FACTIOUSNESS OF THE OPPOSITION.

303

he absolutely advocated the resolution he had in hand, on the ground that it would be equivalent to a declaration of a policy of peace and non-intervention in foreign affairs. Mr. Disraeli spoke on the first night of the debate. He found no fault with his opponents for the step they had taken and even commended their prompt action. After defending the course of the Government in dissolving rather than in resigning after the vote on Lord John Russell's Amendment, he congratulated Lord Hartington on his promising speech, and on his having refrained from introducing "that trash of which we have heard so much with regard to the conduct of the elections, the corruption of the constituencies, and the compacts with foreign powers and hierarchies,”—a subject which afforded him an opportunity of introducing a reply to certain statements made at Carlisle by Sir James Graham. The right honourable baronet with characteristic recklessness had ventured upon a number of charges against the Government, which it is hard to believe he did not know to be false from beginning to end, and those charges had been industriously circulated all over the country. "The public have really believed that a corrupt administration has been obtaining returns from the hustings by the vilest means, and for the most infamous purposes. They have believed that the allowance to inkeepers for the billetting of soldiers was absolutely increased at the arbitrary wish of a War Minister in order to bribe the publicans to vote for Government candidates, though every honourable gentleman in this House must be perfectly aware that their predecessors had passed the Act by which that increase of allowance was constitutionally made, and that the Act had been for some time in operation. The public did believe that barracks were built and contracts given when contracts were never entered into, and barracks were never built. More than that, the public really did believe that my Lord Derby had subscribed £20,000 to a fund to manage the elections. The Earl of Derby has treated that assertion quoted by the right honourable gentleman with silent contempt. All the other assertions made at the time have been answered in detail, and therefore I suppose he thought the time might come, when the subject being fairly before the House, he could leave it to me to say for him what I do say now, that the statement was an impudent fabrication. But what are all these contracts with innkeepers to the compact with the Pope? Next to nothing. Sir, it is not an agreeable duty to have to listen to statements made until Parliament meets by Privy Councillors, by men who have filled the highest offices of the State, and who for aught I know may be about to fill high offices of State, but upon which the moment Parliament meets every one is silent. Neither the mover nor the seconder of this great indictment of want of confidence condescends even to mention them. And yet the charge is a weighty one." After categorically contradicting the stories told by the Opposition, and apparently accepted to a great extent by the country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer went on to notice in detail the arguments by which the amendment to the Address was supported. First it was said that the Government had been

unable to carry its measures in the late Parliament. That, however, was the reason for the dissolution. Secondly, it was said that the dissolution was a reckless step, but that was really the issue the House had met to try. Then, again, the House had heard that the foreign policy of the Government was distasteful to the country, because in spite of all efforts on their part war had broken out on the Continent of Europe. On that point, however, the House could hardly form a fair judgment, seeing that the papers were not yet laid upon the table. And if the Government had failed to preserve the peace in this instance, were they more culpable than the union of "all the talents "-Lords Aberdeen, Clarendon, and Palmerston-who had managed to embroil this country in the Crimean war. And now how were the Opposition treating the Government. When the Liberal Cabinet was in difficulties, when the Vienna Conference collapsed through the abject incompetency of Lord John Russell, the Opposition "numerous and fairly ambitious," aided the Government in its difficulties, fairly supported it, brought forward no embarrassing resolutions, and when the Coalition Government collapsed, it fell by the hand of one of its own inembers. And what was being done now? Were not its members snatching a victory out of a state of things which they had themselves created ? The attack upon the Government because of its attempt to deas with the question of reform was wholly indefensible. Admitting for the sake of argument that our propositions perfectly deserved the condemnation they received, have no propositions to amend the representation of the people been coupled and connected with propositions which were equally unsuccessful, and equally condemned? Why don't we hear of them? Why are we always told of an unhappy proposal to disfranchise freeholders, and to give votes by papers? The noble Lord the member for the City has been in office almost all his life, he has had a monopoly of the question of Reform; he has been handling it, and fumbling it as long as I can remember. What then has he done? He has twice brought forward Reform Bills, and twice unsuccessfully. He proposed at one time-he the great patron of the working classes-to disfranchise all the freemen of England. Why should not that proposition be urged as a reason for no longer entrusting him with the preparation of a Reform Bill? In one bill he introduced a proposition hostile to the very principle on which representative government is founded-representation by minorities. If there was ever a proposition received with universal condemnation that was it. Why should not that disqualify the noble Lord from again meddling with the sacred question of Reform? . . . We who at least have prepared and have introduced a measure which would have more than doubled the constituency of the kingdom, are never to be allowed to give our opinions on a measure of this kind, whilst the noble lord (Palmerston) who scarcely conceals his opinion that all Parliamentary reform is a bad thing, and who tells you that if you are to have it you shall have as little as possible, is the popular candidate for the command of what we were told yesterday re now the united sections of the Liberal party.'"

