Chapter XI: THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued) (2)

Lord Palmerston began his speech by observing that he should not have expected from Mr. Cobden such a motion, or such a speech in its support, nor should he have anticipated the bitterness of his attack upon Sir John Bowring, an ancient friend, a man who had raised himself by his talents, attainments, and public services, and who was a fit person for the situation he held. If there was any man less likely than another to get the country into hostilities, it was Sir John Bowring, who had been a member of the Peace Society. But what most surprised him in Mr. Cobden's speech was the anti-English spirit which pervaded it, and an abnegation of the ties which bound men to their country and their countrymen. With regard to the question under discussion, the noble lord said that we had a treaty with the Chinese, stipulating that British vessels should not be boarded without a previous application to the British Consul; and the question is, What did the Chinese know or believe about the nationality of the _Arrow?_ Did they consider her a British vessel? He affirmed they did, and if they knowingly violated the treaty, it was immaterial whether, according to the technicalities of the law, the register had expired. It was the animus of the insult, the wilful violation of the treaty, that entitled us to demand reparation for the wrong, and an assurance of future security. He insisted that, after the refusal of reparation--only one of many violations of treaty rights by the Chinese--hostilities were amply justified, and that our proceedings were marked with extreme forbearance, compared with the proceedings of the Americans when their flag was insulted. The outrage was only part of a deliberate system to wrest from us a right essential to our commerce in those waters. Lord Palmerston referred to the barbarities of the local authorities at Canton; the Commissioner Yeh having beheaded 70,000 persons in less than a year. What was the Government expected to do--to send out a message to Yeh that he was right? This would be withdrawing from the British community protection against a merciless barbarian. It would disgrace this country in the eyes of the civilised world, and especially in the estimation of Eastern nations. The House, therefore, had in its keeping not only the interests, the property, and the lives of many of our fellow-subjects abroad, but the honour and the character of the country. As the Government expected defeat, the latter part of the Prime Minister's speech was a stirring appeal to the nation against the coalition of Radicals, Tories, and Peelites, which, as Greville remarks, was "very bow-wow." Mr. Cobden having briefly replied, and having withdrawn the first paragraph of his resolution, the concluding portion was put to the vote--to the effect that the papers laid before the House failed to establish satisfactory grounds for the violent measures resorted to at Canton. The numbers were--for the motion, 263; against it, 247; majority against the Government, 16.

This important division took place on March 3rd. Two days of anxious suspense passed, during which the political world was full of speculation as to the alternative Lord Palmerston would adopt--resignation or dissolution. Mr. Disraeli had challenged him to appeal to the country, but without such a provocative, that was the course which a man of Lord Palmerston's spirit and determination was most likely to adopt. Accordingly, on the 5th, Lord Granville in the Upper House, and the Prime Minister in the Lower, announced that her Majesty's Ministers had advised her to dissolve Parliament. The latter explained the grounds of his decision. In ordinary circumstances, the result of a vote of censure would be resignation, and to those who had obtained a majority in favour of such a vote would be left the responsibility of conducting the affairs of the country. But the present case seemed to Lord Palmerston of so peculiar a character that he did not think it his duty to adopt that course. The vote did not seem to imply a general want of confidence, though it would render it very difficult, if not unseemly, to conduct the business of the country in the ordinary manner during the remainder of a long Session. The Parliament was then in its fifth Session, and might be considered comparatively a very old Parliament, for it had witnessed more important events than had fallen to the lot of most Parliaments to see. It had seen three Administrations; it had seen the transition from a state of profound peace to a great European war; it had seen the transition from a great European war to the fortunate restoration of European peace. Consequently, as concerned the events of which it had been a spectator, it had done as much as could be expected to fall to the lot of one which had completed its full term of existence. He therefore proposed that the House should content itself with such provisional and temporary measures as might be necessary to provide for the public service until the earliest period at which a new Parliament could assemble. Mr. Disraeli concurred in this course and said he would give every possible facility to public business. Mr. Cobden inquired what the Government were about to do in order to carry out the solemn vote to which the House had come. If any danger to British residents in China was to be apprehended from the vote, the first consideration ought to be their safety, and a competent person should be sent out by the next steam-ship, armed with full authority to supersede all existing British authority in China, and to act according to circumstances. If Lord Palmerston did not intend to take this course, what course would he take? A new Parliament could not meet until the end of May. Mr. Cobden then attempted to give the Premier a lesson in electioneering, but the listener, as the event showed, knew more about the subject than the teacher. Lord Palmerston replied to the various questions as to the policy to be adopted in China. Every one knew that if a great extension of commercial intercourse between the nations of Europe and China ever obtained, it would be an immense advantage to the cause of civilisation and productive of great benefit to the industry of the nations trading with that country. The difficulty having been greatly increased by the unfortunate events that had occurred, it must strike every one that the selection of a person to whom should be committed the grave and important charge of conducting negotiations should be a subject of serious deliberation. It must strike every one that he should be imbued with the feelings of Government on this subject; and that, being the recipient of their verbal instructions, he would be likely to carry more weight than any person who might happen to be now in China. He by no means undervalued the services of Sir John Bowring, to whom the greatest injustice had been done, and whose merits had been disparaged to a degree that astonished him; at the same time, Government could not shut their eyes to the gravity and importance of the matters in hand. But the House must expect their policy to remain the same--it was, to maintain the rights and to protect the lives and property of British subjects, to improve our relations with China, and in the selection of those means and the arrangement of them to perform the duty they owed to the country. In other words the war was to be continued.

