the presidency of Lord Derby and of Lord Palmerston respectively, to decide on the course to be adopted. The debate itself was one of the most remarkable of the present century. Men of all shades of political opinion attacked the Government, and all upon pretty much the same ground. Mr. Cobden began and Mr. Milner Gibson seconded the motion. Sir Bulwer Lytton, in a speech of striking eloquence, warned the House that trade could not prosper if traders made themselves an object of detestation to those they traded with. Sir John Herbert strongly condemned the conduct of the Consuls and of Sir Michael Seymour. Mr. Warren thought that there were both blindness and obstinacy in the way in which the supporters of the Government refused to enter upon any question other than that of the honour of the British flag. Mr. Whiteside condemned the bombardment of Canton as an "onslaught upon old men, women and children, based upon a miserable, contemptible and cowardly quibble." Lord Robert Cecil argued that honour, justice and truth, were likely to do more to induce the Chinese to open their ports than any force that we could send against them. Viscount Goderich thought what had been done inconsistent with the character and contrary to the interests of England. Sir James Graham considered the operations at Canton utterly indefensible from every point of view, and announced his intention of voting against the colleagues whom he had so recently quitted. Mr. Phillimore reviewed the circumstances of the war at some length, and finally pronounced it on every ground "unjust in its origin and unblest in its continuance." Sir John Pakington thought the war "disgraceful and disastrous." Sir Frederick Thesiger considered the papers before the House a lasting monument of

Debate on the China War.

25

the bad faith and cruelty of England. Mr. Sidney Herbert expressed the deepest sorrow at seeing "force exercised with so little mercy upon a pretext so transparent-he would not say so transparently fraudulent." Mr. Roundell Palmer denounced. the policy of the Government "as discreditable in itself and utterly unlikely to increase our commerce or our influence, or to exalt the reputation of this country amongst Western or Oriental nations." Mr. Henley announced that he supported Mr. Cobden's motion, because "he could not consent to share the responsibility of a downright public falsehood, or the unnecessary shedding of innocent blood." Mr. J. G. Phillimore would not be an accomplice in national dishonour, or support "the act of an upstart and arrogant Minister." Mr. Baillie Cochrane thought the conduct of the Government "consistent neither with truth nor with humanity." Mr. Roebuck put the case of a Chinese man-of-war bombarding Westminster because certain men in Downing Street did not do exactly as they desired, and declared that the action of the English in China, being parallel, "was indefensible, ungenerous, unchristian and deserving the reprobation of the House." supported the resolution and made an carnest appeal to send out "a message of mercy and peace, and also a message of British judgment and British wisdom, to the farthest corners of the world." The defenders of the Government were its official members, and perhaps half-a-dozen of the least influential of the Whig party, whose cue it was to represent the attack on the policy of the Chinese war as an unprincipled and factious combination to drive the Ministry out of office. To this taunt Mr. Disraeli replied in the speech with which he practically wound up the debate, by an assertion that of course

Mr. Gladstone

every move in the House of Commons must be a party move, since a party is but a body of men, "who have a policy which they recommend, and who do not shrink from the responsibility of putting that policy in practice." As the whole question of the war itself had been thoroughly canvassed, Mr. Disraeli turned to its relation to politics at home, and speedily disposed of Lord Palmerston's "weak and shambling case," in a speech which recalled the days of the diatribes against Peel. "The First Minister is, of all men," said he, "the man who cannot bear a coalition! Why, Sir, he is the archetype of political combinations, without avowed political principles. See how his Government is formed. It was only last year that every member of his cabinet in this House, supported a Bill, introduced, I think, by a late colleague. It was opposed in the other House by a member of the Government, who, to excuse his apparent inconsistency, declared that when he took office. the First Minister required no pledge from him on any subject. whatever. Yet the noble Lord is alarmed and shocked at this unprincipled combination! The noble Lord cannot bear coalitions. The noble Lord has acted only with those amongst whom he was born and bred in politics! That infant Hercules was taken out of a Whig cradle! And how consistent has been his political life! Looking back upon the past half century, during which he has professed almost every principle and connected himself with almost every party, the noble Lord has raised a warning voice to-night against coalitions, because he fears that a majority of the House of Commons, ranking in its numbers some of the most eminent members of this House, may not approve a policy with respect to China, which has begun in outrage and which, if pursued, will end in ruin. . .

Defeat of the Government.

27

Let the noble Lord not only complain to the country let him appeal to the country. I hope my constituents will return me again; if they do not, I shall be most happy to meet him on the hustings at Tiverton. . . . I should like to see the programme of the proud leader of the Liberal party,-'No Reform! New Taxes Canton blazing! Persia invaded!' That would

be the programme of the statesman who appeals to a great nation as the worthy leader of the cause of progress and civilization."

The division was taken at 2 o'clock in the morning and Lord Palmerston found himself in a minority of 16. On the following Thursday he announced, as a consequence of the decision of the House, that as soon as temporary arrangements could be made a dissolution would take place. The leader of the Opposition expressed his approval of this course, and promised to facilitate public business as much as possible. The prorogation took place on the 21st of March, and the new writs having been at once issued, its results were pretty well known by the end of the month. As Mr. Ashley reminds us, "There never perhaps was a general election which turned more completely than this one of 1857 on the personal prestige of a Minister and the national confidence in one man." Mr. Ashley might at the same time have added that there never was an election which was characterised by so large an amount of what the Saturday Review called "Elijah Pogramism "-a quality of which Palmerston, with all his admirable tact and unquestionable capacity, was the greatest living exemplar. Somehow or other the bunkum which was talked at this time had a wonderful effect on the voting power of the people. Palmerston's name

"Life of Lord Palmerston," vol. ii., p. 135.

was a name to conjure with, while his principal opponents were nowhere, especially those who had opposed him on the question of the China War. Messrs. Bright and Milner Gibson were rejected at Manchester to make room for Messrs. Potter and Turner; Mr. Cobden, fearing to attempt to retain his seat for the West Riding, fled to Huddersfield, and was ignominiously defeated there; Mr. Cardwell was rejected at Oxford by a narrow majority, and Mr. Layard lost his seat for Aylesbury. Altogether 189 new members were returned, and of the whole House 371 were set down as supporters of Lord Palmerston, while only 284 were described as Conservatives. The Peelites, as a party, practically disappeared at this election.

Lord Beaconsfield's address to the electors of Buckinghamshire appeared on the 17th of March. It is a little more bitter in tone than usual, and comments with some force on the practical acknowledgment of the justice of the vote of the House of Commons, to be found in the supersession of the English agents in China. The real object of the Dissolution. he declares to be the waste of a year, and of Lord Palmerston he says that "he is an eminent man who has deserved well of his country, but who, as Prime Minister, occupies a false position. He is," the address goes on, "the Tory chief of a Radical Cabinet. With no domestic policy he is obliged to divert the attention of the people from the consideration of their own affairs to the distraction of foreign politics. His external system is turbulent and aggressive that his rule at home may be tranquil and unassailed. Hence arise excessive expenditure, heavy taxation and the stoppage of all social improvement. His scheme of conduct is so devoid of all political principle that when forced to appeal to the people