66

WHO COULD REPLACE THE MINISTRY?

305

In concluding his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked for the constitutional confidence" of the House. He urged that the objections to the policy of the Government were "flimsy, feeble, and illusive," and that the Government itself was at the least as strong in its personnel as any which could possibly be invented to replace it. There was certainly neither a Mr. Vernon Smith nor a Marquis of Clanricarde in it, and the possibilities of the future did not promise very efficient substitutes. The Opposition had hinted at recruiting its strength from below the gangway : three members only appeared of sufficient importance to be taken into any future administration. They were Lord John Russell, and "we know how the noble Lord conducts negotiations; " Mr. Sidney Herbert, and “we know how the right honourable gentleman conducts war; " and Mr. Bright, and "there was a time when I thought the burly eloquence of the honourable member for Birmingham might have been heard on the Treasury Bench; but it would scem he has yielded up those claims which once were vindicated with that uncompromising eloquence that all admire and some fear."

An effort was made to bring the question to a decision on the first night, and had such a thing been possible there was little doubt of the result. A very fair proportion of the more Conservative section of the Liberal party were by no means anxious to see the Government turned out of office, especially since there was a good deal of doubt as to who their successors would be, and a certainty that the Opposition would be more than commonly strong. Parties were, in fact, so evenly balanced, that a really strong Government could not be constructed from either side of the House. The debate was, however, adjourned over the Wednesday, and the scattered forces of the Liberal party were rallied during the period of delay. The division was not taken until very late on Friday night, and then the Government, after a brilliant speech from Sir Hugh Cairns, found itself in a minority of thirteen in a House of, including tellers, 637. After such a debate and such a division, of course there was no more to be said. The House adjourned for a week, and on Friday, the 17th of June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that Her Majesty had been pleased to accept the resignations of Lord Derby and his colleagues, and that Lord Palmerston had received her commands to form a new Administration.

CHAPTER X.

ONCE MORE IN OPPOSITION.

The new Administration-The Willis's Rooms Intrigue-Lord Granville sent for -The Queen's reasons-Lord Granville fails to form a Ministry-His letter to the "Times"-Lord Palmerston returns to office-Without a Policy and without a Party-The Banquet at Merchant Taylors' Hall-Mr. Disraeli's Speech-State of the Exchequer-A Deficit of Five Millions-More Additions to the Income Tax-Mr. Disraeli's criticism-Foreign Policy-Lord John Russell's Statement-Why should England join the Conference?— Prorogation-Speech from the Throne-A barren Session-The Session of 1860-The Queen's Speech-Debate on the Address-French Commercial Treaty-The Italian Question-A February Budget-More Income TaxMr. Gladstone and Mr. Pitt-No more concessions to precedent-Objections to Mr. Cobden as Negotiator of the Treaty-Mr. Disraeli's criticism of the Budget-and of the Treaty-The Annexation of Savoy and Nice-The New Reform Bill-Unpopular from the first, and speedily withdrawn-Financial Adjustment-Paper Duty-Church Rates-Prorogation-Mr. Disraeli at Amersham-Session of 1861--Debate on the Address-Mr. White's Amendment-Mr. Disraeli on Lord Russell's "candid foreign policy "-Public business-The Budget-Mr. Disraeli's criticism-Prorogation- Ministers and the Confederate States-Death of the Prince Consort-Parliament opened by Commission-The Legislative Programme-The Budget-No remission of Taxation-Mr. Disraeli's indictment of Liberal Finance-A "Penurious Frodigal "-Resolutions on Retrenchment-Not a vote of want of confidence -Mr. Cobden on Liberal Economy-The Position of the Government-Foreign Affairs-The Colonies-Close of the Session.

