A few days after the introduction of the measure, Lord John Russell, now anxious to rejoin the Liberal party, prepared the battle-ground by giving notice of the following resolution, on which issue was taken:—"That this House is of opinion that it is neither just nor politic to interfere in the manner proposed by this Bill with the freehold franchise as hitherto exercised in counties in England and Wales; and that no re-adjustment of the franchise will satisfy this House or the country which does not provide for a greater extension of the suffrage in cities and boroughs than is contemplated in the present measure." There never perhaps was a Ministerial proposal of reform of any kind so badly supported by the country. Notwithstanding the influence of Government—generally great, no matter what party is in power—only three petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill when it came on for the second reading on the 20th of March, while an immense number was presented against it. The debate on the second reading occupied seven nights, and was sustained throughout with remarkable ability and animation. The first speech was delivered by Lord John Russell, on moving his amendment to the motion of Mr. Disraeli, which was made without any remarks. The noble lord argued that the Bill would completely change the Constitution of the country, destroy rights that had existed since the Conquest, deprive men of their county votes who had not shown themselves unworthy of the trust, and enable persons of landed property to flood small boroughs with fagot votes, and make them what they were before 1832—nomination boroughs; while in counties the measure would lead to the formation of electoral districts, which Lord Derby five years before had said would destroy one of the main balances of the Constitution. He concluded in these words:—"With regard to this great question of Reform, I may say that I defended it while I was young, and I will not desert it now that I am old." Lord Stanley, in reply to Lord John Russell, taunted him with having allowed the question to fall in abeyance, and with having brought forward his motion as virtually a vote of censure, and as such it was met on the part of his colleagues, who declared that the noble lord's motion would be fatal to the Bill. Sir Hugh Cairns, the Solicitor-General, also shone in this debate. Referring to an alleged compact between Lord John Russell and Mr. Bright, he said, "We all know and admit the noble lord's attachment to this question; but we also know that there is a form of the tender passion which sometimes develops itself in jealousy of any attention to the object of its affection from any other quarter. I think the noble lord exposes himself to some misconstruction on this point. The English people," he continued, "do not like a 'dodge.' They do not like it in business, they do not like it in politics; but least of all do they admire it in a man who, at a time when the best interests of his country at home, and our most peaceful hopes abroad, demand all the patriotism, all the candour, and all the forbearance of a statesman, approaches the consideration of a great national question like this, not fairly to criticise, not boldly to reject, but with a crafty and catching device to confuse, and, if it may be, to dislocate parties, and on that confusion and dislocation to secure his own political aggrandisement and private advantage." Mr. Bright ably exposed the main defects of the Bill. The people out-of-doors understood by a Reform Bill a large enfranchisement, and larger, freer constituencies. The Bill did not meet that demand: it got rid of the most independent electors from counties, and insidiously proposed to alter the boundaries of boroughs to complete the work. The object was to make the representation of counties more exclusively territorial, and to gratify the hundred and fifty gentlemen who sat behind Mr. Disraeli elected by the territorial interest. As to small boroughs, which were only a refuge for the politically destitute, he knew no limit whatever to the amount of corruption in them that would be occasioned by the Bill. It would, at the same time, exclude the working classes, telling them that they were dangerous, notwithstanding their improved mental, moral, and physical condition.
