m 1852 takably expressed, and should give his unequivocal adhesion to that policy. Notwithstanding this frank avowal, the combination of parties proved too strong for the administration, and upon the introduction of the budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Disraeli), a debate ensued upon the whole financial policy of the government, which resulted in a defeat of the ministry, on December 16, by a majority of 19. Ministers were strongly urged, on this occasion, to remain in office. They were assured, even by leading opponents, that this vote-being on a question of finance-did not authorise their resignation; but, being in a minority in a Parliament elected under their own auspices, and having no assurance of support from the majority of the House of Commons upon their general policy, they deemed it right to retire." Next day their resignation of office was announced to both Houses of Parliament. 21. Lord Aberdeen's Administration.-December 1852. In hopes of obtaining a strong and durable administration, which should be at once conservative and reforming, the queen sent for Lord Aberdeen, and also wrote to Lord John Russell, expressing her reliance upon his patriotism, and his willingness to co-operate in the formation of a coalition government. In this her Majesty was not disappointed. On December 27, 1852, Lord Aberdeen informed the House of Lords that he had succeeded, in conjunction with Lord John Russell, in forming a Coalition Ministry, of Conservatives and Liberals, who would agree in the maintenance and prudent extension of Free Trade and the commercial and financial system established by the late Sir Robert Peel.' And he proceeded to state the outlines of the Trevelyan, Life of Macaulay, v. 2, n Mr. Disraeli, Hans. D. v. 191, p. 332. Martin's Pr. Consort, v. 2, p. 1702. Ib. v. 205, p. 1659. p. 482. m Hans. D. v. 123, p. 53. policy intended to be pursued by the new administration. Both Houses were then adjourned until February 10. On that day, Lord John Russell, as leader of the government in the House of Commons, explained the measures intended to be submitted to Parliament. These measures were received, by both Houses, in a fair and candid spirit. The result was that a mass of legislation, unusual in amount as well as in value, was initiated and successfully carried through by this government.P The Aberdeen ministry remained in office until 1855. For a considerable period before their final overthrow, 1855. discontent had prevailed in the cabinet; they had been bereft of genuine parliamentary support, and had been subjected to frequent defeat, in the House of Commons, 'upon cross motions of every description.' This greatly impaired their strength and efficiency. Their downfall was ultimately occasioned by internal dissensions and notorious incompetency to meet the crisis of the war with Russia. It was preceded by the unexpected secession of Lord John Russell himself, who resigned on January 23, 1855, on account of his inability to concur with his colleagues in resisting a pending motion of Mr. Roebuck, for the appointment of a committee to enquire into the conduct of the war in the Crimea. This motion was carried, on January 29, by a large majority. It was regarded as a declaration of want of confidence in the government. Accordingly, on February 1, the resignation of ministers was announced to both Houses. The announcement was made in the Commons by Lord Palmerston, the Home Secretary. The resignations had actually taken. place before the meeting of the House on the previous sitting (January 30), and would have been formally made known upon the moving of the adjournment on that day, on account of the present P Martin's Pr. Consort, v. 2, pp. 487, 503. Mr. Sidney Herbert, Hans. D. v. 1855. state of public affairs,' but for the accidental circumstance of the Lords having adjourned over that day. The premier having a seat in the Lords, it was necessary that the formal announcement of resignation should proceed first from him.s After the premier had communicated this intelligence to the Lords, the Duke of Newcastle took the unusual course of explaining to the House his personal motives for his conduct in office, and for his resignation. On February 5, Lord John Russell (in the Commons) entered into similar explanations, in answer to certain remarks from the Duke of Newcastle on the aforesaid occasion. Meanwhile, ineffectual attempts had been made, both by Lord Derby and by Lord John Russell, at the command of the queen, to form a new administration; and Lord John Russell took this opportunity to explain the causes of his failure. This elicited some observations from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but no debate arose upon either occasion. 22. Lord Palmerston's First Administration.-1855. On February 6, 1855, both Houses were informed that her Majesty had empowered Lord Palmerston to form a ministry. In the Commons (upon the motion to adjourn), a short debate took place, in which dissatisfaction was expressed at the delay in the formation of a new ministry, and hints were thrown out that, if further delay occurred, it might become expedient to address the crown on the subject. On the 8th, Lord Granville informed the House of Lords that Lord Palmerston had succeeded in the task entrusted to him. His lordship briefly explained that no change of policy was intended by the incoming administration, which was, in fact, a reconstruction of the preceding one, with some partial changes, and re-distribution of offices." And 202. Hans. D. v. 136, pp. 1233, 1261. " Hans. D. v. 136, p. 1330. Ashley, Life of Palmerston, v. 2, c. iii. Martin's Pr. Consort, v. 3, p. 208. then Lord Derby entered into explanations in regard to 1855. his own failure to construct a cabinet, which gave rise to a short debate. But the ordinary ministerial explanations were deferred until the appearance of Lord Palmerston in the House of Commons, after his re election. Until this took place, with the partial exceptions above noted, there was no political discussion in either House, although the House of Commons sat, for the transaction of ordinary and unopposed business, on January 30, February 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, when they adjourned until the 16th. Meanwhile, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), the Commissioner of Public Works (Sir W. Molesworth), and the President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood) resumed their offices as members of the new administration. Nevertheless, while taking part in the debates, they refrained from asserting their official position during this interregnum, and in the absence of their chief. In proposing a vote on account in supply, on behalf of the Army, upon February 7, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said: 'I presume the government are of opinion that it would be the wish of the House that we should not proceed with any business, except such as is of absolute necessity, in order that those who have accepted office, or who have changed their offices, in her Majesty's government—at least the principal members of it—may have an opportunity of submitting themselves to their constituents for their re-election." Upon the re-assembling of the House, on February 16, Lord Palmerston was present, and entered into the ordinary ministerial explanations. He endeavoured to persuade the House to forego their determination to enquire, by a committee of their own, into the condition of the Army before Sebastopol, but he was compelled to yield, upon this point, to the determination of the House; although this VOL. I. Hans. D. v. 136, p. 1309. “ concession led to further changes in the composition of the ministry. On February 22, it was announced that Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir J. Graham, and (afterwards) Mr. Cardwell, had retired from the new cabinet; they were speedily replaced, however, by Sir G. C. Lewis, Lord John Russell, Mr. Vernon Smith, and Lord Stanley of Alderley. The ex-ministers made their explanations on the following day, alleging their strong objections to the proposed committee of enquiry into the state of the Army before Sebastopol as the ground of their retirement. With the consent of the premier, and his new colleagues, the committee was appointed. On July 16, Lord John Russell resigned office, on account of animadversions in Parliament, and out of doors, upon his conduct as minister plenipotentiary at Vienna, Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton having given notice of motion for a vote of censure upon him.x W By a resolution of the House of Commons, on 1857 March 3, 1857, the Palmerston ministry were censured for the violent measures resorted to at Canton in the late affair of the Arrow.' The House of Lords, however, approved of their conduct and policy upon the Chinese question, and upon other questions the House of Commons gave them a general support. They therefore resolved to appeal to the country by a dissolution of Parliament. They were influenced in this determination by the probability that it would be difficult to form a strong government to work with the existing House of Commons, which had already lasted five years, within which period there had been three different administrations. The Chinese question excited very little interest at the hustings, but the name of Palmerston' was the rallying cry in almost every constituency. The result of the elections was the return of an increased majority of members to support the administration of that popular nobleman." But ere long a still more difficult bone of contention |