important victory he had yet gained in the House of Commons. His motion in favour of agricultural distress was rejected by 281 votes to 267, or by the small majority of fourteen. Nine days afterwards the position of the Government was still further shaken, for a motion of Mr. Locke King in favour of reducing the franchise was carried, in spite of the opposition of the Ministers, by the large majority of one hundred to sixty-two. The result of these two divisions one a practical, the other an ignominious defeat was that on February 24, Lord John Russell announced that the Government were unable any longer to carry on the business of the country, and that they had consequently placed their resignations in the hands of the Queen.

Negotiations went on for several days before it was possible to form a new Government. In the first place, the Queen called on Lord Stanley (the late Lord Derby), and proposed to him that he should form a Government. Lord Stanley, however, suggested that an attempt should first be made, by Lord John Russell and Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham, to form a junction between the Peelites and the supporters of the Government. This proposition was accepted by Lord John Russell, and for a short time there appeared some probability of such a junction being formed. On their general policy there was no essential difference between the Ministry and the followers of the late Sir Robert Peel, and they were both agreed as to the supreme necessity of presenting an united

front in favour of Free Trade against the efforts of the Protectionist party to revive Protection. On one point, however, the difference between the two was found to be insuperable. Lord Aberdeen and Sir James Graham were both strongly opposed to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill-so strongly, that they could not sanction any compromise on the matter; while Lord John Russell was too deeply pledged to continue with the Bill to withdraw it, and thus these negotiations came to an end.* The next suggestion in this crisis was an attempt on the part of Lord Stanley to obtain the support of the Peelites for the Protectionists.

This crisis did Mr. Disraeli great service. It was because of the large support which a motion of his received, that the Government determined to hand in their resignations, and the consequence was that in the negotiations between the Queen and the various leaders, his name was constantly and prominently brought forward. It is pretty clear, however, from Lord Stanley's speech, that Mr. Disraeli was one of the last men to whom he would resort. The statement which Lord Stanley makes upon this part of the transactions, inclines me to the belief that his selection on a subsequent occasion of Mr. Disraeli as leader of the House of Commons was not made by reason of any love for Mr. Disraeli, but from the simple fact that he could get nobody else to take his place. For on this occasion we find him stating that he made application in

* Speech of Lord Aberdeen, Hansard, 3 S. cxiv. 999-1003.

the first instance to Mr. Gladstone,* and, of course, if this was done in the first instance, his object would probably be to give the leadership of the party in the House of Commons to that gentleman.-He then speaks of having applied to other persons,† and, altogether, conveys the impression that he tried everybody before falling back on Mr. Disraeli. I must, for the present, dismiss Lord Stanley's speech with the final remark that he declared his efforts to form a Ministry futile. There were, besides the points I have noticed, an exposition of his policy and of his intentions, in case he took office, which I shall have to notice at some length at a future stage.

* Hansard, 3 S. cxiv. 1012.

+ Speaking of his leading supporters in the House of Commons, Lord Stanley describes them as "men of talent and intellect," but without "political experience," and not " versed in official business." -Hansard, 3 S. cxiv. 1008. In another passage, he speaks of his attempts to select colleagues in the House of Commons thus: "My Lords," he said, " even among that "-the Protectionist-" party, I found that some of those who were well qualified to discharge public duties, were by various causes induced to decline-one, by the pressure of extensive private concerns; another by disinclination to join an Administration which appeared to hold out no assured prospect of permanence; and a third by an undue depreciation of his own abilities."-Ibid. 103. I think, reasoning from the probabilities of the case, it is clear that Mr. Disraeli was not one of the three persons, as described. He was not pressed "by extensive private concerns; "the fact that the Ministry could have "no assured prospect of permanence" did not deter him later on from joining Lord Stanley; and assure lly he is not the person described as suffering from "an undue depreciation of his own abilities." It, therefore, seems probable that, up to this date, Lord Stanley had not come to the determination to join his fortunes so closely to those of Mr. Disraeli, as he afterwards did. Mr. Disraeli, to all appearances, had little to do with Lord Stanley's resolves during this crisis.

The result of the Ministerial crisis, then, was that Lord John Russell resumed office.

Mr. Disraeli's attitude on the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was quite characteristic. While expressing general dissatisfaction with it, he took very good care to bend before the then no-Popery storm, presenting in this respect a marked contrast to Sir James Graham and Mr. Gladstone, who not only spoke against the Bill, but also had the courage to go into the lobby in opposition to it.

The Government sustained two other important defeats during this session. On June 6 they were defeated on a proposition of Lord Naas in reference to their financial arrangements, and on June 23 Sir Frederick Thesiger carried against them three resolutions in reference to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. Thus Government went on during the remainder of the session, sustaining every now and then defeats, and afterwards with some difficulty, by an appeal ad misericordiam, obtaining a reversion of the votes to which they objected.

419

CHAPTER XIII.

MINISTER.

WHEN the Government met Parliament again, its difficulties and its weakness had still further increased. During the recess a dispute had arisen between Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, the result of which was the dismissal of the Foreign Secretary from office by the Queen, on the advice of the Premier. The point in dispute, on which I need touch but lightly, was that Lord Palmerston had been premature in announcing to the French Government his approval of the coup d'état of Louis Napoleon. This event was the coup de grace of the Russell Ministry. Lord Palmerston had been its chief strength, and although his policy had been several times attacked, he was universally esteemed as a man of ability, courage, and vigour, who had conferred considerable prestige on the Government. The opening of Parliament was therefore looked forward to with a great deal of interest, and the days of the Ministry were, in the opinion of many, already numbered. The first night of the session was rendered particularly exciting by the