and Park, the English engineers, were sent to prison to await their trial; and the British consul was not permitted to see his unfortunate countrymen. On the attention of Lord Palmerston being drawn to the subject in parliament, he replied that full inquiry had been made into the circumstances, and that the British government did not feel bound to interfere. Here was an abandonment of the civis Romanus sum doctrine with a vengeance. Surely, like fiery port, his lordship had become toned down by old age.

When the Conservatives came into office, they found public opinion very sore. People believed that the government had been meanly permitting Englishmen, guilty of no crime, to suffer a cruel imprisonment in the dungeons of Naples. The new government took up the matter warmly. On the 15th of March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a statement respecting it. He said that, as the jurisdiction of the King of Naples had been acknowledged by the late ministry, the present one was prevented from taking any steps in contravention of that decision. The government would submit their case, he said, to the law advisers of the crown; and then act without fear or favour, whether they deemed it their duty to assert the rights of a sovereign, or to vindicate those of their fellow-subjects. He added, that all the papers connected with the case should be laid before the House. On the 22nd of March, Mr. Disraeli informed the House, that in consequence of the representation of the British consul, the King of Naples had given orders that Watt should be immediately released; that Park had been released on bail; and that he had been placed on trial, which was conducted in a spirit of impartiality. Park was subsequently set at liberty; and a demand was made by the British government on that of Naples, for compensation to him and his companions. Eventually, the King of Naples agreed to pay £3,000 as compensation, and to deliver up the ship Cagliari, and the whole of her crew, into the hands of the government of this country.

Homer, we are told, sometimes nodded; and it seems, occasionally, England's far-famed Secretary was under somniferous influences. Still, in the fact that there was joy in Vienna, and among the despotic rulers of the continent, when it was heard that Palmerston was Premier no longer, we have the best compliment to his lordship's policy and power.

CHAPTER XII.

THE CONSERVATIVES IN OFFICE.

LORD DERBY, as head of the party that formed the most numerous section of the majority against the late government, received the queen's authority to form a new ministry. He undertook the task, though perfectly conscious that he possessed neither a parliamentary majority, nor that broad basis of popular support which is usually regarded as essential to the leader of the government.

Of this brilliant orator, the following particulars are worth recording. Edward Geoffery Stanley, Earl of Derby, was born in 1799, at Knowsley Park, Lancashire. Having been educated at Eton, and at Christchurch, Oxford, Mr. Stanley, in 1821, became a member of the House of Commons, in which, for the next twenty years, he enacted a most conspicuous part. He seems to have been in no haste to trespass on the attention of the illustrious assembly; but when he broke silence in 1824, his maiden speech, though on a matter of mere local interest, elicited a high eulogium from Sir J. Mackintosh; and in the course of the same session, his second oratorical effort, on the subject of the Irish church, exhibited the readiness, aptitude, and ability of an experienced debater. Mr. Macaulay

remarked, that Mr. Stanley's knowledge of the science of parliamentary defence resembled an instinct; and that it would be difficult to name any other debater who has not made himself a master of his art at the expense of his audience. During the brief Canning and Goderich administrations, Mr. Stanley, as UnderSecretary for the Colonies, was initiated into official mysteries; and on the formation of Lord Grey's government, he was nominated to the then arduous post of Chief Secretary for Ireland. But although the young nobleman's political views were of the most liberal character, the constituency of Preston preferred the claims of Henry Hunt, the popular, but now forgotten, demagogue. However, Mr. Stanley found his way into the political arena through the borough of Windsor; and was, ere long, engaged in those single-handed conflicts with O'Connell and Shiel, which, for years, excited parliament, and alarmed the country. While the Reform Bill was under discussion in 1832, his singular genius for debate was often exercised with effect in defence of its provisions; and, about the same time, he carried the measure for national education in Ireland. The question was one of absorbing interest in the country; and the feeling, when the outline of the plan was made known, was one of general dismay among a very large body, both of the clergy and laity. It was affirmed, though very untruly, that Dr. Whately had been sent to Ireland as Archbishop of Dublin, for the very purpose of carrying out the system. That system failed. How it would have worked, and whether its success would have been greater as a mixed system, had the great body of Protestant clergy and laity supported it, it would be now vain to inquire. That the results would have been different from those which have taken place, can scarcely be doubted; but what those results would have been, is another question. Whether a mixed system of education (really, and not nominally mixed, as has been the case in some instances) can ever work effectually in a country where different religious systems are held with such intensity as in Ireland, is in itself a question not easily or quickly answered.

It was in the session of 1833 that Mr. Stanley's ability was most conspicuous, and his voice most potent in the battle of debate. At the opening of parliament, he overpowered the Irish repealers, says Men of the Time, by his vehement invective; and, combining the pride of patrician blood with the pride of intellectual prowess, it would, indeed, have been something novel in human nature, if he had not manifested a degree of scorn for his adversaries. This tendency soon raised up a host of foes eager to annoy him. The complaint of hauteur became so frequent, that the leader of the opposition came to the rescue. "I have often," said Sir Robert Peel, "heard the right honourable gentleman taunted with his aristocratic bearing and demeanour. I rather think I should hear fewer complaints on that score if he were a less powerful opponent in debate.” Whether Mr. Stanley were wise in thus treating his opponents, is a question to which many have returned a negative reply. Be this as it may, that year he carried the Church Temporalities Bill, and the measure for emancipating the West India slaves; having, for the latter purpose, become Colonial Secretary, and a member of the cabinet.

In 1834, alarmed at the ministerial project of still further reducing the Irish church establishment, Lord Stanley withdrew from office, carrying Sir J. Graham, Lord Ripon, and the Duke of Richmond in his train. He declined to take part in the administration formed by Sir Robert Peel, on Lord Grey's resignation; but after acting with the Conservative opposition for seven years, he accepted the seals of the Colonial Office in 1841; and occupied that post for four years, in the course of which he was removed to the House of Peers. At the close of 1845, when Sir R. Peel arrived at the resolution of abandoning the cause of protection, Lord Stanley withdrew from office; and next year, though with seeming reluctance, placed himself at the head of the opposition, illustrated and rendered memorable in the House of Commons, by the industry of a Lord George Bentinck, and the genius of a Disraeli.

In 1851, the resignation of Lord John Russell brought the Conservatives to