Prime Ministers and Some Others | Page 5

of war, and Her Majesty considered it a most
unfortunate moment for a change in her Government. She thought that
the Ministry had better accept the amendment and go on with the Bill.
But Lord Russell stood his ground, and that ground was the highest.
"He considers that vacillation on such a question weakens the authority
of the Crown, promotes distrust of public men, and inflames the
animosity of parties."
On the 26th of June, 1866, it was announced in Parliament that the
Ministers had resigned, and that the Queen had sent for Lord Derby.
Lord Russell retained the Liberal leadership till Christmas, 1867, and
then definitely retired from public life, though his interest in political
events continued unabated to the end.
Of course, I am old enough to remember very well the tumults and
commotions which attended the defeat of the Reform Bill of 1866.
They contrasted strangely with the apathy and indifference which had

prevailed while the Bill was in progress; but the fact was that a new
force had appeared. The Liberal party had discovered Gladstone; and
were eagerly awaiting the much more democratic measure which they
thought he was destined to carry in the very near future. That it was
really carried by Disraeli is one of the ironies of our political history.
During the years of my uncle's retirement was much more in his
company than had been possible when I was a schoolboy and he was
Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister. Pembroke Lodge became to me a
second home; and I have no happier memory than of hours spent there
by the side of one who had played bat, trap and ball with Charles Fox;
had been the travelling companion of Lord Holland; had corresponded
with Tom Moore, debated with Francis Jeffrey, and dined with Dr. Parr;
had visited Melrose Abbey in the company of Sir Walter Scott, and
criticized the acting of Mrs. Siddons; had conversed with Napoleon in
his seclusion at Elba, and had ridden with the Duke of Wellington
along the lines of Torres Vedras. It was not without reason that Lord
Russell, when reviewing his career, epitomized it in Dryden couplet:
"Not heaven itself upon the past has power, But what has been has been,
and I have had my hour."

III
LORD DERBY My opportunities of observing Lord Derby at close
quarters, were comparatively scanty. When, in June, 1866, he kissed
hands as Prime Minister for the third time, I was a boy of thirteen, and I
was only sixteen when he died. I had known Lord Palmerston in the
House of Commons and Lord Russell in private life; but my infant
footsteps were seldom guided towards the House of Lords, and it was
only there that "the Rupert of debate" could at that time be heard.
The Whigs, among whom I was reared, detested Derby with the
peculiar detestation which partisans always feel for a renegade. In 1836
Charles Dickens, in his capacity of Parliamentary reporter, had
conversed with an ancient M.P. who allowed that Lord Stanley--who

became Lord Derby in 1851--might do something one of these days,
but "he's too young, sir--too young." The active politicians of the sixties
did not forget that this too-young Stanley, heir of a great Whig house,
had flung himself with ardour into the popular cause, and, when the
Lords threw out the first Reform Bill, had jumped on to the table at
Brooks's and had proclaimed the great constitutional truth--reaffirmed
over the Parliament Bill in 1911--that "His Majesty can clap coronets
on the heads of a whole company of his Foot Guards."
The question of the influences which had changed Stanley from a Whig
to a Tory lies outside the purview of a sketch like this. For my present
purpose it must suffice to say that, as he had absolutely nothing to gain
by the change, we may fairly assume that it was due to conviction. But
whether it was due to conviction, or to ambition, or to temper, or to
anything else, it made the Whigs who remained Whigs, very sore. Lord
Clarendon, a typical Whig placeman, said that Stanley was "a great
aristocrat, proud of family and wealth, but had no generosity for friend
or foe, and never acknowledged help." Some allowance must be made
for the ruffled feelings of a party which sees its most brilliant recruit
absorbed into the opposing ranks, and certainly Stanley was such a
recruit as any party would have been thankful to claim.
He was the future head of one of the few English families which the
exacting genealogists of the Continent recognize as noble. To pedigree
he added great possessions, and wealth which the industrial
development of Lancashire was increasing every day. He was a
graceful and tasteful scholar, who won the Chanceller's