Lord Palmerston, whose hatred of Reform was notorious, supported the amendment of Lord John Russell. On the other hand, Mr. Whiteside denounced it as "an inscrutable resolution to stifle truth and prevent discussion—a crafty contrivance to defeat the Bill, and, if possible, the Ministry." Sir J. Pakington complained strongly of the speech of Lord Palmerston, stating that he had adopted a tone of arrogance altogether unusual between gentlemen who sat opposite to each other in that House, and that his language could be looked on in no other light than as wanting in due respect to the Crown. Mr. Gladstone, who, as may be gathered from the "Life of Bishop Wilberforce," was at this time well disposed to the Conservatives, remarked upon the singular coincidence of opinion on all sides with respect to the great question of Parliamentary Reform. There was no controversy traceable to differences between political parties, and he thought it was to be regretted that the House was now in hostile conflict with a division before them, which would estrange those by whose united efforts alone a satisfactory settlement could be come to. The resolution was unprecedented in form, being an amendment on the second reading of a Bill, referring to a portion of a measure that might be dealt with in committee. Pleading for consideration to the Government, he described the failures of their predecessors who had engaged in a similar task, and proved how consistently the Liberals had shirked the question. Mr. Gladstone defended small boroughs. He regarded them as a means of supplying a race of men who were trained to carry on the government of the country—the masters of civil wisdom, like Burke, Mackintosh, Pelham, Chatham, Fox, Pitt, Canning, and Peel, all of whom first sat for small boroughs. If there was to be no ingress to the House but one, and that one the suffrages of a large mass of voters, there would be a dead level of mediocrity. The extension, the durability of our liberty, were to be attributed under Providence to distinguished statesmen introduced to the House at an early age. But large constituencies would not return boys, and therefore he hoped the small boroughs would be retained. Those facts formed a reason for going into committee, where Lord John Russell could carry his views. Mr. Gladstone earnestly deprecated the postponement of the question. It was a golden opportunity which they should not let slip. Mr. Disraeli, in replying, defended his measure with vehemence, and not without personal acrimony towards Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, whom he charged with living in an atmosphere of combinations and cunning resolutions when out of office. By bringing forward this untoward motion, and by sneering at Lord Malmesbury at a moment when negotiations were pending, when an awful responsibility rested on the Minister, Lord John had not only embarrassed the Government, but had injured the public service. The Government, he said, had been sustained in all its arduous struggles by a conviction of the justice of the people of England, and were sustained by it at that moment, amid all the manœuvres of Parliamentary intrigue and all the machinations of party warfare. The House then proceeded to a division, in the midst of a scene of extraordinary excitement, the issue being rather uncertain till the last moment. It was, however, decisive against the Government, the numbers being—for the second reading, 291; against it, 330; majority 39. The division took place on the 1st of April.
EARL RUSSELL. (From a Photograph by Elliot & Fry.)
Next day Lord Derby had an audience of the Queen; on the same evening, in the Lords, he stated that the majority against him left him but one alternative, either to resign or dissolve Parliament. He regarded the vote as equivalent to a vote of want of confidence, and he thought the Government would have laid themselves open to a charge of indifference if they took no notice of such a division. The distracted state of parties in the House of Commons, he said, rendered it almost impossible to administer the affairs of the nation. He excepted from this censure the Conservative party, whose support had been unwavering, cordial, and generous. According to his lordship's view, the chief mischief-maker was Lord John Russell, who, from the restless energy of his disposition, had the peculiar fortune to overthrow many Governments, not only of his opponents but also of his friends; the consequence of which conduct was, that hardly a year now passed without a Ministerial crisis, and if the system were persevered in, it would put an end to all government; for it inflicted injury at home and damaged the influence of the country abroad. One of the questions bequeathed to him by the late Government was the damnosa hæreditas of Parliamentary Reform. He had in consequence introduced a Bill to meet that question. An opportunity had thus been given to the House of Commons to settle this question, but the Opposition preferred the interests of party to the interests of the country. Lord Palmerston had said that "the Ministers should be condemned to keep their places and do our bidding." But Lord Derby begged to tell him that he would do no one's bidding but that of the Queen, so long as he retained her confidence. But whose bidding were they to do? Was it that of the motley and heterogeneous Liberal party? He then announced that, considering the grave condition of European affairs and the domestic interests of the country, he had deemed it his duty to recommend to her Majesty an early dissolution of Parliament, stating that he looked with confidence to the result of the appeal about to be made to the country.
