DIFFICULTIES WITH FRANCE.

257

French ambassador, and after the insolent menaces of the French officers. It was not as if the laws of England were insufficient to punish the offence of conspiring against the life of a foreign sovereign. Lord Campbell had authoritatively declared that they were, and whatever may be thought of Lord Campbell as a biographer, there was no doubt of the general soundness of his legal knowledge. It was known too that this proposed law was brought in at the express instance of Count Persigny, and there were not wanting those who remembered that even weaker Governments than that of Lord Palmerston had refused to allow France to dictate in any way to this country. There were some historical students who recalled the fact that in 1802 the Government of the First Napoleon had made somewhat similar demands, and that Mr. Addington and Lord Hawkesbury had refused them in energetic terms. One brilliant writer quoted the famous despatch which told the Emperor "that our Government neither has nor wants any other protection than the laws of the country afford, and that although they are willing and ready to give every foreign Government all the protection against offences of this nature which the principle of their laws and constitution will admit; they never can consent to remodel their laws or to change their constitution to gratify the wishes of any foreign power." The inference was obvious-that "Lord Palmerston, of whom it has been boasted that he is not the Minister of Russia, of Austria, or of France, but the Minister of England,' has shown himself incapable of the firmness of Addington, and that in English spirit he is far below the level of Lord Liverpool."

The temper which these words denote was the temper of the country generally, and for the first time in his life Lord Palmerston found himself thoroughly unpopular. He had indeed contrived to affront public opinion by ostentatiously selecting for high ecclesiastical appointments a number of clergymen who were distinguished by nothing but their Ultra-Evangelical theological views, and he had traded upon his popularity by nominating to the office of Lord Privy Seal the Marquis of Clanricarde, whose personal profligacy had been exposed only a short time before in the trial of a most scandalous will case in the Dublin Court of Chancery. All these blunders might, however, have been condoned had Lord Palmerston acted with common courage and spirit in the matter now in question, but truckling on such a point was not to be forgiven.

Lord Palmerston brought in his Bill on the 8th of February. It was opposed on all hands, and men of all parties vied with each other in denouncing the insolence of the French colonels and the menaces of Count Walewski. So matters went on through almost the whole of two long evenings, until Mr. Disraeli rose to put the debate upon a reasonable footing. He pointed out that the case was an exceptional one, and that there were abundant precedents for exceptional legislation. The question was one really between England and France. A great crime had been committed in a country whose Sovereign was our intimate ally, the plot to

"

assassinate the Emperor had unquestionably been hatched here, and there were consequently nothing surprising in the Government of the day making an effort to check the growth of similar plots for the future. He did not defend Count Walewski's despatch, which was "not written with that tact, good temper, and good sense which generally characterised his lucubrations." Nor did he deny that the observations of the French colonels were extremely impertinent," or that their publication in the columns of the official journal was "an act of signal indiscretion." He pointed out, however, that it was not for English Liberals to cast stones in this matter. Their representatives had repeatedly insulted the French nation as grossly as the French colonels now insulted England. He called upon the House to "rémember that in 1853, under a Government of which the noble Lord, the Member for London, who feels that this country would be so much humiliated by the adoption of the present Bill, was the leading member of the House . . . we had statesmen of the greatest eminence in this country denouncing the Emperor of the French as a tyrant, usurper, and perjurer; we had a Cabinet Minister fresh from a Cabinet Council proceeding to the hustings and amusing his constituents by depicting to them the danger of their country from the impending piratical invasion of the French people; we had a Cabinet Minister asking the people of England what protection they could have for their wives and daughters with such neighbours as the French, and such a ruler as the present French Emperor." What was now to be considered was, however, not the foolish and insulting speeches made on either side, but the maintenance of the French alliance, and in the hope that the Bill of the Government would tend towards that end he should vote for bringing it in, subject to such revision and reconsideration on the second reading as might be thought desirable. "What the Emperor of the French really required, I apprehend, was a plain demonstration on the part of this country, which would have dissipated the apprehensions that have unfortunately proved so considerable in France, but I cannot believe that the Bill which the noble Lord has proposed will at all tend to that most desirable consummation. So far as I am concerned, I consider it the most unfortunate part of the position in which we are placed that this opportunity has been so mismanaged by Her Majesty's Ministers as to have alarmed England without pleasing France. Still, I cannot think that we ought to take a course which might lead to prolonged and mischievous misconceptions, because we disapprove of the clumsy and feeble manner in which the Government has attempted to deal with this difficulty. We must not seize upon this opportunity because we wish to inflict a check upon the Government, or do that which might be misconstrued as an insult to that Prince who, I think, deserves well of this country, and therefore it is my intention to vote for the bringing in of this Bill, though I am not prepared, as at present advised, to take any further part in its defence."

The Bill came on for second reading on the night of the 19th of February, and was encountered by an amendment from Mr. Milner Gibson (who

had succeeded in getting a seat for Ashton) which turned the question practically into one of confidence in Lord Palmerston's foreign policy, and round that subject the whole discussion of the evening revolved. Mr. Disraeli wound up the debate on the side of the Opposition by a careful and argumentative speech, designed to show that whereas the first reading had been carried by a large majority (200, in a House of 299), in order that the House might manifest its sympathy with the people and the Government of France, there was no reason now why members should be prevented from offering a criticism on the conduct of their own Government. The despatch of Count Walewski, which had been found so obnoxious, remained unanswered; and yet upon it Lord Palmerston was actually asking the House to legislate. Such a policy he stigmatized as "perplexed, timid, confused, and unsatisfactory," and of the Government he declared that they had totally "forgotten what was due to their own dignity; that they were never recalled to that self-respect, which they ought at once to have displayed, till they found that the House of Commons turned round upon them and demanded that that should be done which the Ministers of England-those to whom the preservation of the honour of their country was entrusted-had failed to accomplish."

