr. Gladstone's flood of eloquence had any effect upon the division. The result had been discounted long before. With such a House of Commons no Budget could have been brought forward by a Tory Government with even a chance of success. The Protectionists were angry at the appear

RESIGNATION OF LORD DERBY.

199

ance of the smallest concession to the principles of Free Trade; the Whigs were indignant that the imbecility of their leader had deprived them for a time of those sweets of office which none appreciate more perfectly than they; while the Peelites had personal reasons for detesting the statesman who had held their idol up to public contempt. Mr. Disraeli had, indeed, to face a coalition-if the combination against him does not deserve a stronger word. The Opposition at this time had literally no other policy than that of attacking the Government. Theorists of the most diverse order, and partisans of the most opposite character found themselves bound together by the one tie of hatred of the Tories, and the result was that when the division was taken Ministers found themselves in a minority of 19, the numbers being 305 against the Budget to 286 in its favour. All was thus over. The Ministers who had declared that they would not be Ministers on sufferance, were not likely to hesitate as to their proper course when they found themselves in a minority in the House of Commons. The division was taken at four o'clock in the morning. In the course of the day her Majesty received a letter from Lord Derby announcing the resignations of himself and of his colleagues: a Cabinet Council was called for noon, and after sitting for an hour broke up. Lord Derby went down to Osborne by the three o'clock train, and formally resigned the seals of office. In the evening of Monday, the 20th of December, Mr. Disraeli stated what had happened to the assembled House of Commons, and in a few minutes more the first Administration of Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli had ceased to be.

CHAPTER VII.

AGAIN IN OPPOSITION.

The Coalition Government-A strong administration-Clouds in the East-At home-Ministerial indiscretions-The French alliance-Attacks on foreign powers-Analysis of the situation-The Budget-Conceived in the spirit of hostility to the land-Anti-Russian feeling in England-A new Reform Bill -Palmerston's resignation-Absurd reports about the Prince Consort― Opening of the Session-Ministerial explanations-Speech on the AddressLord John's Reform Bill-Drifting into war-Speech on the Government policy Preparations for war-The Supplemental Budget-Criticisms of the chief of the Opposition-Government war policy-Prorogation of Parliament -Landing of the Allies in the Crimea-Vacillation of Lord AberdeenSpeech on the conduct of the war-The Prince Consort's Proposals-Lord John Russell "upsets the coach "-Re-assembling of Parliament, January, 1855-The Crimean Inquiry-Collapse of the Government The Interregnum -Palmerston Prime Minister-Speech of Mr. Disraeli-Retirement of the Peelites-Ministerial explanations-Sir G. C. Lewis's Budget-Failure of the Vienna Conference-" Ambiguous language and uncertain conduct of the Government"-Resolution-Aggressive war and protective diplomacyAmendments-Lord John Russell at Vienna-Retirement of Lord John Russell-Cabinet sympathy with the Peace party-Prorogation and the Queen's Speech.

THE coalition having thus succeeded in driving the Tories from office, it was only natural that they should be entrusted with the formation of the new Government. We are told that "the Queen felt that the time had now come for the formation of a strong administration, and for closing the unsatisfactory epoch of Government upon sufferance, which had resulted from the disorganisation of parties since 1846." Her Majesty determined therefore on the formation of a strong, popular, and efficient Government, and with this view sent for Lord Aberdeen and Lord Lansdowne. Lord John Russell had failed so ignominiously that his presence as Premier was wholly out of the question. It was known moreover that Lord Palmerston would not serve under him, and Palmerston's presence in any Cabinet that might be formed was absolutely essential. Lord Lansdowne would, perhaps, have been more eligible in the highest place than Lord Aberdeen, but it was well known that the l'eelites would not tolerate him as their leader, and their co-operation was essential. Lord Aberdeen did not find the formation of his Government by any means an easy task. He was embarrassed on the one hand by the number of ex-Ministers who expected to be taken in-it is said not

LORD ABERDEEN'S MINISTRY.

201

fewer than thirty-six-and who might be somewhat awkward critics if left in the cold, while on the other some of those on whom he most relied, were not very willing to serve under him. Amongst those who were thus coy was Lord Palmerston, to whom he made his first application. He for a while withheld his consent, anticipating that the foreign policy of the new Administration would not be such as he could honestly support. As Mr. Ashley puts the matter, however, "he was indispensable. A general though undefined feeling among the public, had already marked him out as the coming man." Lord Lansdowne urged the matter very strongly, and when he found that Lord John Russell or Lord Clarendon would take the Foreign Office, he relented and joined the new Administration as Home Secretary.

The Liberal party rejoiced greatly over the constitution of the new Cabinet, which, in the words of Lord Palmerston, "combined all the men of talent and experience in the House of Commons, except Disraeli." Truth to say, there was some reason for this exultation. Lord Palmerston, the Duke of Newcastle, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Sidney Herbert, were all men of approved capacity and high personal character, and Lord Aberdeen himself, if not possessed of exceptional abilities, was an honest and upright statesman. The Duke of Argyll and Earl Granville, Lord John Russell and Mr. Cardwell, Lord Canning and Mr. Strutt, Mr. Baines and Mr. Villiers, were all looked upon as valuable members of the Government, and if weak places could be found, they were only at the Admiralty in the person of Sir James Graham, in the office of Under Secretary for the Colonies, filled by Mr. Frederick Peel, and at the Board of Control, where Sir Charles Wood had found a refuge after his ignominious failure as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The times certainly needed a strong and a discreet Government. In the East the clouds had long been gathering, and the year 1853 was barely a week old when the storm broke. On the 9th of January, the Emperor Nicholas held that famous conversation with Sir Hamilton Seymour, which proved the prelude to the Crimean War-the first conversation of a long series, which have been almost literally reproduced by the late Emperor in his communications concerning the late war with Turkey. Before many days had passed came Lord John Russell's famous despatch about the Holy Places, in which he cast upon France the responsibility of disturbing the status quo. The fitness of the Administration for dealing with questions of foreign politics was further tested before Parliament met. The Government of the Grand Duke of Tuscany had, as a matter of internal police, placed a Protestant family under arrest, whereupon Lord John directed Sir Henry Bulwer to interfere, in a despatch which has since been somewhat fiercely criticised. The crowning evidence of the character of Whig foreign policy was, however, afforded by Sir Charles Wood on the 3rd of February, when, addressing his constituents at Halifax, he said :-"Take our nearest neighbours. Such a