The fallen minister, accompanied by a few faithful friends,the first and foremost men of his party,— were separated for ever from the main body of the Conservatives. of a party leader. 'They stood aloof, the scars remaining, Like cliffs which had been rent asunder; The marks of that which once hath been. Men of all parties, whether approving or conObligations demning the measures of 1829 and 1846, agreed that Sir Robert Peel's conduct could not be justified upon any of the conventional principles of party ethics. The relations between a leader and his followers are those of mutual confidence. His talents give them union and force: their numbers invest him with political power. They tender, and he accepts the trust, because he shares. and represents their sentiments. Viewing affairs from higher ground, he may persuade them to modify or renounce their opinions, in the interests of the state: but, without their concurrence, he has no right to use for one purpose, that power which they have entrusted to him for another. He has re grounds, deeply regret the severance of party ties,-deeply regret that severance, not from interested or personal motives, but from the firm conviction that fidelity to party engagements, the existence and maintenance of a great party, constitutes a powerful instrument of government.'-Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., lxxxvii. 1054. So complete was the alienation of the Tory party from Sir R. Peel that even the Duke of Wellington, who co-operated with him in the repeal of the corn laws, concurred with Lord Derby in opinion, that it was impossible that he should ever place himself at the head of his party again, with any prospect of success.-Speech of Lord Derby at Liverpool, Oct. 29th, 1859. ceived a limited authority, which he may not exceed without further instructions. If, contrary to the judgment of his party, he believes the public welfare to demand an entire change of policy, it is not for him to carry it out. He cannot, indeed, be called upon to conceal or disavow his own opinions: but he is no longer entitled to lead the forces entrusted to his command,-still less to seek the aid of the enemy. Elected chief of a free republic,— not its dictator,-it becomes his duty, honourably and in good faith, to retire from his position, with as little injury as may be to the cause he abandons, and to leave to others a task which his own party allegiance forbids him to attempt.1 nents. the fall of Sir R. Peel. This disruption of the Conservative party exercised an important influence upon the poli- The Consertical history of the succeeding period. The vatives after Whigs were restored to power under Lord John Russell, not by reason of any increase of their own strength, but by the disunion of their oppoThe Conservatives, suddenly deprived of their leaders, and committed to the hopeless cause of protection, were, for the present, powerless. They were now led by Lord Stanley, one of the greatest orators of his time, who had been the first to separate from Earl Grey, and the first to renounce Sir Robert Peel. In the Commons, their cause was maintained by the chivalrous devotion of Lord George Bentinck, and the powerful, versatile, and caustic eloquence of Mr. Disraeli,-the two fore See his own justification, Mem., ii. 163, 229, 311-325; Disraeli's Lord George Bentinck, 31-33, 390, &c. most opponents of the late minister. But they were, as yet, without spirit or organisation, disturbed in their faith, and repining over the past, rather than hopeful of the future.' The Whigs in office J. Russell, 1846-1852. Meanwhile the Whigs, under Lord John Russell, were ill at ease with their more advanced under Lord supporters, as they had been under Lord Melbourne. They had nearly worked out the political reforms comprised in the scheme of an aristocratic party; and Sir Robert Peel had left them small scope for further experiments in fiscal legislation. They resisted, for a time, all projects of change in the representation: but were at length driven, by the necessities of their position, to promise a further extension of the franchise.2 With parties so disunited, a strong government was impossible but Lord J. Russell's administration, living upon the distractions of the Conservatives, lasted for six years. In 1852, it fell at the first touch of Lord Palmerston, who had been recently separated from his colleagues.3 ministry, Power was again within the reach of the ConserLord Derby's vatives, and they grasped it. The Earl of 1852. Derby 4 was a leader worthy to inspire them with confidence: but he had the aid of few experienced statesmen. Free trade was flourishing; and the revival of a protective policy utterly out of the question. Yet protection was still the distinctive principle of the great body of his party. He could 1 Disraeli's Lord G. Bentinck, 79, 173, &c. 2 Supra, Vol. I. 450. 3 Supra, Vol. I. 160. Lord Stanley had succeeded his father in the earldom, in 1851. not abandon it, without unfaithfulness to his friends: he could not maintain it, without the certain destruction of his government. A party cannot live upon memories of the past: it needs a present policy and purpose: it must adapt itself to the existing views and needs of society. But the Conservatives clung to the theories of a past generation, which experience had already overthrown; and had adopted no new principles to satisfy the sentiment of their own time. In the interests of his party, Lord Derby would have done well to decline the hopeless enterprise which had fallen to his lot. The time was not yet ripe for the Conservatives. Divided, disorganised, and unprepared,-without a popular cry and without a policy,—their failure was inevitable. In vain did they advocate protection in counties, and free trade in towns. In vain did many 'Liberal Conservatives' outbid their Whig opponents in popular professions: in vain did others avoid perilous pledges, by declaring themselves followers of Lord Derby, wherever he might lead them. They were defeated at the elections: they were constrained to renounce the policy of protection: they could do little to gratify their own friends; and they had again united all sections of their opponents. Whigs and And now the results of the schism of 1846 were apparent. The disciples of Sir Robert Junction of Peel's school had hitherto kept aloof from Peelites both parties. Having lost their eminent Aberdeen, leader, they were free to form new connections. under Lord 1 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxxii. 637, 693; cxxiii. 54, 406. Distinguished for their talents and political experience, their influence was considerable, notwithstanding the smallness of their following. Their ambition had been unchecked and unsatisfied. Their isolation had continued for six years: an impassable gulf separated them from the Conservatives; and their past career and present sympathies naturally attracted them towards the Liberal party. Accordingly, a coalition ministry was formed, under Lord Aberdeen, comprising the Peelites, as they were now called, the Whigs, and Sir William Molesworth,—a representative of the philosophical school of Radicals. It united men who had laboured with Mr. Canning, Sir Robert Peel, Earl Grey, and Mr. Hume. The Liberal party had gained over nearly all the statesmanship of the Conservative ranks, without losing any of its own. Five and twenty years before, the foremost men among the Tories had joined Earl Grey; and now again, the first minds of another generation were won over, from the same party, to the popular side. A fusion of parties had become the law of our political system. The great principles of legislation, which had divided parties, had now been settled. Public opinion had accepted and ratified them; and the disruption of party ties which their adoption had occasioned, brought into close connection the persons as well as the principles of various schools of politicians. fall of this No administration, in modern times, had been Disunion and stronger in talent, in statesmanship, and in parliamentary support, than that of Lord Aberdeen. But the union of parties, which gave the cabinet outward force, was not calculated to ministry. |