Mr. Disraeli gave a somewhat similar explanation in the Lower House. Lord Palmerston acknowledged the courtesy and fairness of his statement. He did not consider the late vote as one of censure; as such he would not have supported it. He thought the advice given to her Majesty was very unwise. If he were to attempt to prophesy the result, he would say that the new Parliament would be far more likely than the present to decide that power should be transferred to other hands. After some more discussion on the dissolution, the House hastened to wind up the Session by disposing of the necessary business, which was interrupted only by a short debate on the affairs of Italy. On the 9th of April, therefore, Parliament was prorogued by commission. The Royal Speech was a mere formal production, except the concluding paragraph, which stated that the appeal that her Majesty was about to make to her people had been rendered necessary by the difficulties experienced in carrying on the public business of the country, as indicated by the fact that within little more than a year two successive Administrations had failed to retain the confidence of the House of Commons; and she prayed that the step she was about to take would have the effect of facilitating the discharge of her high functions, and of enabling her to conduct the government of the country under the advice of a Ministry possessed of the confidence of her Parliament and her people.
The results of the general election, at which the Government, as might be expected, put forth all its influence to secure a working majority, fully verified the predictions of Lord Palmerston, for the new Parliament was not even disposed to give the Derby Cabinet a fair trial. The Tories had gained considerably at the polls, but had failed to secure a majority. Still, they formed a compact party in the House of Commons more than 300 strong. The Session was opened on the 7th of June, the process of swearing-in having been then completed. The Queen delivered the Royal Speech in person. It contained nothing remarkable, except a suggestion that the subject of Parliamentary Reform should be postponed till next Session. The debates on the Address in both Houses were unusually animated. Lord Granville expressed regret that, in spite of the result of the elections, the Ministry had determined to carry on the government in a minority. Lord Ellenborough stated that what the country required was a strong Government; and he expressed his conviction that this result had not been obtained by the general election. Lord Derby defended the conduct of his Government and, in reference to some of the Irish elections, denied that any compact existed between him and Cardinal Wiseman. If he saw any chance of a strong Government, he would gladly lay down the responsibility he had assumed; but considering the state of foreign affairs, he thought it his duty to his Sovereign to remain at his post. The Address in the Lords was agreed to without a division; not so in the Commons, where an amendment was moved by the Marquis of Hartington, leading to a debate that lasted for three nights. He admitted that it was a party move, in order that power should not be left in the hands of a party antagonistic to all progress. In the course of this debate great distrust in the foreign policy of the Government was betrayed; and the Italian question had much more to do with the premature dissolution of the Cabinet than the Reform question. The nation sympathised warmly with the cause of freedom in Italy, and had a decided conviction that a Conservative Government was not a fitting medium through which that sympathy might be conveyed. Upon a division, therefore, the numbers were as follows:—For the amendment, 323; against it, 310; majority against the Government, 13.
There is a curious statement in Lord Malmesbury's "Memoirs" to the effect that the defeat of the Government was due entirely to Mr. Disraeli's neglect to lay on the table of the House the Blue Book containing the Italian and French correspondence with the Foreign Office, and that after the despatches had appeared, numerous Liberals, Mr. Cobden among them, expressed their regret in the lobby at having voted against the Ministry. But Lord Malmesbury was certainly mistaken as far as Mr. Cobden was concerned, since he was out of England at the time of the division, and it is probable that the whole story is an exaggerated recollection of one or two private expressions of opinion. The simple explanation of Mr. Disraeli's supposed neglect would seem to be that the book was not printed, and that Ministers felt so certain of defeat that they did not think it worth while to hurry on its appearance. With the re-union of the Liberal party all chance of their continuance in office was at an end, and that long-delayed object was at length accomplished after much negotiation by party managers, male and female. The great obstacle was the long-standing rivalry between Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston. The latter was induced to pave the way to a reconciliation by a letter to Sir James Graham, which contained the suggestion that one of them should be Prime Minister, presumably with a peerage, the other leader of the House of Commons. This equal division of the spoils was, however, by no means to Lord Palmerston's taste; nevertheless, at a meeting of the Liberal party held at Willis's Rooms on the 6th of June they agreed to serve under one another if either was sent for by the Queen, and the result of their amity was Lord Hartington's resolution.
