interfering with the passing of the Bill, and Mr Bentinck took the
same line, and replied to some of the arguments of Mr Milner Gibson.
Mr Henley said he should vote for the Amendment. The Lord Advocate
made a good speech against it. Mr Gladstone spoke with his
usual talent in favour of the Amendment, and was answered by the
Attorney-General in a speech which would have convinced men who had
not taken a previous determination. He was followed by Mr Disraeli,
who seemed confident of success, and he was replied to by Viscount
Palmerston, and the House then divided.

It seems that Lord Derby had caught at an opportunity of putting the
Government in a minority. He saw that there were ninety-nine Members
who were chiefly of the Liberal Party, who had voted against the Bill
when it was first proposed, and who were determined to oppose it in
all its stages. He calculated that if his own followers were to join
those ninety-nine, the Government might be run hard, or perhaps be
beaten, and he desired all his friends[6] to support Mr Milner Gibson;
on the other hand, many of the supporters of the Government, relying
upon the majority of 200, by which the leave to bring the Bill in had
been carried, and upon the majority of 145 of last night, had gone out
of town for a few days, not anticipating any danger to the Government
from Mr Gibson's Motion, and thus an adverse division was obtained.
Moreover, Count Walewski's despatch, the tone and tenor of which had
been much misrepresented, had produced a very unfavourable effect on
the mind of members in general, and there was a prevailing feeling
very difficult to overcome, that the proposed Bill was somehow or
other a concession to the demand of a Foreign Government. The Cabinet
will have to consider at its meeting at three o'clock to-morrow what
course the Government will have to pursue.

[Footnote 4: Mr Milner Gibson had found a seat at
Ashton-under-Lyne.]

[Footnote 5: The Conspiracy Bill aimed at making conspiracy
to murder a felony, instead of, as it had previously been, a
misdemeanour, and leave had been given by a large majority to
introduce it; but when Count Walewski's despatch to Count de
Persigny came to be published, the feeling gained ground that
the Government had shown undue subservience in meeting the
representations of the French Ambassador. The despatch had
not actually been answered, although verbal communications had