The House of Commons turned from the angry discussions about the Chinese war to a much more agreeable theme. Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who had filled the office of Speaker for nearly eighteen years, now announced his intention of retiring. On the 9th of March he addressed the House, and said that he could not contemplate the termination of his official career without great pain; nor could he allow it to close without offering to the House his sincere and grateful acknowledgments for that uniform confidence and support which he had received, not only from every political party in it, but he might say, with perfect truth, from every individual member. He was quite aware that, in the discharge of the delicate and very onerous duties of the Chair, he had much need of the kind indulgence which had always been extended to him, and especially of late, when he had been so frequently reminded of his increasing inability to do full justice to the task imposed upon him. It had been his constant aim to improve and simplify their forms of proceeding; but at the same time striving to maintain unimpaired all their rights and privileges, together with all those rules and orders, sanctioned by ancient usage, which long experience had taught him to respect and venerate, and which he believed never could be relaxed, or materially altered, without prejudice to the freedom and independence of the House of Commons. On the motion of Lord Palmerston, seconded by Sir. J. Pakington, the House then resolved that an Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she would bestow some signal mark of her favour upon the retiring Speaker, and stating that the House would make good the expense. The Queen having returned a gracious answer, and the House having gone into committee on the message, they unanimously resolved that an annuity of £4,000 a year should be conferred upon Mr. Shaw-Lefevre, who was subsequently created Viscount Eversley.

The remaining business of Parliament having been rapidly disposed of, Parliament was prorogued, with a view to its dissolution, on March 21st, the Royal Speech, which was brief, being delivered by commission. Her Majesty stated that it was her fervent prayer that the constituencies of the United Kingdom might be guided by an all-wise Providence to the selection of representatives whose wisdom and patriotism might aid her to maintain the honour and dignity of her crown, and to promote the welfare and happiness of her people. Parliament was convoked for the 30th of April. The result of the general election showed how well grounded was the confidence with which Lord Palmerston appealed to the country, and how correct, as Lord Malmesbury tells us, had been Mr. Disraeli's anticipation that if the Conservatives forced a contest on that issue they would suffer complete defeat. The popularity the Prime Minister had won bore him triumphantly over the most formidable opposition; while those who had been instrumental in the defeat of his Government seemed not to have pleased their constituencies; some eminent statesmen were rejected to make way for untried and ordinary men, whose chief recommendation was that they would give their zealous support to Lord Palmerston, whom they believed to have vindicated the honour of the country. In fact the name of Palmerston was made a popular rallying cry at almost every hustings in Great Britain. Mr. Cobden, not venturing to face the West Riding of Yorkshire, where he had been a popular idol, was defeated at Huddersfield, and kept out of Parliament. Mr. Bright and Mr. Milner Gibson were driven from Manchester, Mr. Layard from Aylesbury, and Mr. W. J. Fox from Oldham. The small but powerful phalanx of Peelites, whose experienced and accomplished debaters had given the Premier so much annoyance, was completely scattered. Thus his most formidable opponents were driven from the field, while he was enabled to meet the new Parliament at the head of a numerous body of zealous supporters.