In consequence of the adverse division, Lord Derby announced the resignation of his Cabinet on the 19th of June. On the same evening Mr. Disraeli made a similar announcement in the House of Commons. Lord Palmerston was then called upon by her Majesty to form an Administration, the Queen having at first applied to Earl Granville to relieve her from the "invidious unwelcome task" of choosing between Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell. He failed, however, to secure their support, and somewhat compromised himself by indiscreet communications to the press. The following are the names of the members who comprised the new Cabinet:—Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister; Lord Campbell, Chancellor; Lord Granville, President of the Council; the Duke of Argyll, Privy Seal; Sir George Cornewall Lewis, Home Secretary; Lord John Russell, Foreign Secretary; the Duke of Newcastle, Colonial Secretary; Mr. Sidney Herbert, Secretary for War; Sir Charles Wood, Secretary for India; Mr. Gladstone, Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Duke of Somerset, First Lord of the Admiralty; Lord Elgin, Postmaster-General; Sir George Grey, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; Mr. Milner Gibson, Chief Poor-Law Commissioner; Mr. Cardwell, Chief Secretary for Ireland; the Earl of Carlisle, Viceroy. The list of names included the flower of the Peelites, Whigs, and Radicals. Lord John Russell's emphatic determination to have the Foreign Office or nothing caused the exclusion of Lord Clarendon, and the blandishment of the Prime Minister, together with the offer of the Board of Trade, failed to secure the allegiance of Mr. Cobden, who feared, and with some justice, that the Ministry would play fast and loose with Parliamentary Reform. In expressing that opinion he noted the weak point of the Ministry—it was strong in talent, but divided in opinion. The three important members, Lord Palmerston, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Gladstone, were of one mind in their sympathy for the Italian cause, but the Premier was far more conservative in his domestic policy than the two other statesmen, and while at issue with Russell on Reform held different views from Mr. Gladstone as to the propriety of strengthening the national defences. However, they continued to agree to differ.
Before commencing the deeply interesting narrative of the last Italian war, which resulted in the establishment of the kingdom of Italy, it is desirable to dispose of the Italian question, in its international aspects, and in its relations to the state of political parties in the United Kingdom. The influence of that question on the fortunes of the Conservative leaders was very great. Nothing militated so strongly against Lord Derby, or contributed so much to alienate from him the confidence of the mass of the British people, as his apparent want of sympathy with the Italians in their struggles for independence; while the well-known sentiments of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell upon this subject tended in a very high degree to strengthen their influence and extend their popularity. As a matter of fact the Conservative statesman was actuated mainly by a desire to preserve the status quo, and the extreme Austrian view was propounded by the Whig politician, Lord Clarendon. "The bubble of Italian unity," he said, "had at length burst, and the detestable party of Mazzini and his accomplices was almost extinct. Supposing that Austria was driven out, and Lombardy was annexed to Piedmont, the people of Milan and Venice would never agree with those of Sardinia, but would be even more discontented than they are now. Piedmont was nothing more than the advanced guard of France, and he considered that the defeat of Austria would only substitute one master for another." Lord Derby, it is true, like other statesmen, failed to forecast the future in the event of a war. "It would not," he said, "be localised in Italy; it would be impossible to confine it to that country. It would extend itself, and involve the world in universal conflagration." It would bring the whole of Germany into the field. England, which could not look unmoved at the occupation of the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, would be drawn into the vortex. But the chance of peace, he thought, would be immeasurably strengthened if it were known that Great Britain would not remain an unmoved spectator of any event in which her honour was concerned.