Mr. Gladstone had spoken in the same sense, and Lord Palmerston, conscious that the feeling of the House was against him, made but a lame defence. The House divided, and to their extreme astonishment Ministers found themselves in a minority of 19. Mr. Ashley says that "Ministers, when they went down to the House of Commons on the afternoon of this 19th of February, did not anticipate even a narrow division, much less a crisis ;" and he adds that "many of those who voted in the majority did not wish to overthrow his (Lord Palmerston's) Government; and had he thought fit to appeal to the House of Commons for a vote of confidence, it would probably have accorded it." To this belief there will now, however, be few adherents. The popularity of Lord Palmerston had long been waning, and his was essentially a one man Government." It needed, indeed, all the prestige of his name and character to cover the blunders of his subordinates, and even that did not always suffice. The country was deeply and bitterly disgusted with the incapacity which had been shown in crushing out the Indian mutiny; it was not enthusiastically delighted with those little wars of which Lord Palmerston generally contrived to have one or two on hand, and sundry recent appointments, political as well as ecclesiastical, had created a great deal of ill-feeling. He exercised, therefore, a wise discretion in at once placing his resignation in the hands of Her Majesty, who, sending for Lord Derby, entrusted him with the formation of a Government. The fact was notified in both Houses of Parliament on Monday the 23rd, and four days later Lord Derby's arrangements were completed.

Lord Derby's new ministry was strong in its individual members, though it could not command an absolute majority in the House. The divided

and disorganized condition of parties effectually prevented that result for some time to come; but there was good reason for believing that a fair amount of support in general matters might be looked for from the Peelites, who still exercised a certain amount of influence, though as a corporate body they had long ceased to exist. There was, however, reason to hope that by force of personal character the Cabinet might exercise a greater power than at first seemed probable. Lord Derby was supported in the Upper House by the Marquis of Salisbury and Lords Chelmsford, Hardwicke and Malmesbury, whilst Mr. Disraeli in the Lower shared the Treasury Bench with Sir John Pakington, Mr. Walpole, General Peel, Lord John Manners, and Mr. Henley. Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Sir Hugh Cairns were respectively Attorney and Solicitor General, and Mr. Gathorne Hardy made his debut in official life as Under Secretary at the Home Office. The greatest accession to the strength of the Government was, however, the acceptance of office by Lord Ellenborough as President of the Board of, Control-an appointment which afforded a promise, not afterwards disappointed, of a wise, strong and statesmanlike policy for India. The Whigs, following the lead of Lord Macaulay, have, it may be remarked, uniformly depreciated the powers and character of this statesman. It may be admitted that he was not always conspicuous as the wisest of men-especially when manifestoes designed for Oriental eyes came to be measured by the cut and dry rules of Whig officialism; but that he was a great and capable statesman is a fact concerning which there can hardly be two opinions. His conduct at the Board of Control during his unfortunately too brief tenure of office, certainly affords no reason for impugning this verdict.

CHAPTER IX.

IN OFFICE, 1858-1859.

Lord Derby reluctant to take Office-Mr. Disraeli's Address-Speech from the Hustings Foreign Policy of the Government-Reform-The French Alliance -Lord Malmesbury's Despatch-The Emperor's Pamphlet-The Cagliari Business-Mr. Disraeli's Speech-General Business of the House-ReformThe India Bill-First reading-Compromise-Resolutions-The New BillRebellion in Oude-Lord Canning's Proclamation-Censure by the Government-Lord Ellenborough's Retirement-Montalembert's Pamphlet-The Slough Dinner-The "Cabal " Debates on the Speech—Mr. Disraeli on his Defence-Financial Policy of the Government-The Budget-Reduction of the Income Tax-Equalization of the Spirit Duties-Budget well receivedCost of Whig Foreign Policy-State of the Thames-A Government Measure-Prorogation-Speech from the Throne-The Recess-Impending War between Austria and France-England the Mediator-Reform-Retirement of Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley-Difficulties of the Government-Session of 1859-The Queen's Speech-Debate on the Address-Mr. Disraeli on ItalyReform-The Government Bill-Fancy Franchises -Redistribution-The Bill unpopular-Debate on the Second Reading-Tactics of the OppositionLord John Russell's Amendment-State of Europe-Defeat of the Government-Ministerial Statements-The impending Dissolution-Statement on Condition of Europe-The Dissolution-Mr. Disraeli in Buckinghamshire— The 66 enormous lies" of the Opposition press-Results of the Election-The Queen opens Parliament-Lord Hartington moves an Amendment to the Address-Sir James Graham's Accusations against the Government-Mr. Disraeli's Reply-On Foreign Policy-On Reform-How can a New Government be formed-The Division-Out of Office once more.

HAD such a step been possible, there can be no doubt that Lord Derby would have declined to attempt the formation of a Government in 1858. Seeing, however, that the effect of doing so would have been to confess the annihilation of the Tory party, he was forced to go on in spite of the facts that he could not command a Parliamentary majority, that Lord Palmerston still enjoyed a considerable amount of what now appears a wholly unwarranted popularity, and that the relations of this country with foreign powers, and especially with France, were in a state of tension of the most perilous kind. In his address to the electors of Buckinghamshire, Mr. Disraeli made special reference to the latter fact. "The circumstances of the country are," said he, "in many respects critical. Painful misconceptions have arisen with the Government of that faithful and powerful ally, who in so many instances has proved his good feeling and fidelity to this country. Believing that a cordial alliance between England and France