Mr. John Evelyn Denison was unanimously elected Speaker in the room of Lord Eversley. Lord Palmerston congratulated him on the dignity to which he had been raised, pointing out the onerous nature of the duties he had to discharge, and presenting the example of the late Speaker as a model which it was impossible to surpass. The Royal Speech was delivered on the 7th of May, and Parliament at once proceeded to business. The Queen expressed her heartfelt gratification at witnessing the continued well-being and contentment of her people, and the progressive development of productive industry throughout her dominions. The Address was agreed to in both Houses _nem. con._ The first matter that came before the Commons was a message from her Majesty, announcing that a marriage had been negotiated between Prince Frederick William of Prussia and the Princess Royal. It need hardly be said that so interesting an event as the betrothal of the Queen's eldest daughter attracted much attention.

In the House of Commons on the same evening, the Premier made some observations in reference to the approaching marriage:--"I cannot refrain from saying that those who have had the good fortune to be acquainted with the Princess Royal must have observed that she possesses, both in heart and in head, those distinguished qualities which adorn her illustrious parents, and that she bids fair to hold out in the country of her adoption a repetition of that brilliant example which her illustrious parents have held out in this country, of a domestic happiness worthy to serve as a model of imitation for the most exalted or the humblest of her Majesty's subjects. Sir, it is impossible not to see that this marriage--independently of the prospect which I trust it holds out of happiness to her Royal Highness, from the high qualities of the prince whom she has selected as her future husband--also holds out to the country political prospects not undeserving of the attention of this House. We all know how family alliances tend to mitigate those asperities which from time to time must be produced by those diversities of policy which inevitably arise occasionally between great and independent Powers, and therefore I trust that this marriage may also be considered as holding out an increased prospect of goodwill and of cordiality among the Powers of Europe."

In connection with the dowry of the Princess Royal, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement, in which he contrasted the position of the Crown as to revenue with what it had been in past times. The Crown, deprived of its hereditary revenues, was now dependent upon Parliament for a maintenance suitable to its dignity. The Civil List of George III. amounted to more than £447,000; whilst that of the present Queen was only £385,000. George III. also received the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall; the Queen devoted part of them to the education of the Prince of Wales, and allowed the rest to accumulate for his benefit. During the reign of George III., Parliament voted £3,297,000 in payment of debts incurred by the Royal Family; the Queen had incurred no debts. Allowances were granted to the younger branches of the family of George III.; no grant of the kind had been made to the children of her Majesty. The expenses of the visits of George IV. to Hanover, to Ireland, and to Scotland, were paid by the country; whereas Queen Victoria visited the Emperor Napoleon at Paris at her own cost, although the visit was not made for her own personal enjoyment, but for the public good. Her Majesty had paid £34,000 for the furniture and repairs of Buckingham Palace; and she paid £6,180 a year for the peace income-tax, and £15,500 for the war income-tax. As to precedent, the eldest daughter of George II. received an annuity of £8,000 and a dowry of £80,000, and similar sums were granted to the eldest daughter of George III. Sir George Lewis proposed that the Princess Royal should receive an annuity of £8,000, and that her marriage portion should be £40,000. Mr. Roebuck moved, by way of amendment, that a certain sum should be given at once, and no annuity, in order to avoid an entangling alliance, and with a view to the large family the nation would have to provide for. As representatives of a hard-working people, they ought, while generous, to be just. At the request of Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli, Lord Elcho, and other members, Mr. Roebuck eventually withdrew his motion. On subsequent days Mr. Coningham, Mr. Maguire, and others, made attempts to reduce the amount; but their amendments were rejected by overwhelming majorities.

A reform of some importance to Ireland was effected during the present Session, namely, the abolition of "Ministers' Money"--a tax which was imposed upon householders in Dublin, Cork, and other places for the support of the clergy of the Established Church. It was only about £12,000 a year; but as it was, in the majority of cases, a direct payment from Roman Catholics to Protestant ministers, it had been a source of much irritation. Mr. Fagan, of Cork, brought in a Bill for its abolition, with the assent of the Government, providing that the sum should be made good by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners out of the Church revenues at their disposal. On the ground of principle, the measure was strenuously opposed by Mr. Napier, Mr. Whiteside, Sir F. Thesiger, and Mr. Walpole; and supported by Sir G. Grey, Mr. Horsman, Mr. J. D. Fitzgerald, Lord John Russell, and Lord Palmerston. The second reading was carried by a majority of 139. In the House of Lords the Bill was opposed by the Earl of Derby, the Bishop of Kilmore, Lords Dungannon, Wicklow, and Donoughmore. It was defended by Earl Granville, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord Talbot de Malahide, Lord Ellenborough, and the Duke of Newcastle. It narrowly escaped rejection there, the second reading being passed only by a majority of five.

