its character, and had not assisted in the preservation of peace."*

On the 24th May, then, Mr. Disraeli moved his resolution; and in supporting this motion he attacked Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell with the greatest bitterness.+ A long debate ensued, and the strength of the disapproval with which his proposition was received will be estimated from the fact that it was rejected by a majority of 100: the numbers being 319 to 219.

Subsequently to this, Lord John Russell fell into disrepute on account of discrepancies between his explanations in Parliament, and his conduct in Vienna. In all the violent attacks made upon him, Mr. Disraeli took a prominent part; § and on July 16th, when Lord John Russell announced his resignation, Mr. Disraeli assailed a speech of Lord Palmerston on the occasion as "reckless rhodomontade," and as "the patrician bullying of the Treasury Bench." It was not fit, he said, that Lord Palmerston should attempt to stop discussions by language which he would not use an unpar

* Ibid. 108-9.

† Ibid. 109-111.

Mr. Disraeli's chief objection to the despatch of Lord John Russell as our plenipotentiary to the Vienna Conference was that that statesman was pledged to bitterly anti-Russian views. He quoted the various speeches which Lord John Russell had made in favour of a decisive struggle with Russia, and also the disrespectful terms in which he had spoken of the Emperor of Russia personally; concluding with the remark, "This was the dove sent out upon the troubled waters."-Ibid. 110.

§ lbid. 154.

Ibid. 159.

liamentary epithet to describe, but not language which he expected "from one who is not only the leader of the House of Commons-which is an accident of lifebut who is also a gentleman. (Great cheering.)"* And he wound up by declaring that Lord Palmerston had shown that night, "by his language and by the tone of his mind, that if the honour and interests of the country be any longer entrusted to his care, the first will be degraded and the last will be betrayed. (Loud cheers.) "+

The vote of censure on Lord Palmerston which Mr. Disraeli introduced gave rise to several amendments. Thus his motion led to lengthy discussions and several divisions, and it was not until June 8th that the matter was disposed of. The Government were supported by a large majority of the House, but they found bitter opponents in Mr. Bright, Mr. Cobden, and the peace party generally, and in Mr. Disraeli and his adherents. There is, let me remark parenthetically, a wide distinction between the opposition of the former and of Mr. Disraeli. The peace party regarded the time as already arrived for bringing the war to a conclusion, and, therefore, were justified in endeavouring to prevent the Government from continuing it. But between Mr. Disraeli and Lord Palmerston there was really no essential difference of policy, for the Prime Minister was quite as Russophobist as the leader of the Opposition, and, therefore, the charge of unfairly embarrassing the Government is justifiable against Mr. Disraeli, † lbid. 160.

* Ibid. 159-60.

警

though it may not be against Messrs. Bright and Cobden.

It was on the 8th June, I have said, that the debates and attacks upon the Government, to which Mr. Disraeli gave rise, were concluded.. On the following day, and, therefore, without any doubt in reference to the conduct of the Opposition and of Mr. Disraeli, the Prince Consort made his memorable speech at the Trinity House dinner, that speech in which Constitutional Government was said to be on its trial, and the efforts to impede the Ministry in the midst of their enormous responsibilities were criticised as bitterly as the position of the speaker would permit.*

*He said, "If ever there was a time when the Queen's Government, by whomsoever conducted, required the support, ay, not the support alone, but the confidence, goodwill, and sympathy of their fellow-countrymen, it is the present. It is not the way to success in war to support it, however ardently and energetically, and to run down and weaken those who have to conduct it. We are engaged with a mighty adversary, who uses against us all those wonderful powers which have sprung up under the generating influence of our liberty and our civilization, and employs them with all the force which unity of purpose and action, impenetrable secrecy, and uncon⚫ trolled despotic power give him; whilst we have to meet him under a state of things intended for peace and the promotion of that very civilization, a civilization the offspring of public discussion, the friction of parties, and popular control over the government of the State. The Queen has no power to levy troops, and none at her command, except such as voluntarily offer their services. Her Government can entertain no measures for the prosecution of the war without having to explain them publicly in Parliament; her armies and fleets can make no movement, nor even prepare for any, without its being proclaimed by the press; and no mistake, however trifling, can occur, no weakness exist, which it may be of the utmost importance to conceal from the world, without its being publicly denounced, and even frequently exaggerated, with a morbid satisfaction. The

Notwithstanding this rebuke from so high a quarter, Mr. Disraeli joined heartily in the next onslaught upon the Government. On July 17th Mr. Roebuck proposed a motion founded on the report of the Sebastopol Committee. The motion attributed the sufferings of the army during the previous winter in the Crimea chiefly to the then Cabinet, and declared every member of that Cabinet, whose counsels led to such disastrous results, worthy of "severe reprehension." *

The Aberdeen Cabinet was that, as the reader knows, alluded to. Now, Lord Palmerston and nearly all his colleagues had been members of the Aberdeen Cabinet; and such a motion, accordingly, amounted to a vote of want of confidence in the existing Government.

Whatever view we take of Lord Palmerston and his policy, such a motion at such a time can only be regarded as unwise and unjust, inopportune and unpatriotic. The mistakes which it condemned were past and gone, and the Ministers-Lord Aberdeen and

Queen's ambassadors can carry on no negotiation which has not to be publicly defended by entering into all the arguments which a negotiator, to have success, must be able to shut up in the innermost recesses of his heart-nay, at the most critical moment, when the complications of military measures and diplomatic negotiations may be at their height, an adverse vote in Parliament may of a sudden deprive her of all her confidential servants. Gentlemen, constitutional government is under a heavy trial, and can only pass triumphantly through it if the country will grant its confidence-a patriotic, indulgent, and self-denying confidence-to Her Majesty's Government. Without this all their labours must be in vain.”Irving, 295.

* Annual Register, xcvii. 161.

the Duke of Newcastle,-who were chiefly responsible had been sacrificed. Lord Palmerston could scarcely be held responsible; and even if he could, he was now in the middle of a difficult and momentous struggle, and it was unfair to impede his course by those references to a dead past. This was the view taken by two of the most distinguished members of the Conservative party, and so strong was the feeling of these men upon the subject that they personally came forward to the defence of the Government by proposing the previous question. The mover of this amendment in favour of the Ministry was General Peel, afterwards the colleague of Mr. Disraeli, and Lord Robert Cecil, who is now known as the Marquis of Salisbury.* General Peel denounced the interference of the House with the Government, and Lord Robert Cecil characterised Mr. Roebuck's motion as wearing "the aspect of acrimonious and vindictive personality."+ Mr. Disraeli, however, strongly supported Mr. Roebuck's motion.

I have now traced Mr. Disraeli's action through the whole Crimean war, and I have proved that he did not display that forbearance towards the Government which was claimed by his adherents during his own tenure of office, and which, in the imaginary history of past transactions supplied by Tory speakers, he was credited with having shown. I have proved that on every single occasion on which an attack was possible upon the Government, he was among the foremost assailants. I have shown that he proposed a vote of censure himself, † Ibid.

• Ibid. 162.