THE new Administration was not formed without a good deal of negotiation-to which captious critics might perhaps be disposed to apply the less flattering title of intriguing. Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell made up their differences and agreed upon a compact of mutual support. If they could but succeed in getting the Government of Lord Derby out of office, one or other of them must, they believed, be called upon to form the new Administration. It was accordingly decided that whichever of the twain should receive the Royal commands, the other should give him a loyal and cordial support, and so little discreditable was this arrangement considered that it was told with the greatest candour by Lord Palmerston. A meeting was afterwards held at Willis's rooms, to which Mr. Disraeli made sarcastic allusion in his speech on the Amendment to the Address, and there it was decided that the Opposition should receive the support of the Peelites. Mr. Sidney Herbert and his friends accordingly assisted Lord Hartington in the debate and shared the spoils of office.

Then came perhaps the least creditable performance of Euglish political

LORD GRANVILLE SENT FOR.

307

life in the present generation. To the surprise of everybody, on the defeat of Lord Derby's cabinet her Majesty sent, not for either of the two. leaders of Liberalism who had made so sure of office, but for Lord Granville. The explanation was that the Queen "felt that to make so marked a distinction as is implied in the choice of one or other as Prime Minister of two statesmen so full of years and honours as Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, would be a very invidious and unwelcome task." It may possibly be surmised that some other motives were at work as well as the sense of invidiousness to which the memorandum refers-some sense of Lord John Russell's unhappy knack of "upsetting the coach," some memory of Lord Palmerston's unfortunate impracticability in the matter of consulting the Sovereign on questions of foreign policy, may have had at least as much to do with the rather singular step of sending for an unknown and untried man like Lord Granville. Of course Lord Granville set about attempting to form an Administration, and equally of course he failed. Lord Palmerston cheerfully consented to serve under him-which the admirers of the noble Lord attributed to his utter indifference as to who might be the nominal chief of the Cabinet, seeing that if he were in it he was certain to be the guiding and controlling spirit. Lord John Russell, however, flatly refused to take service under Lord Granville, and with his refusal the whole scheme fell to the ground. Upon this the noble Lord rushed into print and through the columns of the Times communicated to the world the history of his negotiations and of their failure. The most illiterate of newspaper readers was thus informed of what "her Majesty was pleased to observe;" "her Majesty felt;" "her Majesty intended;" of how "her Majesty cast her eyes;" and how "furnished with this commission Lord Granville communicated to Lord Palmerston the Queen's wishes”—all in the most approved style of Jenkins.

Lord Palmerston accordingly waited upon her Majesty and received her commands, in obedience to which he once more formed a Ministry which was of course a Coalition, but a Coalition with a more decidedly Liberal leaven in it than his former Government; Lord John Russell went to the Foreign Office; Sir G. C. Lewis, not having been remarkably successful as a financier, went to the Home Office; Mr. Sdiney Herbert became Secretary for War; Mr. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer; while Mr. Milner Gibson took the Board of Trade. This last appointment was offered to Mr. Cobden, but he refused it. Ministers went at once to their constituents: the re-elections were speedily accomplished and on the evening of the 30th of June, Lord Palmerston was able to make his statement to the House. It was very short, and mentioned only three things: -first, that the new Cabinet was exceptionally strong and able; second, that in foreign policy it intended to follow strictly in the line marked out by its predecessors, and thirdly, that the Government had no intention of doing anything with the question of Reform for that Session. Thanks to the dilatory policy of the Liberals and to the success of the Coalition by