The first Session of the new Parliament was distinguished by the passing of two measures of great social importance--the transfer of testamentary and matrimonial cases from the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and the establishment of a new Probate Court, and a new Divorce Court. As might be expected, all the supporters of vested rights and interests in the Church offered to these measures the most determined opposition. In the previous Session the Lord Chancellor had introduced the Probate and Administrations Bill, which there was not then time to pass. It was altered in the meantime, and on the 18th of May the second reading was moved by the Lord Chancellor. He proposed that the then present judge of the Prerogative Court should be the first judge of the new Court of Probate, with a working salary of £4,000 a year, and a retiring pension of £2,000. He proposed that he should also be the judge of the Divorce Court. The proceedings were to be all conducted vivâ voce, and whenever matters of fact were in dispute they should be referred to a jury. The County Courts were to have jurisdiction in will cases, where the estate did not exceed £200 in personalty, or £300 in real property. The Bill was severely contested in both Houses; but, with certain amendments, it ultimately passed into law.

The Divorce Bill--a measure of much greater importance--touching deeper social interests, and powerful religious feelings connected with the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, met with the most determined and persevering opposition. The second reading was fixed for the 18th of May, when the Lord Chancellor reviewed the state of the law with regard to marriage. In 1850 a Commission had been appointed to inquire into the whole subject, and it was on the recommendation of their report that the present Bill was founded. Nothing could be more absurd, vexatious, and expensive, than the law as it previously stood. The principle that marriage might be dissolved had been adopted by the Legislature; but practically, the separation of husband and wife was a privilege reserved for the aristocratic and wealthy classes, although the causes which made separation necessary or desirable affected all classes. Before a divorce could be obtained a _vinculo matrimonii_, proceedings must first be taken in the Ecclesiastical Court, a verbist must be obtained against the adulterer, and all the facts must be again established, at enormous cost, before the bar of the House of Lords. The Bill proposed to substitute one tribunal, by which the matter was to be investigated and finally decided. The action for _crim. con._, then an indispensable preliminary to a divorce, would be rendered unnecessary. The Archbishop of Canterbury gave his assent to the second reading; but he declared that he would oppose in committee the clause which permitted the guilty parties to be united in legal marriage. Lord Lyndhurst was most anxious for the success of the Bill. He believed that it was a scriptural doctrine that marriage might be dissolved in case of adultery; but our law on the subject was derived from the system which prevailed when the country was under Roman Catholic rule. One hundred and fifty years ago recourse had been had to palliatives; but these means were available only for the rich. The law ought to embrace both rich and poor. Upon this principle it was impossible that any solid objection could be made to the alterations proposed by the Bill. Instead of facilities for severing the marriage tie being demoralising, he contended that the present law led to great immoralities among the poorer classes of the people, because they now had no redress against the adulterer. But he was of opinion that the Bill did not go far enough. One objection he had to the Bill was its great inequality between the two sexes. He called upon their lordships to do justice. The more they considered this part of the measure, the more they would be satisfied of the unsoundness of the argument urged against women who applied for a divorce on the ground of adultery on the part of the husband. But if their lordships could not concur in that suggestion, he hoped they would allow wilful desertion to be a sufficient ground for divorce. By deserting his wife the man violated the very purposes for which marriage was instituted.

The Bill was opposed by several of the bishops, particularly by the Bishop of Oxford; but the Bishop of London gave to the measure his hearty approval, and the second reading was carried by a majority of twenty-nine. In committee several amendments were proposed and rejected. The Archbishop of Canterbury moved a clause restricting the person against whom the divorce was pronounced from marrying the companion in guilt. This was carried by fifty-three to forty-seven; but another amendment by the same prelate was rejected, its object being to exempt from censures or penalties clergymen who should conscientiously object to officiate in marrying divorced parties. The Bill passed the third reading on the 23rd of June. It came on for the second reading in the House of Commons on the 24th of July. Numerous petitions had been presented there against the measure, one of which was signed by 6,000 clergymen. Mr. Henley moved that it should be postponed for a month, in order to allow time for deliberation; but Lord Palmerston pronounced the motion to be a pretence too shallow to be entertained, though it was supported by Lord John Manners, Mr. Napier, Mr. Malins, and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Henley's motion was negatived by 217 to 130.

In moving the second reading on the 30th of July, the Attorney-General traced the progress of legislation on marriage from the Reformation down. Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church, holding marriage to be a sacrament and indissoluble, had recourse to fictions to escape the operation of the law. But Parliament, proceeding upon settled and permanent principles, had acted as a tribunal for administering the law of divorce. The present Bill gave concise expression to the law, simplified it, and transferred its administration to a more convenient tribunal. He argued that the dissolution of marriage for adultery is not contrary either to the letter or spirit of Scripture, and that the intermarriage of the guilty parties had been supported by the precedents of 150 years. The operation of the ecclesiastical law by which a divorce was obtained _a mensa et thoro_ was no effectual relief to an injured wife, as it allowed the husband to retain his power over her property. Many cruel and barbarous cases had occurred, in which the wife was driven to sue for this sentence, and had afterwards by industry in the exercise of intellectual ability obtained for herself an independent position, and become the owner of property, till the husband returned, laid his hand on her hard-earned gains, and swept all away to gratify his own dissolute propensities. This reproach of our law, this relic of its savage character as regards the relation of husband and wife, would, he trusted, be effectually removed by the provisions of the Bill. Sir W. Heathcote moved that the second reading be deferred for three months. The Bill was also opposed by Mr. Gladstone, who argued against it at length, both on the law of the case and on the authority of Scripture. Adverting to the religious view of it, he asked whether it was consistent with the respect and reverence due to the revelation of God, for Parliament to take into its own hands great mysteries, and the remodelling of religious rites? Touching, lastly, upon the social question, he urged the evils to be apprehended from the licence of divorce, and from shaking the idea of the sacredness and indissolubility of marriage, founded upon the great precedents of human history, and warned the House against entering upon a road which would remove us from a point to which Christianity had brought us. The Attorney-General replied and the motion against the Bill was rejected by a majority of 111; the numbers being--for the amendment, 97; against it, 208. In committee, Mr. Walpole urged the Government to accept an amendment proposed by Major Warburton, to the effect that no priest or deacon should be liable to any suit, penalty, or censure, for solemnising, or refusing to solemnise, the marriage of any person who should be divorced by virtue of the Act. The Attorney-General solemnly warned the committee of the consequences of this concession. "You are about," he said, "to give the clergy an exemption; and upon what ground? Upon the ground of the sin, guilt, and criminality of the charge affecting those who come before them with a request that a religious ceremony may be performed. But if that exemption be granted, where are we to stop? Will the clergy not reason most consecutively from this exemption when they say, 'You have exempted us from doing violence to our consciences in this matter; but why do you leave us under the necessity of submitting to the violation of our consciences in others, _i.e._ the marriage of notorious free-livers and so forth?'" The committee, however, decided in favour of the clause by 73 votes against 33, and it was added to the Bill.

In consequence of the adoption of the foregoing clause another was added--namely, "That when any clergyman refused to perform the marriage ceremony in the case of divorced parties, it might be lawful for any other minister of the Church of England, licensed within the diocese, to perform that ceremony." The Bill, very much altered, having passed the Commons was sent up to the Lords to have the amendments sanctioned. Lord Redesdale moved that the amendments of the Commons be taken into consideration that day six months. The Lord Chancellor and Lord Campbell reprobated this motion, and Lord Lansdowne affirmed that it was contrary to the practice of the House for forty years for any peer thus to move the rejection of a Bill of which he was neither the author nor the mover. Lord Redesdale then withdrew his motion. The amendments of the Commons were considered on the 24th of August, the House having agreed to do this only by a majority of two. All the amendments but two were adopted. The Commons concurred, and the Bill became the law of the land. The court established under the Act soon became well known under the efficient presidency of Sir Cresswell Cresswell, who was instrumental in giving relief and freedom to an immense number of aggrieved husbands and wives. The number of cases that came before him, however, might lead to a false impression with regard to the state of matrimonial life in England, because cases had been accumulating for many years, in consequence of the want of a legal remedy. When this accumulation was cleared off, the amount of business in the court indicated a much more favourable condition of married life in the middle and lower classes of English society. The Act did not extend to Scotland or Ireland. The Scots did not need its facilities for divorce, and the Irish indignantly protested against the extension of its provisions to their country.

The opening of the year 1858 was signalised by a daring attempt on the life of the Emperor Napoleon. On the 14th of January, at half-past eight o'clock, just as he arrived with the Empress at the door of the Italian Opera in the Rue Lepelletier, three explosions were heard proceeding from hollow projectiles, one of which perforated the hat of the Emperor, and another struck the neck of his _aide-de-camp_, General Roquet, who was sitting in front. A considerable number of people standing at the doors of the theatre, and some soldiers, were wounded, but only two mortally. Two of the footmen also were wounded. One of the horses of the Imperial carriage was killed, and the carriage itself was broken by the force of the explosion. The escape of the Emperor and Empress seemed almost miraculous. This was the celebrated Orsini plot, which was very near involving Great Britain in a war with France and led to proceedings in the British Parliament that resulted in the overthrow of Lord Palmerston's Administration. On the 20th of January Count Walewski sent a despatch to Count Persigny, then French Ambassador in London, in which he charged, in very strong terms, the British Government and nation with something like complicity with the assassins. "This fresh attempt," he wrote, "like those which preceded it, has been devised in England. It was in England that Pianori formed the plan of striking the Emperor; it was from London that, in an affair the recollection of which is still recent, Mazzini, Ledru Rollin, and Campanella directed the assassins, whom they had furnished with arms. It is there also that the authors of the last plot have leisurely prepared their means of action, have studied and constructed the instruments of destruction which they have employed, and it is thence that they set out to carry their plans into execution." He stated that the Emperor was persuaded of the sincerity of the sentiments of reprobation which the crime created in England. He appreciated and respected the liberality with which England exercised the right of asylum to foreigners, victims of political struggles. He did not complain of that, but very different was the case of the skilful demagogues established in England. It was no longer the hostility of misguided individuals manifesting itself by all the excesses of the press--no longer even the work of the factions, seeking to rouse opinion and provoke disorder. It was assassination, elevated to a doctrine, preached openly and practised in repeated attempts, the most recent of which had just struck Europe with amazement, and he asked, "ought the right of asylum to protect such a state of things? Is hospitality due to assassins? Ought the English Legislature to contribute to favour their designs and their plans, and can it continue to shelter persons who, by their flagrant acts, place themselves beyond the pale of common right, and under the ban of humanity?"

Lord Clarendon, who was then Foreign Secretary, did not send an official communication to Lord Cowley in answer to this despatch, but contented himself with giving private instructions to lay before the French Government the sentiments, views, and intentions of her Majesty's Government, which was thought to be a much more prudent course to be adopted with a view to allaying the excessive irritation of the French nation and army at the time. The despatch of Count Walewski, however, excited general indignation in England, which was rendered more intense by the fact that very violent military addresses to the Emperor, full of abuse and threats towards England, had been inserted in the official _Moniteur_. There was afterwards a good deal of correspondence, which assumed a conciliatory tone on both sides; but in the course of which the Emperor insisted on the necessity of passing a new law, in order to prevent conspiracies like that of Orsini. Towards the end of January he wrote to his ambassador in London, saying, "I do not deceive myself as to the little efficacy of the measures which could be taken, but it will still be a friendly act, which will calm much irritation here. Explain our position clearly to the Ministers of the Queen; it is not now a question of saving my life; it is a question of saving the alliance."

Yielding to his pressure, Government, on the 8th of February, brought in a Bill to "amend the law relating to the crimes of conspiracy and incitement to murder, either within or without her Majesty's dominions, and whether the person killed or to be killed were a subject of her Majesty or not." Such was the state of facts that became the subject of discussions in Parliament which led to the defeat of Government. The signal for commencing the war was given by the introduction of the Conspiracy Bill, the alleged necessity for which was urged by Lord Palmerston. If our law was defective, we should not abstain from altering it because other nations had given way to impulses of passion, perhaps of fear. To the motion for the introduction of the Bill, Mr. Kinglake moved the following amendment:--"That this House, while sympathising with the French nation in its indignation and abhorrence at the late atrocious attempt made against the life of the Emperor, and anxious, on a proper occasion, to consider the defects of the criminal law of England, the effect of which may be to render such attempts vain, deems it inexpedient to legislate in compliance with the demand made in Count Walewski's despatch of January 20th, until further information be obtained, and until after the production of the correspondence between the two Governments subsequent to this despatch." Leave was given to introduce the Bill by a majority of 299 to 99. But the indignant feeling of the country at anything like foreign dictation slowly gathered strength, and at length became terrible and irresistible. Public meetings were held at which the Conspiracy to Murder Bill was denounced in the strongest terms. It came on for the second reading on the 19th of February, when Lord Palmerston did all in his power to mitigate the hostility against it, and its supporters generally laboured to keep out of view its political and international bearings, and to treat it merely as a domestic question of law reform. An amendment was moved by Mr. Milner Gibson, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. In the course of his speech he quoted from the _Times_ a passage, which was received with cheers, to the effect that there was no constituted authority in Europe with which Lord Palmerston had not quarrelled, no insurrection that he had not betrayed; while, on the other hand, when he had made up his mind to court the good will of a Foreign Power, no sacrifice of principle or of interest was too great for him. Mr. Gladstone, at the conclusion of a powerful speech, made the following impressive remarks, as to the tendencies of modern society on the Continent:--"Sir," he said, "these times are grave for liberty. We live in the nineteenth century; we talk of progress; we believe that we are advancing; but can any man of observation, who has watched the events of the last few years in Europe, have failed to perceive that there is a movement indeed; but a downward and backward movement? There are a few spots in which institutions that claim our sympathy still exist and flourish. They are secondary places; nay, they are almost the holes and corners of Europe as far as mere material greatness is concerned, although their moral greatness will, I trust, ensure them long prosperity and happiness. But in these times, more than ever, does responsibility centre upon England; and if it does centre upon England, upon her principles, upon her laws, and upon her governors, then I say that a measure passed by this House of Parliament--the chief hope of freedom--which attempts to establish a moral complicity between us and those who seek safety in repressive measures, will be a blow and a discouragement to that sacred cause in every country in the world." Mr. Disraeli, though he voted for the introduction of the Bill, now voted for its rejection. The question now was, not between this country and France, but between the House of Commons and the British Premier. After a spirited reply from Lord Palmerston, the House divided; when the Bill was rejected by a majority of 19, the numbers being, ayes 215, noes 234. So entirely had the debate been mismanaged that many observers thought Government were courting defeat, in consequence of the pending question of the extremely unpopular appointment of Lord Clanricarde to the office of Privy Seal, but that explanation is rejected by Greville. A vote of censure upon Government, touching the great principles of national policy, left no alternative but resignation. Lord Palmerston could not go to the country again in such circumstances, for if he did, his supporters would be sure to be defeated in the existing temper of the public mind. Addressing the House, therefore, on the 22nd of February, the noble lord announced that Ministers had tendered their resignation to her Majesty, which had been accepted. He understood that Lord Derby had been sent for by the Queen, and he moved the adjournment of the House for a few days to afford time for the formation of the new Ministry.

Lord Derby succeeded in forming an Administration. The Cabinet was composed of the following members:--Prime Minister, Earl of Derby; Lord Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford; President of the Council, Marquis of Salisbury; Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Hardwicke; Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole; Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury; Colonial Secretary, Lord Stanley; War Secretary, General Peel; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli; First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir John Pakington; President of the Board of Control, Lord Ellenborough; President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Henley; First Commissioner of Works, Lord John Manners. Sir Fitzroy Kelly was Attorney-General; Sir Hugh Cairns, Solicitor-General; Mr. Inglis, Lord Advocate of Scotland; and Mr. Baillie, Solicitor-General. The Irish Government was composed as follows:--Viceroy, Earl of Eglinton; Lord Chancellor, Mr. Napier; Chief Secretary, Lord Naas; Attorney-General, Mr. Whiteside; Solicitor-General, Mr. Edmund Hayes. Lord Derby had made overtures to Mr. Gladstone, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord Grey, but all three declined.